Thursday, November 30, 2017

Is Christianity Only About Love?


            Some Christians believe that Historic Christianity is only about love. (When I refer to Historic Christianity, I preclude all other flavors of Christianity that contradict the core essence of Historic Christianity.)

            These brothers and sisters consistently harp on verses that communicate love: ‘God is love, ‘love your neighbors’ etc. Love is the only lens through which these Christians assimilate Christianity. Hence, their beloved slogan is love, love, and more love.  

            Is this the most perfect understanding of Christianity?

            Let’s examine the following aspects:

            (1) If Christianity is only about love, then there should be NO room for ‘hatred.’ But if Christians are mandated to hate someone or something, then Christianity is not only about love. So is Christianity only about love or is there room for hatred?

            (2) The command to love our neighbor is with a qualifier. The qualifier is this: you love your neighbor as you love yourself. We are not called to love our neighbors, but we are to love them as we love ourselves. What does it mean to love our neighbors as we love ourselves?

Should Christians Hate?

            If you study the verses that mandate love, you would learn that the verses mandating love in the Gospel of John and in the letters of Apostle John, the author defines a boundary for love. The love mandated in these writings is between fellow believers. These verses do not necessarily mandate love between the believers and the unbelievers of the God of the Bible. Consider a few verses:

            John 13: 34-35: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

            1 John 2:9-11: “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.”

            1 John 4:20: “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”

            But when Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves (Mark 12:31), HE had already annihilated the boundary that limits love. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), Christ defines a neighbor as anyone we would come into contact with – be it Christian or non-Christian. Therefore, Christians are mandated to love our neighbors (anyone) as we love ourselves.

            Although Christians are called to love everyone, there is still room for hatred. For instance, God, who Christians are to primarily love, obey and emulate is not all about love. Yes, God is not all about love; God hates certain actions and certain people. Consider these verses:

            God hates wicked people (Psalm 5:5: “You hate all who do wrong”).

            God hates wicked deeds and wicked people (Proverbs 6:16 -19 (MSG): Here are six things God hates, and one more that he loathes with a passion: eyes that are arrogant, a tongue that lies, hands that murder the innocent, a heart that hatches evil plots, feet that race down a wicked track, a mouth that lies under oath, a troublemaker in the family.).

            God’s hatred is unlike human hatred. Although the wrath of God is upon all those who do not believe HIM (Matthew 10:28; John 3:36; Romans 1:18), God sends rain and sunshine upon the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:43-48). Because God loves both the believers and the unbelievers, HE has provided ways and means for the unbelievers to believe in HIM and be saved. Therefore, God’s wrath is only upon those who consciously reject HIM.

            God does not mandate Christians to merely love. Christians are mandated to hate evil. Here are a couple of verses for your consideration:

            Psalm 97:10: "Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked."

            Romans 12:9: "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."

            Believers of God are to hate evildoers as well. But this is a righteous hatred. This is not a hatred that seeks harm upon the subject of our hate.

            Significantly, Christians are called to hate Satan. We are mandated to perpetually battle Satan (Ephesians 6:10-18).

            The Psalmist says, “I hate double-minded people…” (Psalm 119:113). And elsewhere the Psalmist says, “Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked.” (Psalm 3:7). Does the Psalmist, out of his abundant love for his enemies, plead to God to break their teeth? Or would you say that the Psalmist had not understood God adequately?

            If your child is kidnapped, would you not pray for deliverance? Of course, you would! Do you realize, at times, the only means to deliver your child is by killing the kidnappers?

            Any Christian, who claims that he would forget his child and not take any action against the kidnappers because he is mandated to love his enemies a.k.a. the kidnappers must be obtusely insane and acutely ignorant of the Bible.

            To those of you who say, hate the sin but love the sinner, I ask, just as how you may accommodate a needy person in your home, would your sacrificial love for a pedophile motivate you to accommodate him at your home with your children, thereby endangering your children’s lives? Or would your amazing love for your fellow neighbor and enemy – the ISIS – prompt you to fund their intents?

            Only an insane Christian would intentionally accommodate a pedophile at his home, thereby endangering his own children, whom he should only nurture and protect. Only a stupid Christian would fund the ISIS (thereby placing many innocent lives at risk) just because the Bible says that he is to love his enemies.

            Believe it or not; there is room, in Christianity, for righteous hatred! The prison is the most appropriate location for a pedophile, terrorist, and all evildoers. The primary expression of your love for your enemies should prompt you, as a responsible Christian, to inform the police upon sighting an evildoer.

            What about your colleague who misappropriates funds at your workplace? Isn’t he your neighbor and your enemy? He robs the company of its financial resources, an outcome of which could jeopardize your job. Would you, in your abundant love for your dishonest colleague, not inform your managers of your colleague’s misdemeanor, so to deceive your organization?  

            Christianity allows for righteous hatred! Upon your report, if your dishonest colleague gets fired, your love for him could motivate you to serve him by striving to transform him and alleviating his financial needs, if he is needy. But love for our neighbors does not entail Christians to promote evil in any size, form or manner.

            Here’s another articulation of righteous hatred, “…if the love is real, it must include hate…We hate evil because it is wrong. But on the other hand, if this hatred is part of loving our enemies, we must hate the evil of our enemies because of what the evil means for them…ISIS does evil and is evil — and our love for them means we hate both. We hate that they are blinded by darkness, that they are trapped by Satan’s schemes, that they are following the course of this world and ignorant of it all (Ephesians 2:2; 4:18). But that hate, if we are obeying Jesus, means that we hate them not only because of their disgusting injustice, but for what that injustice means for their souls…Love for our enemies means, fundamentally, that we hate our enemies for wholeheartedly joining in the evil that will ultimately cause their damnation (John 5:29). That is the kind of hate — the kind of love — that might look on them and say, in the spirit of our Savior, Father, forgive them for being so oblivious to what they’re doing. Open their eyes.”1

How To Truly Love?

            Loving your neighbors as you love yourself is easier said than done. Quite a few of us scream at the top of our voices that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves.


            I love myself and my family so much that I give us the best my money can buy. Does your life reflect this statement?

            True love is not visiting orphanages and elderly care homes once or twice a year. True love is not to help a senior citizen cross the road or offering a small portion of what’s in your wallet to your neighborhood beggar or the homeless.

            As long as there are needy people in your vicinity who are unable to eat three proper meals or afford appropriate healthcare or education, and as long as you and I continue to enjoy all these benefits, we do not truly love our neighbor.

            It’s not true love when we refuse to part with our money, but we assure our neighbors of our prayers. The Bible depicts this situation wonderfully well, “Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:15-17). Make use of all your resources (financial and non-financial) in such a way that you and your needy neighbors are never in need.

            What then is true love? It is to give and give graciously and freely until our giving hurts us. I am not saying that we should become poor. Moreover, we may not be able to alleviate poverty in our neighborhood. But we can certainly make a strong difference in people’s lives by graciously and sacrificially giving what the Lord has graciously and freely given to us.

            Finally, true love is not to encourage the sins of our fellow Christians. Some Christians claim that Christianity is all about love only to legitimize their own sins or the sins of their fellow Christians (E.g. Endorsing homosexuality).

            Sins are an assault on God. God has defined and determined sins in the Bible. Let us not strive to embark on a futile journey to legitimize sins under the false pretense that Christianity is all about love.


            Christianity is not all about love. Righteous hatred has its place in Christianity.

            When we claim to love others as we love ourselves, let us truly love others without any semblance of hypocrisy or political correctness.



Scripture references are from the NIV unless otherwise mentioned. 

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Why Do Scientists Believe In Christ’s Resurrection?

            Historic Christianity is predicated on Christ’s resurrection. If Christ has not been raised, our faith is futile (1 Corinthians 15: 12-17, NIV).
            Those who invigorate a war between Science and Christianity (e.g. scientists subscribing to atheism and skepticism) claim that Christ did not resurrect. Richard Dawkins - a professor at Oxford University until 2008 - is one among those who reject Christ’s resurrection, “Presumably what happened to Jesus was what happens to all of us when we die. We decompose. Accounts of Jesus's resurrection and ascension are about as well-documented as Jack and the Beanstalk.”1

            But Christian scientists believe in Christ’s resurrection! Ian Hutchinson is one among them, “I’m a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, and I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. So do dozens of my colleagues. How can this be?...We really believe in the bodily resurrection of the first century Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth. My Christian colleagues at MIT – and millions of other scientists worldwide – somehow think that a literal miracle like the resurrection of Jesus is possible…The founders of the scientific revolution and many of the greatest scientists of the intervening centuries were serious Christian believers. For Robert Boyle (of the ideal gas law, co-founder in 1660 of the Royal Society) the resurrection was a fact. For James Clerk Maxwell (whose Maxwell equations of 1862 govern electromagnetism) a deep philosophical analysis undergirded his belief in the resurrection. And for William Phillips (Nobel prize-winner in 1997 for methods to trap atoms with laser light) the resurrection is not discredited by science.”2

            Dr. John Lennox, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, cites famous contemporary Christian scientists who believe in Christ’s resurrection, “…there are eminent, scientists, like Professor William Phillips (Physics Nobel Prizewinner, 1998), Professor Sir John Polkinghorne FRS (Quantum Physicist, Cambridge) and, in the United States, the current Director of the National Institute of Health and former Director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins (to name just three) who…affirm their belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which they regard as the supreme evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview.”3

            Why and how do Christian scientists believe in Christ’s resurrection or the miraculous?

            Christian scientists know that science can investigate the miraculous, but science cannot prove or disprove the miraculous, “…while science can’t logically rule miracles in or out of consideration, it can be a helpful tool for investigating contemporary miraculous claims. It may be able to reveal self-deception, trickery, or misperception. If someone has been seen levitating on a supposed flying carpet in their living room, then the discovery of powerful electromagnets in their basement might well render such claims implausible…Science functions by reproducible experiments and observations. Miracles are, by definition, abnormal and non-reproducible, so they cannot be proved by science’s methods.”4

            Moreover, Christian scientists reject the reasons offered by non-Christian scientists. The argument employed by atheists and skeptics to reject the miraculous is grossly invalid.

            Miracles are rejected on the premise that they go against the laws of nature. But this argument, as Dr. John Lennox explains, is invalid, “Hume denies the miraculous, because miracle would go against the uniform laws of nature. And yet elsewhere he denies the uniformity of nature. He famously argues that, just because the sun has been observed to rise in the morning for thousands of years, it does not mean that we can be sure that it will rise tomorrow. This is an example of the Problem of Induction: on the basis of past experience you cannot predict the future, says Hume. But if that were true, let us see what follows.

            Suppose Hume is right, and no dead man has ever risen up from the grave through the whole of earth's history so far; by his own argument he still cannot be sure that a dead man will not rise up tomorrow. That being so, he cannot rule out miracle. What has become now of Hume's insistence on the laws of nature, and its uniformity? He has destroyed the very basis on which he tries to deny the possibility of miracles.

            In any case, if according to Hume we can infer no regularities, it would be impossible even to speak of laws of nature, let alone the uniformity of nature with respect to those laws. And if nature is not uniform, then using the uniformity of nature as an argument against miracles is simply absurd.”5

            Dr. Lennox posits God’s intervention into nature as a reason for the miraculous, “…from the theistic perspective, the laws of nature predict what is bound to happen if God does not intervene; though, of course, it is no act of theft, if the Creator intervenes in his own creation. It is incorrect to argue that the laws of nature make it impossible for us to believe in the existence of God and the possibility of his intervention in the universe. That would be like claiming that an understanding of the laws of the internal combustion engine makes it impossible to believe that the designer of a motor-car, or one of his mechanics, could or would intervene and remove the cylinder head. Of course they could intervene. Moreover, this intervention would not destroy those laws. The very same laws, that explained why the engine worked with the cylinder head on, would now explain why it does not work with the head removed.

            It is, therefore, inaccurate and misleading to say with Hume that miracles "violate" the laws of nature. We could, of course, say that it is a law of nature that human beings do not rise again from the dead by some natural mechanism. But Christians do not claim that Christ rose from the dead by such a mechanism. They claim that he rose from the dead by supernatural power. By themselves, the laws of nature cannot rule out that possibility.

            When a miracle takes place, it is the laws of nature that alert us to the fact that it is a miracle. It is important to grasp that Christians do not deny the laws of nature, as Hume implies they do. It is an essential part of the Christian position to believe in the laws of nature as descriptions of those regularities and cause-effect relationships built into the universe by its Creator and according to which it normally operates. If we did not know them, we should never recognise a miracle if we saw one…

            …To suppose, then, that Christianity was born in a pre-scientific, credulous and ignorant world is simply false to the facts. The ancient world knew the law of nature as well as we do, that dead bodies do not get up out of graves. Christianity won its way by dint of the sheer weight of evidence that one man had actually risen from the dead.”6

            Therefore, the reasons offered by the non-Christian scientists to reject miracles are weak and invalid.

            There are, however, compelling evidences that persuade Christian scientists to believe in Christ\s resurrection, “Most of our evidence comes from the New Testament and it may surprise many that, in comparison with many other ancient works of literature, the New Testament is by far the best-attested document from the ancient world…It is the constant and unvarying testimony of the Gospels that the tomb was found to be empty when the Christian women came early in the morning of the first day of the week, to complete the task of encasing the body of Jesus in spices. And when the apostles went to investigate the women's report, they likewise found the tomb empty…But it was the way in which the grave-cloths were lying that convinced St. John of a miracle. So, could someone have taken the body and rewound the cloths deliberately to give the impression that a miracle had happened? But who could this have been? It was morally impossible for the followers of Christ to have done it. It was also psychologically impossible, since they were not expecting a resurrection. And it was practically impossible, because of the guards. It would be absurd to think of the authorities doing anything remotely suggestive of a resurrection. After all, it was they who had ensured that the tomb was guarded, to avoid anything like that!

            The early Christians did not simply assert that the tomb was empty. Far more important for them was the fact that subsequently they had met the risen Christ, intermittently over a period of forty days. According to Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15, there were originally well over five hundred people who at different times saw the risen Christ during that period…To anyone who knows anything about the ancient laws regarding legal testimony, it is very striking that the first reports mentioned in the Gospels of appearances of the Risen Christ were made by women. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not normally considered to be competent witnesses. At that time, therefore, anyone who wanted to invent a resurrection story would never have thought of commencing it in this way. The only value of including such a story would be if it were both true and easy to verify. Its very inclusion, therefore, is a clear mark of historical authenticity.

            The evidence of the empty tomb, the character of the witnesses, the explosion of Christianity out of Judaism and the testimony of millions today are inexplicable without the resurrection. As Holmes said to Watson: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"” (Emphasis Mine).7









Websites cited were last accessed on 25th November 2017.

Monday, November 20, 2017

Science Cannot Contradict Historic Christianity

            When detractors of Historic Christianity claim that ‘Science contradicts Religion’ or ‘Science contradicts Christianity,’ many Christians succumb. These claims, at their face value, have rattled some Christians because their busy life precludes a possibility of undertaking an adequate research into this theme. Hence, some Christians either believe that science and Christianity are at loggerheads or they are clueless.

            The truth, however, is that science cannot contradict Historic Christianity. This article will endeavor to highlight this fact.

Science Cannot Contradict Religion

            Does science have authority to judge religion? If eminent non-Christian scientists demarcate science’s jurisdiction from religion, then there is reasonable merit in concluding that science cannot judge religion.

            Science cannot deny the claims of religion, let alone Christianity. The non-Christian scientists say so.

            Consider Harvard University paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould’s principle of Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). NOMA proposes that science and religion represent different magisteria (domain of authority). Hence, science (which covers the empirical domain) and religion (which covers life’s ultimate meaning and moral value) ought not to overlap. (Stephen Jay Gould was not a Christian.)

            Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, a molecular biologist and evolutionary geneticist and the winner of Templeton Prize, contends that science cannot contradict religion. Dr. Ayala is not a Christian. He asserts:1

Science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction. If they are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters…I contend that both – scientists denying religion and believers rejecting science – are wrong. Science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction. If they are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters.
The scope of science is the world of nature: the reality that is observed, directly or indirectly, by our senses. Science advances explanations about the natural world, explanations that are accepted or rejected by observation and experiment.
Outside the world of nature, however, science has no authority, no statements to make, no business whatsoever taking one position or another. Science has nothing decisive to say about values, whether economic, aesthetic or moral; nothing to say about the meaning of life or its purpose. Science has nothing to say, either, about religious beliefs…Science transcends cultural, political and religious beliefs because it has nothing to say about these subjects…People of faith should stand in awe of the wondrous achievements of science. But they should not be troubled that science may deny their religious beliefs. (Emphasis Mine).
        Therefore, since science and religion engage different realms of life, a conclusion that science cannot contradict religion is quite reasonable.  

Scientists Contradict Religion

        Although science cannot contradict religion, certain non-Christian scientists attempt to falsify the claims of religions. Biologist and renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion,” ridicules God’s existence, “I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.”  

        These non-Christian scientists do not merely refrain from dismissing religious claims, but they pour scorn on Christian scientists as well. Richard Dawkins loves to ridicule Christian scientists, “Creation scientists have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.”2

        These unmitigated assaults intimidate Christians to no end; ergo, some Christians then believe that science has buried Christianity. This is not true!

Trust The Testimony Of Christian Scientists

        If science so categorically contradicts religion, how was it possible that many great scientists of the past were committed Christians? Kepler (Astronomy), Pascal (Hydrostatics), Boyle (Chemistry), Newton (Calculus), Linnaeus (Systematic Biology), Faraday (Electromagnetics), Cuvier (Comparative Anatomy), Kelvin (Thermodynamics), Lister (Antiseptic Surgery), Mendel (Genetics) were all committed Christians. They believed in the Triune God and truly trusted the Bible.

        Scientists who lived in the past were not the only Christians. There are numerous highly successful and credible contemporary Christian scientists whom we can genuinely trust.

        Dr. Francis S. Collins asserts that science and religion cannot contradict, “As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan…So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

        Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers… I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.” 3

Why Christian Scientists Believe?

        Christian scientists do not blindly believe in God or the biblical account. They have very clear and valid reasons to believe in God and the Bible.

        Dr. James Tour, a synthetic organic chemist specializing in nanotechnology, is a T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering and of Computer Science at Rice University, USA. He holds more than 120 patents in the USA and has published more than 600 research publications.

        While discussing the ‘origin of life,’ Dr. James Tour contends that science is clueless about abiogenesis (life from nonlife). He contends that the only reasonable conclusion any scientist, who does not or would not want to believe in God, can arrive at is NOT to negate the Creator, but to, at the very least, acknowledge that the origin of life is a mystery: 4

Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. What is the chemistry behind their origin? Biologists seem to think that there are well-understood prebiotic molecular mechanisms for their synthesis. They have been grossly misinformed. And no wonder: few biologists have ever synthesized a complex molecule ab initio. If they need a molecule, they purchase molecular synthesis kits, which are, of course, designed by synthetic chemists, and which feature simplistic protocols.
Polysaccharides? Their origin?
The synthetic chemists do not have a pathway.
The biologists do not have a clue…
The world’s best synthetic chemists, biochemists, and evolutionary biologists have combined forces to form a team—a dream team in two quite distinct senses of the word. Money is no object. They have at their disposal the most advanced analytical facilities, the complete scientific literature, synthetic and natural coupling agents, and all the reagents their hearts might desire. Carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, and nucleic acids are stored in their laboratories in a state of 100% enantiomeric purity.
Would the dream team—please—assemble a living system?
Take your time, folks, take a few billion years.
Nothing? Well, well, well.
Let us assume that all the building blocks of life, and not just their precursors, have been made to a high degrees of purity, including homochirality where applicable—the carbohydrates, the amino acids, the nucleic acids, and the lipids. They are stored in cool caves, away from sunlight, and away from oxygen. These molecules are indifferent to environmental degradation.
And let us further assume that they are all stored in one comfortable corner of the earth, not separated by thousands of kilometers or on different planets.
And that they all exist not just in the same square kilometer, but in neighboring pools where they can conveniently and somehow selectively mix with each other as needed.
Now what? How does the dream team assemble them without enzymes?
Very well. Give the dream team polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence, cleanly assembled.
Ready now?
Apparently not.
We teach our students that when a mechanism does not support their observations, the mechanism must either be revised to support the facts or entirely discounted. They are not required to provide an alternative.
We are such stuff as dreams are made on. It has a ring among prebiotic chemists.
Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.
The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.


        We are grateful to the scientific community. We stand in awe of their achievements. But having said that, let us be cognizant of the fact that science cannot contradict religion, let alone Christianity.

        So the next time someone attempts to derail your faith by flinging a random statement that science contradicts religion, do not get rattled. If you are a Christian, do know that the ground on which you stand is rock solid. There is no need to sweat or fret. Keep on and grow in your Christian faith.






Websites cited were last accessed on 20th November 2017.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Can A Christian Kill For A Living?

            Can a Christian serve as a policeman, soldier or a secret service agent? These occupations include killing. But the Bible speaks against murder, here’s a sample:

            Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.”

            Matthew 15:18-19: “…the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.”

            Romans 12:14-19: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse… Do not repay anyone evil for evil…Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”

            So, is a Christian prohibited from killing even though he/she serves as a policeman, soldier or a secret service agent? Pastor John Piper offers an adequate response:1

            “Do those texts prevent a person from being a policeman or soldier? Is no. In fact, I would go further and say: God has arranged that the spheres that make society work, all of them have God ordained situations in them that demand that we not turn the other cheek. The spheres I have in mind are: the state, the family, business and commerce, the Church. God has built in to each of these spheres the necessary principle of justice, not just the principle of mercy where you treat people better than they deserve. In other words, treating a person as he deserves as well as sometimes treating him better than he deserves is essential for the loving, just working of these spheres.

            Let me just give you four biblical examples. The state. Romans 13:4. He is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrong doer. So he is talking about soldiers and policemen there that carry the sword. They don’t turn the other cheek. They do strike in order to defend the father-land or to defend the innocent citizen who is being victimized of a crime. So state.

            Number two, commerce, business. Paul said, 2 Thessalonians 3:10: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. That is not mercy. That is justice. The employer does not turn the other cheek. If a man doesn’t come to work day after day and says: I just don’t feel like it, he gets fired. He gets paid less. You can’t run a business without the principle of merit, without the principle of a day’s work for a day’s wage.

            Thirdly, family. Fathers, bring up your children in the discipline of the Lord. Parents who only turn the other cheek and do not return spanking for insolence breed brats, not pacifists. And the Bible is so clear. Parents have the right to operate on the principle of justice as well as mercy. You have to spank you children, discipline your children.

            Number four, the Church, Church discipline, 1 Corinthians 5:5. You are to deliver the man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

            In all of these we are hoping for the good of people, but in the short run we are not giving to him who asks. We are not turning the other cheek. We are returning some measure of harm, because of behaviors that were harmful or wrong.

            So the point is this. Each of these teachings of the New Testament show that a just and loving society, inside and outside the Church, requires more than not returning evil for evil. It also requires, in the spheres where God assigns it, a principle of justice that returns what a person deserves. So my answer to the question is no. Is the New Testament commandment no to return evil for evil a sufficient warrant for a Christian not being policeman or a soldier? No. Both of these, that is treating a person according to justice and treating him according to mercy, are essential in bearing witness to our God.”

            To say that the Bible does not condemn Christians being soldiers, policemen and secret service agents is rather straightforward. But a more complicated situation is this: What if the State is evil?

            Can a Christian revolt against the State or the governing authorities especially when the State perpetrates evil against Christians? Would a Christian be justified in God’s presence if he/she kills the governing authorities who perpetrate evil?

            The theological term for evil being perpetrated against Christians is “Persecution.” In an article entitled, “Should Persecuted Christians Fight Back?” I offered my response:2

            “If the persecutors force themselves to violate the sanctity of my children or any other member of my family, then I would do all that it takes to defend my family. I would rather give up my life in defending my family than not. Only the creator and the Father God has the right to take life off this earth (Cf. 1 Samuel 2: 6-7; Job 1: 21). Loving our neighbor entails protection.

            If the persecutors are in the business of slaughtering Christians for their faith in Christ, then I would most willingly offer my life for the sake of Christ. In other words, I would not recant my faith in Christ to live a few more miserable years. A profitable reminder from history is the martyrdom of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (Izmir, Turkey). 2

            From a nation’s standpoint, the ruling authority should do all that it takes to protect the basic human rights of all its citizens. The world should intervene during persecutions to protect those being persecuted.

            But what if persecutions are engineered by the ruling authorities? A typical case in point would be the persecutions organized by Hitler or Mao Zedong.

            If Christians are being persecuted by the governing authorities, then the Bible does not offer any tangible reason to fight back the governing authorities by means of violence. Fleeing is an option, but if fleeing is not possible, then persecution should be endured. Christians cannot take up arms to fight or rebel against the governing authorities.

            There could be persecutions at the workplace. Especially if we are ardent in our faith in Christ, then the ardent believer(s) of other worldviews may innovate methods to jeopardize our presence at the workplace. In such situations, our primary response should be to allow our work ethics and proficiency to strengthen our presence at our workplace.     

            There is never a good reason to fight our persecutors at our workplace. Therefore, when the going gets tough, then we, as tough Christians, should increase our work efficiency at our workplace to let our work defend our presence.

            If persecutions at work go out of hand, and there are good instances where it can get harsh on us, then it may even be a viable option to consider moving out. But in any case, we should love our persecutors. We should never hate or retaliate against them. We can never repay evil for evil (Romans 12: 17).

            In some instances, our own family members would persecute us (Matthew 10: 21, 35-36; Luke 21: 16). They, like the other persecutors, may say all kinds of evil things against us (Matthew 5: 11) or use our own words against us (Matthew 22: 15; Luke 11: 53-54) or raise false accusations (Matthew 26: 59-61; 2 Timothy 2: 8-9) or crucify our character (Luke 7: 34; John 7: 12, 9: 24) or simply term us as the devil (Matthew 9: 34).

            While we suffer these persecutions, we ought to seriously consider if we are on the side of the truth or not. If we are not for Christ, then we are against HIM (Matthew 12: 30; Luke 11: 23).

            The objective for every Christian is to be in Christ and in HIS truth always. If we are in Christ, then our persecutions would be for HIS sake. The greater reward, according to the Bible, is only to those who are persecuted for the sake of Christ (Matthew 5: 10; 2 Timothy 3: 12).

            However, if we are persecuted by our own, then we should endure it and not retaliate against them.

            Retaliation is never an option for a Christian or a group of Christians. Retaliation against the governing authorities, through formation of rebel outfits, is out of question for Christians. 

            In HIS own mysterious yet marvelous ways, God will help those being persecuted (Psalm 46: 1). These verses summarize the state of the believers being persecuted, “we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (2 Corinthians 4: 8-11, NASB, Emphasis Mine).”




All Scripture references are from NIV, unless otherwise mentioned.

Websites cited were last accessed on 15th November 2017. 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

After Homosexuality, Christian Churches Will Bless Polyamory

            Heresies disguised as pure doctrines are rampant in Christianity. These days, if we meet a fellow Christian for the very first time, we should legitimately wonder if he/she subscribes to Historic Christianity or a heretical flavor of Christianity - for instance, Progressive Christianity. (Progressive Christianity allows heresies to creep in because of certain innate and fundamental flaws: Progressive Christians can deny the inerrancy of the Bible, they need not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and they need not believe that Christ is the only way to heaven. This would then lead to many serious errors, one of which is discussed in this article.)

            Progressive Christianity endorses the LGBT movement. According to Wikipedia, 131 Christian denominations and another 53 Christian congregations affirm LGBT. These denominations have proclaimed that homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins anymore, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) affirming Christian denominations are Christian denominations that do not consider homosexuality or transgenderism to be sins. They include entire religious denominations, as well as individual churches and congregations.”1

            Now that many Christian denominations have endorsed homosexuality, those subscribing to, and practicing, polyamory, expect these churches to endorse polyamory because they contend that polyamory is not only about sex. They argue that polyamory excludes swinging, adultery, infidelity (cheating) per se. They also argue that polyamory is not to be confused with polygamy (marriage of one individual to multiple other individuals).2

            Polyamory is defined as “consensually non-monogamous relationships [where] there is an open agreement that one, both, or all individuals involved in a romantic relationship may also have other sexual and/or romantic partners…”3

            So the progressive Christian community is encouraging other gullible Christian denominations to endorse polyamory. Obviously, their primary target is the churches that have already endorsed or approved the LGBT practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches have already endorsed polyamory. In their response to the Nashville Statement, they contend, “Article 7: WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

            WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.”4

            The Nashville Statement is an Evangelical Christian statement of faith relating to human sexuality and gender roles authored by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). The statement sets forth the signatories' opposition to LGBT sexuality, same-sex marriage, polygamy, polyamory, adultery, and fornication. (Source: Wikipedia).

            If MCC has endorsed polyamory, then it is only a matter of time before all the other gullible churches approve of polyamory. Sooner than later, polyamory would become an acceptable lifestyle, even in the Christian community. 

            Why do Christians endorse homosexuality or polyamory?

            Endorsement of homosexuality or polyamory is predicated on the reasoning that every human being is free and autonomous. The free and autonomous human beings are then empowered to choose the conditions under which they live. Nancy Pearcey, a leading Christian apologist, says, “What is the worldview that underlies homosexual “marriage”? The idea that marriage can be changed by choice has roots in a political philosophy called social contract theory, founded by Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Social contract theory denies that marriage and family are natural and pre-political. Instead this secular origin myth posits a primordial “state of nature” where humans are autonomous, disconnected individuals. To preserve that original autonomy, the theory proposes to redefine every social institution as a contract — that is, an exchange of goods and services where we define the relationship, we choose the terms, we choose the conditions under which we stay or leave, and so on.

            Where do these ideas lead in practice? A recent article says the ultimate goal is no marriage at all. In the ideal relationship, the author writes, “each member is an autonomous, free individual, who can come or go as she or he pleases.” The author says she treats even her three-year-old daughter as “free and autonomous.””5

            Why should Christians oppose polyamory?

   elucidates an answer to this question, “The idea that one spouse should consent to the other spouse having sex with other people is absolutely foreign to the Bible. The Bible speaks of sex within marriage as pure (Hebrews 13:4). The Bible speaks of sex outside of marriage as immoral and adulterous (1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).

            The question is sometimes raised as to whether a polyamorous relationship should be considered adultery if the other spouse allows, approves, or even participates in it. The answer is an unequivocal yes! God is the one who defines what marriage is and what adultery is. God, in His Word, has declared sex outside of marriage to be adultery (Exodus 20:14). A spouse’s giving permission to sin does not overrule God’s Law. We do not have the authority to create exceptions to what God has declared to be sinful.

            Aside from the biblical declarations that they are sin, polyamorous relationships cannot fulfill what the Bible says a marriage is to be. A married couple cannot be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) if multiple “fleshes” are involved. A married couple cannot fully love one another if that love is divided among other people. There cannot be true intimacy if what is supposed to be intimate is shared with others. Polyamory is not marriage. In no sense is a marriage supposed to be open to sexual activity outside of the marriage.

            Polyamory is, in reality, “poly-lust-ory.” There is nothing loving about it. This perversion of marriage is confirmation that “every intention of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually,” and that, without God, “everyone does what is right in his own eyes” (see Genesis 6:5 and Judges 21:25).”6

            This article strives to enlighten you about another imminent threat to Historic Christianity. This threat pertains not only to Historic Christianity, but it will impact its adherents as well. Your family and friends would also likely be threatened by this development.

            How do we respond to polyamory invading the Christian community?

            First, do not be surprised when your church or the church next door affirms polyamory in the future. The evil one will deceive gullible Christians (cf. Mark 4:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9), and your church may be led by one of them.

            Second, the command to ‘love your neighbors as yourself’ is not only to love the seemingly righteous, but also the practicing sinner. How else would we minister to the sinners, if we do not love them?

            Third, know the reasons as to why the biblical view of marriage is monogamous (marriage with only one person at a time) and heterosexual (marriage between people of the opposite sex). Be aware as to why God determines polyamory and homosexuality as sins. Thereby, we can graciously and lovingly minister to our erring friends/relatives. 

            Finally, pray without ceasing. Pray that we will stand strong against every flaming arrow that the evil one flings at us and that the mind of the sinning Christians would be fertile to receive instructions from God through you and me.








 Websites cited were last accessed on 9th November 2017.