Today we celebrate Independence Day. We celebrate freedom, liberty, opportunity—values at the core of America. And yet, many Americans have lost the true meaning of independence. It has come to represent unhindered extravagance, unrestrained indulgence, and unbridled autonomy. But if you read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or other writings of the founding fathers or accounts of their conversations, you will not see such a description of independence. Their intent was not to throw off all authority or create license to live without consequence. They were not shaking their fists or thumbing their noses at God—they weren’t declaring independence from Him.
 
No, just the opposite. They declared their dependence on God—what they called “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”[1] They “[appealed] to the Supreme Judge of the world”[2] and recognized their “unalienable Rights”[3] were “endowed by their Creator,”[4] and that it was “Nature’s God”[5] who gave them the right to form a “new nation, conceived in Liberty.”[6] The founding fathers didn’t revolt against Great Britain so that future generations could do what they wanted without any submission to authority or plunge into a flood of dissipation and debauchery under the banner of independence. They revolted because King George was a tyrant, and his “long train of abuses and usurpations”[7] had become nothing other than “absolute Despotism.”[8] The founding fathers did not devise a list of rights and freedoms but removed the human shackles that had bound God-given “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”[9] Even that last word, happiness, has taken on a connotation of pleasure seeking and self-gratification when Jefferson’s likely meaning was more along the lines of the right “to preserve . . . his . . . estate against the injuries and attempts of other men” penned by English philosopher John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government.[10]
 
By all means, celebrate at your 4th of July parade and picnic and fireworks. Cherish the freedom to go to a ball game or a movie or a barbecue down the block, the liberty to own your own property or start your own business, and the opportunity to control your personal destiny along any number of paths. Those are blessings many others around the world do not enjoy. But don’t water down American Independence to nothing more than an unchecked license to do what you want to do. That was never the idea of the founders. The independence they fought for was liberation “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.”[11] They recognized “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,”[12] and that the Constitution “was made only for a moral and religious people.”[13] As Benjamin Rush, founder and signer of the Declaration of Independence, summed it up: “Without [a foundation laid in religion] there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” This was echoed by statesman Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Constitution and penman of its preamble: “[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism and anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments.” These are just a sampling and show the mood and mindset of America’s founding fathers. They clue us in to what sort of independence they envisioned.
 
Now the fabric of our nation is fraying as we are divided by politics and ideology, but more than that, by the hostility and vitriol directed at those who disagree with us. Our nation is also strained under the weight of decadence, avarice, and immorality—all under the guise of being free. If we continue down this path, that which is our signature virtue will become our ultimate downfall. And if we do not recognize our independence for what it truly is—and isn’t—and strive to protect it, we will lose it. There is also a growing sentiment that American Independence is “bad,” that we should not exercise or seek to protect our rights and freedoms or that doing so is somehow an affront to God and our fellow humans. It shows how far we have drifted from our charted course. As Ronald Reagan so famously said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”[14]
 
This great nation “of the people, by the people, for the people”[15] has survived for nearly a quarter of a millennium only by the grace of God, the fortitude of people like our founding fathers, and the blood of men and women willing to give “the last full measure of devotion”[16] to preserve it. In keeping with that sentiment, and with President Reagan’s words above, I suggest we would do well to emulate the solemn pledge that closes the Declaration of Independence: And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[17]
 
Today we celebrate independence—independence from tyranny and oppression, from abusive distortion of divinely granted authority and those who would seek to suppress the light of liberty. But we also celebrate dependence—dependence upon God and upon each other and upon the vision and values that shaped these United States of America.

[1] The Declaration of Independence
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Lincoln, Abraham. "The Gettysburg Address." Gettysburg, PA. November 19, 1863.
[7] The Declaration of Independence
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Locke, John (1689), The Second Treatise of Government, England: Awnsham Churchill.
[11] The Declaration of Independence
[12] Franklin, Benjamin. Letter to the Abbes Chalut and Arnoux. April, 1787.
[13] Adams, John. Letter to Massachusetts Militia. October 11, 1798.
[14] Reagan, Ronald. “A Time for Choosing.” Republican National Convention. Daly City, CA. October 27, 1964.
[15] Lincoln, “The Gettysburg Address.”
[16] Ibid.
[17] The Declaration of Independence

A decade ago when William P. Young’s novel The Shack first came out, I read about half of it before calling it quits. It was too weird for me and, frankly, I didn’t want to spend the time reading a novel I didn’t find entertaining. But with the upcoming release of the feature film based on the novel, I decided to give it another go, figuring it would be a prominent topic of conversation and I wanted to know whether my initial misgivings about the theme of the book and the criticisms I’d heard from others were valid or not. So late last year I read through The Shack. I’ve since wrestled with many of the concepts in it, studied the Scriptures, participated in a book discussion with people whose views I respect, consulted with other Christians, and prayed for guidance. Having done so, I can only conclude that the “God” presented in The Shack is inconsistent with the God revealed in the Bible, and thus is nothing more than a false god and should be treated as such.
 
To be sure, The Shack is a novel, a work of fiction. However, Young goes to a rare place with this novel: he makes God a character (multiple characters, actually) and gives Him a voice. Many novels and movies have characters who articulate a belief about God, but it is a significant step beyond that to put words in God’s mouth. Young also clearly presents theological arguments and ideas, and presents them not as his idea or as his protagonist’s, but as God’s. Albeit in novel form, Young is teaching theology in The Shack. What’s more, many people—Christians and non-Christians—consume The Shack as a theological treatise. Therefore, it is in our best interest not to judge the book or the movie as we might the newest page-turner from John Grisham or tearjerker from Karen Kingsbury, but as a dissertation on the nature of God.
 
For the sake of some semblance of brevity, I will not go into all of the issues I found with the book or all of the things that I found unsettling. I also will not touch on some of the good points Young made in the book—and there were a number of statements and ideas that were convicting, challenging, and comforting—for reasons I will make clear at the end of this review. My primary purpose is to compare Young’s portrayal of God with Scripture, and I hope as you read or watch The Shack—and indeed as you read this review—you will do likewise.
 
To begin with, I find it rather disturbing that Young’s god seldom quotes from the Scriptures. Contrast that with the biblical Jesus, who made repeated mention of them and quoted them frequently. That’s not to say one can’t make a valid point without quoting or referring to Scripture—Jesus did that too. But don’t you think that if God were really to speak to a human being in an effort to explain who He truly was to that person and to correct that person’s misconceptions about God, He would repeatedly refer to the Bible to show the person how “these are the very Scriptures that testify about me”[1]? Jesus told the Sadducees they were “in error because you do not know the Scriptures”[2] and declared God’s Word to be truth.[3] And yet Young’s god only refers to Scripture in roundabout ways. This should be the first red flag.
 
A relatively minor issue, but one I feel is still worth mentioning, is Young’s portrayal of God as a heavyset black woman with questionable language skills. To be clear, Young is not insinuating that God is female, but that He appeared to his protagonist Mack as such—albeit still going by the name “Papa”—to help break his religious conditioning and stereotypes. So we have to ask ourselves, could God appear as a woman? Certainly. God could appear to a human being as a plate of scrambled eggs if He so chose. But we also must ask where the “religious conditioning”[4] that God is masculine comes from. And the answer is Scripture. While God is the Creator of both male and female,[5] and thus “feminine” characteristics are in the image of God, and while Jesus used maternal imagery,[6] Scripture decidedly refers to God with masculine pronouns. Furthermore, Jesus referred to Him as “Father,” not “Mother,” not “Parent of Indeterminate Gender.” God appearing in any human form, be it a black woman with poor diction or “a white grandfather figure with flowing beard, like Gandalf,”[7] would be extra-biblical as we do not get a physical description of God in the Bible. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush.[8] He appeared to the Israelites as a pillar of cloud and fire.[9] Jacob wrestled with a man he identified as God,[10] but we are given no description of Him. Similarly, when Isaiah “saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne,”[11] we are given no physical description of God. In fact, God told Moses, “no one may see me and live.”[12] Paul wrote that “God . . . alone is immortal and . . . lives in unapproachable light.”[13] Indeed the very message of Scripture is that only through Jesus can we have any access whatsoever to God.[14] Any physical description of God the Father, while not necessarily heretical, runs the risk of stretching things too far, and, in my judgment, does more harm than good in this case. Young’s portrayals of God also slip—nay, leap with abandon—into irreverence, as opposed to biblical admonition to “worship God acceptably with reverence and awe.”[15]
 
I want to focus now on several statements “Papa” makes in the book. In explaining his nature to Mack, Papa responds to Mack asking if God is “the one spilling out great bowls of wrath and throwing people into a burning lake of fire?”[16] Papa replies thusly: “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.”[17] Later in the book, a woman named Sophia, who is described as “the personification of Papa’s wisdom,”[18] tells Mack, “Judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right.”[19] Scripture, however, gives us a different picture of God. It is true that He “is patient . . . not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance”[20] and that He “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”[21] But we’re also told that “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment”[22] and we read in Revelation “[t]he dead were judged”[23] and “[a]nyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”[24] That sounds very much like destruction to me. Jesus stated of those on His left—the goats—“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”[25] He also warned of the teachers of the law, saying, “They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”[26] Speaking to His disciples, he said, “[the end] is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.”[27] Paul, Peter, and Jude each wrote similarly:
-He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.[28]
-[T]he Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.[29]
-In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.[30]
God also speaks of dishing out temporal punishment[31] and lays out a punishment role (among others) for the government.[32] This is quite a contrast to Papa’s statement, “It’s not my purpose to punish [sin].”
 
Young has been accused of being a universalist, and while he doesn’t come directly out and say that, he does hint at it. In the foreword to the book, Mack’s father is revealed to be an abusive hypocrite who treated Mack and his mother heinously. Never is any indication given that he repented or put faith in Christ, yet he is present in Mack’s glimpse into heaven. Later, when Papa takes Mack to the place where his murdered daughter was buried, he tells Mack that he wants to redeem the murderer. He says, “he too is my son. I want to redeem him.”[33] This is very confusing (as admittedly is much of Young’s wording and choice of language). Best-case scenario, Papa is using “son” to mean part of his creation, and not speaking to universalism. But the context would disagree with that, because just a short while later, very much in the same conversation, Papa tells Mack, “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship. . . . When Jesus forgave those who nailed him to the cross they were no longer in his debt, nor mine. In my relationship with those men, I will never bring up what they did, or shame them, or embarrass them.”[34] Scripture teaches that Christ’s blood is sufficient for all,[35] but that it is not efficient for all because God requires a response of faith.[36] Similarly, one becomes a son (or daughter) of God through faith.[37] There is nothing in Scripture to suggest the men who crucified Christ believed or repented. No mention is made in the book of Mack’s daughter’s killer repenting or of Mack’s father expressing genuine faith. There are a few other statements in Mack’s conversation with Sophia that, combined with the examples above, hint at universalism. However, it is hard to know precisely how Young means much of what he writes, and to give him the benefit of the doubt and to keep this review from being even longer, I won’t address those here. But the above bent toward universalism should at least give us pause.
 
While I have problems—some of them quite serious—with what I’ve noted thus far, I don’t think I would be making much of a deal of The Shack if this were the extent of the biblical inconsistencies therein. But from here on, we will examine statements by Young’s god that are nothing short of heretical.
 
Near the beginning of their discussion, Papa reveals scars on her wrists and tells Mack, “We were [at the cross] together.”[38] She reasserts this position by stating, “When we three spoke ourself [sic] into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human.”[39] This reflects an ancient heresy known as patripassianism. This idea—that God the Father was crucified with Christ or that all three Persons of the Trinity were present in human form—has zero support scripturally, and is in fact refuted with numerous verses that tell us that only one Person of the Trinity entered the world in human form—Jesus. For starters, John tells us “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”[40] and that “the Word became flesh.”[41] He continues in the same verse: “We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” At Jesus’ baptism, a voice from heaven declared, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[42] The same words were repeated at the transfiguration,[43] and Peter tells us that this was God the Father speaking “from the Majestic Glory.”[44] Luke’s account of the baptism informs us “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove,”[45] not as a human being. All these verses highlight the absence of any such reference to the Father or Spirit being physically united with Christ during his incarnation as Papa claims. In fact, these verses make it clear that the Father remained in heaven, an idea supported when we’re told, as we are in Hebrews 12:2, that Jesus, having finished His earthly ministry, sat down at the Father’s right hand. Furthermore, Scripture tells us repeatedly that “God raised him from the dead,”[46] which implies that the Father was not part of that death. Paul wrote that Jesus, “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”[47] It bears repeating, the biblical picture is of Jesus being the only Person of the Trinity to dwell in human form, and that a separation did occur. God the Father did not die on the cross. Rather, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,”[48] and “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”[49]
 
Mack questions this theology, asking why Jesus cried out on the cross, “‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ (which means ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’)”[50] and accuses Papa, saying, “You abandoned him just like you abandoned me!”[51] Papa’s answer is startling. Instead of telling Mack that it was because God abandoned Jesus that He didn’t abandon Mack, she says, “Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him.”[52] Do you catch the implication? Papa is telling Mack that Jesus was mistaken about being forsaken. And this is not some trifling matter, such as improperly recalling a conversation or forgetting someone’s name. Jesus is quoting from Psalm 22:1, a prophetic Psalm that envisions the Messiah’s sufferings in remarkable detail. So if Papa is right, Jesus is not fulfilling this Scripture, in addition to being mistaken theologically. We must ask ourselves then, about what else is Jesus mistaken? If He was wrong about being forsaken, might He also have been wrong in some of the other theological issues He spoke to? Might he have quoted other Scriptures out of context or referenced them inaccurately? This irresponsible (at best) statement by Young’s god opens a huge Pandora ’s Box. But that’s not the worst of it.
 
A short while later, Papa tells Mack, “[Jesus] found his way through [his sense of forsakenness] to put himself completely into my hands.”[53] This is first of all contrary to Scripture. Peter wrote, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”[54] But furthermore, it carries a grave consequence. If Jesus had not yet (at the point of His above utterance on the cross) put Himself completely into the Father’s hands, what can we infer but that He wasn’t fully trusting in God? Not only was Jesus mistaken according to Young’s god, but He also was imperfect![55] So much for being the “lamb without blemish or defect.”[56] So much for Christ Jesus “[becoming] for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption.”[57] The theme of Scripture is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”[58] but that “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.”[59] But what good is it to us to have Christ’s righteousness if he is not the sinless offering for sin but an imperfect sinner like us, just bumbling his way along (which, by the way, is sort of how Young presents his Jesus character—as a klutz who is the butt of the other members of the Trinity’s jokes)? It is subtle, but Papa’s statement denies the sinless nature of Christ, renders His substitutionary “righteous for the unrighteous” death moot, and thus can be taken as nothing short of blasphemy!
 
But Papa is not the only one of Young’s god characters to contradict Scripture. In discussing the Godhead with Mack, Young’s Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu [Young’s flaky, female Holy Spirit].”[60] But what does the biblical Jesus say? “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”[61] Not the best way, the way. This is echoed in Acts 4:12: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Young’s Jesus also contradicts himself. He responds to Mack’s feeling of guilt by saying, “You are not lost.”[62] But after Mack talks with Sophia, Jesus tells him that “Because you are so lost and independent, you bring to her many complications.”[63] As an author, I know how hard it is to maintain continuity over the course of a novel, and so I would forgive Young this mistake if he were not speaking for the Son of God. But admittedly, this inconsistency pales in comparison to Young’s Jesus implying there are ways to relate to the Father other than through Jesus.
 
Lastly, we come to Sarayu, the “Holy Spirit.” Scripture tells us that “when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”[64] Yet Young’s version does just the opposite. In a long discussion in which Papa told Mack he was absolved from having to obey any rules,[65] Sarayu equates responsibility with enforcing rules[66] and, in the context, contrary to “sharing life with us.”[67] Mack asks, “Are you telling me that responsibility and expectation are just another form of rules we are no longer under?” to which Papa replies with a, “Yup.”[68] Sarayu then talks for a while about parts of speech in a section that confuses me almost as much as it did Mack, but concludes with the idea that the word responsibility is “dead, full of law and fear and judgment. That is why you won’t find the word responsibility in the Scriptures.”[69] Well, perhaps Sarayu should spend less time making fractals in her garden and more time reading the Bible, because the word “responsibility” appears 11 times.[70] Its close synonym “duty” appears approximately 30 times.[71] The idea of responsibility/duty conflicting with a love relationship flies in the face of numerous scriptural examples: Jesus told His disciples, “when you have done everything you were told to do, [you] should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’”[72] Paul told the Sanhedrin that he had “fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day”[73] and also wrote that God “gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”[74] And he wrote of several “institutions” in which responsibility was demanded to each other and to God.[75] Duty and responsibility are not, according to Scripture, contrary to love a relationship but are a part of a love relationship. Unless we can say that Jesus’ disciples and Paul didn’t love God, that husbands aren’t to love wives, and that we aren’t supposed to love God. Lastly, Jesus often spoke of fulfilling Scripture and of being obedient to the Father—what one might call responsibility. He even linked the two![76] Are we to deny, based on this responsibility, that there is love between the Son and Father? Young seems determined in The Shack to show how relational God is, but in doing so denies God the reverence He is also due and errs in presenting a biblical view of relationship and responsibility that manifests itself in Young’s Holy Spirit failing to tell the truth about God’s Word.
 
William P. Young’s god is portrayed physically in a way the God of the Bible never is, disagrees with the God of the Bible in regard to punishment for sin and judgment, and at the very least muddies the water about the need for each individual to have faith in Christ in order to receive God’s forgiveness. Young’s god declares, contrary to Scripture, that the Father and Holy Spirit were incarnated with the Son. Young’s god asserts that Jesus was mistaken theologically, and worse, didn’t always perfectly trust in the Father. Young’s Jesus implies there are multiple ways to relate to God and contradicts himself. And Young’s Holy Spirit fails to match the biblical Holy Spirit in speaking the truth or in harmonizing with the Scriptures. In light of this, it is clear that Young’s god is a false god—no different than any other false god, and should be treated similarly. Although Young does make some good points, and although Young’s god does speak some truth, we’re warned in Scripture that even the devil “masquerades as an angel of light.”[77] Might some truths be attributed to Allah or Buddha? Might the Book of Mormon or the Bhagavad Gita contain some ideas that are valid? Perhaps, but we know these are false gods and false teachings, and thus they should be rejected.[78] So too, in my judgment, should The Shack.
 
In conclusion, Scripture cautions us against false teachers who “will secretly introduce destructive heresies”[79] and warns us “the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine” and that “they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”[80] This is why we are instructed to “test [prophecies]; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil,”[81]  and to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God,”[82] using Scripture as our guide.[83] Paul wrote to Timothy, “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing.”[84] And John admonished, “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God.”[85] Scripture paints a bleak picture of what happens to false teachers.[86] Whether he intended to or not, I cannot conclude but that William P. Young has secretly (and rather subtly and innocuously at first glance) introduced destructive heresies in The Shack. If you’re looking for entertainment, I suggest you find it in novel or movie that doesn’t so deceptively attribute false theology to God. If you’re looking for theology, I suggest you go straight to Scripture or to other books that are in agreement with it. Whatever you do, whether you read or go to see The Shack or not, always—ALWAYS—ground yourself in Scripture and make sure it is your guide.[87]

[1] John 5:39
[2] Matthew 22:39
[3] See John 17:17
[4] William P. Young, “A Piece of π,” in The Shack, (Newbury Park: Windblown Media, 2007), 91.
[5] See Genesis 1:27
[6] Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34
[7] Young, “A Piece of π,” 91.
[8] See Exodus 3:1-22
[9] See Exodus 13:21
[10] See Genesis 32:24-30
[11] Isaiah 6:1
[12] Exodus 33:20
[13] I Timothy 6:15-16, emphasis added
[14] See Romans 5:1-2; Hebrews 4:14-16, 13:15;
[15] Hebrews 12:28
[16] Young, “Breakfast of Champions,” 118-119.
[17] Ibid., 119.
[18] Young, “In the Belly of the Beast,” 172.
[19] Young, “Here Come Da Judge,” 170.
[20] II Peter 3:9
[21] I Timothy 2:4
[22] Hebrews 9:27
[23] Revelation 20:12
[24] Revelation 20:15
[25] Matthew 25:46
[26] Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47
[27] Luke 21:22
[28] II Thessalonians 1:8-9
[29] II Peter 2:9
[30] Jude 7
[31] See Genesis 13:14; I Thessalonians 4:6
[32] Romans 13:4-5; I Peter 2:14
[33] Young, “A Morning of Sorrows,” 228.
[34] Ibid., 228.
[35] See Isaiah 53:6; Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 26, 10:10; I Peter 3:18;
[36] See Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; John 3:16,18; John 8:24; Acts 10:43; Romans 3:22
[37] See Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26
[38] Young, “A Piece of π,” 94
[39] Ibid., 98.
[40] John 1:1
[41] John 1:14
[42] Matthew 3:17
[43] See Matthew 17:5
[44] II Peter 1:17
[45] Luke 3:22
[46] Acts 2:24, 3:15, 10:40, 13:34; Romans 10:9; see also I Corinthians 6:14
[47] Philippians 2:6-7
[48] II Corinthians 5:19, emphasis added
[49] II Corinthians 5:21; See also Isaiah 53:10
[50] Mark 15:34
[51] Young, “A Piece of π,” 94.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid., 95.
[54] I Peter 2:23
[55] See Romans 14:23
[56] I Peter 1:19
[57] I Corinthians 1:30; see also Romans 10:4
[58] Romans 3:23
[59] I Peter 3:18, emphasis added; see also II Peter 1:1; I John 2:1
[60] Young, “God on the Dock,” 109.
[61] John 14:6
[62] Young, “God on the Dock,” 113.
[63] Young, “In the Belly of the Beast,” 173.
[64] John 16:13, emphasis added lightheartedly
[65] See Young, “Verbs and Other Freedoms,” 205.
[66] See Ibid., 206.
[67] Young, “Verbs and Other Freedoms,” 204.
[68] Ibid., 206.
[69] Ibid., 207.
[70] https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=responsibility&qs_version=NIV
[71] https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=duty&qs_version=NIV
[72] Luke 17:10
[73] Acts 23:1
[74] Romans 15:16
[75] See I Corinthians 7:3,24
[76] See John 14:31, 15:10
[77] II Corinthians 11:14
[78] See I Timothy 6:20-21; II John 1:9-10
[79] II Peter 2:1
[80] II Timothy 4:3
[81] I Thessalonians 5:20-22
[82] I John 4:1
[83] See Isaiah 8:20; Jeremiah 23:22
[84] I Timothy 6:3-4
[85] II John 1:9
[86] See Galatians 1:6-9; II Peter 2:3
[87] See Acts 17:11

So here we are again, in the wake of another massive terrorist attack. And our response is predictable. We shade our avatars with a flag. We hashtag prayers for a European city. We talk about the need for love instead of hate. We maybe donate blood or give money to the Red Cross or “send some thoughts” (whatever that means) toward victims, and then get back to our reality TV and current sports obsession, selective protesting, and debates over what constitutes a boy or a girl. We add another place and date (Nice, July 2016) to the list, move on, and forget.
 
And then it happens again.
 
And again.
 
And again.
 
And.
 
Again.
 
I’m sick of it. I’m sick of these barbarians, these butchers, these boils on the backside of humanity. I’m equally sick of the feckless and foolish responses of our leaders, of our failure to fight the threat. I’m sick of having little recourse other than to rant, rail, and rage on Facebook. So I’ve thought about it. I’ve prayed about it. And I’ve come up with five things we all can do. Even if you’re just a “nobody” like me, this is how you can fight back:
 
First, pray. Hard. Don’t tweet out a #PrayForSuch-and-Such-a-Place hashtag and call it good. Actually pray. Pray for God to draw people to His Son, Jesus Christ—everyone from the leaders of ISIS to the leaders of the United States, and from the victims whose lives have been torn apart by the most recent tragedy to your neighbor living the high life in relative obliviousness. Pray that God’s love and truth would fill every Christian, that they might then show that love and truth to the world. But don’t stop there. Pray that God will act in a mighty way, fighting against the forces of evil that manifest themselves in jihad. Pray that He will stop these terrorists from slaughtering more victims, that He will frustrate their plans and bring them to ruin. Pray that He would raise up wise, willing soldiers (literal and figurative) to fight against this evil, and that He would bless their efforts.
 
But we need to do more than pray. Not because we don’t trust God or because He’s not capable of handling things, but because we live in a physical, practical world. Yes, there are times to pray and get out of the way. But there are also times to pray and get to work. Look at the Old Testament, how God guided the Israelites. At times He essentially told them to stand back and let Him wipe out their enemies. At other times, He told them to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty—to go to war. And that is what we need to do.
 
Second, since you or I don’t have the powers to declare war, refuse to vote for anyone (president, senator, congressman, governor, state legislator, mayor, sheriff, or dogcatcher) who will not recognize the threat we face from so-called “radical Islam” and who will not commit to exterminating jihadists. This is not a time for moral ambiguity or diplomacy. This is a time, like when combatting the Nazis in WWII, to annihilate the enemy. Sadly, many of those in power seem more concerned about offending moderate Muslims. Tell me, when was the last time a Bible-thumping, gun-toting Christian drove a truck into a crowd of peaceful Muslims? When was the last time a person stood up in a crowded theater, mall, or school, screamed “Praise the Lord Jesus Christ,” and then opened fire or detonated a bomb. I’ll wait . . .
 
Third, remember. Not by listening to James Taylor while waving a cell phone back and forth. Not by stacking flowers against a fence or attending a vigil or by changing your social media profile picture, although you can do those things if you want. But remember by not getting distracted. I’m not saying you can’t be devoted to your family, can’t watch the NFL or The Bachelorette, can’t have a good time with friends, can’t enjoy life. But America is turning into the capitol on The Hunger Games. For the love of Katniss Everdeen, can we go about our daily life without ignoring the reality of the world around us, without indulging so deeply in our precious pop culture and entertainment that we can’t even see what’s happening to us? We’re being distracted by antagonists and activists who would have us believe all cops hate black people, that gender is a feeling or concept, that lies and corruption are just part of the process, and that if you put your faith and trust in the government, they will spoon-feed you with your best interests at heart. WAKE UP! Rome is crumbling, the emperor is tuning his fiddle, the Visigoths are at the gate, and we’re more concerned with what scent of bath salts to use and whose fault it was that we were not entertained by Maximus in the Coliseum yesterday.
 
Fourth, speak the truth. Don’t be muzzled by political correctness or fear of offending someone. Yes, be kind, “speaking the truth in love” as Scripture admonishes. But do not stand down. We have a sworn enemy (sworn, that is, to kill us) in radical Islam. I’m sick of politicians telling us Islam is a religion of peace in the wake of members of Islam perpetrating mass killings. I’m sick of politicians blaming guns when it’s repeatedly guns used by radical Muslims that precipitate such remarks. I’m sick of being made to feel like a bigot for stating the obvious. No one in their right mind is stating that all or even most Muslims are terrorists, nor is any sane person saying we should round up all Muslims into internment camps or mistreat them. But by the same token, no right-minded person can deny there is a common theme to the repeated acts of terrorism we keep witnessing (Hint: it isn’t Mormonism). Don’t be a bigot or a racist. But don’t be a fool either.
 
Fifth, arm yourself. If you don’t have a gun, buy one. Learn how to use it, how to safely and properly handle it. Get comfortable with it. Train with it. Become an expert marksman. Hopefully you’ll never need it. Hopefully, a terrorist in refugee’s clothing won’t break into your house one night. Hopefully your wife or daughter won’t be attacked. Hopefully you’ll never find yourself in a crowd when a jihadist opens fire. But if you do, you’ll be prepared. Instead of cowering in fear and hoping and praying he won’t kill you (he will) you can fight back.
 
What difference will all this make? Who knows? I fear not enough. But doing nothing, sticking my head in the sand and hoping it isn’t my rear end that gets blown off next certainly isn’t enough. I’m hoping it’s not enough for you either. If it’s not enough for enough of us, maybe that will end up being enough to make a difference.

There’s an ever-widening schism amongst “conservatives” in America. (I put that word in quotes, because I have no idea what it means anymore). One group, seemingly a shrinking minority, is in the #NeverTrump camp—they refuse for whatever reason, and there are a variety of them, to vote for Donald Trump for President. The other group could be categorized as “Never (and do we mean NEVER) Hillary”—they believe another Clinton presidency must be avoided at all costs. The latter makes the argument that not voting for Trump equals voting for Hillary (while conveniently ignoring, I’ll note, that many in the #NeverTrump camp argued that voting for Trump—instead of Cruz or Rubio—in the primary equaled voting for Hillary). Meanwhile, the former insists they are standing on principle and the blame for the outcome is not theirs, which is an easy and convenient stance to take in any situation.

Let me start by saying I understand both sides’ positions, and I agree with much of what they believe. For example, I believe Hillary Clinton is morally depraved. (I don’t have time to list all the reasons why, but her actions toward her husband’s rape victims, her stance on abortion, and her smug lies and defense of said lies in the wake of the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that left four Americans dead are a fair starting point.) I believe Hillary Clinton’s policies are thoroughly incongruent with principles that have made America a strong, free, and prosperous nation. I believe a Hillary Clinton presidency would be disastrous for America, with far-ranging and long-lasting consequences. That sounds like hyperbole, but if anything, I think it is an understatement of how devastating electing her to the highest office in the land would be. I shudder at the liberal agenda she would foist upon America. She champions the murder of babies while desecrating natural and biological concepts of sex and gender. With her as president, we will undoubtedly lose the Supreme Court for a generation, and with it rights and freedoms we may never recover. Electing Hillary Clinton as president is nothing short of an act of national suicide.
 
Obviously then, we must do whatever it takes to stop her, right? Even if that means holding our nose at the ballot box. Even if that means choosing the lesser of two evils. Even if that means throwing in with someone we really don’t like. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, isn’t he? Heck, we allied with Stalin to win World War II. Surely we can stomach Trump to stop Hillary, can’t we?
 
I would agree. Except that I also believe Donald Trump is morally depraved. (I don’t have time to list all the reasons why, but his cavalier attitude towards everything, his bragging about his extramarital affairs and how he’d want to date his daughter if she weren’t his daughter, his owning of strip clubs, and his coarse, profane language, smear tactics, and bullying in this campaign are a fair starting point.) I also believe Donald Trump’s policies (vacuous, waffling, and incomplete as they are) are thoroughly incongruent with principles that have made America a strong, free, and prosperous nation. I also believe a Donald Trump presidency would be disastrous for America, with far-ranging and long-lasting consequences. That is not hyperbole either. Trump is a repeat of Obama, stirring up a rabble of people clamoring for their false Messiah. Meanwhile, we know nothing about what he stands for because he’s never stood for anything except the promulgation of Donald J. Trump. Yet, his fervent and often furious followers lap up every word he spews, launching out at dissidents with vulgarity and violence. I am terrified of what this “movement” could become. Instead of joining it, true conservatives should seek to squelch it. And while there is reason to believe Trump’s Supreme Court nominees would be less liberal than Hillary’s, the long-term damage isn’t limited to the judicial branch. If Trump wins the White House, he becomes the de facto face of the GOP and of conservatives. Settling for Trump now means not winning back the White House with a true conservative for at least eight years. (When was the last time an incumbent lost to someone from his own party?) Furthermore, every Republican or conservative or even moderate will be tainted by Trump for decades, their campaigns drowned with a “he’s with Trump” millstone around its neck. Instead of siding with Trump to mitigate Hillary, I want conservatives to stand up and say—to shout—No! We want nothing to do with Trump. He’s as far away from where we stand as is Hillary. Anything less will be seen, rightly so to some degree, as an association that will take numerous election cycles to shake.
 
This all brings us to that phrase I used a moment ago, “the lesser of two evils.” I believe there are times when we do have to choose the lesser of two evils, so to speak. I’ve advocated for that. But there are two caveats. The first is that one of the two evils has to actually be lesser. I won’t advocate choosing between the equal of two evils. The second is that when evil is not just exaggeration but an accurate depiction of moral character, past behavior, and promised method of rule, that trite little phrase goes out the window. I refuse to choose actual evil.
 
So where does that leave me? I’m firmly planted in the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary camp (And, for that matter, the #NeverBernie camp should Hillary be indicted or somehow fritter away the nomination). And I would encourage those of you who aren’t with me—and particularly those of you who are in the Trump, Clinton, or Sanders camp—to study history with me.
 
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are socialists. The only difference is Bernie admits it. Don’t believe me? Look up the definition of socialism—essentially: big government is the answer to all life’s problems—and look at the things (free healthcare, free college, more and more welfare for starters) Hillary and Bernie advocated on the campaign trail and have stood for in their career as politicians. I mean, we’re one step from “Vote for Pedro, and all your wildest dreams will come true.” In theory, that sounds great. Who doesn’t want free stuff? But nothing is ever free. Somebody has to pay for it—namely, taxpayers. And as more and more “free” stuff has to be paid for, more and more taxpayers become enslaved to the government, as do the recipients on the dole, clinging to the government like a toddler to his mommy. Or an addict to his stash. We actually don’t need to look back at history to see the pitfalls of socialism; we only need to watch the news out of Venezuela.
 
But as bleak as the lack of basic necessities like food and toilet paper are, history paints a far blacker picture of socialism for us. Even the most uneducated and ignorant among us today recognize the name of Adolf Hitler and know he was an evil man. But do they know he came to power as leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party—colloquially Nazis? They may recognize the name of Joseph Stalin and equate him with atrocities too. But do they know he was the leader of the Soviet Union—that is, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Perhaps those not acquainted with “ancient” history know the names Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (he’s that bearded guy with a beret on T-shirts that clowns pulling failing grades in World Civ like to wear while they smoke pot). President Obama’s release of sanctions and re-opening of trade with Cuba has garnered much attention recently, and many of those who oppose Mr. Obama’s actions do so because the White House seems to be sweeping under the rug the brutal, socialist policies and human rights violations of Castro and folk-hero Guevara. Are you noticing a theme here? Socialism, which sounds cool to hipsters and college kids in skinny jeans or to corduroy-clad, ungroomed college professors, fails miserably in practice. Every. Single. Time. And I would defy anyone to provide me an example of a government that, when granted more power and authority, consistently became more benevolent to its citizens. I’ll wait . . .
 
Socialism, plainly, is un-American. Not because I say so, but because the founding fathers said so. Their purpose in revolting against Great Britain was to overthrow a government that had grown too powerful and that consistently abused its power. The Constitution was meticulously crafted not to delineate our rights as citizens, but to curtail the government’s rights over us. The intent was a free society, where men and women could live and work as they pleased, with as little intervention from the government as absolutely necessary. It was the direct opposite of socialism.
 
Clearly then, we must run from this. We must do whatever we can to avoid electing a socialist—avowed or clandestine—to the White House. Even if that means swallowing the bile in our throats while we pull the lever for Donald J. Trump. Right?
 
Wrong. Because history teaches us that as heinous as socialism is, there is perhaps an even more heinous and less American system of government we must guard against: fascism. It was a fascist, Benito Mussolini, who took control of Italy in the 1920s. (You remember Italy—pizza, crooked and crumbling buildings, the oft-forgotten member of that unholy triad known as the Axis powers.) And it was after Mussolini that Hitler modeled his movement, embracing fascist concepts of authoritarianism and nationalism. Sound like anyone you know?
 
Now I get it, comparing Trump to Hitler is inaccurate and unfair. As despicable as I find Donald Trump, he hasn’t committed any of the atrocities of Hitler. Then again, Hitler was just a starving artist once too. But listen to what Trump says. He wants to open up libel laws to restrict the First Amendment rights of papers and publications, and promotes censoring or firing of people who disagree with him or send out mean Tweets about him (the poor thing). He stood on a national debate stage and vowed that he would make the military follow his orders to break the law. His rhetoric about illegal immigrants evokes mental images of concentration or internment camps in the minds of many. He talks about women the way I talk about, well, fascists. Does this sound presidential? No, it sounds more like Kim Jong-un. Quick, somebody check which system of government they have in North Korea!
 
But more disconcerting than Donald Trump is, as I touched on before, his legion of zealots. Now, you can argue that not all Trump supporters are mindless zombies pledging allegiance to their dear leader like Ann Coulter. Fair. I would agree. It’s just that none of the mild, reasoned ones are on Twitter. But seriously, look at some of the rhetoric that rolls off the #TrumpTrain. So many Trump backers are so angry, so vindictive, so insistent that Trump will make America great again that they are defending and endorsing his fascism. They don’t care how he treats people, what he really believes, what he might do, just so long as he gets elected to start winning—whatever that means. They are so busy shoving each other out of the way to get in line to kiss his ring that they fail to realize they are promoting tyranny! Despots are supposed to usurp power in a bloody revolution; they aren’t supposed to be swept into power by a wave of fanatical minions. But wait, where have we seen that before? I think it rhymes with Gerlin, Bermany.
 
There are only three somewhat viable candidates for president at this point—Trump, Clinton, and Sanders. A fascist and two socialists, and no that isn’t the start of a joke. (Well, it is, but the joke’s on us.) I cannot in good conscience—heck, in a conscience on the morality scale of Barack Obama—choose the lesser of these evils. I will not choose fascism to avoid socialism, nor will I choose socialism to avoid fascism, because I’ve learned my history. And because there will be no United States to save the world when we fall. There are no more Allied Powers. We are the cavalry, and we’re on the verge of horse-trading everything but our spurs for a bottle of magic cure-all elixir off the back of a gypsy’s wagon. And that is why I write this—why I’ve written in the past. It’s not to prove a point or start a fight, not for catharsis. It is in the hope that we will awaken as a nation, not to take sides between two equally abhorrent choices, but to reclaim our American values of constitutionalism, conservatism, capitalism, and Christianity. These are the “4 Cs” on which the American idea—that which makes our nation great—was built. And they are the 4 Cs on which it will survive, if indeed it does.
 
If we cannot reclaim this election, and I don’t think conservatives can, we are left with two choices—our real decision in November, 2016. Will we throw in with a known evil, with someone who is detestable and whose rule could potentially destroy America as we know it, to stop another candidate? Or will we boldly stand and reject them all? Will we stand on our values, on our principles—will we cling to them, being an unadulterated, uncompromising voice against the tumult? Will we be a grassroots movement that refuses to be silent, that refuses to let evil run amok as it did in 1930s Europe? Will we fight to our dying breath—literally, if it comes to that—to ensure that liberty is still available for our children? As I wrote a few weeks back, I don’t know all that taking such a stand entails. But I know exactly what not taking it entails, and that is why I am #NeverFascism and #NeverSocialism and #NeverTyranny, regardless of whose name or face fills the vignettes.
 
I leave you with the words of Ronald Reagan, the most talked about former president during this election cycle. Let them be our rallying cry:
 
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

I am going to offend a lot of you with what I say here, but that’s okay because it needs to be said. And, frankly, some of you need to be offended—you need to be slapped upside the head (lest I be accused of inciting violence, I mean that figuratively). You have fallen for a lie from the devil, a lie—like so many of his—swaddled in truth and half-truth and warm, fuzzy sentiments. You have been deluded into thinking it is okay to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. You have bought the world’s argument that it is who someone is, that they can’t help it, that it’s not a choice. You have been swayed by culture, and instead of speaking out against homosexual behavior because doing so is “intolerant” or “ignorant,” many of you have actually defended it, have condoned it, have sanctioned it—if not by your words then by your actions. And in failing to stand up for biblical truth, you have played a hand in letting the LGBT agenda run amok—an agenda that now (backed by the President and the Department of Justice) considers it a violation of civil rights to ban teenage boys from using the same bathroom or locker room as teenage girls. We are being overrun by lunacy, and you’re not a rock diverting and damming the river but a piece of driftwood floating along with it.

The Bible is explicitly clear that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22; I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:9-11; Jude 1:7). The Bible is explicitly clear that God created males and females (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4), not gender-indeterminate humans. The Bible is explicitly clear that God knit each person together in the womb, creating them to be who He wanted them to be (Psalm 139:13-16)—meaning the “plumbing” they have is what they’re supposed to have, and what they don’t have isn’t. The Bible is also explicitly clear that God doesn’t tempt anyone or cause them to sin (James 1:13; see also I Corinthians 10:13), and if homosexuality is a sin (which the Bible says it is) God doesn’t make anyone “that way”—doesn’t make them sin by being who they are. Sin is a choice (James 1:14-15). The Bible also says that God has given people over, because of their sins, to sinful desires (Romans 1:24, 27), allowing them through their free will to plunge into those sins headlong, with due penalty.

What isn’t explicit in Scripture, and what you will never, ever find in the Bible, is ANY hint or suggestion whatsoever that any of these things are acceptable or appropriate.

So why do so many Christians bend over backwards to appease a culture—following its god—that not only “[continues] to do these things, but also [approves] of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32)? I think it is because they have gotten so focused on love and grace, they have lost sight of righteousness and justice and wrath. God is love, and He loves everyone—including gay and transgender people—and Christians should love them too. But make no mistake, God does not love what they do. He hates it with a righteous, holy, just hate, the same as He hates all sin and wickedness. The same way Christians should hate all sin and wickedness.
 
Admittedly, this “love the sinner, hate the sin” concept is a hard one to fully grasp, much less practice. Many Christians do a poor job of separating one from the other. But the solution is not to condone behavior that is contrary to God’s Word. Tolerance, the buzzword of the day, means “willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own”1 according to Merriam-Webster. Sadly, we (as the church and as a culture) have confused acceptance with agreement. Tolerating someone with a different point of view does not mean you have to agree with that point of view or even consider it valid. It means you allow it to exist. And tolerance goes both ways. Where are the cries for the LGBT community and its advocates to tolerate contrary beliefs, like biblical ones? But I’m getting off topic.
 
Tolerance (according to the cultural definition of the word) of homosexuality is not a biblical idea. A lot of Christians like to cite the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) as an example when Jesus didn’t judge a sinner, but instead “let her off.” But read the whole story. Pay close attention to Jesus’ words in verse 11: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Jesus didn’t tell the woman it was no big deal that she had committed adultery because He was full of love and acceptance and tolerance. He did what He has always done and still longs to do—He offered forgiveness, a second chance. But He also made it clear that her behavior was not okay.
 
Jesus also ate with tax collectors and sinners, people claim. And they’re right. He did. But He didn’t accept their behavior. Instead, He told the Pharisees that He dined with such people because “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Luke 5:31-32) Jesus’ message was never one of tolerating sin of any kind. Rather, it was always a call to repentance and faith in the Savior who came to “[take] away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)
 
I realize I’m being rather assertive and dogmatic in this post. Too much so, you may say. But in standing with the Word of God, it isn’t possible to be too rigid. There are plenty of issues that leave room for interpretation, for personal conviction by the Holy Spirit, for disagreement. This isn’t one of them. There isn’t even a hint of gray. The shades are pitch black and pure white. Like I said, this post may offend some of you. It might cost me friends. I’d rather it didn’t, but I’m willing to pay that price, because I am 100% confident I’m standing on truth and because this message needs to be spoken. How are we as Christians supposed to reach the world with the glorious message of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ if we’re busy telling people their sin isn’t so bad? No, we shouldn’t be chasing people around with Bibles, ready to bash them over the head for their transgressions. Yes, there is a time and place for tact. But there is also a time and place to draw a line in the sand. Actually, let me correct that. The line in the sand has already been drawn by God. There’s a time and place to pick the right side of the line and to plant our feet firmly in the sand. This is such a time. This is a time—as it always is—to stand up for the truth of God’s Word, to refuse to back down, water down, or cave in the least. It is a time to “[speak] the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15). Sadly, I think too many Christians have become so focused on being loving in what they say, of being so careful not to offend anyone or intrude on anyone’s “safe space,” that they have left truth by the side of road and wandered deep into the weeds. I refuse to be such a Christian.
 
Those who do speak out against homosexuality are often labeled as bigots, called ignorant and judgmental, or are accused of hate speech. You may want to apply some of those labels to me and claim some of those things about me now. So I encourage you, reread this post. Point out where I’ve incited hate. Point out where I’ve judged (as opposed to merely relating God’s judgment as revealed in the Bible). Point out where I’ve missed the biblical call to tolerate homosexuality or where I’m ignorant of what the Bible says. I don’t issue that challenge lightly. I “take heed lest [I] fall.” (I Corinthians 10:12, NKJV) But I issue it because I am sure, that in this case, I’m in agreement with the Word of God.
 
This post would be incomplete if I didn’t point out two things in closing. One is that calling out homosexuality as a sin, that standing up for biblical definitions of sex and gender and sexuality, does not give a person the right to hate, harass, persecute, or mistreat anyone. Again, read what I’ve written; I haven’t called for that. As I said above, God loves everyone and we should too. But too many Christians can’t seem to find their way to love someone and yet call a spade a spade.
 
Two, while it is clear from Scripture that it isn’t okay to be gay, it is also clear that it isn’t okay to have heterosexual relations before or outside of marriage. It isn’t okay to divorce, except in the case of marital unfaithfulness. It isn’t okay to be a thief, a liar, a murderer, to slander or gossip, or to disobey one’s parents. The Bible lists numerous commandments of unacceptable behavior, numerous sins. God’s standard is complete and total perfection, because He is completely and totally perfect. None of us can reach such a high bar. None of us can come close. And no matter how often or in what ways we fail, it is never okay. Scripture is clear on that. It is also clear in providing a way to make it okay. It tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) That is the gospel message, the message Christians are to be living and sharing. Yes, it is a gospel of love for the sinner. But it is also a gospel of recognition and admission of sin by the sinner, and of the “unokayness” of that sin. If we leave out either, the gospel we preach “is no gospel at all.” (Galatians 1:7)
 
1) "Tolerance." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 16 May 2016.

All Scripture, unless otherwise noted, taken from the New International Version

Did you choose God or did He choose you?
 
Did God ordain your life so that you would end up in heaven, or did you willfully accept the salvation he offered?
 
This is a debate that has raged for centuries in churches and Christian circles. Some would argue that God arranged all the events of history, from start to finish, and you and I are merely actors on a stage, delivering our lines with no real choice to do so or not. They point to Scripture like Ephesians 1:5 or Romans 9:11-24 and ask how any person “dead in [their] transgressions and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) could ever quicken themselves to choose God.
 
Others counter that we are moral free agents, and that God doesn’t force anyone to accept Him or reject Him but leaves the choice up to each one of us. They quote I Timothy 2:4 and II Peter 3:9, saying that God “wants all men to be saved” and doesn’t want “anyone to perish” and thus wouldn’t choose hell for anyone, and cite repeated scriptural calls to believe or receive the gospel.
 
Who’s right? Is it that simple of a question? And does it really matter?
 
First, I think we need to clear up a common point of confusion. Romans 8:29-30 states, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Too often, I hear people conflating foreknowledge and predestination. But the two are shown here to be sequential—God’s predestination follows His foreknowledge.
 
Let me give you an example as means of illustration. It isn’t perfect, but it hopefully clears a somewhat muddy stream. I’m a huge college football fan, particularly of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. I inherited my love for the Huskers from my grandpa. When we get together, we often watch old VHS “films” of past Nebraska games. I’ve watched some of the more legendary contests, such as the 1995 Orange Bowl, a dozen or more times. Now, imagine for a moment that you and I sat down to watch the tape of that game, and midway through the third quarter, I told you the following: Nebraska will switch quarterbacks, score two touchdowns on back-to-back drives, convert a two-point attempt, and intercept a pass to turn a 17-9 deficit into a 24-17 victory. Then I gave you the play-by-play breakdown that would ensue and quoted, word-for-word, some of the commentary by the broadcasters (Yes, I could actually do it). Then you sat beside me and watched it all play out exactly as I said it would, down to the specifics of each play and verbatim commentary. Having just witnessed me looking into the future and predicting what would happen with great specificity, would you conclude that I had in any way impacted the outcome of the game?
 
Now, I realize this is a flawed example in that the future I’m speaking of is actually an event from 20+ years ago being replayed, and thus not really the future. (Nor am I omnipotent.) But the analogy shows how God isn’t bound by linear time constraints. He exists outside of time and space, and thus is able to see the beginning from the end. Just as I know what is going to happen in the future (because I’ve seen the game previously), God knows what is going to happen in the future (because He’s seen “the game” in the future). And just as my knowledge in no way impacts the event, so God’s knowledge of what will happen doesn’t necessarily impact what does happen.
 
Let me offer another example. You walk into the kitchen to get something to drink. You open the refrigerator and are faced with a choice between water and milk. You choose milk. From before the creation of the world, God knew you would choose milk. Had you chosen water, He would have known that. Either way, He didn’t make the choice for you. He merely knew ahead of time what choice you would make because, again, He isn’t bound by linear time constraints as we are.
 
Apply that now to far more substantial topics than football games and refreshments. From the beginning of the world and even before, God knew which humans would choose to receive His gift of eternal life and which would reject it. Foreknowledge—that is, knowing ahead of time—and predestination—that is, determining what will happen—are two very different topics. Just because God has foreknowledge, doesn’t mean He predestined something to happen.
 
In light of this passage in Romans, other biblical texts referring to God’s predestining, ordaining, or choosing also fit, I believe, with man’s free will. Scripture is clear that God works in the hearts and lives of people (John 16:8-10; Philippians 2:13) and that He hardens hearts (Exodus 9:12; Joshua 11:20). It is also clear that no person can seek out God and His salvation on their own, that is, without Him first seeking them (John 6:44). But what Scripture doesn’t ever tell us is that God predestines some people to be saved and some people to go to hell without them having any choice or say in the matter. No one will on judgment day be able to cry foul. Paul tells us in Romans that “men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20) because God has revealed Himself to them. If they choose to pursue Him, He will reveal Himself further (Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7). If they choose to reject Him, they will get the result of their choosing (John 3:18, 36).
 
So does it matter? Many would say no, not really, especially if you’re “in.” If you’re a child of God, what difference does it make if you chose God or He chose you? Either way, the transaction is complete. In one sense, they’re right. And such a middle course is preferential to divisive arguments that drive a wedge between people and denominations. But I would argue that it does matter, for several reasons.
 
One, truth and accuracy always matter. Pick your topic. As Christians, we should strive to have a well-rounded, correct viewpoint—a viewpoint backed by Scripture. In many cases—such as this—discerning what constitutes a biblical viewpoint can be challenging. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
 
Two, humans are settlers. At least, this human is. If God is going to save those He has predestined and not save those He hasn’t, my motivation to reach the lost takes quite a hit. After all, if I don’t take the gospel to them, they’ll get it some other way because God has predestined them to do so. And if He hasn’t, no amount of preaching will do any good anyhow, right? I admit this is a flawed perspective, because God has clearly instructed us to preach the gospel. But as rationalizing, justifying settlers, we’d have a practical basis to do nothing. Just think, what could be a greater testimony than a bunch of Christians doing absolutely nothing at all, and thousands of people still coming to faith in Christ? (I kid, of course, but only somewhat.)
 
Third, if God arbitrarily sends people to heaven or hell in duck-duck-goose fashion, that means He has brought some souls into existence for the express purpose of damning them for all eternity. They have no hope. No chance to repent. No opportunity whatsoever to experience God’s grace. If that’s the case, I think it seriously calls into question our definition of a loving, gracious, merciful God. In fact, such a belief impugns the very character of God as revealed to us in His Word.
 
So where does that leave us? What’s the answer? How do we blend these verses that seem to say, on one hand, that God picks out “elect” persons to have eternal life and, on the other, that individuals have accountability to accept or reject Him? The best explanation I ever heard was from a pastor at my grandparents’ church. He summed up predestination and free will thusly: God’s predestination and man’s free will intersect in a way that we cannot ever as humans fully understand. Attempts, then, to fully understand it, will come up empty. That’s not to say we shouldn’t study or contemplate the idea. But we must be careful not to stray too far to either extreme—that God picks out “winners” and “losers” and determines their eternal destination as might an author with characters in a novel, or that God is removed from the equation and people seek out God on their own, without being drawn, and make a choice totally independent of the working of His Holy Spirit.
 
- Nathan Birr is the author of The Douglas Files series and God, Girls, Golf & the Gridiron (Not Always in That Order) . . . A Love Story. (It’s as crazy as it sounds.) He likes to ponder and mull deep things. He just doesn’t like the headache it often gives him.
 
(Unless otherwise noted, Scripture taken from New International Version, © 2011.)