On January 20th, 2012, the Obama administration, along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued an additional element to their final rule on an August 2011 decision to require all insurance plans to offer women's preventative services, such as contraception and sterilization. Up to this point, the exception to the final rule was that religious based institutions who had a faith-based objection to the use of contraceptives were not required to comply. On January 20th, that exception was erased and now all institutions (hospitals, universities, social agencies) are mandated to provide insurance which covers the entirety of women's preventative services.

The institutions most affected by this ruling are, of course, Catholic institutions. I have written several times about both the differences and similarities between Protestant Evangelical Christians and Catholicism. There are areas of great difference but there are certainly areas of overlap and appreciation. Regardless of a Protestant's biblical view of contraception, we surely should come alongside our Christian brothers and sisters in what is a significant area of concern.

The foundational issue behind the cause for concern is the degree to which one's faith affects their various layers of life. Sadly, many Christians consider the implications of their faith in Christ only as far as the church doors. Although none of us want to be in the business of nitpicking and raising a fuss just for the heck of it, I respect individuals and organizations who think through the implications of their faith in Jesus Christ and make difficult decisions based on those implications.

The wording of the news release issued by the Department of Health and Human Services is startling and indicative of the Obama Administration's outlook. It says, "Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant
health benefits for women and their families, is documented to
significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug
in America by young and middle-aged women." This kind of wording is nothing less than an indictment against any institution that would make a decision based on conviction of faith over conviction of science. The liberalism of the Obama administration is unparalleled in that it makes decisions based on scientific progress and imposes them on religious agencies it considers stuck in the 1950's. Obama's narrowing of religious liberty is taking us down a path to a solely privatized arena of religious conviction.

I don't know if this decision is legal or not (I assume it is). What I do know is that Obama could have easily let the issue go to sleep and nary a word would have been spoken, even by the more progressive secularists. Yet, he woke the issue up and made a decision that has tremendous impact on a significant group of people. Why would he do such a thing? That is the question that remains unanswered. Perhaps this is exactly the way the country should be thinking and Obama is allowing his convictions to trump his concern of religious outrage. Or, perhaps Obama is throwing another bone to his progressive secular fan-base who continues to desire more and more from their president. Whatever the case, Christians should be keeping a watchful eye on the future. This decision has gone largely unnoticed. One day we may wake up to the unthinkable and will wonder how it arrived at our doorstep. 

If you have any interest in Southern Baptist life then you will remember the campaign throughout 2009 and 2010 called the "Great Commission Resurgence" which was led by a task force who presented a report at the 2010 Annual Meeting. Their final report outlined proposed changes to the Convention that would increase awareness and determination to be a group of churches committed to the Great Commission. I wrote about the somewhat controversial report several times on PhilipMeade.com, including here, here, and here. The report passed at the 2010 meeting and my question today in early 2012 is:

What has happened because of the vote?

I just finished speaking with Steve Thompson, Assistant Executive Director for the Kentucky Baptist Convention, and he was very helpful in answering my questions about the progress of the state and national conventions as it pertains to the GCR report. I had to call him because there is not an internet progress report of any kind concerning the gradual changes happening within our Convention. What I discovered is that the GCR is slowly beginning to have some effect on how the Convention is handling the distribution of finances, but that not enough time has elapsed to see if local churches are motivated by the vote to change their approach to the Cooperative Program. Here is a quick breakdown:

1. The report called for a "reinvention" of NAMB (North American Mission Board) which would ultimately eliminate "Cooperative Agreements" between state conventions and NAMB and would also focus the efforts of NAMB into more of a church-planting entity. This is beginning to happen, although slower than the KBC had originally feared. As of today, there has been a 5% decrease in the Cooperative Agreement format but the majority of the funds received by NAMB are supposed to be used primarily for church-planting strategies.

2. The report called for a clean 50/50 split between state and national conventions. The KBC is one of the leading state conventions to begin this process, bumping their SBC giving from 37% to 42% which was voted on last fall.

3. The report called for the SBC to bump up the percentage given to the IMB by 1%. This is happening in increments of .2%.

4. The biggest aspect of the report, of course, was a call for churches to increase their giving to the CP. This will be the year to tell if the report had any effect on how the local churches will think through their budget.

The KBC is currently in a "More for Christ" campaign which is aimed at increased CP giving. As a pastor for a SBC church, but more importantly as a Christian who desires to see the gospel proclaimed in all the world, I have a strong appreciation for the CP and am committed to see our people gradually increase not just their CP giving, but also their passion for the spreading the Good New of Jesus Christ.

So, the Great Commission Resurgence is still gradually making its mark, but I think the majority of SBC'ers have either forgotten about it, never knew about it, or just no longer care. In typical Baptist fashion, we have worked hard to get something done, but then once it happened, we haven't done much to keep it in the forefront our thought. Time will tell where we go from here.

“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send
him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn
them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said,
‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said,
‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they
will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the
Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the
dead.’”(Luke 16:27-31 ESV)

Stories describing a person's a journey into the beauties of heaven and their subsequent return to earth are nothing new. Whether it be simply a "light" or an extravagant description of the pearly gates, many have spoken of dying just long enough to taste the splendor of heaven but then were brought back to life, left to share with others the wonder of their experience. Over the past few years this kind of storytelling has seen incredible commercial success and due to that popularity, not surprisingly, more and more books were marketed about personal experiences with heaven. Perhaps the most famous of these is the story of Colton, a 4 year old who apparently visited heaven while on the operating table with a burst appendix. The book was written by Colton's father, pastor Todd Burpo, some six or seven years after the operating table phenomenon. It recounts how Colton, in bits and pieces, explained to his parents how he visited heaven as a 4 year old.

Of all the thousands upon thousands of positive, edifying, important books Christians should be reading, "Heaven Is For Real" and their counterparts fall to the bottom part of the list. It isn't because their message is in conflict with the Church or that we might find ourselves in danger of embracing a faulty worldview. Nevertheless, these kinds of books just simply have nothing to offer, and most of them present their nothingness in a rather shoddy fashion, making their success say more about the ones purchasing the books than the ones writing them.

Let me admit from the outset that critiquing a book like "Heaven Is For Real" inherently comes with a certain kind of difficulty. That difficulty is best expressed by the concept of, "who are you to dismiss someone's experience?" I understand the sensitivity of such a task and I write this article, I hope, with a gracious hand, not intending to demean the ones who have shared their experiences but determined to think biblically about their story. So to that end, let me describe a couple of areas that concern me.

First is the philosophy that a person's experience with God is out of reach for other Christians to discern and evaluate. Yes, we must be careful as we all know that God works and speaks individually with His children. He is God, He can do whatever He wants. However, what God will never do is something that falls outside His own revelation about Himself in Scripture. This is true throught many issues in church life. I find it fascinating that the main argument for women serving in pastoral roles is that God called them to do it. And if God called them, who am I to question that? Fine. God called me to shoot a man because he looked at me funny. We instantly dismiss such an outrageous suggestion. But why? At the end of day, you are making a judgment call on my personal experience with God based on the content of my experience. Following the "who are you to question my experience with God" to its logical conclusion is simply untenable and we all know it. It's just when the subject matter is more sensitive that we feel like we don't have the right to discern a person's experience through the lens of Scripture. So, before a person can tell me that God "called" them or "placed" them somewhere, whether it be pastoring a church or experiencing a glimpse of heaven, that person should first be able to support their experience in Scripture. (for what it's worth, I have respect for women who make a rational, intelligent, Scriptural defense for their pastorate and do not lean on the "I was called" argument alone. Up to this point I am not persuaded by their arguments and I believe they are misinterpreting Scripture, but I am nevertheless grateful for their turning to the Bible to support their position).

The Bible tells of very few people who were graced with a vision of heaven; the apostles Paul and John are the two biggies (you could also say Isaiah and Stephen). In Paul's experience, he was forbidden to tell of what he had seen (2 Corinthians 12:4). In John's experience, his vision was concluded by the warning that anything in addition to his words would be met with plagues from God (Revelation 22:18). These experiences of Paul and John's vision of heaven should not be considered normative. What the Bible affirms is that every person is appointed to die once. . .and after that is judgment (Hebrews 9:27). When folks "die" on the operating table or elsewhere, and we all know people who "flatlined" and returned, they do not experience a second death, etc. That was not their appointed time to die and from God's perspective, they have not died. Remember when Jesus tells the people around Jairus' daughter that she was only sleeping and not dead? (Mark 5:38-39). Her time to die from God's perspective had not yet come. The Bible teaches that when death comes, so does judgement. So, not only is Scripture empty of support for a "coming and going" from heaven scenario, it denies the possibility.

Second, and perhaps even more troubling, is the motivation of the authors writing these book and the reaction of Christian folks reading them. People are buying these kinds of books, primarily Christian people, so that they can be confident of their hope of heaven. I actually read a review from one reader that said, "I always had doubts, but after reading this story I knew heaven was real." At this point I have to give a nod to my Moderate leaning colleagues who decry the battle for the Bible's inerrancy. Make no mistake, it is a battle I am willing and determined to fight, but if we go to war for the Bible's inerrancy in its teaching but do not follow through with the sufficiency of what it teaches, then inerrancy is pointless, and I think this is what drives Moderates crazy. In the Sherlock Holmes story "The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist", Holmes sends Watson to check into the story of one of the clients, hoping to discover more clues for his case. Unfortunately, and in a rather humorous portion of the story, Holmes chides Watson for his inability to uncover anything helpful to the solution of the crime. Holmes says, "What have we gained by your expedition? The knowledge that the girl's story is true. I never doubted it." And amen. If Christians are needing to read the testimony of a 4 year old in order to believe the truths proclaimed in Scripture, then whatever "relief" they find within the pages of such a book will be short-lived and ultimately harmful (read Luke 16 at the top of this article again). There will always be a consistent nagging for the next "something" to fill the void left by their unwillingness to trust Christ in His Word, the sufficiency of Scripture.

Thus, the only compelling reason I can come up with to read "Heaven Is For Real" and the sort is for curiosity's sake alone. Just be careful. Curiosity left unguarded can lead down paths of thought we never thought possible. Only Scripture can and must shape how we think of heaven, our future dwelling place.   

I can give you a list of 200 books you should read before "Heaven Is For Real." Email me before you spend your money.

A question was raised in our Facebook Bible Daily Reading Group concerning Jacob's wrestling encounter with God as described in Genesis 32. Was this a literal, physical wrestling match and if so, why?

Yes, Jacob's interaction with God in Genesis 32 was a literal, physical encounter. There is no reason to read the text any differently and Jacob's lifetime physical impairment, that being a limp, is evidence of the physicality of the narrative. However, the physical nature of this remarkable experience does not negate the text's obvious spiritual underpinnings. The wrestling between Jacob and God was a physical encounter mandated by spiritual unrest.

I believe the "man" Jacob wrestled against was more then just an angel, but was the "Angel of the Lord", a phrase sometimes used to denote the very presence of God, such as when Moses encountered God at the burning bush (Exodus 3:2). Even more so, I typically believe the Angel of the Lord as described in Genesis is the pre-incarnate Christ, so that Jacob is wrestling with none other than Jesus Christ in Genesis 32.

Jacob had reached a place where his lifelong striving with others had left him spiritually and emotionally bankrupt. Even from inside the womb, Jacob was "grabbing" at Esau's heel in order to become the firstborn and claim the benefits thereof. He was a man of deception and lies. He was a man on the run. He was a man with a tremendous promise from God and yet was struggling with the nature and timing of that promise.

So God mercifully makes himself available for a struggle. And Jacob was right to engage. Because no matter the course of events our life has taken, it is ultimately God with whom we must do business. We do well to remember that God creates both the light and the dark (Isaiah 45:7) and that all trials to our faith in Christ Jesus ultimately flow through His providential care. And so God makes himself available to us, available for us to wrestle with and grapple with, and all the while he is fighting alongside us and for us, even while being the one with whom we are wrestling. It is a delicious truth of our faith that only God could muster up.

What happens as God was fighting for Jacob and against Jacob is that He finally wounds Jacob's hip. Notice carefully the text at Genesis 32:6 - Jacob says he "will not let go." He has moved from wrestling with God to clinging onto God. And so it is with God's mercy, that so often He wounds us because He is for us. Clinging to God is key for faith and it frequently requires our wounding. Our human flesh is just too prone for boasting if it came through any other means.

For what it's worth, I believe the encounter with God lasted until morning so that Jacob or anyone else would not have accused him of having a dream. His name change and limp were lifelong reminders of God's mercy and Jacob's change of heart. He moved from striving to clinging.

And so may we all.    

One of the great blessings from our Facebook Bible Reading Group is the arrival of  wonderful questions from members who are trying to not only read through their daily passage, but also read with understanding. If you are not yet a member of our group, I encourage you to join us today.

In Genesis 6, the Bible speaks of "sons of God" taking the "daughters of man" as their wives. Scripture goes on in verse 4 to speak of the "Nephilim", those mighty "men of renown." These have been some of the more confusing passages in Scripture and several attempts have been made to explain what is happening here. I will outline the more common and probable explanations.

1. The "sons of God" could be the rise of harsh, ungodly, tyrannical kings or rulers who sweep through their land with no cause or concern for anyone or anything but themselves. They possibly could have been demon possessed.

2. Another possibility is that the "sons of God" are followers of God who became overtaken with sexual desire and lust which resulted in marriages that were not God honoring.

3. The third and more radical idea is that the "sons of God" were fallen angels (Job 1:6).

What I believe is the most critical aspect of this text is not so much figuring out who the "sons of God" were, but instead noticing the pattern presented in Chapter 6. The sons of God "saw" the women were "attractive" and "took" them for their wives. Does that pattern sound familiar? "saw" "good" "took". This is of course the pattern of the original sin, Eve saw the fruit, it was good to the eyes, and she took it. Genesis 6 provides a reminder to us that Satan continues to tempt and deceive throughout the course of human history in much the same way he did in the garden.

I personally hold more closely to the first or second explanation of the "sons of God" as presented above, although fallen angels is not out of the question.

Concerning the "Nephilim", some read the Greek translation of this Hebrew word as "giants", especially from the Numbers 13 account of the spies in Canaan, back into the Genesis 6 text and suppose these "men of renown" might be giants. Could be. However, I don't believe verse 4 necessarily links the offspring of the "sons of God" to the Nephilim, but more likely places the Nephilim in the historical context of when the sons of God were marrying. Chances are this is another example of the greed and lust that was prevalent on the earth, making necessary the ensuing flood from God.