Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 5:6-11

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.  - Romans 5:6-11 (ESV)

1. How God showed His love
It is noble to die for someone who loves you back. But God died for us when we did not love Him. We were his sworn enemies.
If you had a sworn enemy, how would you treat them? How did God treat his enemies? He died for us.
It isn't just Christ who loved us, as if the Father is wrathful and the Son is loving. GOD shows his love for us in that...Christ died for us.

2. How God continues to show His love.
We are not drawn to be friends with a judge.  God is not only a judge.
I am reconciled to God. The cross stands as proof that God loves me. There is no longer anything to fear.
Now we can boast (rejoice) in our relationship with Him!
He killed Jesus, not me.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 5:3-5

"Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Romans 5:3-5 (ESV)

Why do we suffer? If we have peace with God, why does life feel like war?

1. How are we to face suffering?
It is a lie that Christians are not supposed to suffer. It is not for lack of faith that you are suffering.
Christians: Suffering is not proof that God is against you. It is proof that God is working in you.
Rejoicing in our suffering seems outrageous.

2. Why are we to boast in suffering?
Suffering is the way God works in our lives. He transforms the weak into the steadfast, through endurance of suffering. Suffering always produces something better in Christians.
Mature Christians have character, strength, and hope.

3. Is that all our suffering does?
No. We know that God loves us because He gives us Himself in the midst of suffering. Not only did Christ die for us, but also the Spirit lives within us. We have right now a never ending forever flowing stream of love from God. He's not just working in us to build something - He loves us.  Suffering is the sign of His work. The Spirit is the sign of His love.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 3:27-31

1. Why warn us against boasting?

Read the Bible like a 3 year old. Ask lots of questions. And then ask more.
Why go from justification to a warning against boasting? Because we are apt to be proud of what we have even though it has all been given to us. Even Christians can be proud of who we are before God. It is not a danger, it is THE danger.
The justified need to work to be humble. Humility is a discipline, not a gift. Humility is the discipline of self-forgetfulness.

2. Why is boasting dangerous?

When Christ died for us, He shut out God's wrath. Now we must shut out our pride. 
Faith and pride are opposed to one another. Faith points to Jesus, not to me. Faith is only real when it is faith IN something -- faith IN Christ. Pride is trusting yourself more than Jesus. Pride derives power and worth from self. Faith derives power and worth from God.
Children are humble. Jesus said to become like them.
Boasting is dangerous because it is singing the praises of self. It is antithetical to a life of faith.

3. How can we work to be humble?
Boasting gets muted when we remember what justification by faith means.
Remember what God has done for us. God hasn't promised material possessions or earthly happiness. He has promised to keep those who are His for eternity! God has given us way more than we can imagine. We have the righteousness of Christ!
The flip side of boasting is complaining. Pride boasts when we have and complains when we have not.
Remember God and forget about self.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 3:21-26

This is called the most significant paragraph ever written.

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." - Romans 3:21-26 (ESV)

Everyone is wicked. And God is very angry at them. How does this get resolved? Righteousness.

1. What is righteousness?
It is what is right and good and just. God's righteousness is his absolute rightness, goodness, and justice. God is morally perfect and perpetually does the right thing at the right time for the right reason. He is the only righteous one.

2. Why does righteousness matter?
Mankind is unrighteous in action and essence. Even the best of mankind fall woefully short, compared to God. All fall short of the glory of God.  So God is angry. He must punish all unrighteousness.

3. How do you get righteousness?
There is no way apart from God to get the righteousness of God. Jesus is God become man to make a way. He died for the unrighteous. By means of faith, He gets our punishment, and we get His righteousness. How is this fair? It's not. God is merciful.

If we just got His righteousness, God's character would be comprimised because His wrath would not be satisfied. Jesus had to take our unrighteousness so that God could pour out His wrath on Jesus on the cross. He is both righteous and the one who makes us righteous (just and the justifier).

Effect of the Gospel for the Christian: confidence in the righteousness we have been given. We are just as likely to be expelled from the presence of God as Jesus in all His perfection!

Falling asleep while eating a hamburger (+more Judah)

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 3:9-20

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;  no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”   “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.”   “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”   “Their feet are swift to shed blood;  in their paths are ruin and misery,  and the way of peace they have not known.”   “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”  Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:9-20 (ESV)

1. Everyone, everywhere, without exception, stands guilty before God.
Verses 10-18 are a song of mourning. God is mourning over the sinful deadness of mankind.
The sin of all sins: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." To fear God is to live like He is real, He matters most, He knows all, and He does what is right. Without the fear of God, we live as if each of us is our own god.

All are culpable.

2. Everyone, everywhere, without exception, stand accountable before God.
There is nothing to say before a Holy God who sees, who knows, and who never forgets. He sees what we do and He knows what we want to do. We only hear a whisper of the horror of the day of judgment before an angry God.
It is much much better to be convicted of sin here than condemned of sin there.

All will be punished.

Words of hope in verse 21: "But now..."
One is righteous, only one. One understands. He continually seeks after God. There is only the fear of God before His eyes.
Because of Christ's death, anyone anywhere can be completely forgiven and made righteous.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 2:17-24

Knowing about God is no protection from God.

1. Spiritual privileges alone are insufficient.
The Jews were God's people. They had God's Word. They had a special relationship with God.
Over item they went from thinking of themselves as the people of God to the people who had God.

2. Spiritual privileges alone make hypocrites.
Do you practice what you preach?
There is a difference between a religious hypocrite who is going to hell, and a Christian struggling against hypocracy. Genuine Christians struggle against hypocracy because we are not what we should be. A hypocrite is someone who knows about God but does not live for God.

Spiritual privileges are never enough. Trusting in Jesus is always enough.
None of us is more than half awake. May we be awake enough to see the coming wrath of God and fall into the arms of Jesus asking for mercy.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 2:12-16

Wrath is coming, for the religious too. We will get exactly what we deserve.

Justified = Right before God
It is not enough to hear the law. God's standard is perfect obedience of the law.
Religious people will be judged by an impartial God. For all the times they worshipped something or someone other than God.
There are no loopholes. Is it as bad as all that? It's worse.

The bad news: We need to be saved from God Himself.
The good news: Christ Jesus, mentioned in verse 16.

Christ = title meaning anointed
Jesus = the Lord saves

If our only hope is perfect obedience, then our only hope is Jesus.
How can Jesus be judged for our disobedience? It doesn't make sense. That's why we call it amazing grace.

Sermon by Jason Hansen on Romans 2:1-11

We are all heading toward an impartial judgment. God's judgment is coming. Paul is preparing us.

1. You are not the Judge. (v1-2)
The most godly person has no excuse before God for their sin no matter how small it might seem. People who judge will be judged just the same. Like the Jews of that day, we in the church today are most apt to judge those around us. Rather than having a broken heart, we judge people. When our children are angry, we get angry at them for being angry. This is not accountability or church discipline or speaking truth about sin. This is self-righteous judgment. This is the Pharisee of Luke 18.

2. You are not special. (v3-5)
There is an arrogance of religious people who think they are higher than others. Either we think there won't really be a judgment for us, or we think we will be fine because we deserve the kindness of God, especially in comparison to others. We treat both God's judgment and His grace as too small. If we presume on His kindness, we are in serious trouble.

3. You will face Him. (v6-11)
God will judge good people as well as bad. Everyone is judged individually for his own works. No one is exempt. We are all condemned by our works. This is the bad news that precedes the Gospel.

Preview of what's next: All have sinned (3:23). But 3:24 is coming - we are justified by His grace as a gift. Ephesians 2. Any "good" works we do apart from Christ condemn us because they are dead. But if we trust in Christ we are saved by grace through faith. And then our works in Him are good because they are His.

The judgment is coming. Where is your hope?

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 1:26-32

An unpopular subject - the wrath of God.
Mankind exchanges worship of God for worship of self. So God gives them up.

Exchange #1: Misfiring passions. v26-27
- Homosexuality is an example of the judgment of God.
- Our physiology is clearly not meant for this.
- Creation is being undone.
Arguments today:
- This is men with boys. No, because women are included.
- Paul didn't understand homosexuals. Yes he did.
- This is something people are born with. The same is true of heterosexual lust and lots of other sinful tendencies.
- What about same-sex attraction? Temptation is not sin. Christians struggle against their sinful tendencies.
How are Christians to speak about this issue? Clearly, but gently and lovingly. Hateful rhetoric is wicked.
Homosexuals don't need heterosexuality. They need Jesus.

Exchange #2: Unsound mind. v28-31
Your own mind is your enemy, if you are not a Christian. This is why reason alone cannot lead someone to Christ.
All of us can see ourselves in this vice list.

Exchange #3: Approval of idolatry. v32
This is an anti-evangelism.

What do we need?
- A priest, to make sacrifices for us and represent us before God
- A prophet, to tell us about God and take us to Him
- A king, to govern us
Jesus is all of these.
- The Great High Priest. Hebrews 4:14.
- The Prophet of Prophets. Hebrews 1:1-2.
- The King of Kings. 1 Timothy 6:15.
- Savior and God. Titus 2:13.

Because of Jesus, God isn't just not angry with us. He loves us.
The gospel is a powerful offer of forgiveness. Hear it and be grateful.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on Romans 1:8-15

This is a greeting, but it is more than just "hello."
Four ways that God works:

1. God works through grateful Christians. (v. 8)
Gratefulness is the gospel in action. An ungrateful Christian is an oxymoron.

2. God works through faithful local churches. (v. 8)
The church doesn't have to be unique or special. Jesus already is.

3. God works when people sacrifice for one another. (v. 11)
Paul isn't just concerned about helping them, but also being helped by them. If we ONLY serve where we are gifted, we lose out on mutual benefit. We don't need official church "ministries" to do this - giving your life away IS ministry.
The church is not made up of ministries; it is made up of people. Who can you pray for and serve?

4. God works through the consistent preaching of the gospel. (v. 15)
They are already Christians. But Paul still wants to preach the gospel to them. Why? Because they still need to hear it.
We forget what we know. And sometimes we doubt what we know. We need a regular reminder that our sins have been punished on the cross. We have been forgiven. And because of the resurrection, the power of sin is defeated now. We are declared righteous. Because of Jesus, we are righteous before God. Righteous behavior is the result, not the cause.
Verses 15-17 is the main point of the book of Romans - the rest is commentary on those verses.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on John 17:20-26

“I do not   ask for these only, but also for those   who will believe in me through their word,  that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,  I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.  Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.  O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.  I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” John 17:20-26 (ESV)

Jesus is praying for us. Not the disciples, but Christians "who will believe in me through their word."
What does he pray for? Unity. Not uniformity, but harmony around the gospel.
Unity is togetherness like the Trinity.

Seven ways to foment division (what to NOT do):
1. Talk about people, not to them.
2. Draw conclusions quickly without hearing both sides.
3. Expect perfection from others and remember your pain for a long time.
4. Let secondary matters put a wedge between you and others.
5. Think that no one really understands you.
6. When you have a side, send out a mass email or facebook post, to try to get others to join your side.
7. When you have issues with someone, deal with them quickly and publicly.

Jesus prayed and prays for unity. This is not only the last minute request of a dying man. It is the ongoing prayer of a risen King. There is hope.

Sermon by Jason Hansen on John 17:11-16

"And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.  While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.  But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.  I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.  They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." John 17:11-16 (ESV)

Jesus is making sure that his people are taken care of, like a parent leaving their child with someone.

He asks the Father to keep us IN and keep us FROM.
I. Keep us IN His Name
Is Jesus concerned that we would leave the faith? No. He has complete trust in the Father.
  We were given to Jesus by the Father. Our adoption was part of His sovereign plan.
  So the Father will be faithful to keep us. Jesus' prayer will be answered.
Why then does He pray this? Because He loves us. We are overhearing a cosmic conversation between two loving caregivers (who are really One).
We are being kept so that we may be one. This doesn't mean we never disagree. There is unity around the Gospel.

II. Keep us FROM the evil one
We are protected by the Father from the enemy in the world. But...
   - We are not to be completely separate. Wise, but still in the world.
   - We will experience suffering.

So what?
Since Jesus finds joy and comfort knowing that the Father is keeping and protecting us, let us also find joy and comfort in this truth.
We should also find joy and comfort in a loving Savior. Jesus prayed these things for our hope and our joy. He assures us by praying for us. This is mere hours before the crucifixion. And He's thinking about us.

Life without a smart phone

Yes, I am one of the rare software engineers in the world that does not have a smart phone. But I just had a thought. What is the single most common place where wifi internet access is not generally available to me? In other words, where would I use the mobile broadband capabilities of a smart phone that I'm too cheap to pay for? I have wifi at home and wifi at work. But not in between. It's in my car, which if you think about it is really a big part of why we all got cell phones in the first place. At least those of us who weren't begging to be able to call our buddies and chat at any second of the day - we wanted to be able to make a phone call if our car broke down or we got lost or crashed or something. For many of us, the demand for a cell phone was primarily driven by a desire for safety. And yet, studies are now showing that the use of phones, especially smart phones, in vehicles has the exact opposite effect. They actually add distraction and reduce safety. So here's my logic:

1. I originally got a phone for car-related safety reasons.
2. Smart phones are (at least potentially) detrimental to car-related safety.
3. The car is the primary place I would need to use a smart phone.
Conclusion: Even if smart phones were free, they would still have a potentially detrimental effect on my safety in the primary place I would use them. So why would I get one?

I can see the argument for people who travel a lot to get a smart phone. But I don't. My primary travel is to work and then to home. And I can live without internet access for an hour a day.

Sermon by CJ Mahaney on Mark 3:20-35

Finding Hope in an Unexpected Place

The unpardonable sin. This is a frightening warning, but also a source of hope.

Two stories of opposition:
1. His family (v20-21, 31ff)
Jesus was healing all kinds of people, and claiming to be God. His family thought he was crazy.

2. Teachers of the law (v22ff)
He is casting out demons by the power of Satan.
Jesus: Your accusation is absurd. Why would Satan self-destruct? I am stronger than Satan.

What is the unpardonable sin? Ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan. These are informed, educated, religious leaders. Jesus wasn't talking to just anyone. This warning was directed to the scribes who would eventually kill Jesus. If you are concerned at all that you have committed the unpardonable sin, then you have not - because you have concern! This sin would deaden the conscience completely (Spurgeon).

Back to His family - Even Mary did not anticipate what was happening and this was very painful for her. They were clueless, just like we are clueless without the Spirit. They are seeking Him to intervene.

Jesus takes this teaching opportunity and redefines "family." While he always honored his father and mother perfectly, on this occasion He announces the new family He is creating. This is a major transition. His disciples and all Christians are part of His family.

What do we learn about Jesus from this passage?
- He is Lord over the demonic. Only God would be stronger than Satan. So Jesus is God. (v27)
- He is the gracious Savior who forgives sin! (v28) This is a sweeping and striking declaration.
- Forgiven sinners become part of His family, forever.

Sermon by Rich Richardson on John 17 - set apart for God

We are invited to hear the prayer of Jesus, which is God addressing God - a holy moment.

1. Glory! What is it?
Hard to define. Weight, importance, fame. Sends people to the ground face-down. (Ezekiel 1:28, 2 Chronicles 7)
The definition of God is Jesus (Colossians 1, Hebrews 1). He glorifies Himself.
Jesus' "hour" that "has not come" throughout John is finally here in chapter 17. The hour for Him to glorify God. Jesus asks for the Father to give Him glory, so that He can give it right back to Him.

2. Glory! New Life
The means by which Jesus would reflect the glory of God back to God was delivering life to the dead.
The love of God is secured for us by the work of Christ on the cross. The whole purpose of the eternal life He gives us is for us to glorify Him.

3. Glory! Old Plan
The plan - giving eternal life to all whom God had given Christ - was the plan all along. God is sovereign, and He is always working for the good of His people.

Counseling tip: Don't just say "God is sovereign." When someone is hurting, say something like "I will pray for you knowing that God is all powerful and you are not meant to carry this burden alone."

Because of the glory of the gospel, we are empowered to pray boldly and expectantly. God crushed Jesus so that we would not be crushed (Isaiah 53). How will this make us live differently this year?

Revelation 1:5-6 (ESV)
"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."

Sermon by Steve Shank on 1 Timothy 1:1-2

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,  To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."

What is going on in 2014?

1. God is sovereignly at work.
Paul did not plan to become the apostle to the gentiles.
- Opportunities for faith
- Trials in our faith
"Faith refuses to look at circumstances without taking God into account."
My times are in Your hands...please rescue me!

“Remember this, had any other condition been better for you than the one in which you are, divine love would have put you there” C. H. Spurgeon

2. Jesus is our hope.
Our hope is in nothing else.

3. All that we need He has supplied.
Whatever happens, God is for us and always provides the grace that we need.

Connecting an Xbox 360 with no wifi directly to computer for Windows Media Center

I have used Windows Media Center as my DVR system for years now. With an inexpensive USB TV Tuner, I can get HD quality over the air channels for free and record them with my computer with no ongoing costs. The only issue I've had is that my computer's video card isn't quite able to keep up with presenting the HD videos on my large screen television plugged into the DVI port. I was reminded recently that my Xbox 360 can be used as a Windows Media Center extender, and it occurred to me that the Xbox video card would probably do a much superior job presenting my recorded shows and movies. But as I started to try to hook it up in my new house, I remembered why I hadn't done it before. My Xbox 360 does not have WiFi built in, and I'm unwilling to fork over the $60 for the adapter to add it. Since my router is in another room, I would have to run a network cable through two walls and over a vaulted ceiling to get the Xbox hard wired into the network.

But I had been studying networks for my second Bachelor's degree recently and started to wonder if I could just plug my computer directly into the Xbox using a crossover cable. I did some web searching and it appeared that it should be possible. It turns out that the Xbox has auto sensing capabilities so I ended up using a regular network cable. The only tricky part was getting the Xbox on the right subnet, but when I viewed the properties of the network adapter on my computer, I saw that the IP was 192.168.137.1 with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. So I manually configured the Xbox to have an IP of 192.168.137.2 with the same subnet mask and set 137.1 as the default gateway and primary dns server. After a few reboots and retries, the two machines saw each other and the Windows Media Center extender started working.

Now I can get full HD quality no problem and I even got internet connection sharing on the computer to allow the Xbox to connect to the internet for updates. I don't pay for Gold or really play online games at all, so I don't use the internet connection much.

After I got it working, my friend Josh gave me a WiFi game adapter, which would still have been nice to have so that my computer wouldn't have to be so close to my Xbox and TV. But when I hooked it up, there were significant bandwidth issues with the performance, and I haven't had time to figure out where the bottleneck is. My current setup is pretty nice, and I'm happy with it.

Installing WiFi Thermostat in a house with only four connected wires in the wall

I just moved into a new house and wanted to get a WiFi thermostat installed so that I could control the a/c from anywhere I had internet. The house was built in the late 1980s and appeared to still have original Honeywell thermostats with mercury inside. I purchased a Honeywell WiFi thermostat on Amazon and followed the instructions as well as I could. Uninstalling the existing thermostat seemed like no problem, but I was a little over eager and broke it as I was taking it off the wall. So I had to get the new one working, or we were without heat.

The instructions were very clear that I needed a "C" common wire to provide power to the new thermostat. And of course, I didn't have one. After spending a few hours searching the web and tracing wires out at the heat pump, none of the colors made sense and I even moved some around, which was a mistake I regretted later. I could see a terminal labeled "C" on the circuit board, but I had no idea how I was going to get a wire to it and it appeared to already have a wire on it that was being used, so I gave up. I called my handyman who came by the next morning, but he was not sure how to solve it and suggested it would be easier just to buy a thermostat that didn't require a C wire (all the WiFi thermostats I could find do require one).

By this point, it was Monday and I did not have time to work on it until the next weekend. Unfortunately, we were entering the coldest week of the year, including freezing temperatures that are somewhat rare in Gilbert, Arizona. I still had my basement heater working, so I cranked that one up, but even at 70 degrees downstairs the main floor was a cool 61 most of the week. Needless to say, we were ready to get it fixed.

I spoke to an electrical engineer friend at work who explained that I needed to connect a wire to a negative terminal somewhere so that the 24 volts of electricity could flow through the thermostat at all times. Then it was just a matter of finding that terminal. I learned that my unit is actually split between a heat pump outside and an air handler in the attic. So Saturday morning, I climbed into the attic, took off the cover of the air handler, and stared at a bunch more switches and wires withe no idea what to do. After a bit of Googling, I found a website that offered to connect me with an A/C expert by chat for a small fee, and I gave it a try. It turned out pretty well - he was able to understand my problem and had me take pictures of the inside of the air handler to help find the right spot. He pointed me to the 24 volt transformer and specifically the negative terminal on the 24 volt side. I purchased a connector and an extension thermostat wire and connected my extra black wire to that spot. The hardest part ended up being getting my extension wire out of the air handler box - the holes for wires were pretty tight and not easily loosened. Once I had that in place, I used the black wire as my C wire and everything worked. Well, almost everything. Because I had moved some wires out at the heat pump, my heater was still not kicking on. But since I had documented the entire line of wires and colors, I was able to deduce which ones I had switched and as soon as I switched them back, all was well...and warm.

Thank you Norm (Wvfan79) for your help.

Is John Piper a Libertarian?

Is John Piper a Libertarian?

A critique of Thoughts on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment

(this post is also available with better formatting on my website)

I am a big John Piper fan. I first read Desiring God when I was around 20 years old and it revolutionized the way I think about love and my relationship with God. I appreciate Piper’s God-centered approach to everything and the way he applies his passion for God in his private and public life. In the culture war over ethical issues in the public square, I appreciate the stand Piper has made for the life of the unborn and the definition of marriage. His boldness, especially on the abortion issue, is commendable. Today, Piper posted an article on the Desiring God blog in support of the Minnesota marriage amendment. As a public policy major who spent much of my senior year doing research on the best public policy for ethical issues, I was keenly interested in reading his defense of marriage policy.

My appreciation for Piper also includes a love for his communication style and reasoning abilities. In just about every sermon I have heard him give, he has a list of carefully-selected, succinct, but profound statements that communicate the essence of his message. These statements are always well-reasoned, clear, and biblical. I look forward to hearing from his sermons and reading his works primarily because of their effect on my soul, but secondarily because of their positive effect on my mind. So when opening this article on the marriage amendment, I was expecting a bold, clear defense of the role civil law can play in supporting and upholding the natural law of God.

Unfortunately, I have to say that I was disappointed. My problem is not with the overall message of the article – I wholeheartedly agree that enshrining homosexual behavior into the law by redefining marriage must not happen.  But I was shocked to read a nuanced, almost timid defense of the status quo. It was probably about a year ago that I read his article on marijuana and was surprised to find him at least open to the use of this drug for medicinal use. I agree with him on that issue, but his views on that subject combined with this week's article make me wonder whether he has been somehow influenced by libertarian philosophy. My critique of this article will be mainly focused on his third statement: “Not all sins should be proscribed by human law, but some should be.” I agree with this sentence, but disagree with the example and reasons he uses to support it.

The issue of what behavior may and may not be regulated by the government is at the heart of many of my conversations with libertarian-leaning friends. They will often say things to me like “if you cannot easily enforce the law, it should not be a law,” “a victimless crime is no crime at all,” and “what consenting adults do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes should not be interfered with.” All of these sentiments express politically-correct ideas that I would argue have no basis in reason, Scripture, or natural law. Thus, I was disturbed to read Piper using very similar arguments in his explanation of the distinction between sins that should and should not be against the law.

In the second paragraph under the third statement, Piper describes the status quo in the American system of government whereby elected officials get to draw the line between bad behavior that is tolerated by law and crimes. He calls it a “pretty good system” which I generally agree with, but it concerns me that his defense of the status quo implies no disagreement with where our current legislators have drawn that line. I am confident that Piper does in fact disagree with some of the current decisions, on the issue of abortion for example, but he does not state that here.

He goes on to use the example of “looking at pornography” as an example of behavior that “should not be proscribed by human law.” I disagree with the reasons he gives for this example.  If Piper were simply making a policy argument for why he would not favor making pornography viewing illegal, I would not have as much of an issue. But he seems to be using this example to express general principles that he would use to distinguish between sins that should and should not be against the law.  In the rest of this post, I will critique the three reasons he gives for why this behavior should not be illegal.

The first reason Piper cites for not making the sin of viewing pornography illegal is

1)      without a common ground of biblical holiness, the precise definition of what’s acceptable to look at would entangle our lawmakers in hopeless disputes

This is untrue for the following reasons:

A.      Precise definition is not required for effective lawmaking.

Piper seems to be arguing that defining what constitutes “pornography” is hard to do, which I would not dispute. But defining and interpreting words is one of the most common functions of our legal system. Legislators use words and concepts that are tough to define all the time, and courts have to interpret those words when adjudicating cases. Though mistakes are made, this difficulty is not uncommon in law.

B.      The difficulty of passing legislation is not a reason not to pass laws.

Just because something is difficult does not make it wrong. The difficulty of defining a crime does not mean that the effort to do so is “hopeless” or would “entangle lawmakers.” This is the lawmaker’s job. Furthermore, a law may be difficult to pass in a particular time and place but that does not mean that it is categorically wrong to ever make it a law at any time in any place.

C.      Pornography and obscenity laws have been on the books for many years, and courts have already defined what is illegal.

The sale and distribution of pornography is already illegal under federal law.  Title 18, Section 1465[1] uses terms like “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy” and “any other matter of indecent or immoral character” in defining the material that it is illegal to produce. Violators are guilty of Class E felony and subject to up to a five-year prison sentence and $250,000 fine. This law is an example of the ability of lawmakers to define what is acceptable without getting entangled in hopeless disputes.

D.      The Supreme Court has defined what obscenity means and has upheld restrictions on it as an exception to free speech.

In Miller v. California (1973)[2], the Supreme Court set up a famous three-part test to determine whether something is obscene. I will not go into the specifics here, but I would simply point out that this is an example of the court’s ability to define concepts in the process of adjudicating cases.

E.       The possession of child pornography is illegal.

Federal law goes even further when it comes to child pornography. Using language similar to that of the Miller case, Congress has banned producing, distributing, receiving and possessing (with the intent to distribute) child pornography. At the state level, the mere possession of “visual depictions of the sexual exploitation of a minor” is a class 2 felony, at least in Arizona[3]. If the difficulty of defining what is acceptable were really a barrier to lawmaking, then these kinds of laws could not exist.

In summary, the ability of legislatures and courts to tackle subjects that are controversial or tough to define has been clearly established over and over again, and the difficulty of creating a law to address a particular sin should not be a reason that that sin could not be regulated by law.

The second reason Piper cites for not making the sin of viewing pornography illegal is

2)      the privacy of the act would make the law virtually unenforceable

This is untrue for the following reasons:

A.      The privacy of an act does not make it out of the bounds of the law.

It is at this point that Piper’s reasons really start to sound libertarian to me. What people do in the privacy of their homes should generally not be restricted, according to libertarians. But privacy is not a constitutional right, Roe v. Wade notwithstanding. And there are many times when private actions must be restricted. Most crimes are committed in private, because humans have naturally deal with guilt by hiding since Adam and Eve. If privacy were an ultimate standard, we could not have laws against child abuse, rape, or many other horrible actions that happen in private. Clearly, the location where a sin is most commonly committed cannot be a factor in determining whether or not it should be a law.

B.      The difficulty of enforcing a law does not make the law worthless.

The topic of enforcement is one of the most common in my discussions with libertarians. In the minds of many, a law that cannot be enforced easily should not be a law. But how can this be so? Is it easy to enforce laws against rape, murder, and child abuse? Certainly not.  Because of human limitation, our legal system is inherently flawed and thus we require things like “due process” in the enforcement of our laws. Essentially, the concept of due process is to purposely make enforcement more difficult, so that people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Some laws are easier to enforce than others, but this cannot be a criteria for whether or not to have a law.

C.      Law has an educational effect even if it is not enforced.

Historical laws against adultery, fornication, and sodomy were rarely enforced, but they still had value because of their educational effect on the citizens. This effect is especially present in people who do not acknowledge another moral standard, such as the Bible, by which to judge right and wrong. Even Christians will tend to see actions that are illegal as bad and actions that are legal as good, if the Bible is silent on the matter. Wayne Grudem points this out in his book, Politics According to the Bible, in which he describes the difference he has experienced between the opinion of Christians toward guns in Arizona, where gun laws are very lax, and that of Christians in the United Kingdom, where guns are more tightly controlled.[4] Simply because laws exist, citizens tend to see actions as morally right or wrong.

Other examples of this educational effect on law are found in the areas of slavery, abortion, and alcohol. Slavery was considered by many in America to be acceptable behavior at the founding of this country, but now it is almost universally denounced as evil. It is hard to ignore the role that the Thirteenth Amendment had on the opinion of people. Similarly, abortion was considered by most Americans as wrong prior to the Roe v. Wade decision that made it legal. Since it has been legalized, many more people are open to it.

Finally, the prohibition of alcohol is often used by my libertarian friends as what they consider to be a strong argument against ethics-based legislation. However, despite the lack of enforcement of prohibition, consumption statistics prove that prohibition actually worked in the sense that the per-capita consumption of alcohol in the United States was substantially reduced when prohibition went into effect and did not return to pre-prohibition levels until the 1960s, long after prohibition ended[5]. This is strong evidence that the prohibition of alcohol influenced people to drink less, and their drinking habits were affected even after it was made legal again.

D.      Receiving and possessing child pornography is already illegal, even though this happens in private.

As mentioned earlier, we already have laws against child pornography which is most of the time viewed in private. The Supreme Court has upheld these laws because of the government’s compelling interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors.[6] I certainly hope John Piper wouldn’t argue that we throw these laws out as too hard to enforce.

E.       Laws against the viewing of pornography would be no harder to enforce than laws against the use of drugs.

Along similar lines, there are many actions that happen in private that are already illegal and hard to enforce. Would Piper suggest that we legalize all drugs since they are used in private and it is difficult to enforce laws against them? This is the type of law that libertarians would love to repeal, and their reasons sound frighteningly similar to Piper’s.

The final reason Piper cites for not making the sin of viewing pornography illegal is

3)      the indirect way that people are hurt make it unfeasible for the law to be handled with proper proportion

This is untrue for the following reasons:

A.      Actions that only indirectly hurt people still hurt people.

It is ironic to me that Piper would use this argument in the middle of an article upholding the importance of laws that define marriage. The clearest effect of marriage that makes it legally important is children, according to Piper’s fourth statement. And yet children are only indirectly affected by marriage laws, through the actions of their parents. Indirect effects are extremely important to our society, especially when it comes to children. When a sin is committed, there are usually negative consequences not only for the person committing the sin, but also for all the people who live and/or interact with them. These negative consequences can greatly affect society as a whole when major sin is left unchecked over time. It is the responsibility of rulers to “carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Why should wrongdoing that only hurts people indirectly be excluded from this?

B.      Proportionality can be properly handled by classifications in law or left to the judicial system.

Piper seems to be saying that since the use of pornography has different consequences for some people than others, it would be impossible to setup a legal framework to proscribe this behavior in a fair manner. But our legal system is rife with complex behaviors that have differing effects in different situations. This is why we sometimes classify a behavior as a misdemeanor and sometimes a felony. First degree murder is distinguished from second degree. And our legal system gives judges and juries the latitude to determine the proper punishment for individual cases. The possession of pornography could be classified as a misdemeanor and could be enforced as a separate count in a case of rape or sexual abuse. I do not see how this is unfeasible.

C.      Many actions that hurt people only indirectly are illegal and should remain so.

Taking drugs like cocaine or heroin has harmful effects not only on the person taking them, but also on the people around them. If a father takes drugs, his family suffers untold consequences. This is one of the reasons that these drugs are illegal. Other illegal actions such as gambling and assisted suicide are similar in that their harmful effects are often indirect, and yet we consider them bad enough to make laws against them.

There are sins, such as pride, that should not be illegal, but not for the reasons that Piper gives. The clearest reason I see that these sins cannot be made illegal is that they are by definition purely internal to the mind, not external actions of the body. Civil laws are instituted to maintain order in society, but they cannot extend to the affairs of the heart. Dealing with sinful thoughts is best left to the spheres of the family and church, rather than the state. But when sinful thoughts become sinful actions that have harmful effects on society, it is the prerogative of human law to proscribe those actions.

Obviously, the current political reality makes laws against viewing pornography or fornication highly unlikely, but there could come a day in the future (as in the past) when a large majority of a society determines these kinds of sins to be worthy of legal proscription. In that day, will John Piper be protesting along with the libertarians that these laws would be too difficult to define, enforce, and prosecute fairly? Or does he have better, more Biblically-based reasons that we should not have these kinds of laws?  I hope that his reasons for excluding these sins from law in this article were hastily produced and that he will modify them where necessary.

---

[1] http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/71/1465

[2] http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/15/case.html

[3] http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03553.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

[4] Grudem, Wayne. Politics According to the Bible, page ­98.

[5] Geisler, Norman and Turek, Frank. Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible.
Stats available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

[6] http://supreme.justia.com/us/458/747/case.html ­