In Exodus 19, God called Moses up to Mount Sinai and told him that if the children of Israel would obey Him and keep His covenant, they would be His special people. He then gave them “The Law,” which is also commonly known as the “Mosaic Law” or the “law of Moses.” Although the name was attributed to a man, we must be mindful that the One who gave it was God Himself. Moses was merely the “messenger boy.” James 4:12 makes it very clear that there is really only “one Lawgiver”—God.

The law consists of various parts. The most important portion is the Ten Commandments, also known as the “moral law,” as they express the morality, values and character of God. The commandments were engraved on stone tablets and are recorded in Exodus 20: 2-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21. Because there are ten of them, they are also commonly called the “Decalogue” (Gr. dekalogos), which means the “ten words” or “ten pronouncements.”

Apart from these commandments, God gave Moses further instructions that governed the ethics and rituals of the Israelites. Augustine (354-430) divided the law of Moses into two parts: the moral and symbolical. For example, “you shall not covet” is a moral law; “you shall circumcise every male on the eighth day” is a symbolical law. To Augustine and the early Church fathers, the moral law of the Ten Commandments is still binding while the symbolical law is no longer binding. Besides circumcision and the sacrifices, Augustine categorizes as symbolical law the tabernacle regulations, the dietary laws, the feasts, etc. Because they are non-binding, he interprets the rules against blended clothing (wool and linen) and the mixed yoke (ox and ass) allegorically.

As always, Scripture must be compared with Scripture to avoid misinterpretation. It is clear that Jesus brought to an end the observance of the symbolical laws by His redemptive accomplishment. The entire sacrificial system and ceremonial washings were “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Heb. 9:10). These symbolical or topological law was “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Heb. 10:1), its regulations were set aside once the realities had arrived in Christ (Heb. 7:18-19, 22). Jesus ushered in the new order that made the ceremonial rituals redundant: “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13).

This moral/symbolical distinction eventually gave way to the more precise three-part analysis first worked out in detail by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas says that the law of Moses is made up of moral, ceremonial and civil precepts. From the days of Aquinas to the Reformation, to our time, the Church has been consistent in teaching that only the moral law is still binding, all ceremonial and civil laws are no longer applicable to believers.

Yet, there is always the vocal minority who feel that since we are in the age of the Gospel, when we are justified by faith alone, the law is now “abolished,” or in theological jargon, “abrogated.”

• In the June 21, 2009 issue of The Age, Cleric Francis McNab, the executive minister at St. Michael’s Uniting Church in Melbourne, Australia, says, “The Ten Commandments is one of the most negative documents ever written.”

• In a recent May 11, 2009 blog entry, a prominent megachurch pastor says, “When you come under the law by trying to keep God’s commandments in order to be blessed, it will lead to death. There will be deadness in your marriage, ministry, health, career.”

The message is clear: the Ten Commandments are unnecessary, oppressive, and maybe even downright evil.

Then there are those who wrongly speculate that the Old Testament teaches “salvation by law” while the New Testament teaches “salvation by grace through faith.” Nothing can be further from the truth. Justifying faith originates in the Old Testament. The phrase, “the just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17), which became the rallying cry of the Reformers in the 16th century, is really a concept that first appears in Habakkuk 2:4, an Old Testament Scripture. In Romans 4, Paul went through extraordinary length to explain that both the greatest Old Testament patriarch, Abraham, and the greatest Old Testament king, David, were themselves saved by faith, not by the works of the law.

This may come as a shock to you, but the whole purpose of the New Testament is to establish the law—the moral law of the Ten Commandments. Jesus says so Himself: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). This statement does not mean that Christ has come to merely fulfill the messianic predictions contained in the old covenant. The Greek for “fulfill” is pleroo which means to expand, establish, strengthen, make firmer and fuller. Jesus wants us to have the true meaning of the law so that our understanding of it is not shallow or erroneous. And He demonstrates that masterfully in the Sermon on the Mount when He broadens and deepens what the commandments really mean when they say “you shall not murder,” or “you shall not commit adultery” (Matt. 5:21, 27).

Like Jesus, Paul says faith and law are not mutually exclusive. One doesn’t invalidate the other. Paul affirms the words of Christ by saying, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31). And how is the law established? It is established “not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:3). Herein lies the difference between the two covenants. In the old covenant, the Ten Commandments was a set of external code written on stone tablets. But in the new covenant, the Holy Spirit writes those commandments in our hearts, and gives us the grace to live them out in our daily lives. This is not an afterthought of God but His original plan for the law from its very inception.

The New Testament repeatedly confirms this. One such example is:

This is really what the new covenant is—to have the law written in our hearts. And the way God does that is through the Holy Spirit, who Himself gives us the power to obey them.

Think about it, if the moral law is unimportant to us in the new covenant, why then would the Holy Spirit even bother to write it into our hearts?

This is the whole argument of Paul when he says, “So now we can obey God’s laws if we follow after the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 8:4 TLB). So in the new covenant, we are still serving the law, but we are serving “in the newness of the Spirit” because we want to, not because we have to! We serve not out of fear because the law is our burdensome master, but out of love because Christ is now our Lord. It is no longer a hope of obedience leading to salvation but rather, salvation leading to obedience.

The Reformers made it a point to emphasize the need for the Ten Commandments in Christian growth and discipleship. John Calvin (1509-1564) says that “even the believers have need of the law.” Calvin teaches that the moral law helps the believers in two ways: (a) to make daily progress in doing the will of God, and (b) to encourage the believer how to live a life of obedience. Calvin quotes Psalm 1:2 that a Christian’s “delight is in the law of the Lord” and Psalm 19:7 that “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546), the original pioneer of the Reformation, fought with those who despised the Ten Commandments. He coined the term, “antinomianism,” which the Oxford Dictionary defines as “a belief that Christians are released by grace from obeying moral laws.” This was the first major theological controversy in Protestant history. In 1577, to counter the antinomians who were rubbishing the Ten Commandments, the Lutherans wrote in the Formula of Concord the following statements:

To the Reformers, the Ten Commandments was an absolute necessity for sanctification and discipleship. As such, its validity and importance was repeatedly emphasized in documents like:

• Helvetic Confession of the Reformed Church of Zurich (1566).
• 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1571).
• Irish Articles of Religion of the Church of Ireland (1615).
• Methodist Articles of Religion (1784).
• Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).
• Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches (1658).
• Baptist Confession of Philadelphia (1688).
• French Confession of Faith (1559).
• Belgic Confession (1561).
• Scottish Confession of Faith (1559).
• The Wittenberg Confession (16th Century).

As you can see, the Ten Commandments are viewed as vitally important to practically all mainstream, orthodox, Bible-believing churches—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal churches.

The truth be told, supporters of the Ten Commandments are in the abundance. In his June 21, 2009 interview with Seattle Post, Dr. Billy Graham gives his view on why we need the Ten Commandments. Dr. Graham says, “We don’t keep the Ten Commandments in order to be saved; we keep them because we want to please God and bring honor to Him by the way we live. Jesus said, ‘If you love me, you will obey what I command’ (John 14:15).”

Well said. I rest my case.

The word “masturbation” is thought to have been derived from the Greek word mezea, which means “penises.” It could have also been derived from the Latin words, manus (“hand”) and turbare (“to disturb”). According to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, masturbation is to “give yourself or somebody else sexual pleasure by stroking the genitals, usually to orgasm.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary states that “the stimulation can be performed manually, by other types of bodily contact (short of sexual intercourse), by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods.”

There are archeological records of humans masturbating that go back as far as 6,000 B.C. In the land of Sumer, often known as the “Cradle of Civilization,” the ancient Sumerians believed that masturbation was a technique used to increase a man’s sexual prowess. It was viewed as part of normal activities for daily life, neither to be shunned away from nor considered taboo. The ancient Egyptians viewed masturbation superstitiously while the ancient Greeks were rather casual about it.

At the other end of the spectrum, masturbation was considered illegal in some societies. The 17th century law code of the Puritan colony of New Haven, Connecticut, considered masturbation as a crime punishable by the death penalty. The 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, viewed masturbation as a violation of universal moral law. Until today, the Roman Catholic Church still officially condemns masturbation as a mortal sin.

The American researcher Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) and others estimated that during the mid-20th century, at least 92% of all males and 70-80% of all females have indulged in masturbation at some point in their lives. European studies show comparable figures to support Kinsey’s research. Kinsey also found that 40% of men and 30% of women in relationships (marriage or dating) masturbate regularly. In his 2005 book, The Sexual Man, Dr. Archibald Hart reveals that 61% of married Christian men masturbate.

The December 10, 2008 issue of The Sun reports that the “Gossard Big M Survey” done a year earlier found that 92% of UK women aged 18-30 masturbate. Two-thirds of women admit to pleasuring themselves three times a week, with women in London finding time for four sessions every seven days. A 2004 study done in Toronto, Canada, found that males begin masturbating as early as 10 years old while some females (6%) may begin before the age of six.

Some of the generally accepted benefits of masturbation include the following: (1) It is a good way of relieving sexual tension that can build up over time, especially for people without partners, or whose partners are not willing or available to have sex. (2) It is a safe sexual alternative for people who wish to avoid pregnancy and the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases. (3) It is necessary when a man must give a semen sample for infertility testing or for sperm donation. (4) It is a standard prescription given by sex therapists to treat sexual dysfunction in an adult, helping a person to experience orgasm (often in women) or to delay orgasm (often in men).

The big question here is: can a Christian masturbate? Is it morally right or wrong? Those who argue against it claim that masturbation is unnatural, and may result in God’s judgment on the body later on in life (in the form of physical ailments). Others claim that it is an irresponsible means to attain sexual satisfaction without the “burden” of commitment. Spiritual giants like C.S. Lewis and John Calvin were both strongly against it.

What about those who are not averse to it? Mark Driscoll, the preaching pastor at the 7,500-member Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, was quoted as having said this in one of his video lectures: “In marriage is it okay for one to masturbate the other? Yes, as long as it promotes oneness between a couple … But if you are someone who masturbates in a nonaddictive, non-lustful, non-pornographic way and you are single, it is not a sin.”

Surprisingly, the conservative evangelical and founder of Focus On The Family, Dr. James Dobson, was reported to have said, “99% of boys do it and the other 1% are lying. If we tell boys it is wrong and that God disapproves, what happens to those who aren’t able to stop? They grow up thinking God hates them or that they are some miserable, shameful, dirty creatures that belong under a rock. Therefore, let them do it.” In his book, Preparing for Adolescence, Dr. Dobson says, “It is my opinion that masturbation is not much of an issue with God.”

What does the Bible say?

The solitary Scripture most opponents of masturbation often quote is Genesis 38:9. It is an account of God judging Onan for spilling his semen onto the ground. Many of the early church saints, like Jerome and Clement of Alexandra, had used this story as an example of why masturbation should be banned. However, a closer, objective study of this passage would show that the context here has nothing to do with masturbation. In the days of the patriarchs, if a man died childless, the custom then was for his brother to take his wife, and the children produced by this second marriage were considered as the children of the first husband, and consequently inherit his possessions and extend his lineage. As such, Onan was supposed to raise up a seed for his deceased brother. Instead of doing that, he took advantage of his sister-in-law, Tamar, for his own sexual gratification, but didn’t want the responsibility to father her a child. God immediately judged Onan for his refusal to raise up an offspring for his brother.

The Bible also talks about “nocturnal emission,” an ejaculation during sleep by a male (Lev. 15:16-17; 22:4; Deut. 23:9-11). Today, we commonly call this a “wet dream,” or a spontaneous orgasm. Whenever they are mentioned in Scripture, it has more to do with Old Testament health and hygiene than what constitutes a sin.

What is my personal opinion regarding masturbation? Theologically, the Scripture is relatively silent about it although its practice stretches back to biblical times. None of the verses above outrightly name masturbation as a sin. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. To me, the act of self-stimulation is worrying only if it leads to the following three problems:

1. Pornography. Pornography has long been condemned and prohibited in the belief that it depraves and corrupts both minors and adults, and that it leads to the commission of sex crimes. Pornography is often used hand-in-hand with masturbation to stimulate the imagination as well as the genitals. In a Kinsey Institute survey, 72% of the respondents said they used porn to masturbate for physical release.In their award-winning bestseller, Porn Trap, sex therapists, Wendy and Larry Maltz, relate the harmful effects pornography has on an individual: “A relationship with porn can act like an affair. It can take time and energy away from an existing intimate relationship. People who use porn often operate with the same kind of secrecy and deception as someone having a sexual affair. When a porn user is confronted by a partner, there is often denial, lying and attempts to cover up the wrongdoing. Without realizing it, maintaining a “love affair” with porn can become more important than staying connected to someone in real life. Also, if you use porn regularly, the mental images and scenarios of porn can keep playing in your mind during sex, making it hard to feel connected and intimate with the real person in your life.”
2. Compulsive Masturbation. A compulsive masturbator may self-pleasure an inordinate number of times a day. The world record is reported to be 36 times over a 24-hour period! However, excessive masturbation can lead to neurochemical imbalances in the body and bring about continual fatigue, concentration and memory losses. Masturbation addiction can also lead to other forms of sex addictions such as:
   • Multiple sexual partners
   • Consistent use of pornography
   • Phone or computer sex (cybersex)
   • Prostitution, or use of prostitutes
   • Exhibitionism
   • Voyeurism (watching others) and/or stalking
   • Sexual harassment
   • Molestation
   • Rape

   To test if you have a problem with compulsive masturbation or other sex addictions, try the following Self-Assessment Test from Sex Addicts Anonymous: www.sexaa.org/IsSAAForYou/SelfAssessment.

3. Resentment in Spouse. When a married partner individually indulges in masturbation, especially when it is done in secrecy, the spouse is no longer the only source of sexual gratification. When one partner feeds his or her sexual appetite with masturbation, leaving the other partner sexually unfulfilled, it could cause feelings of resentment and loss of respect over time. Sexual pleasure involves considering the feelings of your spouse. If one partner is uncomfortable with the fact that the other is masturbating, especially when it is done outside of the couple’s lovemaking, both of you should have a radically honest discussion together. Come to a mutual agreement that both partners are comfortable with and genuinely happy about.

Finally, as with most things that are not explicitly encouraged or prohibited in the Bible, one should only do it if it doesn’t go against the inner peace of God in his or her heart (Col. 3:15).

At its 36th Bi-Annual National Conference held on April 23-24, 2007, the Assemblies of God in Australia introduced a new code allowing AG pastors to consume alcohol. However it also urged extreme caution when drinking, and highlighted that drunkenness is prohibited.

According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, throughout the first 1,800 years of church history, Christians consumed alcoholic beverages as a common part of everyday life and nearly always used wine (fermented grape juice) in the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper. Many of the early church fathers allowed wine drinking in moderation. The Catholic Church requires properly fermented wine in their Eucharist. The Reformers from Luther and Calvin to Zwingli and Knox strongly supported the enjoyment of wine as a biblical blessing. It was said that Calvin’s annual salary in Geneva included seven barrels of wine. Even the conservative and strict English Puritans were temperate partakers of wine and ale, which they considered as “God’s good gifts.” It was in the mid-1800s when some Protestant Christians moved from this historic position of allowing moderate use of alcohol to the total prohibiting of all drinking.

Are Christians allowed to drink wine and beverages that contain alcohol? Let us look at some standard objections against drinking of alcoholic beverages:

1.   Word Study: Those who argue against drinking seek to use “word study” as a pretext to prove that scripturally-approved wine is non-alcoholic in nature. However, their contention is tenuous and doesn’t stand up to close rigorous examination. There are 12 Hebrew words used to denote “wine.” The three most common ones are:

• Yayin (H3196), used 113 times in the Old Testament. Opponents of drinking often claim that, depending on the context, this could mean non-fermented alcohol. Not true. According to the authoritative Strong’s Hebrew & Greek Dictionary, yayin is definitely fermented, alcoholic wine.

• Tirosh (H8492), used 40 times in the Old Testament and translated as “new wine” (Prov. 3:10) or “sweet wine” (Micah 6:15). Opponents of drinking claim this is fresh grape juice with no alcohol content. Again, not true. The Strong’s Hebrew & Greek Dictionary says that although it is freshly squeezed grapes, it is nonetheless fermented. Easton’s Bible Dictionarysays that tirosh has the root meaning “to take possession of,” implying that it can intoxicate the brain (Hosea 4:11).

• Shekar (H7941), used 20 times in the Old Testament. It means strong drink, intense alcoholic liquor. No dispute here.

In the New Testament, the two main Greek words for wine are:

• Oinos (G3631), used 25 times. Since it is the counterpart to the Old Testament word yayin,opponents of drinking again claim that it was often unfermented and non-alcoholic; and even if it was alcoholic, oinos was so diluted with water that it had become virtually non-alcoholic. Not true. According to The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, the fact that Jesus mentions that oinos was capable of bursting wine skins (Matt. 9:17) implies strong fermentation.

• Gleukos (G1098), used once in Acts 2:13, and is the counterpart to the Old Testamenttirosh. Opponents of drinking claim this is totally non-alcoholic, just like the English glucose, which is dextrose or grape-sugar. Others claim this is nothing more than freshly squeezed grape juice. Not true again. The Strong’s Hebrew & Greek Dictionary says it is a highly intoxicating, fermented drink. The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary says that when “Peter replies (Acts 2:15), ‘These men are not drunk, as you suppose.’ If the wine was not intoxicating, the accusation could only have been ironical. From the explanations of the ancient lexicographers we may infer that the luscious qualities of this wine were due not to its being recently made but to its being produced from the purest juice of the grape.”

Upon close examination, to say that the wine in the Bible was unfermented grape juice or some form of sub-alcoholic, purified water is extremely speculative. In fact, the Bible clearly makes a clear distinction between wine and grape juice. In the Nazirite vow of Numbers 6:3, God instructed that “he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins.” In other words, when the Scriptures talk about wine, they are not referring to grape juice and vice versa.

A thorough word study of wine will bring us to the same conclusion as the Dictionary of Jesus & the Gospel: “All wine mentioned in the Bible is fermented grape juice with an alcohol content. No non-fermented drink was called wine.”

2.   Holy Communion: When the Lord’s Supper was instituted, the wine and the unleavened bread on the table were set apart as the body and blood of Christ. Jesus says, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). Opponents of drinking take the fruit of the vine to mean grape juice. But when Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their abuse of the Lord’s Supper, he blasted them for abusing the wine to get drunk (1 Cor. 11:20-21). Obviously, one must conclude that the beverage used for the Lord’s Supper could not be grape juice but real alcoholic wine.

3.   Qualification of a Bishop: Opponents of drinking often quote 1 Timothy 3:2-3 when Paul says that a bishop must be a man “not given to wine.” The word “given” (Gr. paroinos) means “drunken.” The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament says, “The word does not include the responsible and temperate usage of alcohol, rather, it has in view the abuse or incessant use of it. The word-picture is that of an individual who always has a bottle (or wineskin) on the table and so signifies addiction.”

4.   Drunkenness. Without a doubt, drunkenness is a sin. Scripturally, it is portrayed negatively with characteristics such as staggering, reeling, vomiting, loss of mental control, and possible addiction. Poverty, immorality and sexual perversion are commonly mentioned in the Bible as results of drunkenness. Priests and prophets are judged for drunkenness, which prevents them from performing their duties (Is. 28:7). No bishop or church leader can be a drunkard (Titus 1:7; 2:2-5). Drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21). Opponents of drinking posit that since drinking potentially causes drunkenness, we should never pick up the first drink. If that argument is true, then the same must be said of food, money, work and sex since they could also lead to gluttony, greed, workaholism and sex addiction. Should one abstain from them all because of potential danger? Of course, not.

5.   Health: Opponents of drinking claim that alcohol impairs and destroys our body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Not all true. Studies have found that moderate alcohol consumption has health benefits like lowering the risk of heart attack, diabetes, stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease. In some cases, it actually increases longevity. Paul instructed Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Tim. 5:23). But drunkenness or alcoholic intoxication affects the brain, causes slurred speech, clumsiness, and delayed reflexes. Long-term excessive consumption can permanently damage the liver and brain, and cause some forms of cancer. As such, moderation is the key.

What then is the Bible’s general attitude toward wine and drinking? One cannot deny that both the Old and New Testament view wine drinking favorably:

• Sign of God’s blessing: Abundant wine was considered a sign of blessing and prosperity from God, not something to be shunned (Gen. 49:11-12; Deut. 7:13; Prov. 31:6; Joel 2:24; 3:18; Amos 9:13-14; Is. 55:1; Zech. 10:7). Isaac blessed Jacob by saying, “Therefore may God give you of the dew of heaven, of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine”(Gen. 27:28). Conversely, the lack of wine was a symbol of judgment and calamity (Deut. 28:30; Is. 16:10; 24:11; 65:21; Jer. 48:33; Joel 1:5; Amos 5:11; Micah 6:15; Zeph. 1:13).

• Righteous offering to God: Starting back in Genesis, Melchizedek the priest of God Most High used wine in religious ceremonial offering (Gen. 14:18). Wine was used as offerings to God ever since.

• Enjoyment: Psalms 104:15 says that God gives His people “wine that makes glad the heart of man.” Ecclesiastes 9:7 says, “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works.” Wine was always considered a source of joy, one of the good things created for people (Judges 9:13; 2 Sam. 13:28; Esther 1:10; Eccl. 2:3; 10:19; Is. 24:11; Zech. 10:7). Until today, Jews use wine on Sabbath for Kiddush as well as in the Passover ceremony and in other religious ceremonies, and allow the use of alcohol, such as kosher wine. Many ancient Jewish texts such as the Talmud even encourage moderate amounts of drinking on holidays such as Purim, in order to make the occasion more joyous.

• Normal: Like fasting, abstinence from wine was the exception and not the norm for God’s people. We see that in Daniel (Dan. 1:8-16), the Rechabites (Jer. 35:1-19), and the Nazirites (Num. 6:1-4).

• Jesus Himself drank wine: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Matt. 11:18-19). To be accused of being a winebibber, Jesus obviously drank alcoholic wine. And He permitted the use of wine in festivities like the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-11). In fact, His first miracle was to turn water into wine. Jesus even used the imagery of fermented wine to describe His teaching as “new wine” (Matt. 9:17).

With alcoholism an increasing problem in society, it is understandable why some may want to caution against drinking. But to twist Scriptures in order to prove wine as unfermented grape juice is certainly not an honest way to go.

Abstinence was never an issue in the Old Testament, New Testament, early church or the Reformation. There is never any direct prohibition of the use of wine in the Bible. But anything done in excess is wrong. Moderation is the watchword (Phil. 4:5 KJV). In this case, the Bible permits drinking but at the same time, discourages drunkenness. Besides, the use of wine is dependent upon the conscience and the sensitivities of others. It is not to be indulged in if it will lead others to drink against their conscience (Rom. 14:19-21).

 “Charismatics” is a word popularized in the 1960s for Christians flowing in the gifts of the Holy Spirit as outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. Charisma is derived from the basic Greek noun,charis, which means “grace,” or the free, unmerited favor of God. From it, we have the English adjective “charismatic,” which is used to describe a person possessing great powers of charm or influence. Within the Church, Charismatics are Christians who believe they have been “graced” with the presence and power of God.

Because the largest and more progressive churches in most cities tend to be Charismatic, they are often a point of fascination in the culture. Due to their inclination toward the supernatural and emotional, the media and their critics have unfairly portrayed them as a bizarre Christian subculture, a “sect” whose beliefs and behavior are an embarrassment to mainstream believers. What anti-Charismatics fail to realize is that Charismatics are very much a part of mainstream Christianity.

The Charismatic movement is the fastest growing segment of the body of Christ worldwide. With more than 600 million adherents globally, more than one in four believers today are either Pentecostal or Charismatic. A 2008 report by The Barna Group states that in America, a slight majority (51%) of all born again Christians is Charismatic. Nearly half of all adults (46%) who attend a Protestant church is Charismatic. One out of every four (23%) Protestant churches is a Charismatic congregation. One third (36%) of all Catholics is Charismatic.

Apart from size, Charismatics are also among the most fervent of the body of Christ. Consider the following data from the same report by The Barna Group:

• God: Almost nine in 10 Charismatics believe that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the universe who still rules the universe today. Yet, barely seven in 10 non-Charismatics view God that way.

• Great Commandment: 90% of Charismatics believe that their purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul. Only 66% of non-Charismatics believe similarly.

• Bible reading: 55% of Charismatics read the Bible in a typical week, whereas only 36% of non-Charismatics do the same.

• Active Christianity: 42% of Charismatics read the Bible, attend a church service, and pray to God in a typical week. Only 25% of non-Charismatics do so.

• Evangelism: Slightly more than half of Charismatics believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious belief. Less than one in three non-Charismatics possesses a similar commitment.

Without a doubt, Charismatics on the whole are Bible-believing and Bible-obeying. Unfortunately, a casual browse through cyberspace reveals legions of bloggers hammering away at Charismatic leaders and churches. Why isn’t there a greater counter-response from the Charismatics? Personally, I half suspect that most Charismatic pastors and ministries are so busy in the work of evangelism, discipleship and missions, they have little time or passion to answer the criticisms leveled at them.

With 600 million Charismatics in the world today, to generalize or stereotype the Charismatic faith is like saying, “All Asians believe in this,” or “All Americans believe in that.” The spectrum is just too wide in terms of doctrinal and ministry views. The only commonality is their connection to Jesus Christ and the belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still valid and active today.

Are there Charismatics who are unbalanced or extreme in Bible doctrines? Of course there are, as with non-Charismatics. Are there Charismatics who live only for self instead of the Savior? Of course there are, as with non-Charismatics. Are there Charismatics who are shallow and superficial in their walk with Jesus? Of course there are, as with non-Charismatics. But taken as a whole, survey after survey has shown Charismatics to be fervent followers of Christ, serious in advancing the kingdom of God.

Let us consider some typical criticisms directed against Charismatics:

• “Charismatics twist Scripture to justify an opulent lifestyle.” Not true. The vast majority of Charismatics are not fixated with wealth or materialism. Like most Christians, they believe that God provides for their need, not their greed. Having said that, Charismatics are not abhorrent to wealth that comes through diligent work or God’s blessing. Most believe that prosperity is God’s plan for the believer simply because of the abundance of Bible texts to support that. Take for example, 2 Corinthians 8:9 says, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.” The word, “rich” (Gr. plouteo) means to become financially wealthy and increased with goods. For most Charismatics, success and wealth are means to help the poor, better society, and fulfill the Great Commission.

• “Charismatics despise the sick and those in suffering.” Not true. This statement ignores the fact that Charismatics are globally active in eradicating systemic poverty and addressing healthcare problems. As the most mission-minded segment of Christendom, Charismatic ministries donate significant portions of their annual budgets into medical and humanitarian aids. Scriptures like “He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses” (Matt. 8:17) give them cause to believe that healing is in the atonement, and thus is the general will of God for everyone. Whether through faith, medicine or therapy, most Charismatics value the need for a healthy body to live a fruitful life and serve the purpose of God.

• “Charismatic meetings are shallow in doctrine and theology.” Not true. The fact is that Charismatics read the Bible and believe in its inerrancy more so than non-Charismatics. Most Charismatic churches have well-organized Bible classes and seminars to expound on the Holy Scriptures and Christian doctrines. But these are usually conducted outside of regular services. Most Charismatic meetings are designed to help attendees find wholeness in their soul and wisdom for daily living. Praise, worship and prayer are featured more prominently than non-Charismatic services. Sermons tend to deal with practical themes like marriage, family, work life and behavioral change. Most meetings end with a time for attendees to receive prayer for salvation, healing, and other practical needs. As such, to prejudge Charismatic meetings as shallow because of their focus on the mundane borders on religious arrogance and intellectual chauvinism.

• “Charismatic churches are conning the gullible of their money.” I often wonder if the rage of anti-Charismatics here is targeted against the ability of Charismatic churches to exact money from their congregation, or the quantum of money that is collected? Is it the attendees’ willingness to give, or is it the amount collected that is more upsetting? A common rant of anti-Charismatics is that flamboyant Charismatic preachers are conning the gullible “to sow their seeds” and give big amounts as a form of religious lotteries in their quest to be rich.

What anti-Charismatics fail to realize is that Charismatic services are filled with the educated and sophisticated. They don’t arrive at relative affluence by being naive. Most Charismatics have the common sense to see through the shenanigans of tricksters behind the pulpit. But they do appreciate preachers who encourage them to go beyond their fears and stay faithful in their financial stewardship. Besides, didn’t Elijah challenge the poor widow of Zarepheth to sacrifice her last morsel of bread and trust God for a multiplication of provision (1 Kin. 17:11-14)? Is Elijah the prophet a heartless con artist then? Besides, isn’t “sowing and reaping” a principle of life and the Scriptures?

Instead of questioning the what and how of giving, one should ask the why. Why are Charismatics so willing to part with their money? For most, they give out of a passion to advance the cause of Christ, and the faith that God will bless them back so that they can keep financing the work of the kingdom.

 Instead of Charismatic-bashing, non-Charismatics should look beyond the differences and focus on the goals every Christian has in common—becoming salt and light in society, and making disciples of every nation.

Tattoos have become a mark of the 21st century. According to the August 4, 2008, issue of U.S. News & World Report, more than one quarter of those under the age of 30 adorn their skin with at least one. No longer is tattoo something reserved only for gang members, convicts, delinquents or social outcasts. In fact, many of the preachers’ kids of the largest churches in Australia, America and Europe have them on their bodies. And these PKs are by no means rebellious or unspiritual. Most of them are doing excellent jobs leading youth, music and creative ministries. Some are even deliberately using their tattoos as a bridge to connect with the unchurched in outreach efforts. However, for most people, a tattoo is simply a means of stylistic expression. Many middle-aged women may not tattoo patterns and designs, but they go to their aestheticians to tattoo their eyebrows, eyeliners and lip colors.

So, is tattooing a sin? Are Christians allowed to have them?

Those who argue against it often quote Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.” The word for “tattoo” in its original Hebrew is qa-aqa, which appears only this one time in the entire Scripture. Proper hermeneutic requires us to read any Bible passage with the actual context in mind. Practically all Bible commentaries agree that the context of Leviticus 19 is God prohibiting the Israelites from adopting the religious practices of the pagan nations surrounding them. Adam Clarke’s Commentary of the Old Testament says that the pagans were carrying “marks on the body in honor of the object of their worship … for superstitious purposes … in honor of different idols.” Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible says that the practice “had religious significance among Israel’s pagan neighbors.” But what if there is no religious, superstitious or idolatrous implication? Is a believer allowed to tattoo then?

Technically, if one takes the view that Leviticus 19 prohibits tattooing for all people in allcircumstances, then for consistency’s sake, one must also abide by all the letters of the law here. That includes no shaving around the sides of the head, and the mandatory keeping of beards for all men (v27), which is a near impossibility for any serving in the military today. That also includes not wearing clothes made of different fabrics (v19). Should we then also continue with slavery and the keeping of mistresses, both accepted practices during the ancient days of Leviticus (v20)? Should we continue the Old Testament dietary restrictions like no eating of pork, shrimp, crab or shellfish? What about headscarves for women? Do we need to enforce that on all Christian women today? Most of us will agree that the answers to all the above are an emphatic no.

Next, is God Himself abhorrent to tattoos? God says in Isaiah 49:16, “See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands.  Your walls are continually before Me.” The word “inscribe” in Hebrew means “to engrave.” The scholars of The Living Bible simply translate that as “I have tattooedyour name upon my palm.” When John saw a vision of God’s chosen 144,000, they were “sealed” and “written” with the Father’s name on their foreheads (Rev. 7:3; 14:1). Those words in the original Greek mean to “mark,” “stamp” and “engrave.” The book of Revelation also talks about false worshipers receiving the mark of the beast, which were called stigmata among the Greeks. To this Paul refers when he says, “I bear in my body the marks (stigmata) of the Lord Jesus” (Gal. 6:17). Whether the prophet Isaiah and the apostles John and Paul are speaking metaphorically or otherwise, one thing is for sure, body markings are not always repugnant to God. As such, we must be careful not to paint them as evil or sinful in a broad, general stroke.

Theologians, like Tom Beaudoin, have done studies on youths who pierce or tattoo their bodies. They discovered that youths do that when they have had profound experiential encounters. Things that impact them deeply, like when they fall in love, get their hearts broken, graduate, start a new job, achieve something they are proud of, or lose a loved one through death. To the youths and young adults of the 21st century, tattooing (and body piercing) are often not something vain or rebellious, but more like a rite of passage. It is their way of expressing the spiritual in the physical, even at the expense of experiencing some bodily pain.

For most people, tattooing today is simply a means of personal and stylistic expression, much like clothing, makeup, hairstyle, body-toning and fashion accessorizing. There is nothing religious, superstitious and rebellious to the wearer; it is simply for aesthetic value.

Because tattooing is designed to last forever, and removal is painful and expensive, you should enter into it only after much consideration. Ask yourself the following:

• Am I at a legally acceptable age to get a tattoo?
• If I live with my parents, would they support my decision?
• Would I still want this tattoo when I get older?
• Am I really comfortable having it even if people may “unfairly judge” me?
• If my tattoo is visible to others, is it appropriate for my line of work?

Ultimately, tattooing is a personal choice that, more often than not, reflects neither a rebellious nature nor a religious inclination. It is clearly written in the Bible that God looks beyond the surface and sees the heart of a person. We must be careful not to judge a believer with tattoos as loving God less than the one without.