The Super Bowl Half-time Show; Or, God’s Standards Applied To The Twenty-first Century


Apparently there has been some discussion among Christians about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the half time Super Bowl show. I’ll admit, I didn’t watch it. I’d seen the promos, and I had a strong sense that the dance and dress of the artists would cross a line of propriety. I didn’t want to be subject to that. But I didn’t realize others who watched the show were also having discussions along that same line until I was approached by someone asking my opinion.

All this to say, I have been made aware that Christians are not united in our standards of behavior. Some saw no issues at all with the show. Others were offended. Hence, I thought it appropriate to explore the issue of God’s standards once again. The following is an article I wrote in 2015 on the subject.

I have a friend, a godly Christian man, who’s written a series of articles on modesty. His basic premise is, modesty isn’t a static condition; it’s the intention of the heart.

I’m not sure I agree. But I’m not sure I disagree either.

Standards such as modesty do seem to fluctuate. What was modest in one generation will seem positively prehistoric in another. Take the Amish, for instance. By their dress, you’d expect the Bible to have mandated double-breasted, floor-length dresses that don’t use such modern things as buttons and zippers (If the hook and eye was good enough for granny, it’s good enough for me 😉 ).

The point here is this: freezing clothing style at a certain point in history does not insure that it meets God’s standards. After all, there’s mention in the Bible of women covering their faces at certain times. So the Amish aren’t modest according to Biblical standards.

On the other hand, the swim wear of the 1920s would look positively risque in comparison to Amish dress. And yet today, someone at the beach in a ’20s suit would stand out like a sore thumb for the very fact that no one wears that much clothing at the beach these days.

In some senses, then, it seems as if God’s standards need to be applied to our lives today, but that may look different from the application of those same standards by people living a hundred years ago.

I understand this when it comes to clothing. A teenage girl may desire in her heart to be modest, but the shorts she buys which are longer than all her friends’ shorts, might still induce her parents to tell her she can’t be seen outside the house wearing such a revealing outfit.

According to my friend’s standard, the teen with the intent to be modest should be credited with mission accomplished, despite the fact that her parents think her shorts are too revealing. Is the issue how revealing her clothing is or whether or not she’s trying to be alluring by what she wears?

This modesty issue is reflective, I think, of a host of standards God set before His people, starting back with Adam and Eve, but moving from them to the people of Israel. When God gave Moses His law, He said the people were not to commit adultery, and if they did, they were to be put to death. Flash forward to King David who committed adultery and did not give himself up to the death penalty.

Or how about the Keep the Sabbath command. Shortly after the people of Israel agreed to keep the Law, a man slipped out of camp one Sabbath to gather wood. He was discovered, brought before Moses, who in turn went to God, and at God’s direction the man was stoned to death. Yet a few centuries later, God said one of Israel’s problems was that they weren’t keeping the Sabbath any more. Apparently they were breaking the Sabbath with impunity.

The cultural slide away from what God said and initially punished by death, was not OK. It was still God’s standard for His people to keep the Sabbath, but they no longer thought it was so important. And after they returned from exile and instituted Pharisaic Law to insure obedience to God’s standards, there were still people finding ways to skirt the point and purpose of the Law. Jesus, in fact, called out the Pharisees for holding up their tradition as a way to avoid doing what God said they were to do (in that particular case, to honor their parents).

Then there was God’s direction not to make any idols or offer any sacrifices on high places at any altar other than the one altar consecrated for His worship. In fact, when two of the twelve tribes departed for their homes after spending five years fighting to win the promised land, they built an altar beside the Jordan as a witness that they too were worshipers of the LORD God Almighty.

The ten tribes, however, thought they were disobeying God and had built the altar for a place to offer sacrifices. They gathered their fighting men and headed off to do battle with their brothers because they thought they’d broken God’s standard.

Fast forward a couple generations, and everyone was doing what was right in his own eyes, including building altars on high places and creating their own house gods to put in their shrines. Even God’s prophet, Elijah built an altar when he had the showdown with the prophets of Baal.

So when is a standard, a standard? And who is to define words like “modestly” or “keep the Sabbath” or “altar of the LORD”?

Or should we chuck all those discussions? I mean, we are New Testament believers, saved by grace, no longer under the Law.

Except it was Paul who set the standard of modest wear for women in the Church. And it was Jesus who told the Pharisees they should be tithing even their spices, just not at the expense of justice and mercy and faithfulness (see Matt. 23:23).

Later, when believers were selling property to give to the needy, two Christians, Ananias and Sapphira, were struck down for lying about how much money they sold their home for. But we know there are professing Christians today who have not been struck down for lying on their income tax or juggling the books at work or even committing outright fraud.

God seems to start out so strict, but then He lets us go our own way. If we want to stretch the boundaries of modesty, He seems to let us do it. If we want to stretch the boundaries of what it means to worship before His altar, He seemed to let the people of Israel do it. If we want to stretch the boundary of integrity, He seems to let us do it.

Granted, He doesn’t relent in His judgment. Israel went into exile in part because of their Sabbath breaking and idol worshiping.

So do His standards apply to the twenty-first century? They do. Any fudging we do, any accommodation to the culture that nullifies what He’s said, will surely bring us grief. God says what He means and means what He says. But we aren’t always so quick to figure out how that looks in our society today. Especially since so many in our culture have no interest in God’s standards.

Published in: on February 14, 2020 at 5:06 pm  Comments Off on The Super Bowl Half-time Show; Or, God’s Standards Applied To The Twenty-first Century  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Beauty Of The Law


10_Commandments012Some people look at God’s Law in much the same way as they look at sin: it’s outmoded and detrimental. Some go so far as to say Christians ought to follow the law if they truly believe what the Bible says.

Of course that’s a set up—a trap—because they want to charge Christians with cruelty or hypocrisy because of the consequences in connection to some of the decrees listed in the Old Testament. They don’t understand that believers in the work of Christ at the cross have a New Covenant that supersedes the old. They don’t understand the function that the Law now plays in the life of the Christian.

All this to say, not many people expound on the beauty of the Law. But I think we Christians can do so.

Paul refers to the Mosaic Law as a tutor:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)

That alone makes the Law valuable. But beautiful?

I term it beautiful because it creates such clear pictures of greater spiritual truths.

Take for example all the laws that detailed what made the people unclean and what they had to do to become purified. A woman with an “issue of blood” was unclean, as was any thing or any person she touched. A leper was unclean in the same way. Anyone touching a dead person became unclean.

The most notable thing about those who were unclean, as I see it, was that they were cut off from the rest of the people and from worship. They couldn’t participate in the religious celebrations or offer sacrifices. Their condition was a barrier between them and God, between them and other people.

Move ahead in time from the giving of the Law to the life of Christ. He who could speak a word and calm the wind and waves, who could heal by saying, Get up and walk, chose to touch a leper in order to cleanse him. Touch a leper. By all rights, Jesus should have become unclean. Instead, the leper took on Christ’s purity rather than Christ taking on the man’s uncleanness.

A woman who suffered with an issue of blood for twelve years dared to touch … not even Jesus, but the bottom of his garment. She knew by Law she would be rendering Him unclean. Instead, she was healed and her sins forgiven. Jesus? still pure.

When this woman encountered Jesus He was on the way to Jairus’s house. His little girl, a pre-teen, was sick, and while Jesus dealt with the woman in the street, word came that Jairus’s daughter had died. Jesus went anyway, put everyone out except those He hand-picked, and then touched the little girl. He took her hand and commanded her to stand up. She did. Instead of becoming unclean because he touched someone who had died, Jesus brought life and remained clean.

What does this have to do with the beauty of the Law? Because of this litany of commandments, thousands of years later I see and understand Jesus better. I see how He is greater than the Law, how He provided the cleansing demanded by the Law even as He brought healing to those condemned to isolation and separation by the Law.

What a beautiful picture of redemption!

The major part of this post first appeared here under this same title in October 2011.

Published in: on June 29, 2016 at 5:36 pm  Comments Off on The Beauty Of The Law  
Tags: , ,

God’s Standards Applied To The Twenty-first Century


AmishFamilyNiagaraFallsI have a friend, a godly Christian man, who’s written a series of articles on modesty. His basic premise is, modesty isn’t a static condition; it’s the intention of the heart.

I’m not sure I agree. But I’m not sure I disagree either.

Standards such as modesty do seem to fluctuate. What was modest in one generation will seem positively prehistoric in another. Take the Amish, for instance. By their dress, you’d expect the Bible to have mandated double-breasted, floor-length dresses that don’t use such modern things as buttons and zippers (If the hook and eye was good enough for granny, it’s good enough for me).

The point here is this: freezing clothing style at a certain point in history does not insure that it meets God’s standards. After all, there’s mention in the Bible of women covering their faces at certain times. So the Amish aren’t modest according to Biblical standards.

On the other hand, the swim wear of the 1920s would look positively risque in comparison to Amish dress. And yet today, someone at the beach in a ’20s suit would stand out like a sore thumb for the very fact that no one wears that much clothing at the beach these days.

In some senses, then, it seems as if God’s standards need to be applied to our lives today, but that may look different from the application of those same standards by people living a hundred years ago.

I understand this when it comes to clothing. A teenage girl may desire in her heart to be modest, but the shorts she buys which are longer than all her friends’ shorts, might still have her parents telling her she can’t be seen outside the house wearing such a revealing outfit.

According to my friend’s standard, the teen with the intent to be modest should be credited with mission accomplished, despite the fact that her parents think her shorts are too revealing. Is the issue how revealing her clothing is or whether or not she’s trying to be alluring by what she wears?

This modesty issue is reflective, I think, of a host of standards God set before His people, starting back with Adam and Eve, but moving from them to the people of Israel. When God gave Moses His law, He said the people were not to commit adultery, and if they did, they were to be put to death. Flash forward to King David who committed adultery and did not give himself up to the death penalty.

Or how about the Keep the Sabbath command. Shortly after the people of Israel agreed to keep the Law, a man slipped out of camp one Sabbath to gather wood. He was discovered, brought before Moses, who in turn went to God, and at God’s direction the man was stoned to death. Yet a few centuries later, God said one of Israel’s problems was that they weren’t keeping the Sabbath any more. Apparently they were breaking the Sabbath with impunity.

The cultural slide away from what God said and initially punished by death, was not OK. It was still God’s standard for His people to keep the Sabbath, but they no longer thought it was so important. And after they returned from exile and instituted Pharisaic Law to insure obedience to God’s standards, there were still people finding ways to skirt the point and purpose of the Law. Jesus, in fact, called out the Pharisees for holding up their tradition as a way to avoid doing what God said they were to do (in that particular case, to honor their parents).

Then there was God’s direction not to make any idols or offer any sacrifices on high places at any altar other than the one altar consecrated for His worship. In fact, when two of the twelve tribes departed for their homes after spending five years fighting to win the promised land, they built an altar on beside the Jordan as a witness that they too were worshipers of the LORD God Almighty.

The ten tribes, however, thought they were disobeying God and had built the altar for a place to offer sacrifices. They gathered their fighting men and headed off to do battle with their brothers because they thought they’d broken God’s standard.

Fast forward a couple generations, and everyone was doing what was right in his own eyes, including building altars on high places and creating their own house gods to put in their shrines. Even God’s prophet, Elijah built an altar when he had the showdown with the prophets of Baal.

So when is a standard, a standard? And who is to define words like “modestly” or “keep the Sabbath” or “altar of the LORD”?

Or should we chuck all those discussions? I mean, we are New Testament believers, saved by grace, no longer under the law.

Except it was Paul who set the standard of modest wear for women in the Church. And it was Jesus who told the Pharisees they should be tithing even their spices, just not at the expense of justice and mercy and faithfulness (see Matt. 23:23).

Later, when believers were selling property to give to the needy, two Christians, Ananias and Sapphira, were struck down for lying about how much money they sold their home for. But we know there are professing Christians today who have not been struck down for lying on their income tax or juggling the books at work or even committing outright fraud.

God seems to start out so strict, but then He lets us go our own way. If we want to stretch the boundaries of modesty, He seems to let us do it. If we want to stretch the boundaries of what it means to worship before His altar, He seemed to let the people of Israel do it. If we want to stretch the boundary of integrity, He seems to let us do it.

Granted, He doesn’t relent in His judgment. Israel went into exile in part because of their Sabbath breaking and idol worshiping.

So do His standards apply to the twenty-first century? They do. Any fudging we do, any accommodation to the culture that nullifies what He’s said, will surely bring us grief. God says what He means and means what He says. But we aren’t always so quick to figure out how that looks in our society today. Especially since so many in our culture are going in the opposite direction.

Published in: on September 15, 2015 at 6:28 pm  Comments (8)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Unholy Habits


Jeroboam and the golden calfFor some reason, holy habits seem hard to put in place. The unholy ones, not so much.

I’ve been thinking about the unholy habits cultivated by the kings of Judah and Israel, the divided nation that came from a split after Solomon’s death.

In the north, Israel began unholy habits in an intentional way. The king, a man named Jeroboam, was at the forefront of the civil war. He held power tenuously, or so he thought, and was especially fearful that his subjects, should they make their required pilgrimages to the temple of the One True God in Jerusalem, would decide they wanted to rejoin the south. His solution was to build two worship centers in Israel–one in Bethel and one in Dan. In each of those places, he erected a golden calf, assigned priests who were not of the tribe of Levi as God required, and told the people they were to bring their sacrifices to the altars at these high places.

From then on, Scripture records that not a single Israeli king departed from these sinful habits that Jeroboam instituted intentionally. Some of them added their own sins, but even the best of them–Jehu, for example, who got rid of Jezebel and all the Baal worshipers–continued in the ways of Jeroboam.

In Judah, the southern kingdom, the situation was a little different. The unholy habits of those kings seemed to creep in rather than being superimposed by a leader who intentionally and willfully decided to make worship what he thought rather than what God said.

One of the unholy habits was the practice of worshiping God in “high places.” As near as I can tell, these were local altars built on a hill where people sacrificed to the One True God.

However, Mosaic Law said they were to sacrifice only in the place God would designate. For years that meant they were to take their sacrifices to the altar that was part of the Tabernacle–the mobile worship center God had instructed Moses to build there in the wilderness between Egypt and the Promised Land. Later that meant taking their offering to the Temple which Solomon built to replace the Tabernacle.

Such a little thing. I mean, it was more convenient, I’m sure, for people to go to the high place right around the corner rather than making the long journey up to Jerusalem. And yet that habit led to any number of other departures from God’s Law.

This habit of worshiping on high places became so ingrained in the culture that an Assyrian military officer suggested King Hezekiah had turned from God because he had removed the high places. Right in the eyes of this man, was wrong, simply because wrong had become the entrenched, cultural habit for hundreds of years. Never mind what God said about how He wanted people to worship Him.

What today, I wonder, might be the entrenched unholy habits of the Church? There’s really only one way to know. It’s the same way the kings of Judah and Israel were to know.

Part of God’s requirement of each new king was for them to read and copy the Law. I’m pretty sure that rarely happened. Too many kings were completely ignorant of the existence of the Law. King Josiah, for instance, ruled for thirteen years before they found a copy of the Law in the temple. When he read it, he recognized how offended God had to be because His people had wander so far from His plan for them.

I don’t suppose Christians today need to copy Scripture. 😉 I don’t think we’ll find that anywhere in the Bible. It does seem as if reading it and obeying it is in order, however. It’s the only way, I think, to unseat those unholy habits.

Published in: on December 6, 2012 at 5:28 pm  Comments Off on Unholy Habits  
Tags: , , , , , ,

The Beauty Of The Law


Paul refers to the Mosaic Law as a tutor:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)

That alone makes the Law valuable. But beautiful?

I term it beautiful because it creates such clear pictures of greater spiritual truths.

Take for example all the laws that detailed what made the people unclean and what they had to do to become purified. A woman with an “issue of blood” was unclean, as was any thing or any person she touched. A leper was unclean in the same way. Anyone touching a dead person became unclean.

The most notable thing about those who were unclean, as I see it, was that they were cut off from the rest of the people and from worship. They couldn’t participate in the religious celebrations or offer sacrifices. Their condition was a barrier between them and God, between them and other people.

Move ahead in time from the giving of the Law to the life of Christ. He who could speak a word and calm the wind and waves, who could heal by saying, Get up and walk, chose to touch a leper in order to cleanse him. Touch a leper. By all rights, Jesus should have become unclean. Instead, the leper took on Christ’s purity rather than Christ taking on the man’s uncleanness.

A woman who suffered with an issue of blood for twelve years dared to touch … not even Jesus, but the bottom of his garment. She knew by Law she would be rendering Him unclean. Instead, she was healed and her sins forgiven. Jesus? still pure.

When this woman encountered Jesus He was on the way to Jairus’s house. His little girl, a pre-teen, was sick, and while Jesus dealt with the woman in the street, word came that Jairus’s daughter had died. Jesus went anyway, put everyone out except those He hand-picked, and then touched the little girl. He took her hand and commanded her to stand up. She did. Instead of becoming unclean because he touched someone who had died, Jesus brought life and remained clean.

What does this have to do with the beauty of the Law? Because of this litany of commandments, thousands of years later I see and understand Jesus better. I see how He is greater than the Law, how He provided the cleansing demanded by the Law even as He brought healing to those condemned to isolation and separation by the Law.

What a great picture of redemption the Law affords.

Published in: on October 11, 2011 at 6:20 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,