Problems

Playing off yesterday's post along with the book of Daniel, I was looking at the famous story of Daniel in the lions' den. The story takes place in Daniel 6. What was previously the Babylonian empire had been conquered by the Medes and the Persians and King Darius was in power. He appointed 120 satraps -- governors of the day -- to manage the kingdom and put commissioners over them and put Daniel over all the commissioners. Of course, the gang wasn't happy, but finding a flaw in Daniel was impossible, apparently, so they decided to create one. They suggested to the king that he should ban anyone asking anything of any god or man other than the king for 30 days. (Imagine that. "Hey, buddy, can you spare a dime?" Bam! You're being fed to the lions.) And the king's ego fell for it. We pick the story up, then, when Daniel saw the law enacted.

Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God, as he had been doing previously. (Dan 6:10)

Interesting, isn't it? The text makes it clear that Daniel was fully cognizant of the law. He knew that his praying to His God had been banned. So he surreptitiously continued to pray, but in a manner that wouldn't get him in trouble. Oh ... no ... that's not right. No, Daniel prayed where he was clearly visible, and he prayed multiple times a day.

You know how that worked out for him. His enemies (which, by the way, did not include King Darius) made sure they saw him breaking the law, then ran and tattled on him to the king and reminded the king that 1) he himself signed the law and 2) the law could not be changed. Out of options, the king had him thrown into the lions' den per the law. I love how this pagan king held out hope for Daniel because of his God. "The king spoke and said to Daniel, 'Your God whom you constantly serve will Himself deliver you'" (Dan 6:16). The king didn't sleep all night and, in the morning, went to see if Daniel's God had indeed saved Daniel. He had. The king was delighted and tossed the group that had sought Daniel's death to the punishment they had sought for Daniel. Then he made a decree (similar to Nebudchadnezzar before him) that Daniel's God was God indeed and everyone had better recognize and respect Him (Dan 6:25-29).

It's as good story, but what can we take away from it? Daniel had problems. I mean, Daniel's "offense" was following his God faithfully, but his contemporaries hated him enough for it that they sought to have him canceled ... permanently. And the trick worked and Daniel did not avoid the lions' den. Problems on problems. And we have problems, too. I cannot imagine why Christians believe we shouldn't. We do. But Daniel had to decide. Will he wholeheartedly continue to blatantly serve his God, or would he "go underground"? You know, still believe and all, but maybe just keep it quiet? I mean, what if they called him a "kingphobe"? What if they labeled him a scofflaw? What if he failed to observe the right pronouns or bow to the "love is love" police, as it were? Just appear to go along and keep quiet. Daniel stood for God in the face of ... problems. And I wonder if we are doing the same. I wonder what level of "problem" will be the point at which we no longer quite trust our God? If it costs us our reputation? (Isn't it our reputation that prevents many of us from sharing the gospel with others?) What about our livelihood? What if standing for Christ cost us our jobs? Our freedom? Our lives? Do we cave to our "problems" or do we say our God is sufficient for us and we will trust and serve Him regardless of the consequences? Which, you see, was yesterday's question.