by Caleb Moore | Jun 13, 2018
A young boy sat in front of a man he believed to be God’s greatest representative on earth. He is visibly nervous as he approaches Pope Francis to ask him a sincere and heartfelt question.
The Pope embraces the boy like a grandfather with a gentle and welcoming presence. This touching moment has been making the rounds on social media, and it’s easy to see why. The young boy asks a question that many of us have wondered about. His dad had died and was an atheist, so the boy wants to know if his dad will be in heaven.
This would be a difficult question for anyone to answer, not because it’s a hard theological question but because it is so deeply personal. After Pope Francis says a few words that seem to be ambiguous but hopeful, he then makes some statements that deserve some consideration.
Pope Francis turns to the crowd and asks, “… with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself?” Those in attendance shouted a resounding “no!” He continues to ask, “Does God abandon His children?” Does God abandon His children when they are good?” Once again they all shouted, “No!”
Several times in answering the boy’s question, the Pope talks about how good the father’s boy must have been because he had his children baptized and because the boy was strong enough to ask such a tough question. At the end, he seems to suggest that God doesn’t abandon His good children. Most people have understood his words to mean that good people go to heaven.
In moments like this, we should always be compassionate, but we should also tell the truth. So the question is, did the Pope tell the little boy the truth? I have read in other interviews and letters written by the Pope where he suggest that as long as people are good, God will not abandon them, which sounds like the way things should work.
I mean, it seems like common sense. Good people go to heaven, and bad people don’t, and if the little boy’s dad was good then he has nothing to worry about.
After all, this is the way we want our world to work – good people get rewarded, and bad people get punished. And for many, this sounds like good news, but may I suggest that it is, in fact, the opposite. The good news that Jesus offers isn’t that being a good person gets you into heaven. What He tells us is that nobody is good, but if we believe in Him we have everlasting life.
The reason I would suggest that what the Pope said is not good news is because it is work based. Almost every faith is work based, which means if we do certain things then we get to go to heaven.
Christianity is unique because it is not based on any work that we can do; it is based upon the work that was done for us.
I think the reason the Popes response strikes a chord with so many is because we all see ourselves fundamentally as good people. Many of us have also lost people who were not believers but were people we would consider morally good.
The question that always comes to my mind when I hear such statements though is, how good does a person have to be?
To the boy who asked the question the Pope mentions that he must have been good because his father had his children baptized. Does this mean if you don’t baptize your children you are not good? If only good people get to heaven then who decides what is good, and is the line clearly drawn between bad and good, so that we can know for certain that we will be saved?
I, for one, think I’m a good person, but I am also aware that I have done and will do bad things. I’m not perfect which means I’m not always good. If I am honest with myself, sometimes I think really bad things about myself and others, and in those moments, would I still be a good person?
For Muslims, there is this invisible scale, and as long as your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, you go to heaven. The problem is you never know where you fall on those scales. You can never know if you have been good enough. This is the problem with any work-based faith; nobody knows what good enough looks like which means there is no security for the believer.
Consider what Paul says in Eph. 2:8-9:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
This means that we are not save by our good works, but we are saved even when we are bad people, so that we can do good works. This is the real good news. As Jesus was dying on the cross, there was a criminal being crucified right next to him. It’s safe to assume he had not been a good person because such a death was reserved only for the worst criminals.
Right before he died he realized who Jesus was and believed in him. Jesus then tells him that “today you will be with me in paradise.” This incredible statement shows us that even though this man who had been bad his whole could still be saved.
If we are saved by our works, Jesus would not have been able to say that to him. If being good saves us, then it would have been too late for that criminal on the cross. The good news is that Jesus saves bad people, of which I am one. By His grace, my sins have been paid for, and I can know for certain that I will be with him when I die.
by Caleb Moore | May 16, 2018
My last two articles have been dealing with the issue of understanding the worldview and arguments used by the LGBTQ community. I never want to address these subjects as though I am giving Christians ammo to go and blast the unbelievers. Instead, my hope is that, by understanding the issue better, you might be more courageous in your love and compassion toward those with an opposing worldview.
The problem we face does not simply lie fully on the shoulders of those with whom we disagree. Perhaps some of the blame falls on us as believers as well.
The church can often be selective in which sins we overlook and which sins we publicly protest. We might be extremely vocal on issues like abortion and gay marriage, yet some tend to give little voice towards sins like gluttony, adultery, greed and envy.
Scripture does not teach that all sins are the same, and I agree that we should be vocal on issues as important as those, but we should also be just as involved in dealing with the sins of adultery, divorce and greed that exist within the church. When we focus all our attention on the sins of the world and not the sins within the pews, the outside world looks at us as hypocrites.
We should not be surprised when lost people act like lost people, but it should convict us when believers act frequently like unbelievers. This is important because, if I am going to be consistent, I must deal with the sin in my life with the same fervor that I address the sins of the world.
I have heard many sermons in my time where atheists or members of the LGBTQ were mocked or used as a punch line. My stomach would sink thinking of what message might be sent to those struggling with these sins if they happened to be sitting among us. Would they feel like the church was a place of grace where they could come and seek counseling or wisdom on an issue if they had already been maligned from the pulpit?
Perhaps, in response to an ever-changing world, we have built little communities that are safe from any conflicting ideas. We have our own music genres, clothing stores, movies and even video games. It’s like we created invisible walls where Christians can live without ever engaging a lost person. If we know our crowd is predominantly Christian it’s easy to get away with making fun of the lost world on a regular basis. This creates an “us versus them” mentality instead of recognizing that they are not the enemy but merely victims of the enemy.
A friend of mine who is a new believer recently went to a woman’s conference where someone spoke of a lesbian she had met in a mocking and graceless way. This confused her because she thought the church was supposed to be a place where the sick found love and truth.
If we truly want to make some ground in helping the LGBTQ community it begins by getting to know them as an individual instead of just as a problem to be shouted down. Be careful of how you joke with your friends on this subject. We wouldn’t make fun of someone struggling with divorce or alcoholism and the same compassion should be shown to those struggling with same sex attraction. Most of the things I know about this community have not come from a book but from deep conversations with those who live that lifestyle.
I have pastored places where gays and lesbians were welcomed with open arms, yet we never had to water down the truth. I had planned for weeks to teach on sexuality one Sunday when a person whom I knew identified as gay walked through the door. I’m thankful I did not feel the need to change my sermon in order to make them feel comfortable. I taught simply what Scripture says, and sometimes that makes people uncomfortable.
I know Scripture makes me uncomfortable whenever it talks about my sin. Yet I tried to hold high the light of truth, grace and hope that is found in Jesus. I shared my own imperfection and struggles and let them know that the only thing that separates my sin from theirs is that I have received grace and forgiveness, and Jesus offers that to everyone regardless of what their past looks like.
To sum this up, I suggest we simply take the words of Paul seriously when he tells us in Ephesians to, “speak the truth in love.” Instead of avoiding those who have that sin in their life, invite them over for dinner. Show them hospitality and compassion, and look for teachable moments where you can share with them the truth and freedom found in Jesus.
by Caleb Moore | Apr 25, 2018
This is the second part of a short series I am doing on the ever-growing issue of LGBTQ rights and how the church can lovingly engage those who have views different than us. Last time I talked about understanding the word “homosexuality” in Scripture. This time I want to look at a much more common objection.
The main idea behind this objection to the Christian view is the belief that people should be able to love whomever they want. A scenario is often put forth involving two same-sex adults involved in a committed and loving relationship. Then the question is asked, “Why would we want to deny them that love?” The saying that gets used is “love is love.”
My concern with this is that nobody really believes that all love is equal and healthy. We understand that some kinds of relationships are, in fact, very unhealthy. The question is not about whether or not we want to keep people from following their dreams; the question is, if certain, things are moral or immoral.
The world approves of many things that the church believes to be immoral (Of course, the church is full of immoral people as well). The church is a hospital, so it’s no surprise that all of us, in one way or another, are still sick.
Regardless of the church being full of immoral people, we still have a standard of morality that we try to live up to. We are not saved by living up to these standards, but our belief is that by living according to the morals of Scripture, we flourish as human beings.
It should be no surprise that the world does not live by biblical standards, and that they have a different view of human flourishing. Non-Christians tend to act like non-Christians. However, an argument can be made that when secular society removed the moral standards found in Scripture, it was replaced with nothing but opinion and subjectivity.
It is this subjectivity that worries me. If you are going to remove moral standards that have been around for thousands of years, then we should be able to test these new standards and see if they have a solid foundation.
The problem is that there is no real foundation at all when you try to argue from their viewpoint. They all have different and, often, contrary ideas as to what it looks like for humanity to flourish.
Since there are no real solid moral boundaries when it comes to this new frontier, anything is theoretically permissible. Love is never really defined on the side of the LGBTQ beyond emotional attraction and relational commitment, and even that latter part is not typically necessary since some believe in open marriages and relationships. So if love is just defined by an emotional or sexual attraction to a person, then that opens the doors for all sorts of things that most would disapprove of, even those who support the LGBTQ.
For example, imagine if two people claimed to be in love who also happened to be related to each other. The church calls this incest, and it’s been illegal for a very long time. Yet what if this couple decided to make the same argument claiming that love is love? Or what if an older man is sexually attracted to younger men? Could he not potentially argue that it was mutual and therefore should be allowed? After all, “love is love.”
Understandably, people often get upset when I bring up this point. They feel as though I am comparing same-sex relationships to pedophilia. I am not. It’s not meant to be an insult, either.
I merely use it because the same people who were at the foundation of creating this new view of sexuality made the very same argument suggesting that these types of relationships were healthy as well.
Take for example a Time magazine interview with Wardell Pomeroy who was the co-author of the original Kinsey report, which was the match that started this whole fire. In this article, he lobbied for the viability of incest and child-adult relationships.
“It is time to admit that incest need not be a perversion or a symptom of mental illness,” he said. “Incest between . . . children and adults . . . can sometimes be beneficial.”
I don’t share this for the mere shock factor of such a statement. I share this because it’s what happens when you take God out of the equation. Those who label anyone who disagrees as evil and full of hate have hijacked this conversation. Yet in my bones I know I do not hate these people. I love them because all people are created in the image of God.
I merely see no need to reject the moral foundation of Scripture and replace it with an ambiguous, subjective and emotion-based system that has no logical means of keeping out things that even the most liberal would be disgusted by. If we are to flourish as a society, we cannot base out morality on mere subjective emotion. Morality is a reflection of God’s character, and He has told us what is healthy and what is destructive.
by Caleb Moore | Apr 12, 2018
I am planning to do several posts on how we as Christians address the rising acceptance and popularity of the non-traditional view of marriage and sexuality. We Christians know that we are in a culture war with the world when it comes to these subjects, but it’s not just outside the church walls these debates are happening anymore. A growing number of Christians feel as though they can be faithful to what Scripture teaches while acknowledging homosexuality as a God-glorifying lifestyle.
Some people make the claim that as long as a couple is in a committed marital relationship the church should not view their same-sex relationship as sinful. Though we tend to assume their only argument, of which I disagree, is merely a cultural one, attempts have been made to justify this position using Scripture. This is done by trying to argue that the word “homosexuality” has been poorly translated.
Critics of the historical Christian view have several verses that cause a fair amount of trouble when it comes to making their case. After all, Paul condemns such a lifestyle in a very direct and clear way in 1 Corinthians 6 when he states, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God” (NET Version).
The objection comes by questioning if the word that gets translated actually means homosexual or if it had another meaning. This is important because it would mean that we have misunderstood and mistranslated the word Paul uses for homosexuality.
The word in question is the Greek word “arsenokoitai,” and it does appear that Paul may have coined this word. We do not find any prior use of this word before he used it. It wasn’t until 1946 that translators used the word “homosexual” to express the meaning of this word, before that words like “sodomites” were used. So the question must be asked what does that word really mean and from where did Paul get it?
I would suggest that it’s not really as confusing of a word as critics would like to claim. There is a very clear and obvious connection to the Old Testament and it makes a strong case for why Paul would use this new word for the first time. First we need to realize that Paul, like Jesus, likely read the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Many Jews could not read Hebrew, but they could read and speak Greek. When Jesus quoted the Old Testament, 90 percent of the time He quoted from the Greek instead of the Hebrew.
Why is this so important? When we read Leviticus in the Greek we notice something very important. Leviticus 18 and 20 both state that a man must not bed with another man in the way that he would lay with his wife. If you were to read it in Greek, there are two words right next to each other. The first word is “arsen”which means man, and the word“koitas”or “koite” which means bed or to lay. This is the Old Testament way of telling us that same-sex relationships are against God’s design.
This shows us that“arsenkoitai is a new word, but it’s obviously a compound of the two words from the Old Testament that referred to homosexuality. Paul spoke and wrote in Greek, so it makes sense that he would combine these two Greek words into one.
We use similar compound words all the time with words like “database” or “matchbox.” We take two words and combine them to simplify matters. There is no other interpretation that is as consistent or obvious as the one I just presented, although many other alternatives have been offered.
Some say that the word was about temple prostitutes, but there are other words that address that offense more accurately. Paul knew that, by using this combination of words, his readers would have their minds taken back to the verses in Leviticus.
It’s easy to understand why some Christians have a difficult time with this. After all, we are called to be loving and compassionate, and that can seem to run contrary to the idea that not all sexual orientations glorify God.
Scripture has been used many times to defend things like slavery and war, but if we examine it closely, we can see that these people had to twist Scripture to justify their ideas rather than letting scripture be their foundation.
by Caleb Moore | Mar 29, 2018
I’m almost scared to call myself an evangelical anymore. Not because of what it should mean but because of what some have tried to make it mean. The term evangelical seems to have more political overtones than religious ones these days.
However, there was a time when its definition was obvious, and to most, a very positive one. It was coined during a time when Christianity was booming all over the United States. People were quick to talk and share their faith with neighbors and friends, and God used that to spread His message of hope and grace in an incredible way.
However, after talking with many Christians on the subject, I am wondering if we should use that term at all. Not because of the political connotations but simply because we don’t seem to be very good at evangelizing.
To be an evangelical used to mean that you were active in evangelizing the lost. It meant you shared your faith with others openly and regularly. When I travel and teach I will often do a quick survey of the audience and ask how many of them have shared their faith at least once with a non-Christian. Usually, I see about a third of the audience raise their hands.
Then I will ask how many share their faith on a regular basis, and a much smaller number of people raise their hands. I know this isn’t the most scientific way to conduct research, but it does match up with a LifeWay Research study that showed 61 percent of Christians don’t share their faith on a regular basis. In fact, some studies show that we are much more likely to criticize than evangelize.
Think about how many people in the past had to share their faith for the message to reach your ears. For thousands of years men, women and children from every background have passed on the knowledge of their salvation to others. It has crossed mountains and oceans and overcome incredible struggles just to land at your feet. I cannot think of a greater tragedy than for that message to travel all those miles and all those years just to stop with me.
There is bright spot, however. It turns out that Millennials are much more likely to share their faith then their parents were. I have been amazed lately at the depth and commitment being shown by the younger generation. In spite of all the challenges that face them and the amount of things that fight for their attention, this generation of students are grasping firmly onto their responsibilities as believers to spread the Gospel.
Although God could grow His church any way He wants, He has chosen to grow it primarily through the love and sacrifice of other Christians. This Easter, invite someone to church, and then go one step further and invite them out for lunch. It is through personal relationships that we encounter the most discipleship.
If you have yet to share your faith this year, begin to pray that God would soften your heart for the lost and open your eyes to opportunities. We can’t just assume it is the job of pastors and church staff to reach the lost. God never blesses us just so we can keep that blessing for ourselves. It truly becomes a blessing when we pass it on to others.