Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Go to the Source

Omega-3 fatty acids have become all the rage recently, and for good reason. Significant  evidence supports their benefit for a wide range of medical conditions including depression, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and a number of other conditions. So doctors and naturopaths have started advising that we get our share of this important nutrient. The fish industry has also capitalized on this new information since certain fish are rich in omega-3 fatty acids. People have been encouraged to eat more fish, and supplements with fish oil have been marketed to benefit people with heart disease and other conditions. 
Unfortunately there are problems with getting our omega-3 fatty acids from fish. An obvious concern is fact that the cholesterol per serving is almost the same as from any other meat source. Also as with other meat sources, most fish are high in saturated fat which encourages the body to make more cholesterol. Another concern is that fish concentrate (up to a million times even in only mildly polluted water) and contain chemicals such as mercury, pesticides, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and dioxin, and also can contain PCBs, various heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, halogenated organic compounds, and lead. For this reason pregnant women are advised by the FDA against eating certain fish altogether (shark, king mackerel, tilefish due to high levels of mercury) and advised to limit intake of other fish with lower content of mercury to 12 ounces per week or only 6 ounces of albacore tuna per week (other fish: shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, catfish).
But do we really need to get our omega-3’s from fish? Should we settle for low levels of mercury and other toxin exposure when we could avoid all the toxins in fish? Well, let me tell you a little secret. The omega-3 fatty acids that you get from fish are second hand omega-3’s. In other words, the fish contain omega-3 fatty acids because they ate plants that contain them. Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) is the precursor found in plants which our bodies break down into EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (end products found in fish). So the good news is that we can go to the source instead of eating it second hand in the form of a high cholesterol, polluted animal fat package (animal fat in general is  linked to cancer and atherosclerosis as well as obesity and related diseases). Studies have shown an expected significant rise in EPA in the body after a given amount of alpha-linolenic acid is ingested in the form of a plant product. 
Unfortunately some sources insist that you must get this nutrient from fish. It is true that current studies show that humans only break down about 5-6% of the linolenic acid into EPA which is another reason that fish consumption is being urged upon us.   However, who is to say how much of this EPA we really need? This advice is also skewed based on the study population used to produce the data. The amount of EPA that we are advised to get from fish is based on the amount that has been shown to benefit heart disease patients, people eating a high fat, high cholesterol diet, and some studies have shown up to 50% decrease in heart disease deaths (Dutch study of 852 men). However, studies have also shown that individuals on a total vegetarian diet decrease risk of heart disease deaths up to 86%. Thus there is more benefit from eating a total vegetarian diet than from eating fish. Therefore for those who insist on eating a diet rich in fat and cholesterol, fish may be a good addition to their diet or perhaps a substitution for other meats. However for someone already on a good diet adding fish could actually increase the risk of heart disease by increasing fat and cholesterol levels as seen in a Harvard study of 44,895 men showing that the addition of fish actually increased the risk of heart disease. So the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that we need is really unknown, but it is clear that getting them from a source with high fat and high cholesterol is not ideal. It also is clear that our bodies break down ALA to EPA. So it seems that the best place we can get these nutrients is from our everyday foods: flaxseed oil and flaxseed, english walnuts, soybean oil, canned spinach, as well as smaller amounts in more common foods such as beans, banana, apple, bread, and potatoes. 
Over the years we have seen time and again that nutrients, when given in isolated, supplement form, can actually be harmful because they are more concentrated and interact differently in the body when they are just poured in instead of allowing the body to regulate their use, distribution, and breakdown. Take for example studies on vitamin E. In the setting of a vitamin E-rich diet, vitamin E seemed to decrease risk of lung cancer, but when given in supplement form it actually increased the risk of lung cancer. There have been many other similar examples.
So is this vitamin actually bad for us? Of course not. It is very important, but the format in which it is delivered is also very important. So when we supplement with fish oil, which is already broken down by the fish into EPA,  we are supplementing something that is not in its natural form. We already know that there is risk of too much EPA leading to hemorrhage and thus stroke. So why don’t we get back to nature instead and eat the whole food and let our bodies choose to break it down as it is needed instead of risk having some negative effect because of the form we choose to ingest. Also, why seek a necessary nutrient in a cholesterol rich, polluted package when we can get that nutrient directly from the same source that the fish gets it from? Let’s go to the source: plants.
References:
Proof Positive. Neil Nedley, MD.
  1. Kromhout D, Bosschieter EB, de Lezenne Coulander C. The inverse relation between fish consumption and 20-year mortality from coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1985 May 9;312(19):1205-1209.
  2. Phillips R, Lemon F, Kuzma J. Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits. Am J Clin Nutr 1978 Oct;31(10 Suppl):S191-S198.
  3. Ascherio A, Rimm EB, et al. Dietary intake of marine n-3 fatty acids, fish intake, and the risk of coronary disease among men. N Engl J Med 1995 Apr 13;332(15):977-982.
--------------------------- The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this web site is for general information purposes only. For His Glory makes no representation and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of information contained on or available through this web site, and such information is subject to change without notice. You are encouraged to confirm any information obtained from or through this web site with other sources, and review all information regarding any medical condition or treatment with your physician. NEVER DISREGARD PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVICE OR DELAY SEEKING MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING YOU HAVE READ ON OR ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE. For His Glory does not recommend, endorse or make any representation about the efficacy, appropriateness or suitability of any specific tests, products, procedures, treatments, services, opinions, health care providers or other information that may be contained on or available through this web site. FOR HIS GLORY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR LIABLE FOR ANY ADVICE, COURSE OF TREATMENT, DIAGNOSIS OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION, SERVICES OR PRODUCTS THAT YOU OBTAIN THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

REBUKING! Is it Biblical?


As Christians we are called to follow the full counsel of God as found in His word.I believe each sincere individual strives to follow God fully despite our humanity. One aspect found in God’s word, that I was prompted to study more, is the subject of rebuking.  Below are gleanings I got from the study of the word rebuke. 
Since this is a biblical study, below is one of the definitions of the word rebuke:
The Greek word is e˙piti÷mhson which has this meaning: “to rebuke — in order to curb one’s ferocity or violence.” “to tax upon, i.e. censure or admonish; by implication, forbid: — (straitly) charge, rebuke.”
Now that we know this definition, more will follow, let’s examine some verses that use the word rebuke. 
Luke 17:3 “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”
Here we read Jesus calling for his believer to rebuke a “brother” who has offended him. Interesting to note is that the rebuke may or may not illicit the brother’s repentance. Yet the implication is that you should rebuke someone simply because he has sinned against you—sin being the operative word.  The need for rebuke is not dependent on the outcome expected.  (Although in Matthew 18, there is a stated desired result—the regaining of an injured relationship.) Rather, the rebuke is to “curb/forbid” or declare a boundary—declaring that a brother cannot continue to sin against you without response.
(The danger in this verse is in someone using the injunction to rebuke when no sin is involved, but simply an offense caused by misunderstanding or need for training.  Our first line of action must always be that of differentiating between sin and mistakes/misunderstandings between you and your ‘brother.’  A high percentage of offenses seen are not due to sin, but to misunderstanding another’s words or action—and then someone jumping to wrong conclusions.  No rebuke is needed in that case—only clarification and explanation to renew trust that may have been lost.)
With that understood, if sin is the cause of the offense, the attitude that…
“I am not going to say anything because it won’t change his or her mind,” will not be beneficial to either party.
I may at times need to rebuke another to stop him from continuing to sin against me.  But my goal is not to protect my feelings, but to protect the relationship, regain unity, and protect the brother from sin.  However if my brother repents I am commanded to forgive him.  Both the call to rebuke and to forgive is given to us as a command by Jesus Himself.  We move on to our next verse.
1 Tim 5:1  “Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers.” 
The word translated rebuke in this verse is different and adds the nuance of not doing so “sharply” when it comes to those advanced in years. This rebuke is:
“To be very tender in rebuking elders--elders in age, elders by office. Respect must be had to the dignity of their years and place, and therefore they must not be rebuked sharply nor magisterially;”
    By implication it also includes the other groups mentioned in the verse. Therefore the key to appropriate rebuke (or correction) is in understanding the nature of the offense.  If rebellious, sharp rebuke; if an offense of ignorance, simply correcting with all gentleness may suffice.
Nevertheless there is still implied a call to rebuke if the nuance added is taken into consideration, just not sharply. However the ideal and preferred would be exhortation.
1 Tim 5:20  “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”

Now the word for rebuke here adds still another meaning:
But e˙le÷gcein is a much more pregnant word; it is so to rebuke another, with such effectual wielding of the victorious arms of the truth, as to bring him, if not always to a confession, yet at least to a conviction, of his sin (Job v. 17; Prov. xix. 25), just as in juristic Greek, e˙le÷gcein is not merely to reply to, but to refute, an opponent.” 
In the context of the chapter this is calling for an open rebuke of church elders who are sinning. I know people who would venture that this type of rebuke would be unbiblical, and yet here it is in the Bible. 
The reason for the rebuke is two fold: (1) to convict the individual of sin and (2) to make others know that they too will be not get away with sinning.
2 Tim 4:2   “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” 
This rebuke is just like the first one we saw in Luke 17:3 where the rebuke is given mainly to set boundaries for the sinner. Conviction may or may not come.  Nevertheless the rebuke has to be given. These rebukes have to have Biblical principles behind them— hence inclusion of the phrase, “preach the word.”
What is scary is that in this context we have to be always ready to give a rebuke or hear one, ouch!
Titus 1:13 “This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,” 
In the context of this verse the word rebuke is the same as found in 1 Tim 5:20. It is to rebuke sharply in order to help convict the individuals of their sin.  If you read the context correctly you will notice this rebuke is to prevent people who claim to be in a relationship with God from influencing others toward their heresies—to prevent them from teaching false doctrines within the church.    We notice here again (according to the context) that the sharp rebuke is for the insubordinate—the idle talkers and deceivers, the dishonest ones, abominable and disobedient.  These cannot be reclaimed by gentle exhortation.  The purpose of open rebuke to the rebellious seems not so much for the ones being rebuked as it is for ones listening in, the whole church, to warn them of the sins condemned, and to separate their sympathies from the ones rebuked.
Titus 2:15 ¶ “Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.” 
This too has the same meaning of both 1 Tim 5:20 & Titus 1:13.   Paul is giving Timothy the encouragement to be faithful to task of calling others to the purity of the gospel.
BIBLICAL EXAMPLES OF REBUKES: 
Acts 13:10 “and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?” 
Read the words of above, spoken today, many would think they are “too harsh” or “un-Christ like” however they were used by the apostle Paul. They were spoken to someone whom he hardly knew, if he knew him at all. Furthermore the individual was not even a church member; he was outside the body of believers. What warranted the words? The individual was perverting the gospel.  God calls believers to guard the gospel truth as most precious. That constitutes a Godly rebuke:
“There are those who think that a Spirit-filled Christian will show only the relatively passive “fruit of the Spirit” catalogued by Paul in Gal. 5:22, 23. But the Spirit also leads His messengers to identify and define sin frankly, and to condemn it in clear terms. The Spirit-filled Paul did this very thing in the case of Elymas.”
  Of course, one of the descriptions of the fruit of the Spirit is faithfulness—which is demonstrated in those who are willing to rebuke as necessary.

Acts 2:23  “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;” 
Peter declares the truth to his listeners however unpleasant it might be. He is direct and precise. This type of precision would be frowned upon today, but why? Has man’s inner heart become better? People are still potentially as wicked now as the people who crucified Jesus.
Acts 7:51, 52  ¶ “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,”
Some observations: (1) Stephen knew they were not going to listen to him. (2) How did he know they resist the Holy Spirit?  Because of their habitual actions   (3) He even rightly accused their heritage because their spirit showed they shared the same father.

Acts 8:20-23  “But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 
For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.” 
Some observations: (1) actions do give us insights into the heart. (2) God’s gifts cannot be purchased; hence it is by grace alone (3) You CAN recognize and call someone’s actions “wickedness.”  (4) You can recognize in others a “bitter/poison filled, heart/attitude who is bound by sin.”  We have not condemned the person, but that which is controlling the person. 
Acts 16:16-18  “Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour.”
 "But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." But, you say, she spoke good words, and why should Paul rebuke her? It was Satan speaking through her, hoping to mingle his sophistry with the truths taught by those who were proclaiming the Word of God.”
  
It is important that he who speaks the gospel lives the gospel, otherwise the influence is ultimately for evil.
“The same danger exists today. The enemy is trying to bring in his sophistry through those who ought to be on their knees before God, praying for an understanding of what saith the Scriptures, that they may stand against the evil influences that fill the world. God desires scientific sophistry to be purged from every heart. He desires us to rebuke every evil devising, every evil work. If we allow such devising to go un-rebuked, we shall have to suffer the consequences. . . . God wants us to go to Him for light, and to carry His presence with us wherever we go. . . .”
  
Nevertheless a word of caution:
There are individuals who rebuke and harshly correct when only recommendations, guidance, and assistance in understanding are what is needed.  It takes grace and patience to know the difference.  In bringing correction to the non-rebellious, we must always remember the gentleness of Jesus.  The rebellious person is the one in need of a sharp rebuke.  May God help us to know the difference.
In conclusion: Rebuking is Biblical and yet it is certainly a lost art. This lack of rebuke is much of what is hindering the church today. No one is willing to call sin by its name, and this is blunting our witness to the world.  May God help each one of us to live authentic, Biblically-centered lives for His glory and honor.



Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Love Wins: A Review on Rob Bells Book

I Just finished reading Love Wins, a book written by Pastor Rob Bell, a supposedly controversial book about Heaven and Hell. 
Claims of heresy have been floating around and many a stir has been made by one man’s new look into an age old argument. 
What about heaven & hell? 
Is God really going to punish people forever and ever throughout all eternity? 
Is Rob a universalist? Etc...  According to Rob Bell the answer is....
NO! 
Rob Bell is not a universalist. 
If anything, his book is more a rejection of the typical understanding of Hell that the majority of Christians hold. 
Rob asks:
“Have billions of people been created only to spend eternity in conscious punishment and torment, suffering infinitely for the finite sins they committed in the few years they spent on earth?”
Love Wins rejects this understanding but doesn’t say in the end what happens with those who ultimately reject Gods love (I’ll explain later why I believe this takes place). He rejects an ever burning, torturous hell. Therefore if that was your curiosity about his book, perhaps your curiosity is answered. 
Hopefully you will continue to read and understand that his book is more than a repudiation of the “typical” view of hell but rather a valid attempt to get people to think in different directions within the scope of Christianity. 
Love Wins, in the end is true. Love does ultimately win. Therefore what I enjoyed most about this book is this line which I believe to be true: 
“Love demands freedom, and freedom provides that possibility.” p. 94
God has allowed each of us the freedom to choose Him or not. Love demands such freedom but in the end Love wins because we in essence get what “we want,”
“That’s how love works. It can’t be forced, manipulated, or coerced. It always leaves room for the other to decide. God says yes, we can have what we want, because love wins.” p. 101
Rob goes out of his way to show the love of God, to entice others to see God’s love from a different point of view. To demonstrate that God is at work to save everyone including those that do not fit in our theological boxes. 
Yes! 
God is trying to save the Muslim. 
Yes! 
God is trying to save the Buddhist. 
Yes, yes, yes God is trying to save the world!  
And God will do what ever it takes to get that done. 
It is a resounding yes that God is trying to save everyone. 
I believe that and that is why I enjoyed the book because it paints a beautiful picture that God is love.
In all it is a simple book to understand. However there are other aspects of the book that are incomplete and this is where I differ form him theologically.
Rob rejects God tormenting people forever and so do I, but then Rob can not come up with an explanation as to what happens with those who Rob even acknowledges have the freedom to reject God. 
He misunderstands scripture and hints at the notion that the saved and the lost will live in a parallel “state” throughout eternity. Rob goes even as far as to speculate that the gates in the New Jerusalem will never be shut therefore speculating that the lost can perhaps change their mind and enter the city of God. 
“But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go. Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions-- and the people who do them-- from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people?” p.96
All this stems from his misunderstanding of what happens at death. He rejects an eternally burning hell and rejects universalism but doesn’t quite know what to do with the lost. Since in his framework he believes in an immortal soul he leaves it unclear what happens to the lost. He has bought into the very first lie, “you shall not die” uttered by Satan to Adam and Eve. 
I personally believe that the strides he makes in this book would be complete if he properly understood the state of the dead. 
In summary Rob is trying to demonstrate that God is love and I commend him for that. I commend him for thinking outside of the main stream of Christianity and rejecting a view that God is a tormentor yet I encourage him to be more faithful to the scriptures. 
We humans do not have an inherent immortality because only God is immortal. 1 Tim 6:16

Who are you becoming?

Have you ever heard a child say, 
“I want to be the most deceitful, crummiest, most despised person in the world when I grow up?” 
Or have you ever known of newly weds who have started their marriage with the intent to make it the most miserable marriage in the world? 
Absurd! 
No one starts with the intention of making life miserable for themselves. Furthermore, no one starts out life wanting to be anything like the list we find in the book of Romans chapter 1:
“...being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” 
Yet the truth is, we hear about these kind of people all the time. We might even know some of them. Hopefully this list does not characterize who we are, or who we are becoming.
Yet the Bible states we are either going in one direction or the other. We are either growing closer to Christ or growing closer to the above list. 
So the question begs to be asked,

Who are you becoming? 
No one gets to be like the list above without making wrong choices a daily habit.  Ask yourself as you watch this powerful video, 

“Who am I becoming?” 

The answer has profound ramifications for you TODAY!