The Bible Nerd Podcast

We’re just off the heels of another Easter season, which should be a favorite time of year for all Christians. I know it is one of mine!

We not only get to celebrate our Savior’s Passion for us, but we are presented with new opportunities to present it in the public arena.

I spent the other day listening to debates, lectures, and Q&A sessions around the Resurrection of Jesus. One such presentation from none other than Dr. Lydia McGrew, one of the smartest and sweetest Christian ladies and philosophers I know, touted a “Maximal Data” approach to arguing for the truthfulness of the New Testament accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

(I mean, I don’t know that many smart, sweet, female Christian philosophers; but I’m proud to know her!)

The first half of her presentation described a variety of approaches to this question, all of which fall under what is commonly called a “minimal facts” approach to presenting this data.

Two leading proponents of such an approach are also two of the leading scholars of the Resurrection in the world, Drs. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.

And while even between them there is slight variation in approach,1 the central idea is this: We can have confidence that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are truthful, even if we only use the data which secular historians will grant.

The motive behind taking such an approach is virtuous, however, as Lydia helpfully noted, I think there are some problems that result in this approach weakening the overall case.

Some of the issues involve a lack of clarity around what many scholars are actually willing to grant about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, too many unnecessary2 concessions to liberal scholarship, a watered-down definition of gospel “reliability,” the need to defend additional information that renders the approach not so “minimal” after all, etc.

For Lydia (and her husband, Tim, who have defended the resurrection together), the strength of the case lies not in how few data points mainstream scholars will grant, but how many data points are well-evidenced.

This is the “maximal data” approach.

A few hallmarks of the approach are:

A succinct presentation. Some object to using this argument because they assume it would take too long in a debate setting. This is not so. For example, as Lydia mentioned, the approach could be presented in a simple trilemma: Either the disciples were deceived, they were mistaken, or they were telling the truth.

Strong reliability. In other words, there’s an emphasis on the reliability of the New Testament documents as giving accurate information. The minimal approach would argue its case in spite of assumed unreliability (even if only for the sake of argument). But why take this approach, since there’s good evidence the documents are reliable?

And it’s not as though the skeptic comes to the table with novel reasons why their objection is sound; they just continue to repeat the internet atheist trope: “But—that argument is in the BIBLE! You can’t use that!”

I know there are multiple ways to deal with this objection; different apologists are going to espouse different routes. But I love how Voddie Baucham puts it. You don’t win a sword fight by explaining the science of metallurgy. You slice the other guy with your sword (in Christian love, of course)!

I see no reason why the statements in the Bible can’t be used to defend the Bible (in the sense of using it as data), even if taken as authoritative and even inspired. It all comes down to a hidden assumption that author bias = contrary-to-actual-fact reporting, and such an assumption would destroy the possibility of ascertaining historical knowledge about ANYONE, not just Jesus." rel="noopener noreferrer">3

The breadth of scholarship. The minimal facts approach often ignores points that only conservative scholars will accept; it even ignores the empty tomb story, which over 75% of all scholars will grant as...

There are multiple references to marriage in the Bible. In fact, many go so far as to say that God invented marriage.

Of course, I agree.

But so many make the mistaking of thinking marriage is more of a constitutional union. In other words, one is married insofar as they have a piece of paper that declares it to be so.

This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it is not the full picture.

Early on in my ministry, I wrote about the true definition of marriage:

Marriage has nothing to do with love, feelings, emotions, judges, preachers, court documents, soulmates, knots, ribbons, or even wedding ceremonies. Marriage is not horizontal; it is vertical. It is a promise first to God and second to your spouse.

The government’s redefinition of marriage allows for union’s of a nature that God never intended to take place. But if marriage is a particular thing, it cannot be redefined willy-nilly.

God says marriage is the union of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime.

Marriage is defined this way for a reason; it is the depiction of another kind of marriage—the marriage between Christ and his bride.

The marriage relationship is used throughout the Bible in a metaphorical sense. The idea is to connect God’s true definition of marriage with the relationship we enter into when we become “in Christ.”

John Eldridge writes in Desire:

God is the source of all masculine power; God is also the fountain of all feminine allure. Come to think of it, he is the wellspring of everything that has ever romanced your heart. The thundering strength of a waterfall, the delicacy of a flower, the stirring capacity of music, the richness of wine. The masculine and the feminine that fill all creation come from the same heart. What we have sought, what we have tasted in part with our earthly lovers, we will come face-to-face with in our True Love.

In other words, the loving marriage you enjoy today is pale in comparison to the Divine Union with have with Christ.

However, it is a similar feeling. A healthy marriage will involve sacrifice, unconditional love, euphoric sexual connection, and implicit trust.

But what about the unhealthy marriage?

Thinking on this theme of marriage in the Bible the other day, it became even more clear to me how destructive sin is.

Let’s be honest: For many of us, “sinning against God” is a bit abstract.

We know what it means, we know it’s bad, and the most attentive of us realize it hurts a person—and I’m not talking about you!

Often times, sin has disastrous consequences for those around us. Particularly the people we love.

But outside of taking another’s life, there is perhaps no sin you can perform against another as grievous as marital infidelity. And in a biblical worldview, it’s no mystery as to why.

The pain caused when you sin against your partner causes a ripple effect throughout your life, but it certainly affects your lover the most. They have entrusted their life to you, and in what may have been nothing more than a momentary lapse of judgment, you have broken that trust.

Of course, this often leads to something worse—an exchange. You exchange the relationship, the love, and the promise for something superficial; a fake; a mirage.

The same exact thing happens when one turns his back on God. The Bible calls this exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25). This grieves the heart of God in a way we can’t understand, but which we can catch a tiny glimpse of in the marriage metaphor.

In the same way marital infidelity (adultery) destroys a marriage, spiritual infidelity (idolatry) destroys your relationship with God.

Sure, it’s possible to make amends. Infidelity does not necessarily lead to divorce; neither does idolatry necessarily lead to apostasy.

But even with that assumption, think of the hurt, pain, and damage that has been done.

Fortunately, there is total reconciliation in Christ. I am thankful that to be “in Christ” means “there is now no more condemnation” (Romans 8:1).

The next time you consider that pet sin, that evil thought you are harboring inside, that malice that grips you when you see a certain person, that allure which comes so easily to our flesh—think about what that sin does against God by framing it in the context of the immediately tangible.

What if it was your wife? Your husband?

Keep that relationship alive and well by following James’ advice: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he wil...

When I first started the podcast (2017!!!) I began with a sharp focus on creationism. Around 50 episodes in, I rebranded to the Steve Schramm Show in order to speak to more broad topics, because I was getting low on time to devote to the ministry and was going to have to stop blogging.

At this time, I am able to keep a consistent schedule blogging each week, and my podcast episodes are usually a more in-depth dive into that blog topic, using it as an outline/manuscript and expanding from there. This seems to be working really well, so I am going to keep doing it. I had really good intentions for that last rebrand, but listenership went down almost immediately (despite subject matter staying the same) and, since nobody knows (or cares! LOL) who I am, it always feels weird promoting “The Steve Schramm Show.”

That said, I am announcing a new rebrand of the podcast today. Again, the subject matter is the same: Creation, theology, apologetics, biblical studies. But I am really passionate these days about helping people become lovers of God’s Word; hence the book I am in the midst of writing.

Again, the material is the same, based on info in my blog posts and other special episodes like interviews, etc. It will be “The Bible Nerd Podcast.” The ever-talented Tiffany Schramm designed the artwork for me!

The logic is threefold:

So I would love your feedback and thoughts! Feel free to email me at [email protected]! Or, you can leave your thoughts in the comments below.

The post It’s Wonderful to Be a Bible Nerd appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

God’s Word is, no doubt, the most influential book that has ever been written—and it was written in Hebrew and Greek—not English.

Even the concept itself is striking. The God who created the universe wants to communicate with us, and used the written word to do it.

It should not come as a shock that much time, money, and effort is given to the process of discovering the accurate reading and understanding of biblical texts.

Of course, those resources are not limited to the discovery of God’s Word, but the availability of it as well. That is, translating and disseminating God’s Word across the nations of the world.

In the Western World, the predominant language is English.

There is a rich history of English tradition when it comes to translations of the Bible. Without a doubt, the King James Bible is the most well-known, longest-standing, and widely disseminated.

Hailing from the time of Shakespeare—a time when many would argue that the English language was at its peak of beauty—even its critics label it a literary masterpiece.

As of today, there are around ~450 different English translations of the Bible.

With the availability of God’s Word in unprecedented abundance, a question is raised in the minds of many Christians today—is it important to study the original languages of the Bible?

Let’s explore that question, by starting with another one.

One of the big questions Christian theologians have wrestled with involves the nature and location of God’s Word.

This concerns the doctrines of inspiration (what the Bible is) and preservation (where the Bible is).

These ideas are related, of course. A Bible that is written but inaccessible to God’s people is not productive for God’s purposes. Thus, we might start with the assumption that if God spoke, we generally have access to what he spoke.

Some see a problem here, though, because with the exception of very few, scholars are in agreement that the locus of God’s Word is the original autographs.

This means that the intended meaning of the text is found only by understanding the intent of the original author of a given portion of Scripture—all of his cultural nuances, his assumptions, and his writing technique must be considered. And that, generally speaking, copies of the work are granted no such status.

If only the original autographs of God’s Word can be considered inspired and, therefore, inerrant and infallible, where does that leave our English translations?1

When the preacher instructs us to open the Bible at worship services throughout the week, what are we really reading?

The field of textual criticism is, well, messy.

That is not to say we cannot learn much from these scholars, nor is it to say that we’ve no hope of understanding the Bible!

It simply means that we cannot pretend as though a perfect, complete, English Bible fell from the sky with instructions on how to infallibly read it.

There is much to consider when you factor what is involved to move a text from the mind of God, through an inspired biblical author, through the pen of translators (both amateur and professional), and into your hands.

Not the least of these considerations is how the message might be transmitted. A flawed view of this process might lead one to believe that God inspired translations as well as the originals.

Why is this flawed? A couple reasons, minimally:

If we agree to the doctrine of a closed canon, there’s no reason to think God would inspire a new version of the text. Some who take this view think that God would do this, citing Paul’s various translations of the Old Testament as proof-positive. The problem is that Paul is regarded by other authors of Scripture to be a divinely appointed author himself; not merely a translator to new audiences. Thus, the analogy does not hold.

Given the over-abundance of manuscript evidence we have for the Bible, a doctrine of preservation that makes use of this evidence seems preferable to one that can only be affirmed by faith. One might say they have faith that God doubly inspired the Bible (that is, inspired a translation as well as the originals). But there’s really no evidence that can be used to prove this.

Part of the problem when sharing your faith with biblical skeptics is that, more often than not, they have little training in biblical theology, which often results in their having a bad theology.

Some of them have plenty of training, but little thoughtfulness. In other words, rather than approaching the Bible charitably, they usually assume the truth of whatever theological narrative fits their narrative.

I’ve seen this in various groups of people:

Those who used to profess to be Christians but have now “deconstructed”

Those who spend lots of time learning about Christianity from atheist YouTubers

Those who are looking for any opportunity to cast a negative light on the God of the Bible

Those who have no intent to be disingenuous, but don’t know any better

Some people may fit all three of the above, some may not fit in those categories at all.

The point is that bad theology persists in these groups and it’s a big, big problem.

Here are just three of the numerous problems bad theology presents.

Both Christians and atheists are often guilty of failing to use good philosophy. Philosophy is the art of making distinctions. The ability to recognize one idea as distinct from another idea, even one that is closely related, is the essence of philosophy.

Now, some argue that philosophy is a subset of theology; some argue the opposite. I’m not speaking to that debate right now. Regardless, failing to use good philosophy is the failure to use good theology. Insofar as you will not make proper distinctions about God, his creation, and how he interacts with it you will end up with bad theology.

How does that lead to killing conversations?

For two or more people to remain in an extended discussion about important ideas, a method of communication will need to be established. This means a few agreements and concessions have to be made throughout. Otherwise, no conversation between two people who fundamentally disagree can be productive.

Here’s a practical example:

Let’s say that Atheist (A) in conversation with Christian (C) takes issue with the fact that Yahweh seems to be a God of warfare. One read through the Book of Joshua would make any 21st-century person living in the West a bit squeamish. We have this idea that the same God who is also “tenderhearted Jesus” would never have commanded the slaughtering of entire people groups.

Leaving aside the fact that the “tenderhearted Jesus” idea is a myth, there is room for lots of theological nuance and discussion around affirming the so-called “conquest narrative” as historical, God-ordained truth.

By the way, I am not rampaging against A here. C may be ignorant of this information as well!

Such details like…

Often, warfare language in the ancient Near East was rife with hyperbole.

The conquests were not against any people group willy-nilly; they were the result of holy war against the giant clans.

Worship of false gods in Canaanite territories was so disgusting and vile that if it were occurring today, many would be mad if God was not intervening!

God actually waited over 400 years before bringing about this judgment (Genesis 15:13-16).

All that to say this: When understood properly in its theological context, there is much more going on that a genocidal cosmic dictator randomly commanding his people to obliterate another over some land.

That’s not at all what is going on here.

Now—either A or C could, of course, choose to disagree with what has been presented above. But they then need to provide arguments and evidence for taking the text another way. Regardless, what they could not do is blindly assert that ethnic genocide is in view.

And often, this is where the conversation stops. A asserts that this is a case of ethnic genocide, and C either (1) doesn’t have a good answer or (2) ends up defending God’s actions, but in a way that basically concedes the point of genocide.

As long as bad theology is proliferated, there is little room for distinction and discussion about ideas like this.

Bad theology not only kills conversations but can be terribly misleading with respect to all sorts of ideas: the nature of God, anthropology, angelology and demonology, etc.

One of the worst examples I’ve seen of this is captured “nicely(?)” in a popular Internet meme. There are different versions of this, so I’ll express it in the terms the good folks at Got Questions did: “God sacrificed himself to himself to save humanity from himself because of a rule he made himself.”

(As an aside, watch Christian philosopher William Lane Craig dismantle a few very popular atheist memes like this one here.)

This week, I’m excited to release this special edition of the podcast, which features an interview between myself and a friend of mine, Aaron Simpkins, on the True Strength Life podcast.

We had a fabulous discussion about the evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

It’s Easter season, and for many of us, this is a time in history unlike any we’ve ever seen. And in a time when many are seeking hope and desperate to find it, I am so thankful that Jesus is who he is and did what he did. He is the hope of the nations.

If you’ve never heard the strong historical evidence in favor of the resurrection before, or, if it’s been a while and you just need a refresher, I think you’ll really enjoy this one.

The post SPECIAL EDITION: Evidence for the Resurrection appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

“The name of the Lord” is a phrase used throughout Scripture by multiple different authors. I wonder if we truly grasp what it really means, though, to call upon his name?

I get the sense that this is one of those ideas that has been cliché in Christian culture, such that its true meaning and/or significance is actually lost among those who are familiar with it.

The author of a popular-level book based on her exciting contribution to the scholarly theological literature, Bearing God’s Name, relayed the following in an interview:

My dissertation was on the command not to take the Lord’s name in vain, which is how most of us read it in English. I was exploring the possibility of not reading it as speech-related. In the history of interpretation, most scholars have assumed that this command has something to do with speech. It’s either prohibiting false oaths or mispronunciation of the name, or the use of God’s name in magic or in cursing. There’s all sorts of speech-related possibilities. I read the command as an injunction not to bear Yahweh’s name in vain—so not to misrepresent him among the nations. So it’s as though Yahweh put his name on his people to claim them as his own, and then he says to them, “You shall not claim to belong to me and go out and live like the pagans.”…The closest passage in the book of Exodus to this command that uses ns with shem (the word “name”) is in the high priestly garments. When the high priestly garments are described, he is actually bearing the names of the 12 tribes on the jewels on his breast piece and on the jewels on his shoulder pieces. And it says, “You shall wear these, and so you shall bear the names of the sons of Israel for a memorial before me in the tabernacle.” So there’s a concrete example there of what it would look like to bear a name. They each have a share in his ministry by having their names all on his person. He represents them before Yahweh, and so we are supposed to represent Yahweh before the nations. And then, of course, the high priest also has the medallion on his forehead that says “wholly belonging to Yahweh” on it.

Remembering that the New Testament has a profoundly Jewish context, it is no surprise to see this theme carry over from the Old Testament, in spite of the decreased usage density.1

There are numerous points of significance to the idea of bearing God’s name, and as we saw above, they go well beyond the concept of ill-speaking.

Much of the time, the phrase “the name of the Lord” in the New Testament is used to denote divine authority in the Person of Christ. Frankly, it was used to identify Jesus as God.

Mark 11:9-11 describes a scene from the so-called Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem:

And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

Although this was not an instance of Jesus claiming divine authority, it reveals the contextual understanding that first-century Jews had of their Messiah. Of course, they ultimately stood in rejection of Jesus as this figure; they did not expect the Cross (1 Corinthians 2:8).

The point is this: The confirmation that Messiah had come was bound up in the notion that he would bear the name of God. He would not merely come speaking the name, but in the name—in other words, as his representative.

To bear God’s name is also a matter of having power. This is, again, because true power is bound up in Yahweh—the God of the Hebrews.

He has all power and all authority in heaven and earth. There is no power more powerful than him. He is all-powerful.

Consider Acts 19:13-17:

Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

The power by which these demons were overcome was that which can only be manifested in the name of the Lord.

In James 5, we see an example of this “name theology” as applied to prayer; specifically, prayer for the sick.

Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick am...

When it comes to reading the Bible, there is no shortage of optional plans, methods, and routines to choose from. But what if your version of reading the Bible is not contributing to your Christian growth, and stunting it instead?

I have little doubt that, growing up, you received advice that sounded something like: Read your Bible cover to cover once per year. Every morning read another few verses. Et cetera.

This always seemed challenging to me. And though I have done it a few times now, somehow, I never quite felt like I did enough.

There was always one more day to go, and it really felt more like a chore to slog through than it should have.

These days, I’m becoming less and less convinced that this advice was sound.

Reading the Bible straight through with the goal of completing in one year has a few liabilities:

As mentioned above, it can feel like a chore.

The Bible is not written to be read straight through.

It can be difficult to make important textual connections when reading the Bible linearly.

I recently came across a helpful piece of advice from Sean McDowell, which admittedly served as the impetus for writing this piece. Questioning whether quantity should be our goal, Sean asks:

But why should that be our goal? Why should our Scripture reading be about how much we read? There is undoubtedly value in daily Scripture reading. My point is not to minimize this important discipline. But honestly, how much do people really retain after the “Bible in a year plan”? My suspicion is that it may be less than we think.

Sean is really on to something here.

There is a glaring lack of depth to the biblical literacy of most Christians today, sad to say. It doesn’t take much to realize this.

And yet, many Christians that I’ve known seem to have a daily Bible reading habit! Why the disconnect? What is the problem?

I think the problem is a wrongheaded idea of the goal behind reading the Bible daily.

The Bible is God’s special revelation to mankind. In it, we learn truths about the nature of God, the nature of reality, and the nature of our ultimate destiny.

Quite literally, it is the single most important collection of literature on the planet. Its creation was the result of divinely superintended production and preservation. There is nothing like it.

The goal of reading the Bible, then, is to know the Divine Speaker behind it.

And the problem is that merely reading it has quite a casual connotation. It is something that requires a much deeper and much closer inspection. It needs to be studied. Its depths need to be plumbed.

Now, I’m not necessarily saying a casual read-through is uncalled for. Sean puts it nicely:

If the goal is primarily to get through the Bible [in a] year, then this is a great plan.

But he’s absolutely correct to question whether that should always be the goal. Perhaps that is the goal for your family Bible time, for example.

Personally, though, I cannot tell you how many times I’ve received almost supernatural insight from carefully considering just one or two verses over and above a mechanical read-through.

Embracing an attitude of study and reflection may serve us better than a robotic commitment to reading. I say this for a few reasons:

Studying allows for connections to be made. There are no accidentals or incidentals in the Bible. If it’s there, it was placed there for a purpose. Even if the purpose seems small! By the way, many things that sound “strange” to our ears often get glossed over. I have found that if I dig deeper into those strange stories or motifs, I learn more than I could have imagined possible.

Studying forces a commitment to critical thinking. This one might seem strange, but it seems to me that if one takes the time to carefully approach the Bible in its context, according to the appropriate literary genre, historical setting, etc., it will force one to slow down and think more carefully and critically. This is because natural questions will arise that beg for the student to answer them.

Times are hard, and getting harder. My brothers and sisters here in the West seem to know little of the persecution that happens to Christians worldwide. There will come a day when ownership of God’s Word is a dangerous privilege, rather th...

While reading the response to a question on Quora a while back, another user’s question caught my eye. What makes having kids worth it?, the questioner asked.

My first inclination was to think, what kind of question is that?! But as I thought deeper, it became clear that this question is quite revealing about the current state of our culture.

In our world, kids are treated as though they are an inconvenience. They are an “add-on” that some parents find nice to have, and others would rather not.

Some Christian parents have children merely because of cultural compulsion, but treat them and discipline them according to their own convenience. Dr. Tedd Trip explains:

Some parents have no noble goal at all; they simply want to control their children. These parents want their children to mind, to behave, to be good, to be nice. They remind their children of how things were when they were youngsters. Frequently they employ the “tried and true” methods of discipline—whatever their parents did that seemed to work. They want children who are manageable. They want them to do the right thing (whatever that is at the moment). The bottom line is to control their kids. But the control is not directed toward specific character development objectives. The concern is personal convenience and public appearance. (Tripp, Shepherding a Child’s Heart)

The kids are okay to keep around, as long as they do their part to make the family look good and don’t cause too much trouble.

Sadly, if we’re honest, we all fall into this trap at one time or another. None of us are perfect parents.

So, what is the core of the problem? I think it’s a failure to understand why we have children. This idea was captured beautifully in a 2017 blog post by my friend, Lindsay Harold. It’s short enough to include here in its entirety:

The number one reason Christian couples do not want children (or want very few children) is because they do not understand the purpose of children according to the Bible.

Our culture tells us children are for self-actualization. They’re what you have when you’re settled, financially secure, and need something to care for in order to give you purpose and also increase your social status or to make you feel good about yourself. But if children are for self-actualization, then you wouldn’t want to have one when it might be difficult or get in the way of other types of self-actualization like having money for vacations or a big house or having freedom to travel or having time to yourself now and then. You certainly wouldn’t need very many of them. A single child or maybe two is plenty and having more than that would result in diminishing returns or even negative returns as the workload and expense from multiple children mounts and people start to look at you funny due to your excessive procreation.

Because of this view of children, they are often seen as burdens when they cause us stress or expense or limit our freedom, but also as commodities to be obtained when we want one. People obtain children by surrogacy or sperm donation or IVF because they feel entitled to have one as part of their pursuit of self-actualization. Their life feels incomplete without a child, so they deserve to have one by any means necessary. So even when children are wanted, it is often for selfish reasons of the parents, not because they understand the purpose of children. And when children show up when they aren’t wanted, they are seen as invaders or parasites and discarded through abortion or neglected. It’s all part of the same false view of children as a means to the end of parental happiness

Even in Christian circles, we repeat the mantra that children are a blessing, but we don’t always understand what that means. We adopt the culture’s attitude, but Christianize it. So we’re still thinking that children being a blessing means a blessing to us. When you’ve got a crying baby at 2:00am or you’re sitting in the emergency room with your child after they took a flying leap and broke a bone or you’re dealing with a difficult teenager or you’re doing your 4th load of laundry for the day and your toddler wets their pants yet again, there are a lot of things on your mind, but “This is such a blessing” is probably not one of them. Children are a lot of work and a lot of expense and even a lot of heartache at times.

So what does the Bible mean when it says children are a blessing? Yes, they are certainly a blessing to their parents in many ways, but it’s much more than that. Children are meant to be a blessing to the whole world. Even from an earthly perspective, a child is a future worker, innovator, consumer, and contributor to society in many ways. We need children to keep the economy and our culture thriving and to pass it on to the next generation. Having a child is an investment in the future, not just for ourselves, but for the world. More importantly, a child raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is a light in a dark world, to lead others to Jesus and influence their culture for Christ. A child is a legacy to pass down a heritage of serving Christ to future generations. And perhaps most importantly, a child is an immortal soul who will live forever and is meant to praise and worship God and bring glory to our Creator.

The purpose for children is not self-actualization of their parents. Children don’t exist to make their parents feel good about themselves (which is good, because they don’t always do that). Children exist to know and serve God and to be used by Him to change the world, or at least their corner of it. Having children and raising them, for a Christian, is a way of helping to bring the world into subjection to Christ and bringing more people to heaven. It’s not about the parents and what makes them happy. It’s about fulfilling God’s plan.

Every Christian, whether they know it or not, is on a mission to serve God. Having children is an important way of doing that because they’re a way to multiply the impact and take that impact down through the years. Even for those who can’t have biological children of their own, children are still important and we are all...

For Christmas, I received an awesome Zox wristband.

(By the way, these things rock, and each purchase provides a YEAR of clean water to someone living in need.)

One side of the wristband has a neat wood/orange pattern. The other side says, “Against the Grain.”

As I looked down at that wristband one day, it occurred to me that, as Christians, this is exactly what we ought to do.

Unfortunately, we live in a world of identity politics. The way you are treated by those wishing to promote this system is not based on ideology and ultimate truth, but on skin color, socio-economic status, etc.

The dangers of such an idea cannot be understated. Why? Because all are one in Christ. That is, there are really only two groups of people in the world: Saved, and unsaved. You believe in God and honor him as Lord, or you don’t.

Here’s Dictionary.com on “going against the grain” for those unfamiliar with the metaphor:

To go contrary to someone’s natural disposition: “Having to get up this early in the morning really goes against my grain.” This refers to the fact that someone who rubs his hand against the grain on a piece of lumber will get splinters.

So then, as Christ-followers, what is the “grain” we ought to go against? What should we resist in order to be like Christ?

A constant theme throughout the Scriptures involves the uncomfortable doctrine of separation. What’s meant is not a sort of isolationism, though; we are Christ’s hands and feet in the world!

What’s meant is a separation of ideology.

There is something different about us. Not because we’re better, but because we’re forgiven! We’ve all heard it before: “The ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Each one of us has the opportunity for redemption. God is just, and will see to it that any who would accept his free gift of salvation have the opportunity.

When we place our highest priority in the material things of the world, we betray the life Christ has called us to (Romans 12:1-2).

Ideas matter, and most often, our ideas run contrary to those around us. Tempting as it may be to give in, we must stand strong for the gospel and be a light in this dark world—at whatever cost.

It’s no accident that, wherever we see an implosion of culture, the grain of sex has become god.

Many (rightly) refer to this as “the religion of sex.”

Unfortunately, those in positions of Christian leadership fall just as guilty. In recent days I’ve learned of sexual predators in the pulpits of influential churches, as well as folks pining for governmental leadership who claim to be Christian yet reject biblical teaching about sexuality.

Sex is a good thing, but many have distorted it to the point that it controls every decision. In Romans 1, we see the abuse of sexuality as a judgment of God, and the natural outworking of rejecting the knowledge of him.

As influencers for Christ (whether or not you have a “platform” to stand on), we must remain vigilant, watchful, and prayerful that we do not fall into sin in the grain of sex.

The grain of self is ultimately the root of all issues: pride.

A familiar verse, Proverbs 16:18, says, “Pride goeth before destruction, And an haughty spirit before a fall.”

The problem that plagues all humanity is a desire to become god, deciding good and evil for ourselves.

Only by means of divine rescue can we escape the grasp of such a motive. Ultimately, as long as we’re serving self, we cannot really serve God. Our motives will always be impure.

In John 5:30 Jesus declares,

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

How amazing what we seek to accomplish by ourselves and for ourselves, yet Christ, our example—God in the flesh—was bound and determined to do only the will of the Father.

Ultimately, then, the path to destruction is lined with those going with the grain. It’s easy to go along with the world into destruction; the allure is great, the immediate rewards are often pleasing, and the promise of grandeur is everywhere.

But the path to righteousness, the narrow path, is lined by those who, like Jesus, decide to go against the grain of society, sex, and self.

The post Don’t Be Afraid to Go Against the Grain—That’s What Jesus Did appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.