While the technology consulting giant Accenture has ended its sponsorship of Tiger Woods and other companies are reassessing their relationship with the world’s best golfer, Swiss watchmaker Tag Heuer announced today that it is sticking with Woods despite his adulterous relationships. Spokeswoman Mariam Sylla provided the unsurprising politically-correct response. “We respect his performance in the sport,” she said, but his private life is “not our business.”

To acknowledge that Woods is a great golfer is akin to observing that the sun is very hot. His play is sensational and his personal story has been carefully constructed. He has allowed neither politics nor racial extremists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton distract him from his widely appealing and carefully crafted public image. And it is that public image which reveals the silliness of Ms. Sylla’s declaration. Part of Woods’ appeal is the fact that his private image was assumed to be as clean as his public image. And, to be sure, if Woods’ public image continues to suffer as a result of his “private” sins, we will not be surprised to see Tag Heuer bail on the über-successful athlete.

The truth is that a person’s private life does matter, protestations from the pseudo-sophisticates notwithstanding. It just so happens that western culture has come to view one’s sex life as a non-issue. Note Hollywood’s defense of child-rapist Roman Polanski. Pseudo-sophisticates claim to be above such “nonsense,” except, I suspect, when one of them finds his or her own spouse sexually unfaithful.

What has made Tiger Woods an incredibly wealthy man is the assumed clean private life implied by his clean public life. His golfing ability alone has made him a lot of money, but his image coupled with his athletic prowess is what has made him so insanely marketable.

The reality, though, is that Woods’ multiple adulterous escapades are not his ultimate problem. They merely provide an external manifestation of a sinful heart.

And lest we stand in judgment as Woods’ moral superiors, the fact is that many of us have not committed the sins that he committed simply because we have not had the opportunity to do so. We are innately no better morally. “None is righteous,” the apostle Paul contends, “no, not one” (Romans 3:10 [ESV]). Left to ourselves, no sin is beyond our capacity to commit. That is why Jesus came, to save us from God’s just condemnation by voluntarily bearing divine judgment we deserve and accounting us righteous, a grace undeserved. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21 [ESV]). May Tiger Woods come to know the same Savior.

Many professing Christian theologians have jettisoned belief in practically all the “hard-to-believe” sections of the Bible. Gone is the belief that God created the heavens and the earth and all therein in sixth twenty-four-hour days. Gone is the belief that Moses, by the power of God, parted the waters of the Red Sea. Gone are Elijah’s chariots of fire and Jesus’ miracles.

For many theologians, the Bible’s declaration that Adam and Eve were real, literal people is too much to swallow. Tremper Longman, a professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, and a noted evangelical, claims that a person would have to be guilty of a “highly literalistic reading” of the first two chapters of Genesis in order to believe in a literal Adam. Unfortunately, Dr. Longman’s reasoning for rejecting a literal Adam is used by many to reject all of the supernatural events recorded in Scripture.

Take, for instance, the virgin birth of Christ. One has to admit that such an event is not just a little out of the ordinary, and yet Matthew was very explicit in detailing what occurred: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’” (Matthew 1:18–21, ESV). Matthew intended his hearers to comprehend that no human father was involved with the conception of Jesus. Is this, too, only a “myth”?

John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopalian bishop, revealed his contempt for those who believe in the virgin birth of Christ: “When one Episcopal bishop told me that he accepted the virgin birth story literally because ‘if God wanted to be born of a virgin, he could have arranged that,’ or when another said, ‘If God created ex nihilo, the virgin birth would be a snap,’ I thought to myself, ‘How will the church survive in this world with that lack of scholarship among its leaders?’ In those statements the bishops were asserting their belief in a God who was in fact a manipulative male person, who would set aside the processes of the world to produce a miracle in order to bring his divine presence into a human enterprise called life, from which this God was clearly separated. They also revealed no knowledge whatsoever of the biblical studies that have, for at least a century, thrown new light on the interpretation of these birth narratives.” Spong believes that the Virgin Birth is merely a myth to reveal God’s concern for the universe.

Must we believe in the Virgin Birth to be truly Christian? Many would doubtlessly argue that not believing is regrettable but does not mean one is not a Christian. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary provides a needed correction to such an opinion: “This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.”

Baptist theologian Millard Erickson gives us this to think about: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.” I wonder–could not the same be said about creation?

President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize today in Oslo, saying that he accepted it with “deep gratitude and great humility.” The president acknowledged the controversy over his being awarded the prize in the first place, a proper response considering that nominations had to be in before he had served as the nation’s chief executive for one month.

Acknowledging that he accepted the award with “great humility,” however, fails to resonate with me. Saying it doesn’t make it so. An exhibition of humility would have been to decline the prestigious award when first notified. Americans of all political persuasions believe that the award is premature at best. Humility would have said, “While I appreciate the honor which the committee has sought to bestow upon me, I cannot accept it because I simply have not earned it. May it go to someone who has invested years, if not decades, to the pursuit of peace.”

In the United States, scientists are widely esteemed as the determiners of truth. Having a persona of pure objectivity, their determinations, many citizens think, has to be the truth. Many Americans look to scientists as gods, as the ones on high whose revelations will lead us into the Promised Land.

But what happens when scientists lie? Could it be possible that scientists are actually humans and that far too many of them operate on behalf of an agenda that will benefit their receiving government grants or tenured faculty positions?

Emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in England revealed that scientists who had been at the forefront in pushing for climate change laws and treaties had been altering some of the data to support their beliefs. They alleged that global warming was taking place and had doubtlessly received a good deal of money in government grants for their research, but their exposed emails revealed data had been modified and schemes concocted to influence lawmakers and the public.

The Wall Street Journal reported, “Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a ‘unified’ view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ‘common cause’; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ‘hide the decline’ of temperature in certain inconvenient data.”

Unfortunately, much of the same takes place when the Scriptures contradict closely-held assumptions. Ministers and theologians have sought to modify the sacred text in order to support their agenda. When the data contradict your belief, however, honesty requires a change in belief. When the Scriptures contradict your belief system, honesty requires a change in your doctrine.

Honesty, however, seems to be in short supply. Perhaps a federal bailout in honesty is needed.

Christian Audio is offering a free download of an abridged version of The Brothers Karamazov during December. Just be sure to type DEC2009 as the coupon code. By the way, abridged is still over nineteen hours of listening pleasure and is well done, according to the reviews. Enjoy! Mine is downloading even as I speak, er, type.

Most people will tell you that they are hoping to go to heaven because they feel their good outweighs their bad. Such thinking, however, is foreign to biblical Christianity. The Bible clearly declares that all of us are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Therefore, all of us deserve eternal death (Romans 6:23).

Maybe you have heard of the man, believing that life was unfair to him, cry out to heaven, “God, just give me what I deserve!” There is hardly a more dangerous prayer because the best of us deserve the wrath of God.

God, however, did not simply leave us in our sins so that we might face his just and unavoidable wrath. The apostle Paul reminds us that “when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy” (Titus 3:4-5a). Salvation does not begin with man’s realization of his sinful con­dition and consequent search for a solution. He does not have that desire or capability within his sinful nature. Salva­tion begins with God. It was the kind and loving God who saw man in his lost condition and chose to save him.

Al­though man deserves to perish eternal­ly, God desires that he repent (2 Peter 3:9). Man has fol­lowed the way of this world and the spirit of Satan (Ephesians 2:2). He has lived to fulfill his own lusts, showing that in his nature he de­serves God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3). God, though, gave his Son to be man’s Savior, “so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:7).

William Barclay writes accurately, “God is character­ist­ically the Saviour God, whose last desire is to condemn men and whose first desire is to save them.” It is God who “so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). It is God who “shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). It is “God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:4-5).

No person will ever enter heaven on the basis of his good works. All who spend eternity with God will do so because of the grace of God through repenting of their sin and believing in the Lord Jesus. The Bible states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

If you are a true Christian, you have much for which to be grateful this Thanksgiving season. God has not left you to toil in a vain attempt to earn your salvation. In his infinite mercy he has freely given you eternal life through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ upon the cross.

If you have not turned from your sin and believed on Christ, do so today. He took the wrath of God due believing sinners and counts all such believers righteous in his sight. “For our sake he [God the Father] made him [God the Son] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

These are words often repeated after death has ended the physical suffering and mental anguish of someone who has endured much for an all-too-long period of time. Loved ones, having witnessed horrific suffering, feel relief that the ordeal is finally over for their parent or sibling or friend or whomever. “Well, at least she’s in a better place.”

That may be true, and then again, it may not be. As one who has presided over many funerals and graveside services, I neither preach someone into heaven nor into hell. I believe in the reality of both, but the eternal Judge determines that deceased person’s fate.

We must not be glib about eternity. Our loved one may be in a better place, but he is in the presence of God only because he is God’s child, having turned from his sin and believed on the crucified and resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. The person in that better place than this fallen world is there only because Christ bore his sin upon the cross, taking the wrath of the thrice-holy God for the repentant one’s sin and pronouncing the believer righteous.

For our sake he [God the Father] made him [God the Son] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV).

Otherwise, that loved one will languish in hell for eternity, separated from God and from all hope. This reality, though pooh-poohed by atheists and “Christian” liberals alike, will not fade away like a bad dream simply because one believes it unthinkable that a loving God, if indeed there is a God, would cast anyone into hell. Jesus himself spoke without ambiguity.

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, ESV).

A better place? I sincerely hope so, but it isn’t so just because we wish it. May our loved ones know the only One who will receive them unto that better place, in his presence, for eternity.

The following started off as a response to some posts in an off-topic thread on the Logos Bible Software Forum, but I decided to put it here instead. (By the way, the new Logos Bible Software 4 is worth checking out!)

• Sarah Palin has been stereotyped by much of our news media (opinion writers masquerading as journalists) in the same way that Dan Quayle was. That, on the surface, she did poorly in early interviews may have been as much of the McCain handlers’ fault as hers. Put a microphone in front of any of us and we’ll say some pretty stupid stuff that can get constantly replayed by those who disagree with our basic positions.
• Do those who believe that a display of superior intelligence is essential for the vice presidency honestly consider Joe Biden to be one so endowed? Really? For every Palin gaffe, I’ll give you a Biden.
• Why does Barack Obama come off as one possessing superior intelligence? We can throw in some jaw-dropping Obama responses, too, with our Biden gaffes, but they don’t get much play in our “news” media. Obama is super cool and gives a wonderful speech from the always-present teleprompter. He bounces down steps without touching the handrail. Cool is often confused for intelligence.
• Frankly, I think Palin and Biden and Obama and McCain and George W. Bush are decently intelligent people.
• Most of the news media in the U.S. are quite liberal on the political spectrum. Those who champion their causes (pro-choice on abortion, homosexual rights, etc.) are portrayed as wonderful, intelligent leaders. Those who do not are portrayed as doofuses. Reagan was denigrated by our press, as most conservatives are. Carter, Clinton, and Obama are portrayed as deep thinkers.
• The word “evangelical” has lost almost all sense of meaning so as to have become essentially useless. When folks call Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen are viewed as evangelicals, we need a replacement term for evangelical.
• Nations often get the leaders they deserve. We Americans so thrive on celebrities and entertainment that we have elected a man to the presidency because of what he has portrayed himself to be, not what he has proven himself to be. Where has Mr. Obama really shown himself to be capable of leading a nation? Did he excel in college and law school? He did become editor of the Harvard Law Review, but that position’s going to the student with the highest grades was changed in the 1970’s. What about after law school? Our president has shown himself capable of being elected to office, from editor of the HLR to Illinois state senator to less than three years as a U.S. senator to now president of the U.S. We’ll have to wait to see what really comes of it, but no one that I’ve read has been particularly impressed with what he did as either a state senator or U.S. senator.
• Citizens in other nations often cast aspersions upon the U.S., but they have their issues, not so dissimilar to those of the U.S. They’ve got their poverty and discrimination. Admittedly, a lot of the evidence put forth is anecdotal. Much, but certainly not all, of the poverty in our country is a result of bad choices. I’ve been in homes of people who seemed quite destitute to find them with a cable television package that I could not justify for my own home. Drugs and out-of-wedlock births greatly contribute to poverty. And yes, the leaders of other nations are also often portrayed in a quite uncomplimentary light.
• God is sovereign over the affairs of men. Even in a representative democracy, God ultimately chooses who leads. And yet we as believers are to be involved in the process, attempting to understand the issues at stake and how those seeking to be elected will deal with those problems.

We Southern Baptists say that the Bible is without error, that it is God’s authority over our lives, and that it is sufficient for leading us to God and rightly ordering our lives. I wonder, though, if we really believe what we say we believe.

It seems that we have our belief system that we profess and we have our “but’s” that we live. We say we believe that God created all things, but it looks really dumb to believe he did it in six twenty-four-hour days. We say we believe that men should lovingly lead their wives and that wives should lovingly follow that lead, but we engage in the best (worst?) of the battle of the sexes when our partner is not treating us according to our satisfaction. We say we believe in the church government taught in the Scriptures but many of our churches have deacons acting as though they were elders or, even worse, a church council acting as an elder board. We claim that church membership is to be taken seriously, but Southern Baptist Convention churches have millions of members who rarely, if ever, attend corporate worship in the church where their name persists in being on the roll.

We say we believe a lot of things, but our actions reveal what we really believe. Maybe that’s the reason denominational leaders are constantly trying to devise new means to renew our churches. Perhaps a more effective strategy would be to repent of our sin of violating our professed beliefs with our unbiblical actions and really become submissive to the teaching of the Word of God.

As Barack Obama came to national attention as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, many were caught up in the aura of the Illinois state senator. He had a presence about him, an ability to deliver his speech, the way he held his head–all of these would draw great crowds at campaign stops and would eventually catapult him into Presidency of the United States.

The one almost universal description of candidate Obama, and now President Obama, has been that he is intelligent. He is widely considered to be more intelligent than almost anyone else in politics, indeed more intelligent than any other man elected to lead this nation. He just has that aura about him.

And I think that helps explain a great deal this fawning over President Obama–his aura. I am really not convinced that he is particularly intelligent. I do not mean he is ignorant, and I certainly do not denigrate him as so many did the younger President Bush. There simply is little hard evidence to support the commonly-held position that he is possessed of lofty intelligence. As far as I know, his grade point averages at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard have not been released. (I recognize that one’s GPA alone does not signify intelligence, but the media made a great deal of President George W. Bush’s GPA.) As President, Mr. Obama has not really done anything that is widely considered brilliant, while he has made some noticeable gaffes that seem to be fairly overlooked by the national media.

I have to ask: What is there about President Obama which brings about this almost universal acclaim of intelligence? In a word, I think it is the “cool” factor. The President is a cool dude. He bounces down the stairs without touching the handrail. His chin is up while he makes a speech. He looks pretty good with a basketball. He just looks cool.

In America, where a large portion of our citizenry swoons over celebrities, there is great difficulty in distinguishing between intelligence and cool. We fawn over actors who are attractive and can play the part of a character before the cameras. We yawn at the scholar backed by serious research who says something that will actually impact the way we live. We are willingly led by what appears to be than by what actually is (cf. John 7:24). We cannot tell the difference between intelligence and cool.