"Deciding Hard Issues: Dancing" [part 1]

Years ago, the topic of “dancing” was not a controversial issue for Bible-believing Christians. Dancing had associations with certain places and behavior that Christians did not go to & did not do.
But today, the situation is much different.
Christians go to dances at school, clubs, and at church.
Churches even use dance as part of worship.
So, the question we have to ask: Were the Christians of another generation wrong?
Or are Christians today wrong?
We need to be very careful before changing the standards of previous generations of believers unless we have clear, Biblical reasons for doing so.

I went to dances in high school.
Although the styles change, they don’t change that much!
And I liked being close to the girls; Most guys do!
Soft in all the right places, smell good, look good.
And many like watching movies set in the time when dancing was more formal with waltzes and minuets.

When I talk to people about this topic, I find out something very interesting:
Very few Christians have studied what the Bible says about dancing.
Many assume that the Bible doesn’t say much, if anything, about it, and are surprised at the suggestion to look at the Bible.
Many assume that since the Bible doesn’t condemn dancing (and it doesn't), then dancing must be OK.
If you follow that reasoning, then since the Bible doesn’t forbid smoking, marijuana, drinking alcohol, or chewing tobacco, then those are OK too.
In fact, that approach to hard issues is a type of legalism:
Looking only for specific verses & look no further.
Is that honest?
Living for the Lord is much more subtle than that.
And you should be willing look at the issue honestly, instead of deciding an issue by whether the Bible mentions it or not.
It is odd how we will look at what the Bible says about money, about family, about moral issues, but rarely if ever look at what the Bible says about topics such as dancing.

Issues like dancing reveal a person’s heart.
They are hard issues and show something of what’s going on in your heart.
For example, do you have your mind made up about this before you even look at what the Bible says?
If you do, then is that fair?
Is that honest?
Are you willing to honestly consider Biblical principles?
And when I say honest, I mean really honest.
If you turn me off before you hear what I have to say, that tells me more about you than you realize.
If you can’t justify your views from the Bible, then all you have is personal opinion, & that won’t go very far.

I know this is a difficult issue for parents today, especially parents whose children attend public school because dancing is a major social event. But the Lord uses hard issues to teach us how to make good decisions. The hard issues refine our thinking and sharpen our assumptions. The hard issues are an opportunity from the Lord to grow & learn. Hard issues are an opportunity to see what you’re made of.
They force you to think through your assumptions & wrestle with the Bible and your heart
And this is always good for you.
For example, if you do not allow your children to participate in school dances, then you must be prepared for the arguments you will get.
If your children don’t go to dances, then their friends will ask them why, and it may be embarrassing for them to explain why?
So they might say: “My father is sooo mean.”
We want our children to be different because they are Christians, but we don’t won’t them to be too different, do we?
It may be that you as a parent have decided you just don’t want to deal with the family conflict about it.
It may be that the parents disagree about it: one parent is against it, the other parent sees nothing wrong with it.
Dancing is one of those issues that reveals how much our society has permeated, affected, and influenced believers probably without our realizing it.

Next: "What Does The Bible Say?"

"What Is Missions?"

During WW2, an island native in the South Pacific showed a Bible to an American soldier. The soldier said "We've outgrown that sort of thing." The island native smiled back & said "It's a good thing we haven't. If it weren't for this book, you'd be supper by now."

I hear a lot of people, especially young people, talk about "mission trips" they have participated in. They usually tell how they spent a few days in a poor area of America or perhaps in a poor foreign country. They usually talk of how they helped build a home, cleaned up a neighborhood, or some other similar project, and they often come back excited about "missions".

But is this all "missions" is supposed to be - - - building someone a house or picking up garbage? In our rush to "broaden" missions to include all kinds of social action & projects, we have changed the fundamental nature of missions from verbal proclamation of the gospel to active involvement in changing society. Several times, I have asked those who have gone on these "mission trips" at what point did they proclaim the gospel to those they were helping. Usually, the gospel was never mentioned or brought up. Supposedly, the "good works" of the "missionaries" lets their "lifestyle" proclaim the gospel.

What these well-meaning, enthusiastic "missionaries" forget is that the way you change society is by proclaiming the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone. Even though certain pastors who preach in glass cathedrals don't like the word "sinner", building someone a home won't change their status before God as a sinner. Yet proclaiming the gospel of Christ will do just that. The gospel transforms lives. And transformed lives lead to a transformed society, one person at a time. In a few decades, the early church spread from Jerusalem to all over the known world because of the verbal proclamation of the gospel, not because of social action.

One reason so many emphasize the social aspects of "missions" is because they no longer have any gospel to proclaim. They long ago abandoned belief in the necessity of trusting Christ's death on the cross as totally sufficient for forgiveness and redemption. "Missions" is no longer freeing from the penalty, power, and (eventually) presence of sin, but instead "missions" is freeing from the injustices and hardships of society. This "social gospel" has infected many churches to the point that the true, Biblical gospel would be unrecognizable (and unwanted!) to them.

All four Gospels (Mt 28:16-20; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:46-47; Jn 20:21) and the book of Acts (1:8) emphasize sending, witnessing, and proclaiming. Although social works may be helpful ("faith without works is dead", James 2:17,20,26), social works can never replace or dominate missions. The mission that Jesus Christ has given His church can only be fulfilled by the proclamation of the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Anything else is not the gospel and certainly not missions.

"115 Years And Still Remembered"

On January 31, 1892, Charles Spurgeon died in Mentone, France while resting and trying to recover his health. For many years, Mrs. Spurgeon had been unable to leave their home due to her own physical problems, yet for the last few months of his life she was able to be with him in France.

Many biographies have been written about Spurgeon, yet, amazingly, no recent biography has been written similar to the recent biographies about Jonathan Edwards by Murray and Marsden. Perhaps there is an historian somewhere who is working on a new biography of Spurgeon which thoroughly incorporates previous biographies, his sermons and books for personal information, and what remains of his personal library [now located at Midwestern Baptist Seminary]. If no one is writing such a biography, then someone should.

Spurgeon became a Baptist through reading his Bible. Basically a self-taught man, he is teaching us today through his books, sermons, and life. His minisry was a balance of ministry to the soul and body, of evangelism and practical social work.

Dying relatively young at 57 [as did Tyndale, Calvin, Whitefield, and Edwards], the last years of his ministry especially are an example of fidelity to God and His Word when many others, including his friends, chose to compromise and “look the other way” as unbelief spread through the Baptist churches.

Spurgeon was something of a pioneer in England in many ways, but especially when he left the Baptist Union. Time has proved Spurgeon correct as the Baptist Union today is heavily involved in ecumenical work, social gospel emphases, and the World Council of Churches.

He also had strong words for those Bible-believing Christians who maintained their membership in the Anglican Church. Over 100 years later, the Anglican Church has deteriorated into more unbelief. Yet well-known men such as John Stott and James Packer insist on “maintaining a faithful evangelical witness” to the Church [John Stott: A Biography, p.347-348]. Men such as Spurgeon, Campbell-Morgan, and Lloyd-Jones have the Bible on their side while men such as Stott and Packer can only appeal to pragmatic patience. Although we benefit from Stott and Packer’s writings, those who control the Anglican Church smile approvingly as Bible-believers in Anglicanism keep giving their money.

It is ironic that many who admire Spurgeon refuse to follow Spurgeon’s example and leave unbelief to its own demise. Perhaps those who admire the “Prince of Preachers” should examine more carefully their reasons and motives for remaining in denominations which have continued to embrace liberal theology for well over 100 years with no sign of changing.


Side Note: I have about 90 books from Campbell-Morgan’s personal library, including his personal copies of The Expositor’s Bible. In the Genesis Exp Bib, Morgan made notes strongly disagreeing with the liberal views of Marcus Dods. Today, Campbell-Morgan would be shocked to find that some of his descendants are giving his personal library to the Chicago Theological Seminary which is associated with the United Church of Christ.

"Honoring Human Life"

Thirty-four years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that states may not place "excessive" restrictions on abortion. For all practical purposes, this decision legalized abortion for just about any reason. England made abortion legal in 1967, and China has used abortion for population control for decades. Millions of babies, the most innocent and helpless of human life, have died for the convenience and profit of others.
But medical ethics involves more than the issue of abortion. Stem cell research, euthanasia, organ donation, and when to terminate treatment are some of the many areas where people struggle to find answers.

Many people struggle for answers because they begin with wrong assumptions and principles. For example, if the question of when human life begins could be satisfactorily answered for everyone, then questions of when human life should legally be protected are easier to answer.

Two Biblical principles give insight and clarity to these issues. First, human life is unique, deserving dignity and respect because all humans are descendants of Adam. Genesis 1:26-27 teach that man was created in the image of God. We may not know all the details of what that phrase "image of God" means, but one truth is clear: Only man has the image of God; animals do not. And since all people are descended from Adam, then all people bear the image of God, even if that image is marred and deformed through sin, disease, or accident.

Second, human life begins at conception. The Bible does not tell us everything, but the Bible does tell us enough. Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 are two texts which reveal the working of God in the unborn. The only position that is consistent with the Bible and with what we are learning about the life of a baby before birth is that human life begins at conception. Otherwise, all we have left is ethical chaos and pragmatic & convenient demagoguery (which even a casual look at bioethics journals will show).

Does believing that human life begins at conception solve all the ethical problems? No. In fact, it will create a few problems. But it is the only position that fits the evidence, Biblical and scientific.
What is so revealing is that many people will never accept that human life begins at conception, no matter what evidence is presented. Many have a personal agenda of "Me First" and no amount of Bible, logic, or science will change their mind. What principles they have are based on convenience and comfort, not what is right or true.

A person’s attitudes about the weak, the disabled, the sick, the dying, and the unborn are a picture window into his soul and what he really believes about God. Babies who are born with severe deformities and elderly patients with painful, terminal illnesses are situations which test and refine our thinking about God.

The Bible explicitly states (many times) that God is sovereign over life and death, health and sickness, the good and the bad (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Isaiah 45:6-7). Once a person rejects the sovereignty of God in these areas, ethical confusion dominates the thinking. For example, what degree of abnormality justifies abortion and who will decide? What is "quality of life" and what criteria will we use to decide? How does a person really know his heart? Does he wish to terminate life because of compassion for the one suffering or does he have other motives? How can we sure what our motives are?

Although those who support abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia believe they are honoring human life by their actions, in reality they are dishonoring human life by sacrificing the most helpless and weak for the strong. One day, the strong will become the weak and will themselves be used for the benefit of those stronger.

Bioethics without a Biblical basis is essentially ethics without boundaries (or boundaries which regularly change) and a confusing and empty quest for answers. In today’s pluralistic America, those who believe the Bible have a duty and right to speak out in support of life and oppose a culture of death.

Christmas Gathering

Susan, Katie, Dr. Steve Hankins, & Myself

"Psychology and the Bible"

Attention Deficit Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Bi-Polar, Chemical Imbalance—we hear these words often. And they are disturbing. Why? Because, more and more, people are labeling their sin as a psychological/medical problem and using prescription drugs to "solve" their problem.

A few facts are in order.

First, no objective, scientific test currently exists that will determine if a person has one of these conditions. For example, if a person has a brain tumor, a CT scan or MRI will almost always reveal the presence of a physical problem---the tumor. Many people are surprised when they find out that the determination of a chemical imbalance in the brain is basically guesswork. No test exists to prove a chemical imbalance.

Second, if a person is seriously depressed, then that person should get a complete physical exam instead of quickly seeking medication to relieve his problem. Many physical disorders and illnesses may contribute to depression. Yet objective medical testing can determine if a person has a verifiable medical condition. But very few of those who are taking anti-depressants have received a thorough physical exam. Most of the time, someone prescribed medication based on a relatively brief visit to the doctor. If a person does not have a verifiable medical condition, then his problem is most likely not medical, but spiritual.

Third, scientists do not understand the human brain. True, we understand more now than we did 20 years ago, yet we do not understand as much as people think we do. Nor has anyone proven that some problems such as alcoholism or drug addiction are the result of genetic brain problems. Many would like for that to be true so that they can avoid responsibility for their sin.

The Bible teaches that repetitive sin will eventually have serious consequences [Proverbs 5:21-23; Galatians 6:7-8], even what we would call psychological problems. King Saul, the first king of Israel, had serious character flaws that he refused to change. As his indulgence in sin progressed, he became more paranoid and psychotic. What started out as a sin problem deteriorated into serious mental and emotional instability, making treatment of his "problems" more difficult.

Are there legitimate mental disorders for which medication could be used. Yes. The brain is an organ of the body just as the kidneys or heart are organs of the body. The brain can become sick and need medication for the problem. Yet our society and even Christians have too often turned to psychology and medication to solve what are fundamentally spiritual problems.

Facing your sin is humbling, hard work. Taking a pill avoids that hard work. Churches need to regain our rightful place in the treatment of people’s problems. Jesus Christ Is More Than Enough.