With dismay but not surprise I read the news about Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez making a move to shut down the only independent TV station in his country, RCTV—one that routinely opposes Chavez’s communism and takes a stand for restored freedoms in that South American country. Thousands of protestors took to the streets in a remarkable demonstration for freedom of speech and press, demanding that Chavez restore the license status to the station instead of letting it expire. Even worse, over the weekend military forces swept in and seized the TV station’s equipment before the deadline expiration.

Rhetorical question: Why are military forces need to seize domestic broadcast equipment?

In RCTV’s place Chavez is placing a new station patterned after his brand of communism. It will be one more in the many stations already bowing the head to Chavez’s communist propaganda machine.

Venezuela is not the only communist or former communist country to have media woes with government authorities. Two years ago Ukraine’s State TV journalist bolted against the government and made their own decision to report news in a more fair and balanced way instead of only towing the government line. In Mongolia a small group of protesters lead a temporary take-over of State TV in 2003 demanding the station air more balanced reports about the nation’s political politics after a stunning defeat for the ruling party. When the protesters were breaking down the door to get in the lead anchor went on the air and said that a group of “drunk people” had attacked the station. That same year the Putin government in Russia eliminated the last vestige of independent TV reporting not controlled by the government.

Why is it that totalitarian and socialist regimes insist on controlling media and eliminating free and open debate on the airwaves? Just last week I sat with a Mongolian man who told me, “Mongolian’s don’t like to comment on news stories unless they know all the facts (I guess Mongolians have never heard of “gossip” or “speculation?”), but on your TV you encourage people to comment and discuss the news openly before all the facts might be in. That’s not a Mongolian trait (he claimed). We see that as orchestrated by foreign influence.” Of course such a claim is pure poppycock. Of the hundreds of phone calls we take a day virtually all of them are from Mongolians, screened and placed on the air by Mongolians, discussing Mongolian issues from a variety of Mongolian perspectives. The live calls are so popular that since Eagle TV introduced the practice (originally more than 4 years ago) almost every other station (Mongolian owned and controlled) has duplicated it in one form or another. So the issue isn’t so-called “foreign influence,” rather it is an issue of control.

Totalitarian and socialist regimes tend toward media and speech controls for three important reasons:

Power

Political ideologies that are not founded first upon the idea of human freedom usually ascribe to some form of “management” or “control” of their subjects. In such systems, like communism, the State is the supreme authority and the people attain their rights from the State, granted as a privilege. But free societies take a contrary and more philosophically correct view. They view the collective citizenry as that which gives government its power, and the government exercises that power on behalf of the people for whom it works. Free societies rightly view a government not sanctioned by its people as an illegitimate government.

Arrogance

This may not seem like a “political” analysis, but consider that the whole philosophy from which a totalitarian system springs always, always has at its root the idea that people must be managed or controlled, and that there is a small class who must wield that control for so-called benefit of its citizens. Those same people also decide what those benefits are. Totalitarian and socialist systems are systems that have an innate distrust of its people and thus tend to breed distrust by its own populace.

Indefensible Philosophy

Every totalitarian system ever produced is predicated upon a philosophical system that cannot stand on its own apart from the exercise of oppressive or repressive power. This is true in religious systems as well as political systems. The great political evils of the 20th century—Communism and Nazism—could not be philosophically defended through a free and open exchange of ideas. They failed to win the masses without coercion, control, and murder. Unless deceived or driven by fear, most people will not openly or willingly embrace a repressive ideology. The same is true of Islam of Islamic governments. Even the Islamic world’s freest nation, Turkey, has seen its government make moves to solidify Islam as the State religion while hundreds of thousands stand against the move in protest. Unless deceived or driven by fear, most people will not openly or willingly embrace a repressive ideology. Ironically, it is the arrogant lust for power that prevents the totalitarian from recognizing the indefensibleness of his philosophy. He’s like a guy who has had too much beer. He might feel full, but thinks he can hold down just one more.

A free people tend to support and encourage the free exchange of ideas. But totalitarian rulers and systems predicated upon philosophies of human control (like Communism, Nazism, and Islam), cannot stand in the open light of day when their ideas are debated. Not all free societies have the right ideas, nor are all free people matured in their political notions—that’s human nature. Our political understanding grows just as our understanding of nature grows. But if we start from a philosophy that honors a free market of ideas then we allow those mistakes and immaturities to be explored and improved upon. A political philosophy of repression eliminates the good ideas along with the bad, in favor of that which is even worse, as we are seeing in Venezuela.

I used to think the days of communism were dead. How wrong I was. Communism isn’t dead; it just wrapped itself in a Lite Beer can—same skanky taste, half the calories. Sure. But what does it really do for you other than make you drunk?

It was an editorial in the Los Angeles Times that got my attention this week. The editorial, Just How Crazy are the Dems? profiles a Rasmussen Reports survey indicating that 35% of U.S. democrats believe that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance (intimating that he let it happen or was part of a conspiracy to let it happen); and that 26% of democrats “were not sure” if Bush was involved or not. Put that together and that means that 61% of U.S. democrats subscribe to a view of 9/11 that has nothing to do with reality, or are not even sure about what reality is. What’s going on that fully 1/4th of the American electorate (democrats are about half of the U.S. electorate) subscribe to such bizarre views?

While my purpose today is not to engage in a political commenterry for today’s entry, I think it offers us a look at the symptoms of a dysfunctional society where the basis for making decisions—political, personal, social, etc.—seemed to be divorced from reality.

Okay, so I am going to make this somewhat of a political commenterry mixed with a little biblical insight, but I can do that because #1, it’s my blog, and #2, I want all of my views, thoughts, ideas, and behaviors to be integrated with biblical principles—which goes to my point for today. Stay with me for this…

I’ve been greatly privileged to meet a lot of Christians from all over the world. My family has friends and acquaintance on every continent in the world—we’ve even met people from Antartica from the research station there. How cool is that? (Uh, very.) One of the things that has always interested me is how believers from so many cultures hold so many different views on politics, economics, and freedom. I wrote about this in my book, Faith & Freedom: How the Missionary Principle Facilitates Political Freedom:

Evangelicals in Latin America and other developing areas have been strong proponents of Liberation Theology, guerilla movements, and even Marxist ideologies. These Christian’s faith in Jesus Christ is not being questioned, but their political ideals are not what many well-studied American Christians would view as normative. Why? We all read the same Bible. We all have the same examples from scripture. We all interpret scripture to the same basic conclusions, don’t we?

No, we don’t. In fact, it’s not even close

Evangelicals all over the world hold a variety of views from representative republics, to economic socialism, and even monarchies and dictatorships. Some justify their views from the Bible but many do not, and in fact many divorce their understanding of the scriptures from their political and social views. For such people Christianity is put away in Algore’s lockbox to be accessed only when they feel a need, while the rest of life moves on around it.

The Bible’s idea of life at every level is very different. The Bible requires that a Christian lead what is known as an Integrated Life. This means that the values and truths from the scripture inform and guide a Christian’s life in every area, with no exception. Part of our “job” as believers is to reflect God’s character and will not only in our personal lives and relationships, but in our societies as well. God cannot be God of man if that man does not view God as the God of all the Earth. His supremacy and superiority require and demand that we give him preference and obedience in all things. I think Jerry Falwell, who recently went to Heaven, is an excellent example of this.

Falwell was usually criticized in the media for his more controversial statements, especially where his opposition to homosexual preferences in the law were concerned (strange how something that was once considered a normal view of society is now controversial). But when you take a look at the whole of Jerry Falwell’s life he accomplished some remarkable things and became a catalyst that changed the nature of both American politics in the late 20th century, and the Christian higher education. I won’t spend time to go over the details of his life here, you can do that elsewhere. What is important to note is that Falwell was a man with an Integrated Life. At every turn he integrated his views from the Bible into everything he did. If he discovered later on that his ideas or interpretations were incorrect he changed them to bring them in line with the scriptures. The scriptures were his highest authority and he used the scriptures as his guide, as a preferential model of principles to guide all of his ideas and activities. Sadly, this is not the case with many Christians today who try to keep their faith and their other views in separate compartments.

What’s this have to do with the “unreality” of U.S. democrats who believe George Bush had something to do with 9/11? Everything.

First, my observation is that most people without God tend to lead some kind of an integrated life. Yes, you read that right. Most people who do not subscribe to the Bible’s truth allow their worldview to guide their judgments. Their worldview may be a scattered one, or it may follow a particular philosophy, but they tend to integrate those views—somewhat transparently—into their lives. Christians though seem to have a harder time of it, though I’m not sure why. There are a variety of reasons for this: Sinful rebellion, spiritual immaturity, etc. But I think that part of it probably goes down to people not knowing how to read. By that I mean that some people read the scriptures and “over-spiritualize” things. Or they reinterpret what the writers intended based upon their personal desires or other worldviews instead of letting the scripture speak for itself. Or they don’t know how to interpret the differences between narrative, law, poetry, etc. and thereby make mistakes in judgment about what the scriptures mean in certain instances such as American slave owners in the 1800s who wrongly justified the permissibility of slavery based upon the scriptures. Many Christians look at the Bible like a book of magic or formulas for success. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As an example I think the democrats cited in the aforementioned survey do represent an integrated life—one integrated with a worldview where truth and reality is subjective, and therefore what is real is not necessarily real. A lot of this has to do with the influence of postmodernism (democrats lean heavily toward postmodernism), and the growth of eastern religions which have no objective basis in reality (like Buddhism) as philosophical forces. These all question, and in fact deny the fundamental view that certain things are true or false and cannot ever be anything but true or false since they wrongly perceive reality as flexible or deny reality altogether. In other words, what is real becomes a matter of perception instead of a matter of fact regardless of perception. Therefore democrats can come up with these kinds of ideas because they tend toward a worldview that shuns absolutes and fixed reality. Thus to many democrats Bush can be a 9/11 conspirator while at the same time defending a murderer like Osama Bin Laden as a freedom fighter—and to them it is all perfectly logical and rational.

But what about the Christian who compartmentalizes his faith in one area, his politics in another, and his family in yet another, and so on?

The Christian life requires a full integration of biblical truth into all areas of life. You cannot be a Christian on Sunday and a pagan Monday through Saturday. You can’t cuss up a storm on the weekdays and claim to worship Jesus during the morning service and Sunday School sharing time. Similarly, how can a Christian who claims to uphold the moral values found in the scriptures regard something like abortion as socially acceptable when the scriptures view on murder are crystal clear? How can a Christian claim to uphold the truths of the Bible and yet sleep with a boyfriend or girlfriend and pass it off as okay because “they are in love?” How can a Christian accept homosexual unions in light of Romans 1? How can a Christian claim to love the Lord Jesus but look upon the poor with derision. How can a Christian claim to know the One True God and yet not think twice about lying or acting deceptively?

The answer to all of these is you can’t. If a person claiming to be a Christian has not integrated the admonitions of scripture into his or her life through obedience, or is not in the process of doing so, then they are either not a Christian, or have not yet matured into a fuller understanding of the Bible and Christianity. Or they may just be in plain old-fashioned rebellion to God.

I’ll never forget one of the most powerful sermons ever delivered by my pastor in Arizona. After a session of meaningful music and worship he took to the pulpit with a crowd of nearly 1,000 people looking on and delivered a sermon that was as shocking for some people as it was life changing. With everyone’s attention focused on him, their Bibles at the ready, he looked at the crowd and said, “It is not possible to live in sin and still be a Christian.”

Then he walked off the stage.

That was it, nothing else, no multimedia, no scripture reading, just a single statement and a walk off. For the next 30-45 minutes most attendees sat in their seats stunned. Hardly anyone got up to leave. But that moment marked a turning point in many people’s lives. They realized that they had to integrate their testimony about Jesus and the truth of God’s word into their whole lives. Anything less isn’t Christianity. Anything less is a perversion of what Christianity is supposed to be.

You will notice that in this commenterry that I did not state or imply which political view is the “biblicaly preferred.” I left that out on purpose. By reading this you may think that I view a particular system as the biblical norm or the “only right one.” Such an assumption would be just that, an assumption. For what I really think on the matter you’ll just have to read my book. You will probably be surprised. If you’re an evangelical you’ll probably be very surprised.

The world is filled with competing worldviews based on different “unreal” ideas. Christianity is something different. It is based upon historical events and the historical testimony about Jesus Christ. Christianity is a rational religion and requires a fixation on the real. But if we compartmentalize or divorce our religious ideas from the other parts of our lives, then Christianity becomes worthless to us. Only a life, which integrates the scriptures into every area of our existence, can be truly described as a Christian life.

I’m sitting in my home office, my desk covered with four different Bibles used during my weekly work-at-home day of Bible study development. One of these Bible’s is my wife’s old hardback NIV that the publisher released with the cover mistakenly printed upside down. Gosh, how goofy I would feel using a Bible in church with the cover upside down. People would think I was just playing church if they looked at me. We bought a Bible cover for it to cover its deficiency, otherwise it’s just unusable, isn’t it?

That Bible got soaked in a rainstorm many years ago. Many of its pages are wrinkled and crinkled. I think someone spilled tea on it. There are big brown blotches on a lot of the pages. I use it for reference once in a while, but heavens no; I would never use it in public; it’s a mess.

Then there’s my ESV. I like that translation though I confess I still prefer the NASB. I bought my ESV last year on a trip in the States. It’s got a sleek super-soft cover and feels cool. It’s almost frictionless! Yes, isn’t that what a Bible is all about? Of course the corners are now turned up a bit. Darn it. I like my books in good condition. Don’t you know it’s a sin to open a book more than 90 degrees? What? You fold over your cover ALL THE WAY! You blasphemous pig! You could go to hell for that! What is wrong with you?

That ESV is okay, but the upturned corners really bug me. I’m not anal. No I’m not. I’m not.

No. I’m. Not.

Shut up.

My Big Blue NASB, now that’s my favorite. My mother-in-law gave it to me and I’ve never had a Bible I’ve cherished more. Big text, great margins, good study notes. Nice leather. Best of all it’s heavier than a 50 pound bag of concrete! Perfect for smacking my opponents with in a debate! But heck, it’s starting to look just a little worn. I can’t have that! How can anyone in his right mind use a copy of God’s word that isn’t kept in pristine condition? Isn’t that disrespectful to God? Don’t be dissin’ the word fool!

Suddenly it all comes into perspective for me as I read over a report from our Steppe-by-Steppe team just back from a two-week stint in the countryside showing movies and teaching Bible studies to thousands of attendees. In one community they met a lady who didn’t have a copy of the Bible. But she desperately wanted one.

Desperately.

In the Mongolian countryside it’s not like you can just run down to the local Barnes & Noblebaatar and pick one up. God’s word is rare, to say nothing of being so precious. So one day she walked into a public outhouse to relieve herself, looked down the hole at the muck and the crap and a caught a glimpse of a Bible that someone had thrown down the pit. Immediately she thought that this would be her opportunity to own a Bible for herself. Her long hope to have her own copy of God’s word had been fulfilled.

That old woman crawled down into the muck, and the urine, and the crap, retrieved that Bible, cleaned it off, and it is now her own treasured copy of God’s very word.

I’ve heard and read claims that countryside Mongolians are deeply committed to their Buddhist or Animistic beliefs. Certainly for many that is true. But there is also a deep hunger for something far greater than the shallow and superstitious that is so often peddled here as wisdom. It’s hunger so great that some, like the woman in this story, will go to any length—or any depth—just to have a chance to hold God’s word in their hands. They want God to speak to them, and are willing to do anything, ANYTHING to have a chance for God to speak to them through his word.

Just a chance. ANY depth.

So here I sit looking at my desk and my myriad of Bibles, study books, and reference materials. I still prefer my Big Blue NASB. But honestly, I don’t know that I’d crawl down the bottom of the public toilet to retrieve it. Reading this woman’s story makes me ashamed. Then I realize that for all my 25 years in Christ I often lose the simplicity of being nothing more than so hungry for God’s word that sometimes, just sometimes, nothing else matters.

Nothing. Else. Matters.

Suddenly those crinkled pages and the upside down cover don’t look so bad. You know, they are kind of endearing now that I think about it. The leather corners that are turned up? That’s because it’s been USED. Maybe one day I can get them to point to the sky? My Big Blue? It’s got a few of its own crinkles along with my oily fingerprints mixed with Mongolian dust blowing through the window, but that’s okay. It’s still God’s word, and God’s word is worth every effort, every sacrifice, and even the lowest abasement to attain, cherish, and obey its life changing truth.

My interest was piqued when I read more than a week ago that former child star Kirk Cameron and his ministry partner Ray Comfort were going to debate two atheists on ABC’s Nightline and through ABC’s Internet site. What piqued my interest is what Cameron and Comfort claimed they could do—prove scientifically the existence of God without the Bible and without faith.

I have to confess that when I say my interest was piqued what I mean is that I was kind of shaking my head back and forth saying, “Uh oh, we may be in trouble.”

No offense to Cameron and Comfort; they have a thriving ministry and are reaching a lot of people for Christ. I’m not faulting them in that sense. But there are three things that, personally, I think they should not have engaged in:

• ”Scientific proof,”
• Proof “without faith,” and
• Debating the Rational Response Squad in the first place.

I supposed I really should not say much about the first point of contention. I’m not a scientist yet I possess of number of books on the sciences and creation all authored by some top people in their fields. I’ve used their materials to write articles, and for supportive research. But I’m not a scientist and I wouldn’t claim to prove the existence of God scientifically. Cameron and Comfort are not scientists—not by a long shot. When I watched the opening statement by Comfort online I admit that he had some interesting points, but they were not scientific by any means. His primary reasoning was not scientific, it was analogy. There’s nothing wrong with using analogy to reason with someone, but reasoning by analogy is not scientific anymore than Comfort’s infamous Coke can is beaker. Of course the rebuttal by the Rational Response organization wasn’t scientific either, but that’s not really the point I want to address (their honest or intentional misunderstanding of the Bible was so profound that I’d have to write several articles just to deal with the lunacy that came form their mouths. It’s a pity that people so ignorant of what they are really arguing against hold to it so dogmatically that they insist others intentionally declare themselves damned along with them).

If you want to say you have evidences for God’s existence then go for it. People can judge the rightness or wrongness of your evidences (or judge right or wrongly). But I don’t think it’s a smooth 4-lane highway for a former actor and a preacher to go that route—especially Cameron. Dude, you used to pretend for a living. Don’t pretend to argue scientifically.

The above point is really rather minor, I confess I’ve engaged in my own so-called “scientific” arguments, but I’ve learned by experience not to over-reach beyond my expertise, which is small. I can offer proofs of God’s existence, even proofs made by reputable scientists, but I can’t do it in a methodical way that would be considered respectable or proper in terms of being “scientific.” Maybe I’m nit picking, but hey, that’s me.

The second problem is a big one—ginormous really. I didn’t get to watch the whole of the debate yet since it isn’t fully online, but throughout the opening segments and first portion (and pre-debate) Cameron and Comfort kept saying they could prove God’s existence, “without faith.” Now I know Cameron and Comfort don’t read this website, but guys, if by some isolated remote chance you are reading this, proving God’s existence “without faith” is not only incorrect practically, it’s downright unbiblical. Maybe I’m ranting on semantics since Comfort and Cameron were trying to address a non-believing audience, but consider the following.

Everyone has faith. Comfort said that his proofs were easy to see in nature and thus didn’t require faith, but that’s just not the case. Every argument, every evidence, every kind of persuasion that might be brought to bare in a debate relies upon a statement or act of faith whether you are a radical fringe fundamentalist, a frothing at the mouth atheist, or anything else in between. I exercise faith every morning that I won’t get food poisoning when I poor my Mongolian milk into my cereal bowl (my faith used to be in the wrong milk, now its in the good milk. Lesson learned). Even when I was an agnostic I exercised faith in the perceived fact that religion and the existence or non-existence of God didn’t matter. If I didn’t exercise faith as an agnostic I would have jumped aboard the Gospel bus a whole lot sooner.

Faith is nothing more than a trust that that some thing or some idea is factual and dependable and can therefore be acted upon with a measure of reliability. I do NOT have faith the tissue won’t explode when I blow my nose, so I grab more than one, and fold them over, twice. I DO have faith in projectile boogers.

All weirdness aside, in a single opening statement Cameron and Comfort kept asserting that God’s existence could be proved apart from requiring faith, but went on to note how faith in Christ was required in order to obtain salvation. The second point was completely true and biblical, but prefacing it with the first point sent mixed messages. You don’t need faith to know he exists, but you need faith know him. What does the scripture say? “Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists…” (Hebrews 11:6).

Excellent arguments can be made for the existence of a Creator without using a single reference from the scripture. We call this Natural Revelation. The scripture is a difference kind of revelation we call, Special Revelation. The scripture is the highest authority in creation for the knowledge of God and the practice of our faith—but what does the scripture do? It points to Natural Revelation to make a case for God’s existence (Romans 1:20). Here’s the kicker: Natural Revelation can inform you about God’s existence as a Creator, and even about some of his attributes of immutability and communicability, but Natural Revelation CANNOT tell you WHO God is, how to please him, or anything about the Lord Jesus. Only Special Revelation can do that.

The scripture is very clear on this point. Unless God had revealed himself to man, none would seek him (Romans 3:10-11), and none would know his identity. Knowing God personally required that he proactively reveal himself. If he didn’t do so, then we would all be stumbling in the dark like the Sodom welcoming committee.

Cameron and Comfort should have left aside the whole notion of proving God’s existence “apart from faith” since it sent mixed messages and was just not biblical. Frankly I think their strength is in arguing from God’s word, and nothing can have more of an impact on a human heart that the very word the Holy Spirit wrote. Word of wisdom: Stick to your strengths.

Third, why in the world did Cameron and Comfort debate the Rational Response folks in the first place? If anything, the Rational Response Squad is not rational, it’s sensationalistic. How did they make a name for themselves? By launching an online video project called Blasphemy Challenge designed to recruit people to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Citing the text of scripture that says such a sin will NEVER be forgiven, they urged their visitors who take the challenge and make a video blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I.E., they encouraged people, based upon their faith that the Bible is not true, to take their eternal destiny into their own hands and curse the Spirit of God. As one gal on a video said after unloading on the Spirit, “See ya in hell.”

Sorry babe, you might see me from the back, from far away, from VERY far away, but that’s about it.

Frankly, what the group did was not only a stupid thing to do, but the group is intentionally engaging in sensationalism for their own aggrandizement. Are these the kind of people you want to debate with? Did you see the clod that walked up to the podium to refute Comfort? Dude, its national television; tuck in your shirt. Had Comfort and Cameron simply ignored them then they would not have lowered themselves to the level of argument posed by the two characters on the debate. Especially that gal, Kelly, and her “way more better” proofs that God doesn’t exist.

Way more better? Yes, that’s what you want in a solid debate. Way more better. Is that gal a serious debater or has-been porn star? Seriously.

As far as Cameron and Comfort go I have to give them credit and a little admiration. They stepped into a boxing ring of their own making, put themselves out for everyone to ridicule, took the big risk beyond their abilities and gave it their best shot. I can’t help but admire that especially when their opponents weren’t exactly what I would call classic rationalist. Honestly, that chick Kelly was a buffoon. But the situation is what it is. Pass for fail they put themselves out there, took their lumps, and God love’em, they did more than most Christians will do to defend their faith. So to that I say, “More power to ya,” you are better men than I.

But if I could give them a word of advice, it would be that if you want to do a debate like that again, do it in a setting where you can have more time for rational research and writing like a structured blog debate (such as you might see on theologyonline.com). Heck, I’d be willing to do that. Better yet, let’s get some hardcore scientists on both sides to do a Nightline debate and you’ll really see where the evidence goes.

Had a great time at church this afternoon. In addition to looking at a large number of verses about God’s sovereignty over all creation, and the supremacy of Christ, we had an early dinner together of chilidogs and beans. My poor daughter is keeping her distance from me for the rest of night since I had THREE helpings of beans and two chilidogs. I make chili all the time, though I’m not a hot dog fan. The exception of course: chilidogs.

But that’s not why I’m writing tonight.

Our service time was spent looking through scriptures and discussing how people often perceive the Gospel. We went through so many passages this afternoon that I lost count, but the one in particular stuck out to me: The Parable of the Sower.

Luke 8:4-15 records Jesus’ parable and its meaning so that what he intends us to get from the parable can be clear and unmistaken.

In the past whenever I’ve read this passage I tended to focus on the hearers whom Jesus describes as being good soil. More than anything I want to be good soil, that is, one who hears the word of God and bears the kind of fruit that God intends his word to bring about. Though Jesus does not explain in this passage what “fruit” means, his meaning is actually pretty clear since throughout the Gospels and the New Testament “fruit” is either used to represent the souls won to Christ by Christians, or (and most often) it is a reference to personal character brought about in the Christian through obedience to Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s heart (in John fruit refers to both, but in Matthew, Mark, and Luke fruit refers to character). More importantly for my purposes today I was drawn to Jesus’ use of the description of “thorns” that grew up with the seed (word of God) and choked it. It brings to mind another passage where Jesus referred to “tares” or in the common vernacular, “weeds” in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43.

In each case Jesus applied a different meaning for the “seed.” In the first passage the seed was the word of God. In the second the “good seed” are believers in Christ. In the first passage the word of God grows in the person, but the thorns of life choke it out. In other words, the normal everyday desires of life prevent the seed from taking firm root. In the second passage Jesus describes something different: people who look like Christians as they begin their experience, but who turn out later to have been imposters all along. In both cases Jesus intimates that the normal experiences in life either prevent people from growing in their faith, or are people who never had faith in the first place.

As I listened to the passage this afternoon I thought of people who hear God’s word but instead of giving supremacy in their lives to Jesus Christ, they look upon the Bible and Jesus as solutions to their personal problems or a way to get their desires fulfilled. In other words, they give preference to the thorns rather than the word of God which can produce something greater. They treat the word of God as if its purpose to is to grow up and make the thorns less thorny. They want to keep the thorns and keep what Jesus has also planted. The word of God and the sovereignty of Jesus Christ take a back seat to personal ambitions or desires. Consider also that in the second passage something similar is going on, though more drastic. In the first passage the people who receive the word are those who honestly receive it. They want it. But they still care more about the thorns of life. But in the second parable the people recorded there are deceivers from the very beginning.

The Greek word for “tares” is only used once in the Bible, and it’s in this passage in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43. It’s not a simple weed, but a reference to a very particular plant (zizanion,) known in modern times as a bearded darnel. Darnels are nasty things. They look like wheat as they are beginning to grow. Only later as the plant begins to head is the difference more obvious. Most importantly, darnel seeds are poisonous, causing dizziness and in some cases even death.

It’s no mistake that Jesus used the darnel in his Parable of the Weeds, and the thorns in his Parable of the Sower. For a person with thorns the normal issues of life take precedence over Christ. The object of faith becomes that which faith is thought to deliver: materials blessings, emotional wholeness, and end of suffering, etc. In fact the Bible never promises such things to the Christian (it usually promises the opposite). In the second passage there are those who appear to be children of God, but in fact are mere imitations. They also do not give Christ supremacy; in fact they deny it altogether. They walk the walk for a while, and talk the talk, but in the end they expose themselves for that they truly are: poison at the core. They are designed to perform the same function as thorns—choke out fruit which God intends to raise.

The supremacy of Jesus Christ and the view of the scriptures as our authority for life and practice is critical for a Christian to be a Christian. Christianity is not designed as a solution to our personal problems. The heart of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. When we cede supremacy to Christ the thorns cannot choke out what God intends because we are removing them, and pushing them back that God’s will might be done in us. When we cede supremacy to Christ the poisonous weeds may grow up with us in our midst, but in the end Christ will separate us to himself and the weeds will be left only for burning, much like the land that gave itself for thorns.

What place does Christ occupy in your life? If he is the means to your ends, then chances are he is not occupying the place in your life you thought he was. But if your life is surrendered to Christ (surrender is a military term, as in “unconditional surrender”) then and only then can you find yourself bearing the fruit that he has intended for you to have.