Words mean things

I spent the last post focusing on a proclamation of the biblical definition of love and a proclamation of the Gospel.  Today, that will serve as a foundation for responding to someone making yet another claim that homosexuality is something Christians should not simply tolerate, but accept and celebrate.  This, of course, is not a new claim, as anyone who has spent more than five minutes on the Internet will quickly ascertain.

There have been many attempts made to make the case for homosexuality in Christianity, but probably the most well-known in popular culture at this time is the Matthew Vines video, as he gives his testimony of sorts and makes various claims about what the Bible "really says" about homosexuality.  Naturally, this apologetic mashup resulted in him making conflicting defenses, and was roundly shredded, most notably by Dr. James White, who dissected the video almost down to the syllabic level in exposing Vines' chicanery.  Vines now spends his days secluded from anyone who might possibly challenge his worldview.

But that dead horse will rest for the moment, as a new contender enters the ring and brings what is at least a somewhat novel argument for why Christians should welcome the new order of things: namely, that Jesus was just wrong, and Christians shouldn't just take His word for it.  Brandon Ambrosino has today's example of blatant eisegesis on the Pacific Standard website.  In an article titled "The Best Christian Argument for Marriage Equality is that the Bible Got it Wrong," Ambrosino proceeds to suggest that Christians can remain Christians, while simultaneously jettisoning entire foundational aspects of their faith, and thus proves the Apostle Paul true in 1 Corinthians 1:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.--1 Corinthians 1:22-25

There are a host of problems with Ambrosino's claims in this article, many of which are refuted by similar responses to revisionism like Dr. White's above.  I will focus on my response on his most blatant claim: namely, that Jesus basically didn't know what he was talking about.

Though referring to the Torah with the shorthand “Moses” is hardly proof positive that Jesus was wrong about the books' provenance (many scholars refer to the books metonymically), it’s safe to say that Jesus probably assumed Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
And if he did think that, then he was wrong.
This is a point the Evangelical bible scholar Peter Enns makes in a footnote in his book The Evolution of Adam: “Jesus here reflects the tradition that he himself inherited as a first-century Jew and that his hearers assumed to be the case.”

Calling Peter Enns "evangelical" is, to put it lightly, inaccurate.  "Evangelical" implies a belief in an "evangel," in the Gospel.  Enns has long since left any semblance of a belief in the sufficiency, clarity, or inerrancy of Scripture that would testify to this Gospel, and if you can't hold to those one wonders exactly why you would bother being considered a Christian at all if you reject the foundation of its fundamental beliefs.  Dr. Michael Kruger shredded his most recent work in an article a few months back, and which I highly recommend.

But I digress.  Ambrosino makes it clear that he does not look to the text as having any measure of truth in it, and he is free to declare that Jesus, the incarnation of the Son of God, has no idea about the true authorship of the Pentateuch.  This is exactly the sort of historical bias so common to modern popular scholarship, epitomized by the likes of Bart Ehrman and others who pursue the (long refuted) Bauer hypothesis, that takes Scripture and reduces it into a pile of disconnected phrases that can be pulled apart and set against one another in the pursuit of human autonomy.

Therefore, Ambrosino is under no obligation, in the eyes of the modern scholar, to recognize that by declaring Jesus as an ignorant no-nothing who assumes that things are how he's always been told rather than being the One who tells, he is completely ignoring the multitude of texts in which Jesus identifies Himself with Yahweh and sets out the idea that the Scriptures are not simply true because Moses wrote them.  They are true because they are about Him.

And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.--John 5:37-40

Jesus speaks to the Pharisees, people who believe that they have righteousness within themselves and within their own acts and are offended by Jesus' statements that they are, in fact, sinners in need of repentance.  And like Ambrosino, they use the Scriptures however they wish in order to prop up their own desires, rather than submit to the full testimony of the Scriptures which point unyieldingly to Jesus Christ.

The bottom line error of Ambrosino's hermeneutic is the same error found in the works of Ehrman, Enns and the like: it rejects any idea of God actually being able to reveal His will to His creation.  God, if there is a God, becomes an unfathomable mystery, and we all get to stand around looking smart as we stroke our chins and ponder the universe.  All the while, we scoff at the thought that God actually is fully capable of speaking into creation and has done so clearly.

And so, having begun with the rejection of the supernatural, we then get to take God's revelation and reduce it down into a million pieces, which we can take apart and reconstruct as we will.  Ambrosino is not doing anything new, he's just being a lot more blunt about it: don't like what the Bible says about a topic?  Well, clearly the writer just wasn't as progressive as you are, so you can reject it.  Sin?  So offensive.  Just look to the nice parts about loving people (without making any effort to understand the full argument being made or any definitions) and we have reduced the text to a mishmash of words that, at this point, mean virtually nothing.

Of course, even as we post-moderns live by this idea that we get to define our own reality, we would never treat our own words like that.  I suspect very much that if I were to take Ambrosino's column and read it the way he reads the Bible--ignoring what I don't like, "reimagining" concepts to fit my framework, and completely ignoring contexts for my own benefit--I daresay he would take issue with that.

I want to close by taking a look at a couple sections that display exactly why this style of cafeteria Christianity is utterly untenable:

What the bible most decidedly is not is some type of handbook for navigating the 21st century. It is not God, nor should it be awarded godlike status. (To treat it as such is to break the second commandment.)

Of course, exactly how we can know what the second commandment is, or why we should listen to any of God's commandments given that Ambrosino's contention is "well, the Bible is just wrong some places" is left unexplained.

Are there universal truths contained with the pages of the bible? Absolutely! Are many of those truths relevant in every age and culture, and binding to Christians everywhere? Definitely—loving your neighbor, forgiving your enemies, and looking out for the weak are obligations that Christ has put upon each person who that claims to follow him. Are there passages of Scripture that should be read as if they are describing historical events that actually transpired in this world? Of course—the physical resurrection of Jesus is a non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith.

The inconsistencies abound: if Jesus is not who He says he is, on what grounds exactly does He have the right or ability to make anything binding to anyone.  Furthermore, why did Jesus die, and rise again?  I've heard pastors in mainline liberal churches that had little other interest in a solid, grammatically and historically accurate exegesis of the text that could stand up and say "I believe Jesus was a real person, that he died on the cross, and that he rose again."  But that statement had precisely zero impact on anything else they did, on the way they lived their lives, or on the theology that informed any other preaching to their congregations.  As far as anyone can tell, Jesus rose again because He was just such a nice guy, and you can't keep a good guy down.

I would simply ask Brandon: who exactly does he believe Jesus is?  He's an ignorant peasant walking around just parroting the Torah...and He rose from the dead?  There is no consistency, no real desire to see Jesus as a real person here, let alone as who He said that He was.  The consistent and harmonious testimony of Scripture is rejected, and instead the text is pitted against itself as passages, stripped of context and any meaning beyond the surface, are set at odds the original writers would never have agreed with.

So quite simply, the idea that this would be a "Christian argument" is a non-starter.  To embrace it requires rejecting Scripture's clear testimony about Jesus as the monogenes huios, the one and unique Son of God.  If you do that, there is no foundation to believe in anything Scripture says about Jesus, which renders Ambrosino's statements about Christ's resurrection head-scratchingly odd.  Just as John made it clear that those who denied Christ's having come in the flesh (as opposed to the docetists who believed that Jesus only appeared to be human but was really spirit) were not true Christians but in fact were deceivers and false teachers, likewise you cannot claim that Christ was merely a man who said silly baseless things without abandoning your bona fides of the faith.

But this is why the Bible says that "salvation belongs to the Lord."  Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit no one would believe, because on our own we do not look for God but instead we seek after our own selfish desires.  But thanks be to God for His mercy, in calling His people to Himself in the person and work of Christ.  His mercy is everlasting and His grace is to be desired by all men.  I would say to Brandon Ambrosino: repent of your unbelief, and turn to the real Jesus, the one to which Scripture testifies, not your imagined one who can provide no atonement, cannot testify to the truth of the living God, and certainly cannot bring conviction of or repentance from sin.  Your Jesus cannot heal, cannot find the lost (because he is lost himself), and has utterly no value.  This is not the Christ of Scripture or history.  I would call you to repent, and to know Him as Lord and Savior.

Love

I have pondered exactly how to write on the issue of gay marriage in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize it.  I am torn--not on my position on the subject, because that is firm opposition.  Rather, I am torn in exactly how to approach it.  I have friends near and far and coworkers who consider themselves to be homosexual or to be "allies."  My goal here is not to write an angry rant, because I'm not angry and it would accomplish nothing.  Certainly there is a measure of disappointment but that is tempered by the knowledge that God is God, and while man foolishly believes in his own autonomy, God will ultimately be glorified in all things.

The heart of man plans his way,
   but the Lord establishes his steps.
--Proverbs 16:9

However, I have come to face the fact that no matter what I say, no matter how calmly or reasonably I seek to discuss this, at this point there is little room for such things in the eyes of many.  The behavior of so many in recent months has made this abundantly clear: anything short of full-throated endorsement of homosexuality and its partners bisexuality and transgenderism will not be tolerated.  I don't say all this to set myself up as a potential victim; rather, I simply want to lay groundwork for this discussion, and pray that those who disagree with me will 1) actually read through this and allow me to speak for myself, rather than inserting thoughts and claims into my words that I do not actually make, and 2) understand this to be written in a spirit of love.

Pardon my tone

I have a long blog post in the works that I may or may not get finished today that will discuss issues related to the gay marriage decision and its fallout, but in the aftermath of the release of the Planned Parenthood video revealing that abortions are often performed in such a way so as to maximize the ability of the doctors to harvest organs from the dead child, I couldn't let this story pass by without comment:

Reuters: Planned Parenthood head sorry for tone in video on fetal tissue use

Let's start with just the headline.  Firstly, as the good Dr. White remarked on Twitter yesterday, "tone" seems to have become the most dastardly crime one can commit--you can say the most heinous thing imaginable, but if you say it in a nice way or in such a way that it seems like you are trying to be sensitive to others, that excuses the actual content of the statement.  Of course, given that our culture today seems to be rapidly fleeing from the idea that language has any firm meaning, I suppose this shouldn't be terribly surprising, but it is still head-smackingly inane.

Secondly, I realize that Reuters is probably using the phrase "fetal tissue" because it is considered by the bulk of the media to be the most "neutral" phrase, but I believe this is a sign that the idea of the secular worldview being completely on board with all things proven true scientifically is complete nonsense.  I still find it fascinating that in this day and age, far advanced beyond the then-rudimentary prenatal knowledge of 1973, we still continue to pretend that we haven't had it established beyond any reasonable doubt that a fetus* is a child, a separate and new life.  The only thing that could possibly make it more clear at this point would be a literally transparent womb, and we virtually have that with the incredible advances in ultrasound imaging now available.

Just a few parts of the story I wanted to comment on:

Planned Parenthood's president apologized on Thursday for the "tone and statements" of a senior staff member who was secretly recorded in a video that critics say suggests the U.S. reproductive health organization sells aborted fetal tissue. Despite Planned Parenthood's denials of the allegation, the video's release earlier this week has rapidly spurred investigations in the Republican-led U.S. Congress. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a new video statement that the nonprofit organization does not profit from fetal tissue donation.

The verbal sleight-of-hand I have been seeing by PP defenders on Facebook is ever-present: "selling" versus "profiting."  We'll let slide the fact that they absolutely do profit from providing the abortions themselves.  I'm sure once the various governors and attorneys general investigating this are done, we'll have a very clear count of exactly what sort of margin Planned Parenthood is pulling down on baby livers.

She also apologized for the remarks of Dr. Deborah Nucatola, its senior director of medical services, recorded discussing fetal body parts over lunch and wine in a restaurant. She was meeting with actors posing as buyers from a biological company. "Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion," said Richards, whose statement did not name Nucatola.

This concept continues from the above defense being used by many right now: talk about Planned Parenthood as though it's a poor put-upon woman's clinic that just happens to have some detractors.  Don't allow anyone to bring up what is actually being discussed in the video: the murder of unborn children, and that murder being done in a particular way so as to preserve certain organs for use by others.  This is being acclaimed by the defenders, appallingly enough, as some sort of act akin to organ donation (I even saw one person, without the slightest sense of self-awareness, say "You must be against organ donation" to someone writing about this in a similar vein to me right now.)  This goes along with the longtime claim of abortion rights supporters: unborn children are just tissue, their disposal is the right of the mother and is without consequence.

The conscience-scarring act of adopting this viewpoint vexes me to the core, and demands a cry of "Repent!" from every believer.  Not because we are morally superior, but precisely because the only reason we have any different perspective on our own humanity beyond "It's there for me to do as I please" is by the grace of God.  That we have come to encourage mothers to regard their unborn offspring, the most helpless state of human life one could imagine, as simply a clump of tissue to be disposed of is wicked, and surely it is just as wicked as those who labored to defend the institution of slavery in the United States by claiming that an institution which debased and degraded its victims to the level of animal was, in fact, for their benefit.  George Orwell certainly did not invent doublespeak, but he codified very well the thought process of humanity when it rejects its Creator and chooses slavery and death.

And so it is with "compassionate care."  I fully acknowledge that Planned Parenthood does do many good things in providing needed healthcare for women, especially women without a great deal of means.  That does not excuse the wickedness of calling the act of killing an unborn child "compassionate care."

Finally, there's this:

Richards said Planned Parenthood stood by its work helping women to donate tissue for "lifesaving" research. "We know the real agenda of organizations behind videos like this," she said. "Their mission is to ban abortion completely and cut women off from care at Planned Parenthood and other health centers."

If I may be so bold: you are bloody right it is.  Just like it was the goal of abolitionists like William Wilberforce, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Harriet Tubman to see the practice of slavery abolished and to see an end to the treatment of African-Americans as subhuman, so today those who have been set free from bondage to sin by the power of the Holy Spirit must raise their voice in protest against those who would degrade the imago Dei through this assault on motherhood and on our most helpless.

And I choose to do this by pointing out the evil in this practice, and by calling all who consider this act to be acceptable to have their eyes opened, to see the truth of what abortion really is before them, and to repent and know true forgiveness and life in Jesus Christ.  I do this because eliminating abortion is not the true end: the true end is in our work as ministers of reconciliation, calling our fellow imagebearers of God around us to the foot of the cross of Christ and to the true life only found in the Spirit.

*And I don't say "fetus" derogatorily, it's a legitimate word to describe a particular point in life just like "zygote" or "child" or "adolescent" is, or like "larva" is for an insect.  The issue comes in when the word is loaded down with the implication that "fetus" means "clump of random cells that are totally not at all anything you should worry about until they magically turn into a baby on the way down the birth canal."

Keeping our balance

It's that time again, and for at least the time being it's the last time.  C3 Academy has ended and so to commemorate I present my last paper for the systematic theology class, this one on the ever-popular subject of eschatology.  For the record, I don't necessarily consider myself firmly set in any of the camps, as I can see the arguments for and against the various positions, and would like to study the issue more.  But the paper isn't necessarily about any particular position, but rather it's about an issue that's been on my mind lately as I've seen one inane internet debate after another over issues that distract from Gospel centrality: what's really most important to our theology as Christians?  Read on:

Book review: The Heresy of Orthodoxy

Recently I linked a review of Peter Enns' book by Michael Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary.  Well, recent by this blog's standards, which is "roughly within the last six months."  I have been meaning to get around to reviewing a book that he and Andreas Kostenburg wrote, The Heresy of Orthodoxy.  I can't recommend this book enough for anyone wanting to deal with the common secular claims about Scripture.  Whether you're dealing with someone who just got done reading a Bart Ehrman book or watching the latest horrible CNN "documentary" attempting to undermine the testimony of Scripture, this book will be an excellent and helpful work to go through because it exposes and examines the root of all those writings: the Bauer hypothesis which is essentially a rejection of any idea of a supernatural establishment of the church, and instead proposes warring groups of Christians with different beliefs that were eventually all subdued under one "orthodoxy" through the power of one of those groups. (You may recognize this as the plot to The DaVinci Code, except with fewer church ninjas.  Not none...just fewer.)

In all seriousness, there are three main reasons this book is a great investment for a believer wanting to understand the history of the church and defend the faith from these sort of attacks:

1. It discusses at length not just the evidence, but the presuppositions that drive the way all evidence is examined by those who follow in the footsteps of Walter Bauer.  The general method of attacking Christianity and establishing a notion of society as a religion-less, secular entity is rooted in the ideas discussed here, that Scripture did not come from men inspired by God and the church does not teach what it does because those men taught the consistent revelation given to them, but rather they just happened to be "the winners" in a battle of differing beliefs.  However, their claims are rooted not in an unbiased examination of historical data, but rather filtering all that data through a worldview that says "there is nothing beyond immediate physical human experience, therefore, it couldn't have happened in the way claimed."  In doing so, those promoting this position make a series of assumptions that reveal that they are not "doing unbiased history," but rather are in fact making theological claims of their own.  
2. It examines the evidence given in support of these claims, and as noted above, shows how the conclusions drawn from their evidential claims require one to start from a position not actually drawn from that evidence, but from a presupposition of secular humanism.  
3. It is written in a way that a lay believer will be able to engage with and understand without having to gain a scholastic vocabulary, and it also has extensive notation allowing those wanting to dig deeper to find many resources to learn more about the subjects being discussed.  

Easter weekend is a time that media outlets love to trot out the latest attempt to undermine the truth of the Gospel, whether it's the latest "Tomb of Jesus" or "Did Jesus really exist?" or "FOUND: The Gospel of ____" nonsense.  This is a time that can be trying for us as we try to evangelize those around us as well as engage in worship with our brothers and sisters: how do we respond to this while still displaying our love for God and our fellow man?  How can we defeat lies with the truth without becoming angry jerks?  Preparing ourselves with what is true, being in Scripture consistently is key, and a book like this only helps to buttress a well-laid foundation with further context.

This is also an excellent opportunity for believers to brush up on their church history, a subject about which many of us are woefully ignorant, which exposes us to this sort of attack.  This book exposes the Christian to and prepares the Christian for that attack with the knowledge needed to engage the thinking behind it, and most importantly, to preach the Gospel meaningfully in response to it.  Not in the "You're a liar and you need Jesus" way I see used so often and so pointlessly on the Internet, but in a way that shows we are listening to what our opponents are saying, and we do have a real response that continues to focus on our need for Christ.  There is another book that focuses on the other common point of attack during this time, but I will review that later...

Pressures of church and state

Apologies for the long delay again.  But: I have a good reason!  I have started a podcast with the help from a friend at church, and I would direct you all to check it out.  It's called Spurgeon Audio, and I am reading through the sermons and writings of Charles Spurgeon, works that have served as great inspirations to me in my walk as a believer.  I hope you will all be edified and share it as you see fit.  It is on iTunes, and the link to subscribe is at the website.

This is another entry publishing a paper I've written for the still-ongoing C3 Academy, the classes my church is putting on to help raise up leaders within the laity.  This paper is on the subject of the relationship between the church and the state.  If you are a theonomist, you may not care for this paper, but then I am not trying to please theonomists.  Read on:

The common grace of tragedy

The wickedness of men is on full display as per usual, and tonight's edition comes in the form of the latest atrocity perpetrated by ISIS.  The radical Islamist group has released video of them beheading a group of Christians, features quotes from the Qu'ran and accusing the Copts (the particular Christian group to which these victims of ISIS' murderous deeds belonged) of evil deeds against Muslims and Islam.   Naturally the response online has been vocal and strident, condemning ISIS and many calling for further action to be taken against them.  It is not my intention to weigh in on that issue, because I think the answer is a clear: Romans 13 gives the sword to governments to wield in the name of pursuing justice and defending the weak.  No, the issue here is: how should believers, seeing their brothers being murdered for their faith, react to this?  Anger is natural, but blinding and too often destructive to what we are called to do even in the face of such oppression.  There are many passages that come to mind when these events occur, and the first one that I thought of is one that I've used previously:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them,“Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”-Luke 13:1-5

I always come back to Jesus' response in times of great tragedy: He doesn't rant against Roman oppression, nor express helpless sadness at the seemingly meaningless loss of life in either example He discusses.  Rather, He turns the issue right back on those who came to Him: tragedy is not a sign that the sufferer was a greater sinner, but rather it is a warning that judgment is coming to everyone.

To be sure, there is a link between sin and suffering.  Were it not for the presence of sin in the world, there would be no suffering.  Sin brought death, pain and suffering into the world, and because the world is under the power of sin, suffering is a daily reality within it.  But the fact that a person suffers, does not indicate a direct relationship to his particular sin.--R.C. Sproul, Walking with God: Luke, p.276  

But what do we say in the face of such wicked actions?  Why shouldn't Christians just do the same thing any other seemingly reasonable person would do and arm up to go to war?  Because we do not have the same relationship with death that the natural man does, both in our understanding of what death truly is--a display of the brokenness brought into the world by sin--and in what death truly means to us as an end to this mortal life:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.-Philippians 1:21

But the fact is, most people don't see death this way, certainly not such a death as this.  It shocks, angers, saddens, and so it should.  Because outside of Christ, we simply stand in Adam and we stand to gain nothing but what we have earned through a lifetime of rebellion against God.  Death is the result of sin.  But at the same time, death can also be seen as a common grace--for observers.  Certainly, those who came to Jesus were called to heed that grace and repent, and that is the call believers must make in all tragedy: not a simplistic fear-mongering, but a sincere and loving Gospel call to repent and turn to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

But what of the brothers who died?  So many have died and will die, before the end, before Christ returns and sets all things right.  How do we face that?  Not recklessly, because we are called to be wise and winsome in how we live and deal with those around us.  But we can be bold, we can face danger bravely, and it is because of this that I turn to the truth expressed in the simple phrase "perseverance of the saints": God saves His people perfectly, leads them through paths He has laid to strengthen them, and there is nothing that will prevent Him from accomplishing His purposes.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;    we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.-Romans 8:31-39

I think Christians need to be wise about how we discuss this, as our Muslim neighbors are watching.  I'm not talking about AK47-wielding radicals, I'm talking about our literal physical neighbors, many of whom came here because they wanted to get away from groups like ISIS and the deadly influence they have on them and their families, wanting to worship in peace.  Yet at the same time, we know that simply escaping that is not sufficient, for apart from the saving grace of Christ they will perish in their sin just as much as the murderous radical.  There is no amount of good work that will ever balance out the scales in one's own favor, no amount of prayers, alms, service, or pilgrimage will ever put you in good standing before a holy and just God.  Only by His grace and by the atonement of His Son in your place can you have righteousness, freedom, and right standing with God.

This doesn't mean that we don't speak out against such wicked behavior, but we need to exercise wisdom, and remember that even in this God provides avenues for His Word to go forth, that nothing stops the Holy Spirit from His work.  Love your neighbors.  Do good to those that persecute you.  Our freedom even in the face of death to obey means that we ought to love well even those who wish to stand in our way.

"Easy for you to say, from your comfortable not-being-threatened-by-soldiers home in America!"  Yes, it is.  And this is something even I have to take to heart--after all, this blog is more about me preaching to myself than to anyone else.  But even here there is great need for the Gospel to go forward in the face of danger and threats, and for people to be bold in the way they love.  My prayer is that the way I live, and the way I die, are not just a common grace exercised for the momentary comfort of a rebel awaiting judgment, but that they would be used in His saving grace, in removing hard stony, sin-loving hearts and replacing them with hearts of flesh, desiring to glorify God through giving up selfishness and turning to worship the true Lord of all.    

Anthropology matters

It's been very quiet here, but at long last I'm going to share a bit of what's kept me away.  I've been doing a class through church that has kept me very busy both studying and writing.  There are other things I want to spend time writing, including a review of one of the books I just finished, The Heresy of Orthodoxy, but for right now I want to share one of the papers I wrote for this class.  In italics is the question I based my writing on, and you may judge for yourself if I responded to it effectively.  Check it out below the fold, if you are so inclined.

Some Saturday reading

Yes, I'm still alive.  No, I've not been hiding, but it has been a very busy fall without much down time.  I would like to report that the classes I've been taking through church have been excellent, and so a lot of my writing time has been focused on that.  I will be reposting some of my work from there, for whatever small edification it may offer.

I did want to post up and recommend reading this review of Peter Enns' new book, The Bible Tells Me So.  The review is by Dr. Michael J. Kruger, a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, and coauthor of a book I'm currently reading and also highly recommend, The Heresy of Orthodoxy.  I'll post up a review when I'm done, though certainly I am far less qualified to speak to this subject than he is.  What this review and that book both testify to, however, is the fact that there is an active war against the idea that God has revealed Himself and that He is knowable at all.  Enns doesn't present an atheist perspective or even a Bart Ehrman-like agnostic one.  But like those perspectives, Enns' book basically echoes the tempter's question of "Did God really say...?"  Kruger strongly demonstrates: yes, he did, and the grounds Enns gives for doubting is weak at best.

More later.  Go read!

Loving the truth

Christians, at least Western Christians, are an odd bunch.  Even within denominational lines you have varying battles over what's right and true, what's central to Christianity and what isn't.  My observation is that there is a struggle for people to really engage in these debates and see them through to the end; so many times I see people throw up their hands after the first or second response and walk away simply because they dislike conflict.  That's understandable; I know of few people who enjoy getting into fights with others.  But the problem here is that by not taking a firm stance on defining what Christianity is and what the truth is on many subjects, the faith has absorbed a strange mishmash of beliefs that, in reality, bear no resemblance to biblical Christianity.  For example, this particularly vexing bit of malarkey from Joel Osteen's wife, Victoria, followed by very poignant commentary by Bill Cosby:



There has been a lot of commentary and snark on this, unsurprisingly, but I want to respond to this with a much more serious tone.  My concern is one for my family, my friends, my brothers and sisters in the faith who hear this and may not be deeply rooted in the Word or simply don't think that what she's saying here is really that big of a deal.  I've responded to Joel Osteen before, and I want to flesh out my problem and preach the truth of the Gospel to my friends and family that happen to read this here.

Firstly: I've seen responses to this that offer a tongue-clucking "Poor dear, she just had a little slip-up" excusing of her bizarre, patently unbiblical statements.  I do not agree.  What you are hearing from her is not atypical from the prosperity gospel crowd, because it's precisely what they believe about God.  You would never hear the Westminster Catechism's "The chief end of man is to glorify God" because they view salvation and, in fact, all of God's activities, in an ultimately man-centered way: Jesus died to save us from our sins, yes, but the reason isn't because God is glorifying Himself by displaying both His mercy and His justice.  It's because He is just so into us that He can't think of doing anything but making us happy.  In this philosophy Jesus is not the mighty King of the universe who will return wielding a sword to vanquish His enemies.  Instead, He is a meek servant that waits on us kingdom kids hand and foot, taking away anything that might stop us from having a grand old time.

"But doesn't the Bible promise rewards to the faithful?"  Absolutely it does.  And it also promises that those who follow Christ are walking in a way that is contrary to what a man who is dead in his sin believes is right, and because of that, this life is not one of ease and pleasure, but rather one that involves sacrifice and, often, persecution:

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.--John 15:18-20

This is not to say that Christians therefore can expect painful lives of drudgery either; certainly we take a great deal of joy in what God does provide us, and He knows exactly what we need so that we might live to His glory:

And he said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.--Luke 12:22-31

Believing that your relationship with Jesus exists for the purpose of giving you something else that you want, even something undefinable like "happiness" or something ostensibly good like healing from sickness, is not Christianity.  It's idolatry, for two reasons: 1) Scripture says that the only thing we can earn from God is death.  That which we receive from God that is good is a gift from Him.  "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23) 2) You cannot make God owe you anything.  "The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked." (Prov 10:3)  Is this a God which can be made to perform based on our deeds, words, or our "faith?"  Of course, when listening to a prosperity preacher, faith is not the gift Scripture describes it to be, but a tangible commodity that one can gain or lose and without which God is incapable of acting because of...something.  "Bring no more vain offerings;
    incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—   I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly."--Isaiah 1:13
God is speaking to the Israelites who are doing--on the outside--exactly what he commanded them to do, and He is telling them that He wants nothing to do with it.  Is this a God who can be manipulated into action?  Of course not.  God is our source of life, of existence, He provides all things and lays out our steps in life.  Read the Psalms--firstly, of course, because they are amazingly worshipful and refreshing to the soul, but also because there is no way to study them and come away with a picture of a God who is constrained by anything or who is standing there trying to please us.  Quite the opposite: "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." (Ps 115:3)  

So let's move from criticizing a lie to this post's title: the truth, and why it is critical that we love the truth.  As I said, it is impossible to study the Word in any depth and come away with an image of God that is in any way weak, needy, or anything other than absolutely sovereign and in control.  He is infinite, all-powerful, yet utterly personal, and it is His good pleasure not simply to "make us happy," a simple yet ultimately meaningless goal, but to make us His:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.--Ephesians 2:1-10

We were spiritually dead, He made us alive.  We were astray, He put us on the path of righteousness.  He took out hearts of stone and replaced them with hearts of flesh.  And we can take credit for none of it.  Our God is in the heavens and He does what pleases Him, and what pleases Him is to save a people for Himself through Christ's sacrifice on the cross and His role as the first of the resurrection, and as great high priest for all who are His.  Why on earth would I waste my time on the God of the prosperity gospel, one that can't act unless I "have enough faith" and offers nothing but the same earthly pleasures that everyone else pursues, that will all perish in the end?

If we will not love the truth, we will be caused to love a lie.  For this reason, and because there is no greater calling to which a human can aspire, I call on my readers, my friends, my family, to love Jesus and follow the King!  To repent of sin and leave your burden nailed to the cross is true freedom, to grow in grace is true joy.

And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.--John 12:44-46

A thesis restatement

The last month has been a lot of things--amazing, exhausting, fruitful--and I feel that the time is ripe to write again.  Before digging back into various issues of the day, I want to expound a bit on this blog, why it's here and why I named it thusly.

Anyone who knows me, knows that one of the biggest influences on my life as a believer has been John Piper, whose writings and sermons along with the community of believers God placed me in have been a big part of my process of being forged into a new man.  And when I decided to start a new blog, I knew that the term he had coined to describe this philosophy and theology of taking ultimate joy in God above and beyond everything else was going to be a major motivating factor.  For one thing, it described God's reordering of my priorities and transformation of my heart, and for another it was incredibly evocative of the sort of introduction to reformed theology I had experienced.  I do remember in past years vaguely hearing things about "Calvinists" and hearing negative things attributed to them ("They believe all babies that die go to hell!" is one thing that sticks out in my mind) but exactly what that was or what it meant, beyond some conception of issues with free will I didn't really grasp.

But reading and listening to Piper, and with my eyes being opened to the full wealth of what is in Scripture, I saw that there was truly a great deal of joy in monergism--in the fact that my salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone.  And the Lord has been faithful to build on that foundation of truth He laid down in me, as I came to understand the necessity of Scripture alone as the sole infallible rule of faith to a meaningful, consistent worldview; of Christ alone as ultimate in all things and as the source of all things; of the glory of God as the ultimate purpose for all things.  And as the concept of "Christian hedonism" became fleshed out for me, the fact that it is not simply "You have ultimate personal satisfaction in Christ," but that it is the coming together of the church and Christ, something far beyond personal happiness, that I have been called into.  God has used my marriage, more than anything else, as a tool to teach me that.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, sothat he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.--Ephesians 5:25-32

My marriage has been a profoundly transforming experience, and since my last post and events, struggles, and many, many talks later, I have been overjoyed to see even a glimpse of the evidences of God's mercies in my life, to save me, to transform me from who I was into who I will be, and it consistently destroys any desires on my part to self-aggrandize.  My time spent with my wife just being, or working, or reading the Bible and praying together, has grown in quality and in its continuing impact on our lives.  We still have so far to go, with so many experiences lying before us, but if God is willing I am hopeful for many years with my bride to see fruit borne in our lives and the lives of children to come.

Probably one of the most fulfilling things we have done together, as simple as it is, has been to simply spend time each night reading some of the Bible together.  We read through Ecclesiastes, and right now we're going through Luke.  It's been incredible to see how God has spoken to us through His Word, and it's been an opportunity for both of us to learn, to be transformed by God's work through it, and to pray together.  Our life in marriage has grown stronger proportionally with our time spent in the Word and in prayer.

And I have been filled with joy and longing as I've learned that being in Christ is not simply a matter of personal fulfillment, though certainly that is a part of it; one should find ultimate strength, of course, in drawing their life from the Author of all things.  But my fulfillment is not ultimate, and that is a lesson I desire to have sink into me and produce some real change.  As an American I've been brought up in an environment where everything is about me, where the message is "pursue the American dream, buy a house, get rich, have kids."  Now, I am looking forward to things like having a home and having kids, but whatever form that comes in, my desire is that it is deeply rooted in being obedient to God's call on me.  The church I'm part of is starting, for lack of a better term, a layman training academy to allow those of us who desire to, to begin studying the deep issues, to pursue the Word and the Spirit in close contact with others.

That's enough about me.  Honestly, what you'll probably see here is more commentary about events and articles, and I plan to start a series on the book of Ephesians, one of my favorite books.  I desire to worship in Spirit and in truth, in this as well as in everything else.

Taking a break

Blogger has an interesting little feature--well, interesting to an analytical type like myself--that shows me a breakdown of blog visitors by what post they are going to.  Now, of course, I certainly get my share of bots crawling around looking for whatever it is they're looking to suck up into Google's ever-hungry maw, but I have been blessed with readers and I can only hope that I have been used by God to speak the truth of the Gospel into someone's life.  I find it interesting that my all-time most-read post is not some controversial rant or deep theological thing, but a simple post written during a time I was hurting and struggling to trust in God's providing hand.  It is in that vein that I write here, and my intention to announce a small, (God willing) temporary change.

The joy and frustration of living in this "already/not yet" world that contains the Gospel but not its ultimate fulfillment produces lots of hard times.  It is unfortunate that I am crossing over into one of those right now.  I take a great deal of joy in knowing that God has promised exactly what the result of a time like this will be already:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.--Romans 8:18-30

 Knowing that to be true, the painful time that I am passing into right now is tempered by a very strange sense of peace, one that I know the last few years have been shaping me to go through, and a time that I know God will use for further shaping.  I am purposefully not giving any specifics at this time, but my point in writing this is to say that I will be taking time away from here, and those of you who follow me on Twitter or chat with me in the Reformed Pub or elsewhere on Facebook will probably be seeing much less of me.

I know, I know: "How can you take a hiatus from something you do maybe 2 or 3 times a month?"  But I actually do it more than that; I just take time with things, and I've always got numerous posts sitting in draft status waiting to be finished even as I post new ones.  I'm writing simply to say that I covet your prayers, and that I hope to return to this space shortly with a testimony that will give glory to God for the incredible work He is doing in our lives.  He is good, and I desire to have that perfect love cast out all fear and leave in its place the sort of strength that does not rely on human will, but on a God who is the sovereign King of the universe.  May He be merciful and wise.

Freedom in Christ; or, yes, it's okay to have a cold one

Over at the Reformed Pub someone posted a link to this article on a website for a church called Crossroads Christian Church.  The article asks the question, "can a Christian drink alcohol?"  Now, in the interest of fairness, I am going to get all the sarcasm out of me right now: The short answer, is yes.  The long answer, is yeeeeeeeeees.  Also, in the interests of full disclosure, this post (like others) is written with a stein of beer next to me; in this case, St. Arnold's Summer Pilsner.  Highly recommended for that "I've just finished mowing the lawn" time of day.

Okay, silliness aside, I'd like to provide a response to their claims.  Now, if I was a member of this church I would be under their authority and would have no interest in stirring up trouble.  However, my church does not make any such claims and I do have an interest in promoting the full truth of Scripture over and above man's traditions.

On Monday night, news broke that Olympic gold medalist snowboarder, Shaun White, had been charged with vandalism and public intoxication. On my Facebook wall, I posted the following comment: “This just in . . . and the gold medal for character enhancement, once again, goes to alcohol.”

I see this quite a bit in writings by Christians promoting abstinence from alcohol: no longer is man's sin at the center of his depravity, but an inanimate substance that by itself does nothing.  It's not that Shaun White acted like a fool, it's that alcohol destroyed his brain and removed his ability to think for himself.  Let's be clear: Shaun White didn't do anything that was not in his heart already.  Alcohol may have lowered the gate, but what roared out into the night was Shaun White Uncensored and Unfiltered.

For years, well-meaning, sincere Christians have debated the subject of drinking. Let me be clear by saying there isn’t a single verse in the Bible that says a Christian cannot have a drink; although the Bible clearly warns about the destructive and addictive nature of alcohol (Proverbs 20:1; 21:17; 23:29-35; Ephesians 5:18) and is very clear that drunkenness is always wrong (Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Peter 4:3; Habakkuk 2:15; 1 Corinthians 5:11).
The Bible is also clear that mature Christians should avoid causing others to stumble by drinking (Romans 14:21), and that leaders ought to avoid drinking alcohol (Proverbs 31:4-7) and cannot be given to drunkenness (1 Timothy 3:3, 8 Titus 1:7.)

 The "destructive nature of alcohol" is not simply about alcohol; the Bible warns over and over and over again about the sinfulness of idolatry: putting anything as preeminent in our lives above God.  And yes, for many people alcohol becomes that idol; a man who knows this is wise to avoid it.  But what about for the Christian for whom something the average person might consider innocuous or even good is an idol?  We've appended "-aholic" to words like "work" to demonstrate how someone is allowing an overriding desire to rule their lives in a similar (and similarly destructive) fashion, but no one calls for Christians to give up work.  The fear of alcohol as more dangerous or inherently evil does not benefit the believer who doesn't struggle with the idol of alcoholism, but has another issue in its place, nor does it honor the Scripture which also uses wine as a picture of blessing, commands for wine to be used in Jewish offerings to God and as a reward of obedience, and so forth.

And of course, I haven't even gotten into issues like Jesus turning water into wine. The idea that we can derive some kind of support for the last century and a half or so of American temperance from Scripture just make no sense.  But it's not my desire to play "dueling prooftexts," but to point to one undeniable truth: alcohol, and the methods by which we come by it, were established by God on purpose and for our benefit.  The author of this piece apparently believes the opposite:

I have yet to hear from anyone who drinks how alcohol enhances anything or blesses anyone. Max Lucado said, “One thing for sure, I have never heard anyone say, ‘A beer makes me feel more Christlike . . . Fact of the matter is this: People don’t associate beer with Christian behavior.”¹ I’ve yet to see how it improves someone’s testimony or makes anyone a more effective witness for Christ. Quite the contrary, like Shaun White mentioned above, or Richard Roberts, Oral Roberts’ son, who was arrested in Tulsa, Oklahoma, driving under the influence, the result doesn’t enhance your testimony. Rather, it takes away from what testimony you had.

Then hear from me, now.  Some of the most inspiring and moving moments of conversation with my brothers have come over beer.  I have been blessed by going up to the Ginger Man in Dallas with two godly men who desired to raise a glass to the King, and watched as one turned to an Indian couple next to them, engaged them in conversation, and bore witness to them of what Christ had done for him.  They never once said "Well, that's nice and all...but you're drinking!  How can you say you love Jesus when you're drinking alcohol?"  It's irrelevant, and the argument has no grounds to stand on.  Once again, alcohol did not create anything in these men that was not there to begin with:

And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”--Matthew 15:10-20

Let's continue, to what I consider the real crux of the problem with this article:

Recently, a friend of mine, former mega-church Pastor, John Caldwell, wrote an article in Christian Standard magazine called To Drink or Not to Drink? Here’s the link to his article. John’s article explained why he has personally abstained from drinking alcohol and dealt with the bigger issue of the contemporary church becoming more and more like the world.
Not surprisingly, a number of people responded to John’s article and some called him to task for taking such a strong stand against drinking. In response to the responses, my good friend, Ken Idleman, former President of Ozark Christian College and now Pastor of Crossroads Christian Church in Evansville, IN, wrote these words, which are among the very best I’ve ever read on this issue. I asked Ken for his permission to share them here.
“Okay, I am conscience bound to weigh in on this one…. For a minute, forget about making a definitive case for or against ‘drinking’ from the Bible. Here’s the truth from logic and real life. No one starts out to be an alcoholic. Everyone begins with a defensive attitude saying, ‘I’m just a social drinker and there is nothing wrong with it!’ no one says, ‘It is my ambition that someday I want to lose my job, my health, my self-respect, my marriage and my family. Someday I want to be dependent on alcohol to get through my day.’ yet, this is the destination at which several millions of people have arrived. Why do you suppose that is? It is because alcohol is promoted and elevated as a normal/sophisticated activity in life…. It is also expensive, addictive and enslaving. People get hooked by America’s number one legal drug. And just like all illegal drugs, alcohol finds it way into the body, the bloodstream and the brain of the user/abuser.

 The bolded part in particular is troubling to me, if this church is also preaching on any level the truth of man's depravity and inherent sinfulness.  Man absolutely starts out intending to be, if not an alcoholic, then a rebel sinner of some kind.  "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"  We have taken alcoholism out as some kind of uber-sin, but I would like to ask the pastors of this church a question: how many people in your church have families falling apart because the husband is obsessed with his job, to the detriment of his marriage and his children?  How many have women obsessed with, say, the desire to have and raise children, beyond the actual desire to be content and obedient to God's will for their lives?  How many kids in your congregation wile away hour after hour wasted in the great god Entertainment?  "Well, none of those things kill people!" is the common response.  On the contrary, a man who dies enthralled with any god other than the one true God is just as dead.  But we don't tell our people to quit their jobs, to avoid having children, to reject all forms of entertainment.  I would argue that you could say all this and a good deal more about one of the most destructive forces and addictions in our culture today: sex.  But we would certainly say that sex is something created by God, for His glory, and is properly enjoyed within the bounds He established for it. 

Scripture calls us to worship God in all things; the joy we find in the world is not for its own sake, but rather is to point to the Author of that joy.  God has established the boundaries for all things, and in all things we are supposed to worship Him.  Happiness and pleasure in this world is bittersweet in a way; because it is wonderful, it is fleeting, yet it also is a taste of the eternal joy of being in Christ's presence.  When anything--including alcohol--becomes central, when we try to take something intended to give only a shadow of true joy and instead make it ultimate, we are worshiping an idol and not the true God.  On this, I think there would be no disagreement.  Where there is going to be disagreement is on this idea that alcohol is this cursed thing, irredeemable, serving no good purpose.  American evangelicalism with its roots in the traditions of the temperance movement of the late 1800s/early 1900s, has found a hobgoblin in "the bottle," but I reject that claim, and raise my glass to the Creator of the grape and grain and hops and the fermentation process and the true King of all things.

Cheers! and Amen!

Beer. Bacon. Battlestar Galactica