Should Christians be Social Justice Warriors?

Should Christians be Social Justice Warriors (SJWs)? The question may sound like a no-brainer. Of course Christians should be SJWs! Taking care of the poor and promoting equality are Christian pastimes, right? After all, didn't Jesus preach social justice?

It is true that the Bible shows a great deal of concern for the poor, widowed, orphaned and foreigner. This should not be overlooked. If a person regularly reads the Bible they will be regularly reminded that they have a duty to bring love and justice to their fellow humans. But the Bible's view of social justice and the SJW view of social justice are incompatible. Here's why:

SJWs reject the concept of sin and believe that humans are by nature good:

This is a key SJW belief. Since SJWs believe that humans are basically good they are inclined to place the blame of evil and injustice upon societal issues rather than individuals. SJWs insist that power structures cause oppression and oppression leads to civil strife. With this mindset, the SJW can view the criminal as a victim.Those with a Biblical mindset see crime as a result of sinful hearts which create selfish desires.

The people around Jesus were eager to blame their problems on social injustices, but Jesus never took the bait. Jesus never pointed an accusing finger to Roman structural injustices or inequality. During Jesus' ministry the Roman governor of Israel, Pontius Pilate, executed a group of Galilean Jews at the temple where he mixed their blood with the blood of the daily sacrifice. Jesus' comment on this sacrilegious atrocity is revealing. Jesus could have taken this event as an opportunity to speak against the pagan injustices of the ruling class which caused suffering among the Jews, but instead Jesus says something shocking to his audience: "Repent, or you too will perish." (Luke 13:3)

The Bible always takes our pointing fingers and turns them toward ourselves. Had Jesus been an actual SJW he would have stoked the hatred that the Jews had for the Romans and would likely have gained many more followers. SJWs can never get to the heart of societal evils because they refuse to believe that these evils stem from the human heart.

Like Jesus, the earliest Christians never blamed an unjust culture for their problems. The epistles could've been filled with all kinds of social commentary lamenting the great injustices and inequality prevalent throughout the Roman Empire, but there is none of that. Yet, the early church accomplished the SJW dream. The early church was diverse, containing many women and slaves, and even people of privilege. The church also included many cultures as it spread into Asia, Africa and Europe. The beginning of the church is marked by a multi-cultural influx at Pentecost as recorded in the book of Acts. Acts also records how the apostles preached to Greeks, Samaritans and an Ethiopian. All of this was accomplished by the gospel, not by social activism.

SJWs sow seeds of resentment which encourage hate: 

The SJW mindset seeks to level the societal playing field. An increasingly diverse American landscape has caused SJWs to see inequality in nearly everything. The idea is that certain groups are privileged and have an unfair head start and this in turn creates an unfair and an unjust society. The onus is on the privileged to "check their privilege." Most SJWs come from a place of privilege and likely feel great shame for having privilege while others do not. They check their privilege as a form of penance and expect others to follow suit.

SJWs will also work hard to convince various groups that they are victims. This gives the SJWs political power and it creates incredible resentment from special interest groups toward those that SJWs label as privileged. The result is to divide various groups of people along racial, gender, ethnic, and religious lines. This creates resentment and the resentment creates hate. Those who are told to "check their privilege" will also become resentful and hateful over the fact that they are being labeled as oppressors and privileged. The hate that SJWs stoke never ends. Someone will always be perceived as having more privilege and in this way the SJW advocates for a continual cycle of resentment and hate.

While the SJW may think that they are fighting for a noble cause they area actually creating a dysfunctional society. The SJW tells the "oppressed" that everyone hates them and this leads them to hate the "oppressors," while the "oppressors" are told that they deserve to be hated. What sort of people will this create?

SJWs promote an entitlement mentality:

Biblical justice is objective, seated in God's perfection. When humans compare themselves to God's high standards we find that we fall short. We're all equally condemned. We are entitled to nothing and we deserve nothing. God does not owe us. For the rich who have been touched by God's grace the proper response is thankfulness and gratitude which will naturally express itself in charity. For the poor who have been touched by God's grace the proper response is to rejoice in one's heavenly reward and to look to the Heavenly Father for daily bread.

The social justice of an SJW is subjective, seated in the individual. With no ultimate standard for morality or justice SJWs are inclined to compare themselves to each other. This causes an entitlement mentality. The rich become proud and arrogant while the poor become jealous and miserable. Injustice becomes synonymous for "not having what my neighbor has." SJWs encourage people to compare themselves to their neighbor while Biblical justice encourages people to compare themselves with God. The former creates resentment, self-promotion and strife while the latter creates humility, repentance and graciousness.

SJWs seek government involvement: 

Some have rightly described SJWs as cultural Marxists. While Marxism dealt with economic inequality, the worldview that SJWs share with Marxism is strikingly similar. If the privileged will not relent then the oppressed must rise up and enforce equality with the heavy-hand of government. Marxism is a failed ideology that has caused more misery, death and economic ruin than any other ideology in the history of human existence.

SJWs might point to the communal nature of the early church to support their social agenda. This community of equality and charity took place in the context of the church and not the government. Jesus and his apostles looked to gospel as the root of social change, never the government.

The solution to the human condition is spiritual and as a result any atheistic-Marxist utopian vision is destined to fail. The SJW can never succeed because they are unable to diagnose or heal the condition of the human heart. They seek legislative solutions through the government. The law will only harden hearts. The gospel is what breaks them.

SJWs seek a worldly solution:

Jesus' beatitudes are a famous set of statements both inside and outside of Christian circles. He calls the poor, persecuted and the hated "blessed." Later in his ministry Jesus describes a poor widow and the poor beggar Lazarus as blessed. Jesus' words to the rich are not very comforting. He says that it is difficult for the rich to get into heaven. For Jesus, spiritual blessings trump earthly blessings. Worldly wealth is to be scorned if it chokes out spiritual riches. The SJW cannot understand this.

When a person follows Christ their focus is heavenward. This sounds backwards to an SJW and they will think that a heavenward focus will detract from taking care of the poor, the earth, etc. This is not true. C.S. Lewis once wrote: "If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this."

A heavenward focus gives us the proper orientation. Imagine trying to walk across a large snow-covered field. On the other side of the field is a light. You keep your eyes fixed on the light and walk until you reach it. The more you focus on the light the straighter your path will be. As soon as you take your focus off the light you veer off course.  If a person travels across the same field but their focus is on their feet rather than the light then they wander aimlessly. The tracks will wind all over the field and the light will never be reached. SJWs seek the light of social justice but they are focused on their feet.

Jesus takes social justice to the next level:

Let's keep our focus on the cross where the greatest injustice occurred. Let's keep our eyes focus on Jesus, the true innocent victim, tortured and terrorized by those desperate to cling to their privilege. Let's keep our eyes focused on Jesus' love, a love so great and so selfless that he didn't just seek justice for others; rather, he sought injustice for himself for the sake of others - others who deserved only punishment. Let it sink in: Jesus sacrificed himself for the unjust. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Jesus does all of this and then gives his followers the most difficult command ever: "Love one another as I have loved you." In the end, Christ doesn't want us to be just. He wants us to be unjust. Unjust by showing love to others who do not deserve it.

The Secular Trojan Horse

I encountered a pro-choice argument that went something like this: "The pro-life position is a religious position and therefore has no role in public debate."

The argument rests on two false premises. The first premise is that the secular world belongs in the public world of facts while the religious world belongs in the private world of opinions and preferences. For the secular humanist, any position that is religiously informed ought to be excluded from public debate. In effect, the opposition can be silenced if its position is framed as religious. It's a clever form of censorship. In the abortion debate you may hear someone say something like, "I personally would never have an abortion (private, religious) but I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with her body. (public, secular)." This sentiment is indicative of someone who has grown up in the secular culture where this false dichotomy is neither questioned nor examined. Many, if not most, Christians have imbibed some form of this postmodern dichotomy.

The other premise (which the first is dependent upon) is the idea that the secular point of view is not religious. I would argue that secular humanists are just as dogmatic and religiously informed as anyone else. The anti-science transgender movement illustrates the religious nature of today's secular humanists. Gender designation is now by faith and not by sight. Nevermind the genitals, beards, testosterone-infused body structures, and DNA. Gender, in the secular world, is now regarded as a subjective taste relegated to personal preference. This smacks of religion.

Consider the secular stress on equality. Equality is a religious belief. Should supporters of human equality not have a public say on the matter since their position is religious? While the Christian has a theological basis for promoting equality the secularist does not. Do the ideas of the secular saint Charles Darwin not imply that certain breeds of the same species might be more likely to survive and are therefore superior to their kin? In order to maintain a belief in equality secular humanists must borrow from the theology of their religious neighbors.

Consider some of the faith-based assumptions in the scientific community. Naturalism, which under-girds the secular-scientific approach, is the idea that everything in the universe can be explained by natural causes. Is that not an item of faith? What about science itself? Is science not built upon the dogma that the universe is ordered and that it is governed by fix laws? Science rests on the assumption that there is law, order, and uniformity in the universe. These assumptions require a leap of faith.

Not only are the pet secular dogmas faith-based but so is the secular reaction to those who challenge their dogmas. Discussion is not permitted and those who waver from secular dogma are branded as haters (heretics). In the secular environment of the university there seems to be an uptick of thought policing and censorship resembling the methodology of witch-hunting inquisitors.

Secular humanists once understood that they preached dogma. Consider the first and second theses of the Humanist Manifesto written in 1933: "First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-creating and not created. Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Interesting. Notice the prominence of the words "religious" and "believe." At least they were honest back then.

That was 1933. Today the semantics have changed. Secular humanism is now sold to the public as the neutral position. This is their Trojan horse. By pretending to not be religious they give themselves the only legitimate voice in the public sphere. The inhabitants of the horse now control the culture, media, higher education and even mainline Christianity.

To see the secular Trojan horse in action consider the history of Princeton University. Princeton was initially a Presbyterian school set up to train students in theological matters. The first professors were ministers. In recent years one of Princeton's more notorious professors, Richard Rorty, candidly said the following,“The goal of education is to help these youth escape the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents…. We are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.” The Princeton Presbyterians allowed the secular Trojan horse into their gates and as a result they have been replaced and pushed out by the likes of Richard Rorty. The same thing has occurred in most American colleges and universities.

There are two things that Christians need to do to protect themselves from the secular Trojan horse. First, we need to unmask the horse. The secularists need to be exposed for what they are: religious adherents, and some could rightly be labeled as fanatic iconoclasts.

Second, we need to stop playing their game and following their rules. Why should secular humanists be allowed the neutral position? Why should they be allowed to push their dogmas in the public world? Why should we allow this secular, postmodern mindset to strip the Christian faith of its objective claims to truth?

Secular humanists are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are bent on consuming the sheep and taking over the pen. Christians have done very little about it. The temptation is to safely hunker down in our pens and ignore the ravishing of the other pens. But when the wolves invade, it will be too late. A couple will sneak into the pen, one will hold the gate open for the other wolves and then the sheep will be gone.

Facebook status: Prayer bombs or F bombs?

A recent study analyzed the status updates of 12,000 religious and non-religious Facebook users from the United States and the United Kingdom. The study performed a differential language assessment or "DLA" indicating which words the religious and non-religious used in their statuses. The vast majority of  those in the religious category identified themselves as Christian. The 75 words that are most common to each group are visualized below. The size of the word indicates how well it correlates with the group while the color indicates its frequency (red is frequent, gray is less frequent).



Wow.

As a whole, I would describe the religious cluster as gracious, thankful, content and happy while the non-religious cluster is angry, bitter, vulgar and critical. The most prominent word in the cluster for the religious is prayer while the most prominent word for the non-religious is f---. Life, love and smile are prominent in the religious cluster while dead, bloody (British respondents?), and sh-- are prominent in the non-religious cluster.

Religious Facebook users were more likely to use plural pronouns: us, we, you, let's and pronouns that referred to other people: you, u, ur, him. The non-religious used more 1st person singular pronouns: I, I've, I'd, I'm, my.  

The religious were more likely to use words that referred to family and friends: mom, father, fam, friends, friendship; while the non-religious used words that referred to media and entertainment: internet, film, episode, album, computer, laptop.

The non-religious were more likely to use descriptive words, adjectives and adverbs while the religious used words that referred to emotional states of being. This seems to indicate that the non-religious tend to be more critical and judgmental in their statuses.

As Christians the proper response to this study is to not pat ourselves on the back or to think we're better than our non-religious neighbors. The Bible teaches us that a thankful heart and gracious words are fruits of the Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit of God our natural default is to be miserable, vulgar, and self-absorbed. As the Apostle Paul said, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature" (Rom 7:18).

Godly attitudes and godly words originate with God as he breathes his Spirit into us through his Word.

When Nineveh Silenced the Skeptics

The Assyrian capital of Nineveh was arguably the greatest city in the world during the 8th century BC, ruling over an empire that stretched from Persia to Sudan.

Nineveh occupies an important place in the Biblical record. God sent his prophet Jonah to Nineveh to call the city to repentance. The prophets Isaiah, Micah, Nahum and Zephaniah ministered during the empire's existence and some of the most important Messianic prophecies were recorded during this time period (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2).  The Assyrians destroyed the northern tribes of Israel and most of Judah. In fact, Jerusalem appears to be the only major city in the Middle East that escaped Assyrian destruction due to God's miraculous intervention. (Isaiah 37:36)

What most people do not know is that up until the last century and a half there was very little evidence for Nineveh's existence outside of the Biblical record. In his Philosophy of History Voltaire wrote that the existence of a large city called Nineveh "does not seem credible," that the existence of a powerful empire like Assyria has "but very little the air of probability," and that "Nineveh was not built...or at least had very little importance during the time of Jonah."

During the 1840s French archaeologist Paul-Emile Botta uncovered the palace of Ashurbanipal II at the Assyrian capital of Nimrud. Meanwhile, English archaeologist Austen Henry Laynard uncovered Sennacherib's palace at the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. These archaeological finds in northern Iraq uncovered a treasure trove of artifacts that silenced the skeptics.

Here's a list of some of the more significant findings:

• Details on the destruction of Samaria and the exile of the northern tribes. (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11)
• The first non-Biblical evidence of King Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1)
• Assyrian king Sennacherib mentions King Hezekiah and admits that rather than taking Jerusalem he left Hezekiah in his city like a "bird in a cage." (2 Kings 18:13-16)
• Large wall reliefs of the destruction of Lachish, Judah's second largest. The ruins of which have been found in Israel. (2 Kings 18:14, 17)
• King Ahab mentioned by name as a member of an anti-Assyrian coalition. 
• A relief depicting the submission of Israel's king, Jehu. 
• The assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37)
• Records that king Manasseh paid tribute and accompanied the Assyrians on a military campaign in Egypt.

(Image: King Jehu submitting to Shalmaneser III)

The discovery of Nineveh and the records of the Assyrian kings teach us that the Bible is historically reliable. Most skeptics I interact with know very little of Biblical and Assyrian history.  Even Christians are content to ignore the historical significance of the Bible. This historical apathy has a way of undercutting the Bible's claim to truth. Christians and skeptics need to know that the Bible has a historical context that can be investigated.  

If the Bible is historically reliable is it reliable in other ways? Is the Bible a reliable book on theology and prophecy? Nineveh's discovery not only supports Biblical history but also Biblical prophecy. The prophet Nahum predicted the fall of the great city. Consider Zephaniah's description of Nineveh's destruction: "He will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, leaving Nineveh utterly desolate and dry as a desert. This is the city of revelry that live in safety. She said to herself, "I am the one! And there is none besides me." What a ruin she has become, a lair for wild beasts! All who pass by her scoff and shake their fists" (Zeph. 2:14, 16).

Had Voltaire heeded Zephaniah's prophecy he would not have been so quick to doubt Nineveh and Assyria's existence. Nineveh was discovered in the exact condition that Zephaniah had prophesied centuries before: "a dry, desolate place...a lair for wild beasts."

Did the discovery of Nineveh make men like Voltaire more open to the truth of Scripture? No, their approach to the Bible has always followed the pattern of "guilty and never to be proven innocent no matter what evidence turns up!" They will continue to cling to their foolish assumptions and inaccurate caricatures of the Bible no matter what archaeology turns up. Their position does not stem from an open mind but from a spiritually rebellious heart. The proper response to such skeptics is to shake the dust from one's feet and to relay the message that they will share the same fate as the defiant and arrogant city of Nineveh.

New Atheism Is Aging Terribly

In the early 2000s the four horsemen of the non-apocalypse charged out of the starting gates to declare war on religion. The four militant atheists included Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and the now-deceased Christopher Hitchens. Others who hopped onto the religion bashing bandwagon included Bill Maher, Dan Barker, Matt Dillahaunty, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss and even Penn & Teller.

What caused such a godless commotion in the early 2000s? Some would argue that 9/11 and a religiously charged political landscape triggered the new atheist movement. Progressives worried that they were being sandwiched in-between fanatical Islam and fanatical fundamentalist Christianity. The LGBT movement also saw a useful ally in the new atheists.

But times, they are a changin'. A theocratic boogeyman has not taken over the White House. We are no where close to the dystopian world of the Handmaid's Tale. The last two presidents have not appeared to be very religious. The LGBT movement is getting its way. College-aged kids now have no recollection of 9/11 and the person who is currently the greatest threat to the United States is a chubby little atheist in North Korea.

What do post-9/11 millennials hate these days? They hate “hate-speech.”  This has become a huge PR problem for the new atheists. I'm not sure when "hate-speech" became a popular phrase but it seems that most secular thinking people are distancing themselves from certain new atheists over incendiary remarks. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Bill Maher have all lost followers due to crude remarks. While harsh criticisms of Christianity seem to be tolerated, a religion like Islam has achieved special-interest status among progressives and criticism of the multi-ethnic religion of Islam is seen as racist. Consider the following interchange between atheist Bill Maher and Hollywood progressive Ben Affleck:

While the new atheists are being silenced on the secular front it seems that they have met their match on the religious front. The new atheist movement breathed new life into Christian apologetics. Christian thinkers met the atheist challenge by not only defending Christianity but by exposing many of the new atheists argument and as untenable and the atheistic worldview as irrational. The new atheist movement took on 2000 years of Christian thought and philosophy and found themselves lacking.

Does this mean that the world is becoming increasingly religious? No, not really. For the Christian, atheism is a mere outlier in the world of unbelief. Just because the secular world is not inherently atheist does not mean that they are inherently Christian.

Trumping Truth

The 1966 cover of Time: IS GOD DEAD? sparked considerable controversy. Fifty years later Time will soon launch a similar cover which asks if TRUTH IS DEAD? The catalyst for the cover: President Trump.

Forget Trump for a moment. Did Time unwittingly connect the death of truth to the death of God? Does eliminating God eliminate any hope for objective truth? Observers have described the last several decades as postmodern. Postmodernism suggests that there is no absolute truth, that truth is relative. Before postmodernism, if I had a truth claim someone may challenge the truthfulness of my claim. In postmodern times, if I have a truth claim someone may challenge the fact that I have a claim to truth! This has been especially true in the realm of religion and morality.

Consider a metaphor from Kurt Vonnegut's postmodern novel, Cat's Cradle. The novel centers around a terrifying man-made substance called "ice-nine" which remains a solid at room temperature. When ice-nine comes into contact with water it turns the property of water into solid ice-nine. Place ice-nine on your tongue and all the liquid in your body freezes. Pour ice-nine into the ocean and all water connected to the ocean would soon become solid wiping out all life on earth.

Was eliminating God the ice-nine that began to erode truth? And why would the relativism of ice-nine end with religion and morality? Would it not eventually spread to any and all truth claims?

Several decades ago, Francis Schaeffer observed that faith, values and morals were sequestered and isolated into the irrational private sphere of non-truth while reason and science were allowed to remain in the rational public sphere of truth. Faith and religion were relegated to the world of relativism while reason and secularism remained in the world of facts and absolutes. Mainline Christian churches fell prey to this mindset as they bought into the idea that religion is subjective and personal, ignoring the fact that the Scriptures make a historical, objective claim to absolute truth.

Schaeffer argued that humans cannot live with a split between the secular and sacred. Humans cannot live like machines. In order to have meaning, humans must make a "leap of faith" from the rational world of secular facts to the irrational world of faith. Failure to make this leap results in a tension that can lead to nihilistic despair.

As humans leap from one sphere to the other the ice-nine of postmodernism infiltrates the secular sphere. Secular subjects like history, logic and science are falling prey to relativism. Secular truth, like sacred truth, is no longer objective but subjective. This means that I get to determine weather or not they are true for me. For example, if someone makes a scientific claim about gender differences and this claim does not fit my preferences then they are oppressing me. In today's postmodern world, claims to absolute truth are now viewed as oppressive power plays.  As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Only Sith's deal with absolutes."

Are you absolutely sure about that Obi Wan?

Enter Sith Lord Trump. The Time article bemoans the fact that Trump doesn't seem concerned about the truth or that he is adjusting reality to fit his subjective and ideological views. Should this surprise anyone? The reason why progressives are so terrified of Trump is that they are now on the receiving end of  their own tactics. The ice-nine of postmodernism has boomeranged back on them. Trump has taken their tools and weapons and is effectively wielding them against the progressive mainstream. For example, after the election many progressives suggested that fake new sites helped Trump win the election. Rather than argue about the fakeness of news sites or their impact on the election Trump took the "fake news" grenade and hurled it back at his critics by calling the mainstream news fake.

Like it or not, we are in a new era where all truth is becoming subjective and as a result power determines truth. Trump is the new King Saul anointed by a reluctant and defeated religious right to wage war against the progressive Philistines. Unlike the religious right, Trump is not afraid to use the weapons of postmodernism.

The secular-progressive monopoly on truth is crumbling and I don't have much sympathy for them. They are the ones that unleashed the ice-nine postmodern  plague of relativism. They should look back at the March 1966 Time magazine cover and consider if that is when this all started.

Humanism, Christianity and Marriage

I once worked at Sicilian restaurant where the chef created culinary masterpieces for his menu. I cringed when a patron decided to change the ingredients. I would return to the kitchen with the special request and the chef would roll his eyes and prepare an imperfect dish. Sometimes he would point down the road and suggest that his costumers go to a fast-food restaurant where they can stuff their faces with whatever they want.

The battle for the definition of marriage rests on a very simple question. "Who's the chef?" Christians view marriage as a dish designed by God, similar to an item on a menu designed by a master chef. To question the form and function of marriage is foolish, arrogant, and an insult to the God who instituted it.

While Christians live under the institution of marriage created by God, humanists throw on the chef's hat and place themselves above it. Humanists deconstruct the chef's dishes and place the ingredients upon a buffet table for their perusal. The end result is fast-food that I can have my way. If a Christian criticizes a humanist's design for marriage the humanist naturally becomes offended and views the Christian as arrogant and rude. "How dare you criticize my tastes. This is a buffet!"

We are no longer living in a Christian context where truth is determined by God. Understanding this will help to keep Christians from committing one of two errors.

Error #1: Christians will try to force God's "menu" on others. This legalistic approach fails because even if you successfully force a menu into people's hands they'll still desire a buffet. Legalism requires the heavy hand of authority or government. Jesus did not try to recruit Pontius Pilate or King Herod and neither should we. Christians must proclaim, offer and defend the truth but we must be careful not to force it.

Error #2 Christians will join others in the buffet to appear relevant. This approach makes Christianity indistinguishable from the rest of the world. Why join a church for more of the same? Over time the menu gets twisted and the remaining Christians become enamored by the buffet. This is the plight of most mainline denominations.

So what's the Christian to do?

The prophet Daniel lived in godless Babylon where he was literally offered a buffet. The Babylonians expected Daniel and his friends to eat food that was forbidden on God's menu. Daniel did not force his food on the Babylonians but he stood firm and refused the Babylonian fare. He challenged his overseer to observe him and his friends, to see what sort of impact his diet would have on him and his friends. Daniel's Babylonian overseer observed Daniel and saw that God's diet had a beneficial effect.

Christians are to treat marriage as an institution authored by God. We can offer it to others but we must not force it. We can be kind and respectful to others but we dare not change who we are or water down God's menu to appear relevant. Let's sit down together and enjoy God's menu. Perhaps someone who is sick of the junk food will observe the benefits of a faithful, God-centered marriage and ask to see a menu.