Why You Need to Know

I was listening to something by John Piper the other day and it got me thinking (thanks, Rob, for the URL hookup). So much the more so because it dovetails with the History & Heritage of the Bible course I teach (AKA Manuscript Evidence). So here are my

TOP 10 REASONS WHY YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE IS

Why do we take the stand we do on the King James Bible? Why is it so important to know I have the words of God in the English language?

10. There is a denial of the existence of truth as an absolute standard and final authority
Some in our society deny the existence of truth at all. Certainly people have increasingly moved toward the position that there is no absolute standard to be found and no final authority to be followed outside of themselves and their ability to reason.

9. Secular society criticizes the Bible as a mixture of truth and error
They look at the Bible only as giving us what I would call “morality by mythmaking.” Now, mostly their morals are unzipped and their ethics erased, but they do view the Bible as full of legends that teach us to be loyal to ourselves.

8. When the Bible has been revised in English it has tended to become relativised
Most revisions move us along a line of getting a translation that is more and more contemporary and less and less faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts. So you go from the NASB (a new text) to the NIV (a new translating philosophy). Then you go from the NIV to the TNIV and NIrV, and versions that use inclusive language and are gender-neutral (or maybe they are transgender?), which further relativises the text and makes what has been said subject to our changing society.

Relativism: the idea that the truth of a matter is subject to some other circumstance or situation. It is not an absolute standard, but dependent on some other idea, and so it can change in certain situations.

7. A body of other “holy books” now competes with the Bible
This would include the Qur’an (which with modern immigrants and students, is much closer to us today than it was a few decades ago), and the book of Mormon utilized by the Community of Christ (old RLDS churches) headquartered in Independence.

6. The Bible becomes the basis of disunity when it is viewed skeptically
I would further state, it is the basis of disunity when it is not viewed dispensationally, because rightly dividing the word of truth is what harmonizes the word of truth and resolves the questions and contradictions it contains. But if you view the Bible skeptically, and you question certain portions, then you end up starting your own religious system. This is the historical basis for the heretical movements of the first few centuries of the church. For this reason,

5. Critics are trying to find a “canon” within the canon

The canon (not cannon, which is something you shoot with) is the body of 66 books accepted as Holy Scripture, genuine, inspired and authoritative. Derived from the Greek word kanonicos, it literally means, relating to a rule (or ruler, meaning the norm or standard of measure).

They cannot simply get rid of the Bible, because then they have no job. So what they do is sit in judgment on the canon handed down to us by the priesthood of believers through history, and try to decide (like the “Jesus Seminar”) which sayings in the gospels really belong to the historical Jesus. And then whatever they decide is what they give themselves to as the “real” word of God. Former evangelical Christian, Bart Ehrman (new book, Misquoting Jesus) is another example of this. So is Luke Timothy Johnson. They do not accept all the books of Paul (for example) as really being written by Paul (now where did I lay down my cannon?).

4. Satan makes sure that old heresies are continually recycled as new creative attacks
Just during 2007 we had three major efforts: The Da Vinci Code, the Tomb of Jesus in Talpiot, and The Gospel of Judas.

3. Eternal life hangs in the balance because only the Bible has the words of life, Ps 115:3-4,8; John 6:68

2. If we spend our life following something untrue, we are of all people most miserable, 1 Cor 15:19

1. The Bible claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, truly authoritative, and inerrant—but if we are not certain of the words of truth today, that does not matter

Somebody break out the Bible!

The Emerging Emergent Church

It used to be that the movement called "the emerging church" was so new, so changeable, and so variegated that it was hard to define. I would agree with Mark Driscoll that it has now gelled into three major camps. These "Three R's" provide a rubric we can use to define this phenomenon in contemporary theology.

1. The Relevants
These are pastors and churches that are evangelical but innovative. They are trying to make the church relevant to American society in creative and artistic ways. Into this camp I would put Erwin McManus (Mosaic) and Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz). They are evangelical and for the most part theologically sound, but with an emphasis on contemporary styles of outreach.

2. The Revisionists
These pastors and church leaders are truly “emergent.” Unfortunately, what is emerging is nothing new at all, but the old, theological liberalism and neo-orthodox ideas used to revise evangelical dress. Into this camp I would put the generous Brian McLaren, and also Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids.

Bell drinks at the wells of N.T. Wright for his view of biblical authority (which is to say that the words of the Bible are not authoritative in and of themselves, but somehow God mediates his authority through scripture). Another quirky thing about Anglican Bishop Wright is that he seems to defend substitutionary atonement and yet deny the doctrine of imputation (imputed righteousness and the like). As a matter of fact, he quite redefines justification and righteousness to include a works aspect (“boundary markers” of those who belong to the faith, he calls them). This allows him to defend (from the Bible, in his mind) the Anglican split-personality of being Protestant in doctrine but Catholic in practice (practices like infant baptism). This stuff severely messes-with certain Presbyterian groups in the US.

Wright is most recently in the spotlight for denying the popular notion of heaven and emphasizing the resurrection. Probably he would subscribe to what some call “soul sleep” for the saints. We do not go to heaven when we die. This world will be our home. But, Wright is an evangelical that defends the historical Jesus and the historicity of a literal resurrection against the infidels, so bully for him.

Back to Bell's inhalation of Wright. Again, the Bible is not authoritative, but God is. That’s the old neo-orthodox dodge to avoid having to submit to a final authority. And because of that theological presupposition, Bell expounds scripture from a “trajectoried hermeneutic.” Here, I can break that thing down in 25 words or less. The Bible doesn’t actually teach certain things, but it starts us out, and if you take the trajectory outside the leather covers, then you can wind up at a “post-modern” conclusion and still be correct.

Okay, you missed that so let me make it real. Is homosexuality sin according to the Bible? Not absolutely, if you accept a trajectoried hermeneutic. Because Jesus started us out on a road of tolerance and acceptance in the Sermon on the Mount, and while he was not able to state explicitly that he was okay with it (it would really bust the wig back on those old Pharisees), we can follow the trajectory down to today and explicitly gather that he would condone it now. Admittedly, the Bible doesn’t lead us to that conclusion, but the “trajectory” that started in the Bible does. (Sorry. I know it sounds like a shell game, but sometimes that’s what emerging postmodern theology is.)

Perhaps this also plays into Bell’s penchant for reading the ideas of later rabbinical Judaism anachronistically back into his interpretation of the New Testament. Even though the rabbis got it wrong. Even though Paul says they were blinded. But it’s as good an excuse as any for repainting the Velvet Elvis.

What about McLaren? He drinks not only from Wright, but from radical, clearly un-born-again scholars under the spell of the likes of Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan. This group sometimes trajectories right over neo-orthodoxy and the old liberalism, and goes all the way back to the practices of the monastic orders and the "church fathers." This definitely doesn’t pass the smell test. It seems like all the forty or fifty-something former fundamentalists like McLaren are having an emerging identity crisis.

Two points I can agree with them on. On deconstruction:
A. The world is changing (Duh!)
B. The old methods are not working (Thursday night visitation and the like)
But I disagree with their reconstruction.

3. The new “Reformers”

They are contextual and controversial but confessional (Westminster Confession mostly). They want to put the text in the context of culture. Into this camp I would put Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Their goals: stay biblically faithful and be culturally fruitful. They are a lot like group one, except that McManus is Arminian and Driscoll is Calvinist. Capiche?

Of Bible Readers’ Reading Bibles

My core study and teaching Bible is an Oxford wide margin. This is the one with Brevier Clarendon type that has chapter summaries. There is another version of the King James wide margin Bible by Oxford University Press that does not have a summary at the beginning of each chapter (it is a Brevier Blackface typestyle with a kind of quirky thing in that all the chapters are numbered). The type of text I have is still in print, but high priced.

Wide margin refers to a type of Bible that is printed with lots of space around the sides so you can write your own notes next to the text. In effect, you begin to author your own study Bible.

Dalona bought me this Bible in 1985. It was originally bonded leather and I have since had it rebound. It has so many notes in it, it is my life. Years ago I photocopied the whole thing because I was making a missions trip overseas to a third-world destination, and I wanted to make sure I had it “backed up” in case it did not return with me. But there are a couple of drawbacks to this Bible.

This edition is not printed on thin “india” paper, but a thicker stock. This makes it an enormously thick Bible compared to the edition you can buy today. That is a plus if you make a lot of notes in ink (like with a Pilot or rapidograph pen). But I don’t. I normally use a 0.5mm mechanical pencil with a darker lead (like B, instead of HB or no.2 lead). Secondly, this Bible has chapter summaries but not Ussher’s dates. (No, no. Usher was dating Tamika Foster but cancelled their wedding last summer. Ussher was Archbishop for the Anglican church in Ireland and he worked up a complete biblical chronology back in the mid 1600s.) Plus, some publishers like Cambridge now make wide margins with a sheaf of ruled paper in the back. Would have been nice.

India paper is bleached hemp and rag fibers, making it thin and strong, but with titanium oxide additives it is nearly opaque. It bulks up to 1,100 pages to the inch, making it perfect for slimming Bibles. It is a premium, long-life paper. The name originated in about 1770 from the fact that it imitated fine papers imported from “the Orient.”

Here are a couple of esoteric ideas for the adventurous. The Newberry Study Bible, and the Companion Bible (198 appendices!) of Bullinger. Now that will blow your mind. But then if you have that much information in the margins, why build your own study Bible?

One time I even found the Oxford "hand-size" Bible that was the basis for my wide margin. So for several years I was able to have my wide margin study Bible, and a reading or preaching Bible with the exact same pages, but without the margins. Also, it was printed on india paper, so it was much thinner. I got it from a Canadian source at the time, because Oxford was not selling all versions of their Bibles in the US.

SIDEBAR: If I want to refresh my theology I have another Oxford Bible I “turn to,” an Old Scofield Study Bible Classic Edition. It is the 1917 version of the Scofied Reference notes. They market it as a “$69.99 Value,” but you can get it quite cheaper here.

My favorite Bibles are ones with the softest, most flexible covers. So my current reading Bible is a Nelson UltraSlim reference bound in something called “English Brown Leathersoft™.”

I have an affinity for Bibles with center column references (in this case, 60,000 of them). But if you only wanted a “reading Bible” with no refs, you used to be able to get a Leathersoft™ version without them. (If you like burgundy, B&N is closing some out for a dozen bucks. I assume that both editions will be soon out of print, but a hopeful sign is here)

One word on method. Last year I chose to read from Bibles that were about 1050-1100 pages in length for both testaments. This allows me to read daily until I reach a page that ends in a zero (10,20...1020) and even with a few days that you invariably miss, still get through the Bible three times a year. I don’t have to worry about counting calories, I mean chapters. Just end on a chapter every ten pages and you get through in under 120 days.


The ideal, dream, “reading Bible” for me would be a King James with a buttery-soft cover that was also printed in paragraph format in a modern typeface. I heard about one once but have never located a copy. It was printed by an outfit in England for Queen Elizabeth's jubilee. Let me know if you run across it.

Politics, Pulpit and Patriotism

Two things characterize Baptist philosophy. We would just be normal evangelicals if it were not for these. Ever since Roger Williams and John Clark founded Rhode Island, Baptists have existed (in America) as a separate sect from Protestants because they stood for liberty of conscience and separation of church and state.

SIDEBAR: Rhode Island was also founded by a woman, who was the unauthorized Puritan minister of a dissenting church. Anne Hutchinson held Bible studies for women that eventually attracted men as well. She played a key role in the development of religious freedom in America.

Roger Williams was banished in 1636 from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his religious views (which were Baptist). He did not think it right for the government to punish people for religious infractions. He believed every individual should be free to follow his or her own convictions according to the Bible.

The first idea is that civil magistrates should not act as ecclesiastical authorities—separation of church and state. The second idea is that people must be allowed freedom of opinion on religious matters—soul liberty. These ideas eventually became the foundations of our constitutional guarantees.

Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I saw so many evangelicals criticizing Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Because the same baptistic concepts that protect Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and yes, Dr. Bob Jones and Ian Paisley, also protect him. (Oh, here he goes again, shooting our sacred cows.)

• Dr. Falwell was fined $6,000 in 1987 for using religious funds for political purposes.
• He sold videos that promoted various conspiracy theories related to the President (drug-running, orchestrating murder, etc.).
• He made a big deal about Tinky Winky Teletubby modeling a gay lifestyle because he had a triangle antenna and carried a purse.

• Pat Robertson concurred when Falwell publicly blamed 9-11 on "pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the ACLU, and all those who are trying to secularize America." Asinine rhetoric is not indigenous to Chicago, apparently. (I ain't hating, I'm just stating.)
• Robertson also predicted doomsday by the end of 1982.
• He prophesied a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest for 2006.
• He predicted another terror attack in 2007.
• He prayed publicly asking for "more vacancies on the Supreme Court" (which generally only occur at the death of a judge).
• What America is doing to evangelical Christians he compared to what NAZI Germany did to the Jews (citing the Democratic congress, liberal media, and "homosexuals who want to destroy Christians"). No mention was made of Baptist Fred Phelps, who wants to destroy homosexuals.
• He suggested that, "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom [the State Department] to shake things up."
• And of course, more recently he suggested assassinating Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

• The racism of Bob Jones is well known.

And the really asinine thing (from the evangelical perspective) is that when the above men espouse this philosophy it flies fully in the face of the doctrine of grace they claim to believe. (In 1982 I heard Dr. Ian Paisley pray that God would smite the Reagan government "hip and thigh" for denying him a visa to preach at Bob Jones University—Dr. Bob Jones had already enjoined all the student body to pray that God would smite Secretary of State Alexander Haig "hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs and all there is to him, that he shall destroy him quickly and utterly." Last I looked, Haig was still kicking it.)

We live in the day of God's grace. God does not, therefore, send Katrinas to New Orleanians because of their wickedness (nor AIDS to gays because of their immorality). When persons insinuate that he does, they make God a liar (and become a proponent of an Old Testament-Reformed-Calvinistic-Anti-dispensational theology they claim to eschew). We should be very careful what we blame God for.

In contrast to systems of government that prevailed during Bible times, America was founded on different principles. Two of them are central to the notion of the "Christian nation" we find ourselves in: separation of church and state and freedom of conscience. Both were concepts particularly championed by Baptists.

The great "American experiment" of democracy gave Baptists the freedom and opportunity to shape the type of government we would have according to the ideals of a Radical Reformation. Since Baptists were persecuted throughout history (as anabaptists, dissenters, and other proto-Protestants like Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Albigenses, Paulicians, Bogomils, Petrobrusians, Waldensian churches, etc.), they were insistent on being able to speak and act in "soul liberty." Historical information on Baptistic groups can be found here.

Did they all dip? Mostly. Since they were persecuted they were pacifist. Since they were persecuted by the governments of the lands they lived in they believed in separation of church and state. Since they were always opposed by state-sponsored religious authority, they believed in absolute freedom of conscience under God. That is why Baptist churches are historically independent and autonomous, and subject to congregational rule.

This is why "Gothardism" gives me such a fit. It's the medieval idea of an unbroken "chain of command." And while, in balance, it is biblical, it only works with the assistance of an ungrieved Holy Ghost. Think about that a minute and you will get it. Most Gothardites forget that all human authority is relative authority. Only God's authority is absolute. A husband's authority over his wife is not absolute. A pastor's authority over his parishioners is not absolute. Why? Because Peter insisted on the priority of soul liberty in Acts 4:18-20, and that no authority has the right to tell you to do wrong. There is a higher authority than any earthly authority (whether it be parent, spouse, religious leader or government). That higher authority is God as he speaks to your conscience by the Holy Spirit through the scriptures. How did you miss that, all these years?

So it is that Baptists have always been at the prophetic forefront steering the public conscience. Since many Baptistic groups are pacifist, then this involved criticizing government policy relating to how wars are started and prosecuted.

That is why it was (black) Baptist preachers who were at the forefront of burying Jim Crow. And it was the success of their movement that prevented America from degenerating into a second civil war (sometimes we forget how close we really were, during those months of social insurrection, to what Barry McGuire called the "eve of destruction"). In a participatory democracy, it is the job of good citizens to vote, and it is the job of good preachers to be the conscience of the nation and remind us and our government of where we have fallen short of justice, and what yet needs to be perfected in our union.

The freedom to do so has to be defended as a matter of principle. The very idea of separation of church and state places the church in the position of "loyal opposition" to the state. And as to any given church or pastor, they must be free to speak publicly about public issues according to their conscience.

This is the only thing I ever say of a political nature. This makes us uncomfortable today. Especially when some of those leaders (evangelical and Baptist) make statements that others in the public arena consider asinine (a word the King James crowd borrowed from the Latin and used in common conversation to describe someone who was obstinate like an ass in maintaining a foolish opinion). That being granted, it still contributes positively to the public debate.

So what about the flap over Dr. Wright? When you side with Farakkhan on the origin of the AIDS virus, that is asinine. But no more asinine than other evangelical (and even fundamental and Baptist) church leaders over the years. No more asinine, shall we say, than believing a Catholic conspiracy killed President Kennedy. (Oh, I'm sorry. You missed the History Channel episode that proved Stone was stoned, because it was a lone gunman, and the "magic bullet" fit all the physics after all.)

I have studied "Daddy J's" sermons for several years, even before I knew who Barak Obama was. His remarks have recently been conveyed with absolutely no context. If you were to have asked the late Jerry Falwell, with his strong pro-choice stance, whether, after 1.2 million abortions a year, God looked at America and said "God bless America" or "God damn America," I believe he would have said the latter even before he blinked. Dr. Wright was not making an absolute statement. It had a context, not of abortion, but akin to my example.

Pundits have extrapolated from Dr. Wright's remarks things that were not there. Dr. Wright is no more pro-Palestinian than (for example) prominent evangelical and "Bible Answer Man," Hank Hanegraaff. I did not hear Wright speak negatively of Israel, yet he is being labeled anti-semitic.

One thing the pulpit in America must be absolutely free to do is criticize public policy, otherwise there is no separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is dependent upon pastors and religious leaders being able to speak freely according to their conscience, and even, as a "prophet," to speak truth to power.

Dr. Wright's father was an eminent Baptist pastor. As a shepherd, he took up his congregation's viewpoint in evaluating public policy. Baptist preachers have historically sensitized the moral conscience of the nation and (with St. Peter) maintained the independence of the church over against the institutions of the state.

There is a difference between endorsing a particular candidate from the pulpit and criticizing government policy from the pulpit. The former can endanger a church's tax-exempt status, but the latter must be defended both tooth and nail, especially by Baptists with any self-awareness of their history.

If anything can be said about "Daddy J." it is that he criticizes the Democrats as well as the Republicans, and Clinton as well as Bush (but then, that part of his message was not YouTubed). The really asinine thing is those in the media who benefit from the freedom to air their opinions, yet hypocritically condemn a preacher for airing his. But if you see them limping, it wasn't because God smote them "hip and thigh."

What We Need

He knows what we need: http://awaken2008.com/blog/?p=33

What somebody else says we need :-)
http://www.greg-and-sue.com/2008/03/07/straight-preaching-on-bible-translations/

Are Catholics in a False Cult?

The current candidate flap has it that one of the frontrunners received an endorsement from a fundamentalist: John Hagee. This evangelical San Antonio pastor (of a church of 19,000 members) has a TV show (seen and heard weekly in 99 million homes), places an emphasis on prophecy and support of Israel, and has allegedly referred to the Catholic Church as a “false cult system.” (I don't know why I should use the word “allegedly,” you can watch it on YouTube.) Politics is not my gig, but before you decide what category to put the Catholic Church in, consider this.

BBC News reports that the current Pope, Benedict XVI, is giving plenary indulgences to every Catholic that will visit Lourdes (southwest France) from now till December 8. He says it will lessen their time spent in purgatory.

I am not making this up! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7131088.stm You can redeem this coupon in honor of the 150th anniversary of the Blessed Virgin Mary “allegedly” appearing to a peasant shepherd girl there (sorry, no YouTube for this one).

Conveniently, the Pope has opened direct air service from Rome to Lourdes. What if you still can't go? The Pope assures us that if you pray at any place of worship dedicated to the Madonna of Lourdes (hey, isn't there a “Lady of Lourdes” Catholic church down by Gregory Blvd?) then you can still have your indulgence. Oh wait! That coupon was only good from Feb. 2-11th. It's already expired! Holy crap.

The Pope will take advantage of his own offer when he visits Lourdes in September—although I didn't think Popes needed indulgences. Hmmm.

The decree was signed by American Cardinal J Francis Stafford, who is head of the Apostolic Penitentiary. Holy crap again! As if purgatory wasn’t enough, they have a Penn run by the apostles!

What is an indulgence? Indulgences were made infamous by Martin Luther because they were being sold (instead of gained the old fashioned way—by being earned). To quote the BBC: A plenary indulgence offers full pardon of the temporal punishment (suffering in this life or the next) due to sins already forgiven in confession.

Wait, I’m confused. Already forgiven, yet still being punished for them. Maybe we should consult the Enchiridion of Indulgences (it’s sort of like the Dungeon Master’s Guide for Dungeons & Dragons; or maybe more like the Monster Manual). I think what it really shows is that like a lot of false cult groups (Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, etc.) they use Christian terminology with unbiblical meanings.

Allow me to illustrate that accusation. According to catholic.org, “forgiveness of a sin is separate from punishment for the sin. Through sacramental confession we obtain forgiveness, but we aren’t let off the hook as far as punishment goes.” Whoa, Batman! I believe the Bible would classify that as holy crap.

How does one get an indulgence? Catholic World News (and they should know) says it is when you participate in a mass (where God is cannibalized) and complete certain usual conditions (sacramental Confession, Communion, prayer for the Pope’s intentions, and the absence of attachment to sin. Holy crap, missed it again!). Sometimes partial indulgences are granted just for praying. The standard prayers for the Pope are one Our Father and one Creed—though you’re free to substitute other prayers (just in case you wanted to know). Even making the Sign of the Cross has a partial indulgence attached to it. Don’t ask me what percentage a partial indulgence is, or how much longer you will have to suffer in purgatory if you don’t take the full one or I will send you to the apostle’s prison.

Actually, some pious acts and holy prayer recitations did carry an indication of time like “300 days,” “two years,” “a day after doomsday.” Just kidding on that last one. (This is only on really old prayer cards and books, because they changed the Enchiridion in 1967, since Protestants were calling it a cult system.) So a good Catholic will now only tell you your temporal punishment will be reduced as God sees fit. No guarantees that the coupon is actually worth what you are paying in airfare. (If you read the fine print, their web site says, “it's quite possible that even evidently good people, who seek plenary indulgences regularly, never, in their whole lives, obtain one.” Holy crap!)

Who decides what indulgences to give? The Pope. He decrees them.

What is purgatory then? You're asking good questions. Purgatory is a kind of spiritual waiting room for people who are not good enough to go directly to heaven, but not bad enough to go to hell after they die. Since they have not earned their way in by accumulating enough merit during this life, they must suffer more in order to purify their soul of residual sin.

I know. Fulton Sheen and the Knights of Columbus tell you it’s a doctrine full of comfort for the believing Catholic. Cultic and false? Certainly holy crap.

Life in the Blender

If you could read my mind love
What a tale my thoughts could tell
Just like an old time movie
About a ghost from a wishing well
In a castle dark or a fortress strong
With chains upon my feet
You know that ghost is me
And I will never be set free
As long as I’m a ghost that you can’t see

—Gordon Lightfoot, 1969

There are unseen prisoners in our community. It is the children of dysfunctional families. Like ghosts, they are chained in childrearing nightmares from which they feel they will never get free. And they never will, as long as they are the ghosts that we won't see.

But don’t lose hope. The greater majority of families described in the Bible are just like families today: blended. Parents, singly or with a partner, are raising children from multiple biological relationships. Most families in the Bible were not strong nuclear configurations.

It goes back as to Abraham, the father of the faith. He had numbers of children from three wives. Most of the children were a “second family” raised after Sarah died. But during Sarah’s lifetime he sired a son from her servant. This led to issues later on.

Jacob was married to a cross-eyed lady he didn’t love, but she kept having kids for him. So he loved Rachel, but had sex with Leah. Desperate for children (even if they were adopted), Rachel let Jacob sleep with her servant girl. Afraid that she would lose her lead in the son-birthing competition, Leah did the same with her own handmaid. So now Joseph (the only normal one among the kids) grows up in a household with stepbrothers from multiple women. The oldest brother has an affair with his father's concubine.

As American philosopher Elbert (not L. Ron) Hubbard pointed out, “Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.” Or to say it another way, the difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limitations on genius. Stupid goes forever.

But God is faithful, and the word of God not only addresses these relationships without condemnation, but shows us Bible principles that will redeem them. So when it comes to blended family function we have one word: don’t wreck it, redeem it by reconciliation. Watch!

Use a 3G Strategy
A. Grieve loss
B. Grant forgiveness
C. Get on with life

If you are parenting from the position of the blender remember, relationships with stepchildren develop slowly. And adding the Ex makes life complex. So how do we

Handle-Up on Blended Family Business
1. Carefully and prayerfully pick the person you are going to parent with

Hello somebody! Wake up before you lay down!

2. If you are married to the biological mother or father of some of all of your kids, use Bible principles to make that marriage work

When 25 percent of children are born out of wedlock (as is the case in the Anglo community), that’s a problem of epidemic proportions. When closer to 70 percent are born out of wedlock (as in the African-American community), that’s a pandemic of biblical proportions because it blocks the human and social reservoir of wisdom between generations. It handcuffs kids as soon as they are born. The result is that while more than 1 in 100 Americans is imprisoned right now (1.6 million in Federal lock-up and over 700,000 in local jails), 1 in 36 Hispanic men are, and 1 in 15 black men are incarcerated. So today an average of $1 billion per state is spent on “corrections,” compared with only $11 billion total 20 years ago. All of China, with over 1.3 billion people, only has 1.5 million people in jail. Sounds like “corrections facilities” don’t, and blame must be laid at the foot of the fathers that conceived kids but did not raise them.

3. If you are now in a blended family, view it providentially and perfect it biblically

Endure the hardness, because you are being supported by God’s providence. That means, since God’s providence has eyes, God is on your side, adjusting his actions in response to your reactions. You won’t get that last statement till day after tomorrow, so I'll just go on.

4. Activate God’s providence by prayer (read Isaiah 57:15)

Prayer will enable you to persevere because it allows you to gain perspective.

5. Since love is irresistible, responding like Christ (with meekness and humility) will seal the spirit of your home and set the pace for perfecting your parenting

You are called to be an image-caster in the home. God uses the specific problems you are now facing to call you to Christlikeness, and force you to change. Either get soft or be broken so I can give you

Some Strategies for Success
A. Advance as a team

There is competition and comparison enough. If everybody on your team won’t advance with the team, then you advance with Christ, and the two of you will make a majority.

B. Avoid bashing the step-parent

C. Arrive at negotiated solutions by walking to the center from the extremes

Don’t put yourself out on a limb, paint yourself into a corner, or put yourself on the ropes. Stop making extreme demands or drawing a line in the sand. Don’t insist based on “principle;” just argue for Bible principles. Leave demands and ultimatums to God, because he is the only one who can enforce them.

D. Acknowledge that rules imposed without relationship breed rebellion

Reach your child’s heart before you impose structure. And whatever you do, don’t lose control and go out of control because someone else won’t let you control them. Instead, get in your prayer closet, regain your composure, and do nothing until you have trusted God by faith to show you what to do in the situation that will make you more like Jesus.

E. Appreciate everything until further notice (which will not come until a day after Doomsday)

F. Appeal to your higher authority when they disrespect your authority

Parenting is tough. The difficulties are many. You are not immune to pain. And it is in the midst of your weakness that God desires to make his strength known.