Not in the News

According to The Washington Post, "Homosexuality has gained mainstream acceptance." Because of this the repeal in December of 2010 of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was a given. Except in the case of chaplains.

Interestingly, when the military integrated African Americans into the military, they got no resistance from chaplains. And when they incorporated women, again, no problems from chaplains. You see, then, a fundamental difference. Being black or female is not a matter of morality. Not the case with homosexuality. So while chaplains were required to (and cheerfully did) care for the spiritual needs of all military members, homosexual or not, it seems that the military is not going to return the favor. While chaplains regarded homosexuality as one of a multitude of sins, the military is not going to regard their freedom of religion as an actual right.

This isn't new. In 2005 a report came out that suggested that conservative chaplains were being discriminated against. They were being told not to pray "in the name of Jesus" and found hiring and promotions problems as a result. In 2006, a bill regarding military spending levels was held up on the question of whether or not chaplains could pray according to the dictates of their consciences. The military was opposed. You see, people are offended if you pray in a way they don't like. Your conscience and your beliefs are irrelevant.

So chaplains are being told to get in line or resign. There is concern that reading certain passages from Leviticus or 1 Corinthians will be difficult if not punishable. The Army's Chief Chaplain called for a day of prayer and fasting and the Military Religious Foundation called for his firing. When Lisa Ward, the Senior Vice Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 12075 and the widow of Major Richard Ward, a 30 year veteran, tried to have her husband buried at the Houston National Cemetery with the traditional VFW Burial Ritual, the National Cemetery Director placed restrictions on the religious speech because the ceremony mentioned "God". And on and on it goes.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Washington Post is accurate, that we've arrived at the point of mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. So? Well, apparently, in order to give this group their rights, the necessity is that religious and moral freedom needs to be impaired in this country. The price for their acceptance in society is the silence of chaplains in the military and Christians everywhere. It's odd, too. Christians and chaplains have maintained that sex outside of marriage (as an example) is a sin. That particular sin has also gained mainstream acceptance. No one told them to shut up over that, did they? But now? What has changed? I think there are clear answers, and they aren't going to be pleasant.

Just a Thought on the 4th of July

I was just wondering. Is it appropriate, in light of the impingement on our Constitutional freedoms over the past several years, to celebrate our independence? To put it another way, is it rational to celebrate independence as our government moves more and more to make us more dependent? Or would a call for action be more appropriate? Just askin'.

Is Freedom Just Another Word?

By Dan

When we hear this word, "liberty", we really ought to contemplate what is being communicated. Webster’s first definition is "The quality or state of being free." The second is similar: "The power to do as one pleases." But life does not present us with an option for genuine freedom but an option for varying levels of restraint imposed on us from varying realities. By restraint I mean that, although I am technically free to do many things, wisdom, circumstances, and prudence demand I not. Here are a few of those realities.

Physics – The laws of physics, such as Newton's First Law which holds that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted on by another force subjects us to an ever-present restraint. This means that although we are free to skydive without a parachute, we are not free to forego the consequences. We’re also free to jump into the air, but we’re not, on the other hand, free to stay in the air.

Economics – There are restraints imposed by the laws of economics as well. We are not free to drive any car we want, live in any house we want, get any health care we want, and so on. This demolishes the old adage that "freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose".

Biology – Now, while having nothing to lose may free me from certain material consequences that result from imprudence or folly, it doesn’t free me from the restraints imposed on me by my flesh. Having nothing includes having no food or shelter without which I am not free to survive.  I am coerced by a predicament; either work for food and shelter or force someone else to work and provide them for me. Well... actually there is a third choice. I could just die. I am free to do that. Or am I?

There are, of course, other restraining phenomenon. There is the will of the majority as expressed through laws and cultural mores which give us the free choice between compliance or fines, imprisonment or ridicule. There are also family expectations which give us the choice between forgoing our own desires in favor of those who love us, or doing, as Webster put it, as we please.

The bottom line is that we are free agents in a society of free agents. And while it’s true that we are all free to cast off restraint and live with reckless abandon, we are not free to avoid the consequences. We are not free to avoid them for ourselves and we are not free to avoid their impact on others. Scripture clearly demonstrates this with a question: "Can a man walk on hot coals and not get burned?" The fool tells himself yes. And, like the fool who manages to convince himself for two seconds that he can fly, we now find ourselves in the midst of a culture that has convinced itself that the restraints maintained and refined by generations past can now be cast off without consequence. In the end however the fool’s feet are pulled helplessly back to earth, and they are indeed burned.

Wisdom, on the other hand, understands that true liberty is the freedom to govern the self, the freedom to do what we ought. For this reason it holds ideas like duty, honor, and self-denial in high regard. When these ideas become passé and the butt of jesters’ jokes, the fool has come of age and liberty then abides in peril.

The Case of Jennifer Keeton

Have you heard of the case of Jennifer Keeton v Augusta State University? (I made the name up; don't look for it in any legal listings.) Back in 2010, Keeton was a Christian grad student in Georgia at Augusta State University training to become a counselor. She expressed openly that she believed homosexual behavior was immoral. She was told that, in order to graduate from their program, she would need to change her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct". Now, admittedly, that sounds bad. But consider. The school she was attending had a Code of Ethics in place that required that "Counselors do not discriminate" based on a variety of factors including "gender identity and sexual orientation". So the school told her she could take remediation training or they would expel her. She refused. They expelled her. She sued. She claimed her rights to religious freedom and free speech were violated. She lost.

There are so many problems here. There is the statement of Judge J. Randall Hall (a George W. Bush appointee): "Keeton’s conflation of personal and professional values, or at least her difficulty in discerning the difference, appears to have been rooted in her opinion that the immorality of homosexual relations is a matter of objective and absolute moral truth." By dissolving all "objective and absolute moral truth" the judge has effectively dissolved the basis for laws and justice at all. Now we're left with "How do you feel about morality today?" Good job, judge.

There is the fact that Keeton (and Julia Ward in a similar case in Michigan) was told she was required by law to change her behavior without necessarily changing their beliefs seems to be a direct contradiction to the whole "gay agenda" argument that they shouldn't have to change their behavior. I mean, if you can keep your beliefs but change your behavior, can't they do the same? Are they arguing that your behavior is a choice?

I also think that Keeton's lawsuit was problematic. If School A says, "To go here, you must conform with these rules" and a student chooses to go there and not conform to their rules, doesn't the school have the right to expel that student? Conversely, Keeton claimed her rights to free speech and religion were violated. Why? Did someone tell her she could no longer say or believe what she wanted? They said, "You can't do it here", but that doesn't equate to "You can't do it at all", does it? Indeed, we would hope that's not the case because it will come back around to bite us if she's right. An atheist can complain about religious discrimination if a church refuses to hire him because he's an atheist. Be careful! If Keeton wanted to become a counselor and wanted to maintain Christian values in so doing, there are options for such training without subjecting herself to the public education system. She chose that course. She must expect to abide by its rules or change courses.

Equally problematic, though, is the backlash. Keeton (et.al.) is being crucified as "anti-gay", "mean-spirited", and a "bigot". Anyone who believes as she does is "narrow-minded" and, quite frankly, too stupid to be allowed to be in that field (or, perhaps, even in the public arena). Perhaps the school didn't violate her constitutional rights, but a large segment of the public would sure like to do just that. If you search you'll find accusations that she "refused to counsel homosexuals" which seems like an incredibly stupid accusation. I mean, if she was opposed to their behavior so chose to refuse to deal with them, wouldn't that insulate them? No, the real "fear" was that she would treat them and she would treat them by trying to change their behavior. So, which is it? She refused, or she didn't?

And then there is the whole basic problem being ignored completely by the judge, the media, and the commenters alike. What if she's right? What if the behavior in question is immoral? What if it really is a bad thing? I mean, if she had a patient come to her that said, "I have this problem; I'm a compulsive gambler", would she not be obligated to help him/her stop that behavior and even be applauded for it? If the behavior is immoral and, therefore, harmful, why shouldn't she step in to help? But, you see, no one is asking that question. No one is willing to examine "Is that moral view correct?" Not asked and not answered. Remember, the judge threw out "absolute moral truth". So the serious potential for continued harm and even the encouragement to continue that harm is becoming institutionalized and legislated. That is a problem.

One last thought here. These have been my thoughts on Jennifer Keeton's case. Please note that I have not included a label for "Homosexuality" or the like. The tendency here will be to discuss the morality of homosexual behavior. Not the point. The primary questions are these:

1. Is there truly no such thing as objective and absolute moral truth?
2. Does one side of the question have to change their behavior against their beliefs or can the other? (That is, it appears it is a one-sided question.)
3. Does an entity (a school, a business, etc.) have the right to hold and enforce their own rules, or are they obligated to allow anyone at all to make their rules for them?
4. How do we avoid the misplaced and horribly inaccurate responses to events like these and the serious danger these responses carry with them?
5. What if Christian morality is right?

None of these questions require a debate on the morality of homosexual behavior. This is a much broader question including much bigger problems for our society in general and Christians in particular.

The Right to Marry

Perhaps you've seen this video. If not, you should. Yes, it's almost 9 minutes long, but well worth your time. It is a jaw-dropping example of love and marriage along with a faith in a Sovereign God that you won't find in a lot of places.



I just read Larissa Murphy's story about Why We Got Married. Yes, the woman in the video. It's good, too.

Nestled in this amazing story is a little bit of information most of us don't have.

Our pastor who married us, Mark Altrogge, was with us on the day that our marriage was approved by a local judge. Because of Ian’s condition, the courts had to decide that it was in his best interest to be married. Mark said that he’ll never forget the words of the judge who approved our marriage license: "You two exemplify what love is all about. I believe that marriage will not only benefit you both but our community, and hope that everyone in this city could see your love for one another."

Notice that "the courts had to decide that it was in his best interest to be married". Did you know that was the case? In a world screaming that "marriage is a fundamental right" and calling for "equal protection", this couple had to get a ruling from the court to allow them to marry. Apparently, then, the law does not see marriage as a right. The law can deny some the privilege of marriage. Apparently it is not the absolute right that most seem to think it is.

I'm just sayin' ...

Okay, after mulling that over, please return to your ruminations on this amazing story of love and trust in God ...

Lamentations

At times my mother jokingly refers to me as her "weeping prophet". Actually, that would be Jeremiah, but you get the idea. There is a tendency in me to ... lament. To lament is to express sorrow or grief, but there is a sense in the word of a deep sorrow or deep grief. The idea is that the one lamenting is accutely aware that something is terribly wrong. When the author of Lamentations laments, he laments largely over what's wrong in his nation. Others lament over their own sinful condition. But lamentations are the product of a strong sense that something is really wrong. And I have that sense a lot of the time.

Lamentations have their place in worship. We tend to think of worship as "upbeat" and "joyful", and there is certainly a signficant place for that, but I am convinced there is also a serious spot for lamenting. Why? Well, primarily because there is such a serious place for it in Scripture. But when you think about it, it makes sense as well.

Where would lamenting benefit genuine worship? Well, certainly real worship of our Lord Jesus Christ would begin with repentance. When Paul took the church at Corinth to task over the sexual immorality in their midst, he said, "Ought you not rather to mourn?" (1 Cor 5:2). He classified their failure to mourn as arrogance. Here's what James says:

Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you (James 4:8-10).

When we draw near to God, it is wise to "cleanse your hands". Laughter is inappropriate. Mourning -- lamenting -- makes sense. "And He will exalt you." It just makes sense.

It is my suspicion that the closer one gets to Christ, the more one senses this problem of personal sin. The more clearly we see His perfection, the more clearly we see our wretchedness. Something to lament about.

Lamentations also provide a clearer picture of reality. If lamenting is a sense that something is terribly wrong, then you might recognize that lamenting is a product of a clear view. You see, something is terribly wrong.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom 7:24).

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:20-23).

In truth, we all suffer from sin. None of us have arrived at perfection. And our world suffers in sin. It is awaiting its release from the bondage to corruption. In fact, without this "something terribly wrong" we wouldn't have any "good news" -- Gospel.

I'm not suggesting that lamentation is the end point. Look at Jeremiah's lament in Lamentations 3:

I say, "My endurance has perished; so has my hope from the LORD." Remember my affliction and my wanderings, the wormwood and the gall! My soul continually remembers it and is bowed down within me (Lam 3:18-20).

That's a lament, to be sure, but he doesn't end there. His very next thought is the contrast:

But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in Him" (Lam 3:21-24).

Coming from a happy place, this passage is a warm piece. Coming from deep lamentation, it is a glorious exultation unburdened by the need for pleasant circumstances or comfortable surroundings. It is a joy which passes understanding, a place of worship that exceeds the nice things that God can do for me, resting instead on the glory of His character -- His love and faithfulness and presence and power.

Lamentations may be difficult. I think they can be a good thing. I am quite sure they are a biblical thing. I would recommend it for worship. Humility and prostration leaves you in God's hands, and there is no safer place to be than that.

Oh, Which Judge To Choose?

By Dan

I was sitting with a handful of co-workers one day listening to one of them go on about people judging her.  She eventually got to the part where she claimed that God would be her judge and it was not other people's job to judge her. So I chimed in.

"I don't know," I interjected. "I think I'd rather be judged by my fellow sinful human beings than a Holy and Righteous God". She gave no response. The others nodded their heads in agreement, but as if the thought had never before occurred to them, but yet, it made sense.

This attitude of  "God will be my judge" -- as if God will judge differently than those mean, self-righteous people do -- seems fairly prevalent in my experience. When I hear people say this I'm usually reminded of Jesus telling us: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt 10:28). Or, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Ps 111:10, Prv 9:10). Or yet again: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prv 1:7).

I am personally inclined to think that much of what is deemed "judgment" in our day is actually instruction; as in "it is a sin to live with your boy friend", and the like --instruction. But the real problem with this dangerous attitude is the view of God that it reveals. This god is a created god, nothing more than a figment of the imagination created in the image of mom who can always be counted on to take the side of her little angel no matter what the charge. This is the doting mother god, the new feminine god, the god that is more interested in self-esteem and "your best life now" than salvation, sanctification and Biblical doctrine.

What a contrast to the God of the Bible, the One who says, "This is the judgment: that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn 3:19).

A Point Well Missed

I've been arguing for literally years that "marriage" has a definition and that the drive to make it "same-sex marriage" is a drive to change the definition of marriage itself. You would have thought, after all this time, that I would have made that clear. From the things I read elsewhere, however, it would appear that I have failed to get my point across.

The question of "marriage" is not a question of word definitions. It is not a question that can be answered by altering the dictionary or evolving the English language. These alterations and evolutions are a symptom of the question but are not the question at hand. Here is the question at hand. Will "marriage" be allowed to continue?

"Oh," you say, "that's clear enough and obviously that is precisely our aim." Nope, again, it is a point well missed.

I'm not talking about your word, "marriage". I'm talking about a concept, an idea, in fact, an institution. The word in question is simply the symbol currently in use that denotes the concept, the reality. I am not arguing, then, in favor of "marriage". I am not interested in keeping the definition of "marriage" pure. I really don't care if you call it "marriage" or "brak" (Croatian) or "huwelijk" (Dutch) or "matrimonio" (Spanish). The word is not my concern. The word is only important as a viable means by which I can indicate the concept in a meaningful way to others. The word is a symbol for a reality, and that reality is my concern.

As such, I have been concerned about this for a lot longer than the current lot of homosexuals have. This isn't a new concern. It isn't an "anti-gay" concern. It isn't a "homophobic" concern. It is a concern for a concept which has been under attack for a long time -- most of my life at least.

If you understand me to be arguing for the definition of a term, you misunderstand. I'm not blaming you. I've used that kind of language too many times. To be fair (to me), I've used that language because the California Supreme Court used that language. They recognized the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage". I was simply trying to work off of that common structure. Unfortunately, using that structure ("definition of marriage") has likely confused the issue as much as made it clear where I stand.

So let me be clear where I stand. There is a concept. I believe it is a God-given concept. I can find it in my Bible. Beyond my Bible, I can find it in history and I can find it in all cultures that I can find. This concept is a lifelong commitment of a male and a female who are united as a family for the purpose of propogation, companionship, and cooperation. This concept has had a variety of accoutrements and trappings, peripheral practices and traditions, but it has always had this same underlying base. This base has been the core construct of all societies. It was the basis for subsequent generations. It was protected by society as a group. It has always been there.

This basic concept is the concept I wish to defend, the core value I wish to keep. It is not the same concept that could include anything resembling whatever "gay marriage" would entail. It doesn't share common core values, common aims, or common definition. This concept (whatever you choose to call it) is, by nature, turned outward rather than inward. It is not the indulgence of personal desires and whims, but an intentional sacrifice of said whims for a greater purpose (which, by the way, results in far greater rewards). It tames wild men, secures women, provides a unified structure for both to work as a team, and forms the structures necessary for the best possible outcome for offspring.

You want "marriage"? That really isn't the issue. I don't much care about "marriage equity". What I care about is that this institution, this tradition, this commitment, this covenant, this concept that we have known as "marriage" (and which is barely recognizable today as such) be safeguarded and defended and nurtured and continued. The current course of our society is to dismantle this core concept. I don't believe the human race can survive that course. We will certainly not be better off for it.

Legal Cognitive Dissonance

You know what cognitive dissonance is, right? It is the mental discomfort you experience when you hold as true two (or more) conflicting views. Here's a simple example. "It's wrong to steal ... but it's okay for me to take office supplies from work." Huh? That sort of thing.

Here's a really clear example. H.R. 1997 is called "Laci and Conner's Law" after Laci and Conner Peterson who were murdered by Scott Peterson. Laci was Scott's wife, and Conner was their unborn child. This law states, "If [a] person ... intentionally kills or attempts to kill [an] unborn child, that person shall ... be punished ... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The law is "The Protection of Unborn Children" act and defines the "unborn" as human. The law goes on to state, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution ... of any person for conduct relating to an abortion ..." Thus, while the unborn are indeed human children and killing them is murder, it is not murder if it is abortion. Cognitive dissonance.

Recently New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed a ban on all sugary drinks over 16 ounces in New York City. This is in keeping with other bans such as outlawing transfats in restaurants. While corporations that sell such products are, of course, upset about it, the New York City board of Health is in strong support of such a ban. Now, Mayor Bloomberg's position is unequivocally pro-choice on the issue of abortion. So Mayor Bloomberg et.al. are of the very clear view that it is a fundamental right to choose to murder your baby, but not your right to choose what to eat. Cognitive dissonance.

The problem with cognitive dissonance, of course, is that too many people are so used to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and ungodliness that they no longer experience the dissonance of holding two patently opposing viewpoints.

Losing Sight of the Goal

Perhaps you've heard about the kerfuffle around John Piper recently. Minnesota has a marriage amendment coming up on the ballot. The Star Tribune in Minneapolis read, "Key Minnesota pastors opt out of marriage fight". Piper responded in his blog with "What the Star-Tribune Got Right -- And Wrong". Stand To Reason, a Christian apologetics organization, stood up for Piper while many and loud voices took him to task, sometimes angrily. Few appear to care that Piper was in the middle of a preaching series on holding marriage in honor and preached a sermon just this month on "Thinking Biblically about So-Called Same-Sex Marriage". There is no doubt, you see, about what Piper believes on the subject. But he isn't telling his congregation to vote on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment that will allow the voters to define marriage as it has always been defined -- the union of a man and a woman. No, Piper isn't telling them how to vote ... but he is certainly telling them what is true.

My first response to the Piper story was disagreement with Piper. Not take a stand? What's up with that??! The more I read about Piper's position, however, the better I understood. But what really straightened me out was neither the Star Tribune nor Piper's own response, but a commentary on the question from another blogger. This blogger was upset about Piper's stand. While Piper held that his job was to preach the truth of the Word, this blogger argued, "If Piper really opposed gay marriage, then he would support the marriage amendment, and he would persuade people in his state – not just his choir and congregation – using arguments and evidence that people in his state find convincing." His position is that if we genuinely care about this subject, we need "to care about what non-Christians find convincing." And that's when I realized the position this blogger and so many others were taking.

I am not, here, arguing the merits of Piper's position or even the blogger's position. I am not even here arguing about the underlying topic -- whether or not marriage ought to be defined in the legal system or whether or not it should be reworked to include "gay marriage". I'm talking here about the bottom line idea, the position that so many detractors are holding. Here it is. Christians, if they are to engage the world, need to engage the world in the world's way. That's the position. And that's a mistake.

There are multiple forms of this notion here. The (repeated) suggestion here is that we can only save marriage if we vote properly. The (repeated) suggestion is that other Christians in other countries (Canada and Denmark came up repeatedly) failed to vote properly and marriage fell. The idea is that we are the bottom-line defense of all things moral and must push it through in legislation because our salvation (not eternal, of course, but temporal) is found in politics and reason. That's the whole basis here. God is not going to defend His own concept of marriage. We have to. God is not going to intervene in the stream of human events. We have to. And, in fact, a major concern of all Christians must be the retaining of a "moral society" by political and legislative means . We need to make bad people into good people by force of law. That will make our world a better world. And that's not true.

Christians are required to be engaged in the Gospel. We are so commanded. We are required to be praying and specifically for governments. We are so commanded. Christians are to be representatives of Christ in our world. We are so commanded. And Christians ought to be engaged in their societies to include voting and such when we are so allowed. But we must never become deists, believing that we are the ones responsible to maintain a godly world and we are the ones capable of providing the necessary arguments to change hearts or even minds. We must never assume that, in the final analysis, God has taken a "hands-off" approach and left it up to us. This view is our doom. If left to ourselves as Christians we will fail at that which God calls us to do. No, we work "because it is God who is at work in you" and we live a "Christ in you" existence and we serve as a form of worship, but God works all things after the counsel of His will and when we get that turned around, we replace God with our arguments, politics, and legislation. It's called "idolatry". It is a failed strategy. Changed hearts, not better laws, make changed lives. Renewed minds, not proper argumentation on the level of sinful humans, make transformed lives. And a moral society by means of law only makes a more comfortable-but-damned people. Yes, moral laws are good, but that is not our focus, nor is God wringing His hands, relying on us to get it done. We must not lose sight of that.

Postscript:
For anyone interested in Piper's view, here is his response to the Star Tribune article and this counterpoint ran in the Star Tribune. And, as a side note of interest, when the first piece ran, people complained that the pastor wasn't taking a stand and when the second piece ran, people complained that the pastor was taking a stand. In keeping with "Losing sight of the goal", another goal that is not ours is acceptance.

A Love Letter to Arizona

Dear Arizona,

Yesterday the Supreme Court struck down the portion of SB 1070 that allowed for the arrest of illegal immigrants on the basis of probable cause. Sure, this will effectively disable your ability to enforce illegal immigration laws, but let us just say, from the bottom of our hearts, we don't care.

The President has responded by stripping your police departments trained by the federal government of their right to enforce federal immigration laws. We know. We don't care.

Yes, we know that you are losing people to the illegal immigration problem and other related crimes. We know that your Border Patrol lost a man to guns supplied by the U.S. Government. We know that people are being killed, kidnapped, trafficked, imprisoned and enslaved as part of your border problem. We know. We don't care.

Yes, indeed, it is odd that your governor was complaining endlessly about the failure of the federal government to police your border until she was given the position of Director of Homeland Security at which point she told you all to shut up. You see? We know. We just don't care.

The President has assured you that enforcing federal immigration laws is not the right approach. The right approach, he says, is immigration reform. Of course, thus far his "reform" is to legalize those under the age of 30 who came into the country before they were 16. Not really reform. Certainly not long term. And, no, he hasn't suggested anything else to help out. It should be clear why, of course. It's because he just doesn't care.

I mean, seriously, Arizona, this shouldn't be a surprise to you. The White House sued you guys, for pity sake. The Justice Department is investigating and threatening those who do the enforcement. ICE will refuse to respond to Arizona calls. They've rescinded your right to arrest illegal immigrants. Surely this shouldn't be a surprise. We just don't care.

Sure, sure, you keep pinning that adjective, "illegal", in front of the term "immigrants" and you are interested in stopping all illegal immigration, but we are going to go ahead and label you as racist, anti-immigration, and just plain mean. No, it's not true. Yes, we know. No, we just don't care.

Please, please, don't take any of this personally. We will still want to use the power you generate, still want to buy the products that appear to be unique to you, and certainly still want to visit your tourist areas. And although we're making it abundantly clear that we just don't care about the crime and other problems caused by your substantial illegal immigration problem, please be sure to continue to do things that bring us pleasure and income because that's what fellow Americans do for fellow Americans. And whatever you do, do not attempt to respond in kind. "So, if it's not right for us to enforce federal immigration law, how about enforcing other federal laws? You're going to handle all that, right? You'll be the one to respond to bank robberies and kidnappings. Don't call us; they'll call you. Right?" No, no, don't do that. Because, after all, we just don't care.

Sincerely and with all the love we can muster,

Your Federal Government and the illegal immigrants that support them

Marriage -- A Retrospect

Ah, marriage! What a divine institution! No, really, a divine institution. God made it up. So, how far are we today from what God ordained at the outset? You see, if "the creation was subjected to futility" (Rom 8:20), it would stand to reason that entropy would be present in all things, including marriage. I would like to suggest that we -- you and I and most of those around us -- have succumbed to a view of marriage that God never intended.

Where are we today? Well, marriage is primarily about "love". I put that in quotes because our concept of love is another victim of entropy. That claim doesn't take a lot of work to demonstrate. Just read 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 and see how close we are today with our concept of "love". So love has declined from that grand biblical version to today's selfish version where "I love you" means "I love what you can give me" in many cases and almost never "I can provide for you". We're vaguely aware that "love" is more about "What can I do for you to give you the very best?", but more concerned about that warm feeling or, more importantly, that intense ardor. What we feel defines love best. Having moved, then, to "what I feel" as the primary definition of "marriage", we end up a long way from what God intended.

Genesis 1 and 2 give us God's version of marriage. You know this stuff. You know, "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Matt 19:5). Oh, wait, that's Jesus's words. No, I meant to reference Eph 5:31. No, no! That's Paul. Well, apparently the New Testament maintains that the Old Testament version (Gen 2:24) is still in effect. What do we have, then? Well, "man" and "wife". "Leave" and "cleave". "The two shall become one flesh" -- union.

But we have more. God gives His reasoning in this union. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18). God made woman as a "helper fit for him". The word, in fact, is "counterpart", "the other side", the "mate". You see, God designed marriage as a mating of two counterparts -- male and female. This is necessary because of the two purposes God designed: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion ..." (Gen 1:28). The mutual purpose, then, is reproduction and dominion, accomplished by a companionship of two mated counterparts.

How far are we from that today? We hear "love" and think of it selfishly (a contradiction in terms). We seek self-satisfaction when God called on us to reproduce. Indeed, suggesting today that married couples ought to (have a moral obligation to) reproduce -- bear offspring, and raise them in the wisdom and admonition of the Lord -- is viewed by many Christians as offensive today. No, no, marriage even among Christians is about self-fulfillment and personal satisfaction. Sex is a big part of marriage to us, but not in the way God intended. We seek eroticism and God intended union. We hear "love" and understand it to mean "lust". C.S. Lewis spoke of the kid in the slums who refuses to go on a holiday at the beach because he can't imagine anything better than sitting in the gutter playing with the mud. We are satisfied with so little when God intended so much.

God had such grandiose plans for you and your marriage. Paul calls it a profound mystery (Eph 5:32). There is a mystical, spiritual union that occurs coupled to the physical union. There is the joy of teaming up with your counterpart and working together toward God's goals and God's glory. And we settle for a good roll in the hay and a warm feeling inside. Oh, come away with me! Come to the grand version that is marriage, the wonderful union of man and woman in self-sacrifice that fulfills and admitted shortcomings that produce greater capabilities! Become the grand picture of Christ and His Bride, a union that reproduces itself! Marriage is so much bigger than our culture, in its quest for "marriage equity" is willing to offer. Don't settle. Get the best!

Why Sovereignty?

I've spent a lot of time over the last couple of weeks on the topic of God's Sovereignty. I've tried to show how far it goes (as in absolute Sovereignty). The question might be asked, however, why I've spent so much time on it. (In truth, I could spend a lot more. The Bible has.)

The subject is not only biblical; it is near and dear to my heart. You see, as Paul notes, we live in a world subjected to futility. The natural condition of Man is sinfulness. Even science tells us we live in a world of decay. And we don't need either the Bible or science to demonstrate it. Deaths in the family, cancer, the miscarriage of a much desired baby, wayward youth, cheating spouses, crime, poverty, war, oh, it goes on and on. It's a difficult world and a difficult life.

Or ... not. If, indeed, God has surrendered some of His Sovereignty to Man's Free Will, then it is a difficult existence with very little hope. If, worse, God has taken a more "hands off" approach as some suggest and "the laws of nature" are in play, it only means less hope. God Himself would be fumbling about trying to figure out how to deal with the aftermath of that earthquake and this hurricane and those senseless killings and that horrible rape and ... really, nearly hopeless.

God's Absolute Sovereignty, then, is of key importance to me. I believe it because the Bible is full of God's Sovereign hand in every aspect of life from nature to humans, but I also believe it because, once apprehended, it turns out I need it. In this particular aspect of God's character I find the light in the darkness, the hope in the decay, the answer to the problems. Beyond that, even, what was horrible becomes God's plan and, while some may still be very painful, none of it is meaningless, poorly timed, or out of control.

Jesus Himself asked, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith?" (Luke 18:8). The suggestion in the very question implies the answer, "No!" Of course, Christ is talking about the Son coming to avenge the elect (Luke 18:7), so He knows as well the answer to the problem is the Sovereignty of God and His keeping of His elect. It is in this intentionality of God for His glory and our good that we can find rest and hope. We know that He causes all things to work together for good. We can rejoice in trials because He is working out perfection in us. We can find comfort in suffering because He is blessing us. The Sovereignty of God is the answer to all the most difficult questions of human suffering. And in this I rejoice.

Train Up a Child

I was behind her in line at the checkout stand. Her little 2 or 3-year-old sat in the cart seat holding a toy truck easily as big as he was. As the customer in front of her finished up their transaction, she told her little angel, "It's time to put the toy down. Mommy doesn't have the money to pay for it." He looked her in the eye and, without blinking, said, "No!" "Now, look," Mommy reasoned, "I only let you hold it so you wouldn't cry. I can't afford it. You have to give it up." He didn't succumb to her superb reasoning. "No!" "If you don't put that down I won't buy you an ice cream!" "No!" "I told you I'd take you horseback riding after this. If you don't put that down you won't get to go horseback riding!" "No!" Reason, carrot, stick, nothing was working. As she finished paying for everything, including the toy truck, I heard her say, "Okay, now, let's go get an ice cream and then we can go horseback riding."

What did he learn? First, mom is meaningless. Her primary function is to give him what he wants. Second, when she reasons, she lies. Refer to Lesson One. Third, I rule. Everyone else is secondary. In fact, it's likely that they all fall in the category of Lesson One. Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old ...

A good friend works at a large chain convenience store. He told me that they report loss from theft at an average of $6,000 per week. He said that the job was making him jaded. "I would estimate," he told me, "that half of the people that come into my store on my shift are there to steal." He had story after story. The guy who walked in and left with a handful of goods that wasn't disturbed by any employees because he wore a visible sidearm. The mother who, with child in cart, filled up said cart with Christmas decorations and proceeded to walk out. "But the worst," he told me, "was the 8-year-old." An 8-year-old? "Yes. One of my cashiers told me, 'I think that family is stealing.' I followed them around. The mother and the father were both pocketing stuff. And then I saw their little girl picking up candy and socks and things 8-year-olds don't care about, doing her part for the family 'shopping trip'."

How does that work? How will they differentiate between "It's okay to steal from them" (whoever "them" is) "but it's not okay to steal from us"? How will they explain the difference between "stealing stuff" and, say, stealing life from someone? At what point will they cease to be her primary influence and someone else ... say, the police and the justice system ... take over? Train up a child in the way she should go and when she is old ...

These are true events. They are not, unfortunately, rare cases. And while our world wonders about how to deal with thieves on Wall Street or bullying in the schools or government corruption or the decline of the economy on an international level, I wonder about why anyone would wonder about it when we're training up our children to do all those things and so much more. What parents condone in moderation children indulge in excess. And we are indeed training up our children in some way or another. So what exactly are we aiming at? The way they should go or whatever way they want?

Capitalism And Christianity - Part Two

By Dan

What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The system of capitalism finds its relationship with the Church in that it stems from a shared core principle concerning man's condition. Capitalism is based on the premise that Man is not basically good but quite the opposite. The so-called father of capitalism, Adam Smith, illustrates this in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations:

A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. ... [M]an has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages".

By adopting Smith’s prescription, the founding fathers aligned our economic system with reality through the assumption that man would be much more productive, innovative and industrious if doing so would be beneficial to himself. Thus was born what would become one of the freest and wealthiest societies ever enjoyed by Man.

The ideas that formed American capitalism however were not instituted in a vacuum, but in the bosom of a predominately Christian culture. In such a culture in which the individual held himself eternally liable before a Holy and Righteous God, he was more inclined to exercise self-governance and restraint according to an objective standard. These standards then guided his decisions, not only as they pertained to his own life and his interaction with resources, but also as they pertained to every sphere of his influence, including the selection of his leaders. This predominate mindset of the populace, which was subjugated to a higher order, made for fertile soil for capitalism's seed to be planted and flourish. However, as it turns out, equal opportunity and economic freedom naturally produce unequal ends. In a a society with a sense of moral bearings this is generally attributed to providence and so does not present a problem, but it is not suffered well in a society that is not only disparaging of honor, but that also is burdened by a perverse sense of entitlement, envy and covetousness ... and which has no suspicion of those seeking power through promises of a Utopian society.

Central to the health of capitalism is the Church's teaching on the truths regarding man's sinful condition. Never mind, for the moment, that this teaching is key to understanding the Gospel, and as such, key to the health of the Church and its Kingdom mandate, for I am attempting here to answer an economic question. The fact remains that the modern Western "Church" has become either unable or loath to make man’s depravity a focal part of her doctrine. This transformation of focus in central doctrines taught by the Church has had a destructive effect on capitalism for a couple of reasons.

First, capitalism is dependent on fidelity. As I pointed out earlier, capitalism produces a few fabulously-well-to-do individuals. But just as important is that it also produces comfortable masses with relatively modest excesses in resources. Fidelity allows for the masses to pool their resources to create an almost unfathomable concentration of wealth.  This wealth then plays an important role in the economy. For one, it doesn't lie dormant, hidden in post holes and mattresses, but rather it becomes productive through investment. Also, its productivity produces a return which not only fuels the economy but also helps to sustain people when they become too old to work. These principles can be seen in current 401-k retirement plans, though this principle was in place long before tax deferment laws were enacted.

It is these massive concentrations of wealth that has been responsible for many advancements through research that would have otherwise been unachievable due to insurmountable expenses. Such advancements include the development of drugs and medical procedures, the willing slave of affordable energy and advances in technologies, to name a few. But the same wealth also awakens the greed and envy resident in the heart of man. If there is no objective truth by which to judge all things, then we are left with a syllogism that looks kind of like this:

1. Men are good

2. I am man.

3. What I do is good.

With this view man can rationalize the greed in his own heart while, incidentally, retaining his right to judge greed in others. The system breaks down as the wealthy are judged as greedy simply because they were successful at accomplishing what those who judge them could not. In addition to this the wealthy begin to judge each other also. You have millionaire politicians judging millionaire businessmen, and millionaire businessmen judging millionaire politicians. In addition, you have millionaire Hollywood stars, who seem to somehow be above judgment, judging them all. All of this judgmentalism revolving around the greed of others while justifying the greed in one's own heart is not confronted from within with any sense of providence, honor, or a accurate understanding of the true condition of the heart of man; not to mention a sound understanding of the economic system in which it is all taking place.

In such a fidelity-starved environment the idea of pooling one's wealth becomes a fool's errand as increasing numbers feel justified in their own actions. Contracts are broken, loans are forsaken, capital is siphoned off by currency printing, onerous regulations, corruption, ponzi schemes, fraud, theft, bribes and so on. Worse, many who justify their own participation in these destructive actions have their own meager resources invested in the system their actions are playing a part to destroy. This is like a snake biting off its own tail for spite. Those with modest means will eventually have no option but to withdraw them, convert them to an historically stable currency such as scarce metals, then remove them from the economy by burying them, so to speak. This is one reason a rise in the price of gold can be a negative indicator of the health of an economy. As resources are withdrawn there is a corresponding reduction in new resources which results in a domino effect toward a reduced standard of living for the masses.

Second, capitalism is dependent on a productive society. Since man's banishment from Eden he has worked tirelessly to reenter. One way man goes about this is to make his way in life off the sweat of his neighbor's brow. The capitalistic system is a system that is dependent on the pooled resources gained by the sweat of one's own brow. The necessary relationship between work and provision has been thwarted in the past by the outright enslavement of man by his fellow man. Contrary to popular belief, this act hasn't ended, the methods have changed. Now rather than enslaving a few men and making an ugly spectacle, masses are partially enslaved for the benefit of a few through what has become euphemistically known as wealth redistribution.

Liberty and it's cousin capitalism are not hardy social or economic systems. They can exist only in environments in which the ideas on which they stand tenaciously cling to objective reality. Once man's true condition is rejected by the society at large, it no longer accepts reality but rather an alternate reality based more on how man thinks things ought to be than how they actually are. This then releases man to embrace the folly that some men can be trusted to siphon wealth from others and redistribute it more fairly, and all will be just fine with the idea as Utopia looms on the horizon. Suppressed and maligned become the healthy suspicions that once met those who promised such a Utopian society.^{1, 2, 3} Instead schemes are invented that are designed to exchange votes and campaign donations for largess. We saw a battle along these lines recently in Wisconsin as out of control state liabilities consisting of promised largess to government union members threatened the state’s fiscal health. However, as larger numbers of people become unproductive by living off the confiscated wealth of their neighbors, ever more amounts of siphoned resources are required. These resources are then withdrawn from productivity to non-productivity. This is like the snake eating the tail that it bit off assuming it will provide nourishment. It is counter to capitalism, it is counter to a Biblical view of the world, and in a more sane society it would be counter to common sense.

So, in conclusion, what has the Church to do with capitalism? In a word: “nothing”. In summing up the answer however we would do well to rearrange the question and ask, rather, "What has capitalism to do with the Church?” And like every other question that man asks along these lines, the answer is "everything". Many who worship at the altar of capitalism have not asked this question and their beloved system is crumbling as a result ... and they provide a thousand reasons why ... and it continues to crumble. Ditto for family, marriages, joy, happiness, and every other thing that man endeavors to do without God in his few short hours in this life.

 ________


¹ In Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say in the 1830's concerning concerning America's constitution:

The Constitution of the United States is like those exquisite productions of human industry which ensure wealth and renown to their inventors, but which are profitless in any other hands. This truth is exemplified by the condition of Mexico at the present time, The Mexicans were desirous of establishing a federal system, and they took the Federal Constitution of their neighbors, the Anglo-American, as their model, and copied it with considerable accuracy! But although they had borrowed the letter of the law, they were unable to create or to introduce the spirit and the sense which give it life. They were involved in ceaseless embarrassments between the mechanism of their double government; the sovereignty of the States and that of the Union perpetually exceeded their respective privileges, and entered into collision; and to the present day Mexico is alternately the victim of anarchy and the slave of military despotism. (page 189)

²John Adams: "Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."

³F. A Hayek in "The Road To Serfdom" (written during WWII) had an interesting comment in the introduction of his book on page 57 (in my copy) that I think applies here as well:

... [H]istory never quite repeats itself, and just because no development is inevitable, we can in measure learn from the past to avoid repetition of the same process. One need not be a prophet to be aware of impending dangers. 'And accidental combination of experience and interest will often reveal events to one man under aspects which few yet see. The following pages are the product of an experience as near as possible to twice living though the same period... While this is an experience one is not likely to gain in one country, it may in certain circumstances be acquired by living in turn for long periods in different countries. ...Thus, by moving from one country to another, one may sometimes twice watch similar phases of intellectual development. The senses have then become peculiarly acute. When one hears for a second time opinions expressed or measures advocated which one has first met twenty or twenty-five years ago they assume a new meaning as symptoms of a definite trend. It is necessary now to state the unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate we are in some danger of repeating... It is not to the Germany of Hitler; the Germany of the present war, that England and the United states bear yet any resemblance, But students of the currents of ideas can hardly fail to see that there is more than a superficial similarity between the trend of thought in Germany during and after the last war and the present current of ideas in the democracies.

Capitalism And Christianity - Part One

By Dan

What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The short answer is, "not much, really; at least not directly". You see, economics is, simply put, the allocation of scarce material resources. The Christian would do well to remember that Christianity not only thrives today in all sorts of harsh economic systems, but it has done so all through the changing systems throughout history. In fact, the argument could be made that it has thrived more hardily in oppressive systems, especially if we accept the fact that the church, in its purest form, is interested much more in men's eternal destinies than in any carnal-minded concepts such as the fair distributions of material resources.

The Christian therefore must beware of those who fix their eyes on worldly "material" as, not only  their source of joy and purpose but also a suitable solution for all that ails society. The very idea of the economic system of communism was born out of just such a perspective. The father of communism, Karl Marx, rejected God and became an atheist.  Then he set out to make things “fair” for those whom he saw as the down trodden masses.  But he could only see them in a strictly material sense.  Man's attempts to bring about the Utopian system he envisioned succeeded in bathing the 20th century in blood. Yet Utopia never arrived; only deeper levels of hell and fear for those under its oppressive fist ... oh, and lots of disparity in wealth distribution too.  In fact, history, as well as Jesus, tells us that wealth disparity is part and parcel to Man's existence. Man's attempts to "fix" that problem only end up changing who gets more than "their fair share".

From the Christian perspective -- that is, from the perspective that takes into account eternity -- it is the hopelessness during this life that causes the Church to thrive. In the free market system, you see, no matter what the material circumstances of one's birth, there is hope of improving those circumstances. This hope, which focuses primarily on material gains in this life, can present strong competition for our interests and affections and so be a formidable distraction from a future eternal hope after death. The irony should not be missed that the system dreamed up by Karl Marx, who proclaimed that religion was the opiate of the masses, caused those who discovered Jesus in the midst of his hell to thrive, albeit not materially.

Affluent free-market systems on the other hand provide a soft bed for the believer -- so soft, in fact, that there is no consequence for being a believer. Compromise becomes normal as worldly wealth finds itself in competition with our life in Christ. Our beliefs begin to die the death of a thousand compromises as our thinking increasingly conforms to this world. In the process we become increasingly less distinguishable from the world until one day we wake to find that our “Christian” bedfellows are not Christians at all but are wolves dressed in sheep’s’ clothing who have co-opted the Christian banner for anti-Christ causes based on social justice, which is just another way of saying "material justice".

Worse yet, affluence begins to inculcate the "religion" of Christianity with a confusion between material wealth and the abundant life in Christ. When terms like "thrive" are used in reference to the life in Christ lived out by those in poor oppressive systems, it doesn't make any sense to the affluent hearer because of this confusion. It is not mere coincidence then that the very term "abundant life" in John chapter 10 is found in the context of pointing out the existence of hireling shepherds -- shepherds who are there for the material outcome they gain and not for the eternal good of the sheep.

Keep these things in mind as we further examine, "capitalism and Christianity."

Inconceivable

The movie, Princess Bride, is just one of those guilty pleasures I have. You know the kind. You're not proud of it, but, well, you like it. It's not something magnificent or grand, but, well, you just like it. That movie is one of those things. There are so many "classic" lines (I'm using the term loosely) from that movie. There is the spot where Miracle Max tells them "He's only mostly dead." There is the clergyman expounding on the importance of "twue wove". There is the repeated Inigo Montoya line, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Vizzinni is the brains behind the kidnapping of the princess. As they proceed with their plan, things keep happening to which Vizzinni keeps saying, "Inconceivable!" After the fourth or fifth time, Montoya has a great line: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I like that line.

On the news the other day a local woman was taken into custody because, for the third time, she was accused of abusing a large number of cats. On the first occasion they took away over a 70 of them. The second time there were over 100 of them, including some in the freezer which she admitted to using in a stew. The living ones had to all be put to sleep due to their condition. This time it was 64 cats. They were sick, malnourished, lame, poorly kept, dying. And she went to jail. In an interview with a news outlet she gave her side of the story. "I wasn't abusing them; I just love my cats." The cab driver that picked her up twice a week for years agreed. She just loved her cats. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Me? I can only hope and pray that no one ever loves me so much that they starve me, refuse to care for my injuries, and eventually stick me in a stew. You see, to me, that's not "love".

Indeed, this seems to be a common problem. The abused spouse who assures her friends and the doctors who are treating her for her injuries, "He loves me; he just loses his temper sometimes." Or perhaps you've heard of the Stockholm Syndrome where hostages bond with their captors. Strange concepts of "love". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And if love was the only concept that was in trouble, it would be bad enough. But words are symbols of realities and when those words come to represent unrealities, they become problematic. When "love" can mean "torture and abuse", so far from what it really means, then the warm and friendly phrase, "I love you", can become worse than meaningless. It can become threatening. And love is not the only concept at risk here. There is "marriage", as anyone who has read my stuff knows is a prime issue for me. There is "sex". That might seem plain and simple. How can it go wrong? Well, it has. Our concepts there are so far from the original intentions that we might not even recognize them if we saw them. And speaking of sex, how many words in our vocabulary have been subjugated to some subversive new rude, crude, sexual content? It hardly seems like you can say a single sentence without someone catching some sexually deviant undertones in it. The other day I overheard a guy in a tire store. A woman came in and asked to get the tires rotated on her car. After she left I heard him say to his associate, "I'd like to rotate her tires." What does that even mean? Not sure, but we get the implications.

Our society has been playing fast and loose with the English language for a long time. In some ways, it almost defines the English language. (A little play on words there.) Add to that the complexity of the language as it is. As a silly example, a "hit" might mean someone got killed, the play was great, the bat collided with the ball in a satisfactory manner, or he sunk my battleship. Now add in evolutionary effects on the language and innuendo from stolen words and it just gets really, really difficult to communicate. Love? Marriage? Gay? Christian? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Sometimes I'm quite sure it doesn't.

A Little Leaven

I've been in First Corinthians and recently read the 5th chapter. What a chapter! You know the one. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife!" (1 Cor 5:1). Stunning immorality. And Paul gives a stunning response to it.

... I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor 5:3-5).

Wow! Delivered to Satan! There is only one other reference in Scripture to such a thing. That's pretty big.

Paul goes on in that chapter to talk about not associating with sexually immoral people (1 Cor 5:9-13). He is talking, he says, not about unbelievers, but self-identified believers. They are the ones with whom we are not to associate if they are sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, revilers, drunkards, or swindlers (1 Cor 5:11). Paul tells them "not to even eat with such a one". Tough stuff.

There are a few things of note here. The first is the language there in verse 3. "I have already pronounced judgment." Whoa, Paul! Can you do that? I mean, didn't Jesus say, "Judge not"? Well, apparently he can. Indeed, apparently he's asking us to do the same ... repeatedly. "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?" (1 Cor 5:12). So, whatever Jesus was warning against in Matthew 7, Paul is not doing here, nor would we be doing it if we did what he said to do. This judging is right and necessary.

Second, consider the point. Why is this important? Paul doesn't leave us to guess. "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" (1 Cor 5:6). This is the "center" of the text, the connecting line between the guy handed over to Satan and the so-called brother who you need to avoid. The reason is that ignoring this kind of sin in your midst will cause damage to you all. According to this text, "grace" is not a good thing when "grace" means "We are not going to confront those who are sinning". It is dangerous for the sinner. It is dangerous for the Church. It is important to deal with sin in the Body and to do it swiftly and decisively. If you can, obtaining repentance, of course, is the best thing. If not, excommunication is essential. Paul is not vague here. If we do not "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5:13), there will be trouble.

Third, what's the point? What outcome do we hope for? I mean, sure, we do this to protect the Body, but what else is in view here? What about the evil person who has been purged? Well, we can see a hint here (and even clearer elsewhere) that the intent, after preserving the Body, is "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5). The reason for this harsh judgment, then, is two-fold. First, the Body needs protection from the "leaven". Second, the individual sinner needs to be saved. These are the two goals of this kind of confrontation and action.

It leaves me with a question, of course. Why is this so rare today? You know, I was excommunicated once. The pastor whose church met in my house came to me and told me that Mrs. So-and-so didn't feel like I loved her because I didn't hug her enough. If I didn't repent and hug her more, I'd have to go. I didn't repent. I had to go. On the other hand, I've known church after church, large and small, who are fully aware of genuine sexual immorality and the like in their midst but do nothing about it. What's wrong with this picture? Why do churches today tolerate immorality in their midst? Do they think Paul was kidding? Are they fooled into thinking that they're immune from the whole "leaven the lump" problem? Or is it that they don't care enough about the repentance and restoration of their own people? In fact, do we individuals care enough about others in the Body to address these issues with them? Or are we content to embrace the leaven, have a nice meal, and avoid the conflict that just might save them? I don't really know the answer, but it seems to me that there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.

Paul on Apologetics

For those unclear, Apologetics is essentially the rational defense of the Christian faith. The word is derived from the Greek behind 1 Peter 3:15 which says we are to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." That word, "defense", is pros apologia and the apologia is the root of our word, "apology". And I favor (it should be obvious) being ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within me. That's good. But I'm wondering about today's Apologetics.

There is value in giving Christians reasons to believe. That is, having believed because God has opened our hearts, it can be helpful -- fortifying -- to be given reasons, arguments, evidence, points of fact that build up that faith and help hold it strong. But today's Apologetics seems largely to be aimed at the non-Christian, and much of what is being said out there suggests that if we don't have a strong (and often extra-biblical) argument for Christianity, we won't be able to reach people. I find myself wondering what Paul would think of that.

First we know that Paul holds that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Apparently faith is not premised on good arguments, but the Word. But Paul has a lot to say about the wisdom of the world in this context. He assures us that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Hmmm, not wisdom, but folly. He actually revels in the fact that "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards" (1 Cor 1:26), but, instead, "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:27). I don't know. It doesn't sound a lot like Paul is encouraging using the wisdom of our surroundings to convince unbelievers.

Paul gets more pointed in the next chapter of 1 Corinthians. "My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," Paul tells the Corinthians, "that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5). Instead, "we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13). Indeed, "we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God" (1 Cor 2:7). Now, in truth, that kind of thing is anathema in the arena in which Apologetics is used as a witnessing tool. Suggesting "secret wisdom" is not going to gain you points in a logical debate. But that's Paul's claim. And he tells why. First, "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Co 2:10). It takes the Spirit to reveal the truth of the Gospel. And that would be fine, except for the second problem: "Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). It doesn't really sound at all like Paul believes that we can produce sufficient reasoning skills to argue people into the kingdom of God. It sounds, instead, as if Paul is saying that Natural Man cannot receive the truths of God. That requires a fundamental change, and that fundamental change ("the mind of Christ" -- 1 Cor 2:16) is not brought about by clever arguments or coherent reasoning.

One last thought from Paul on this:

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:19-20).

Say what you want, but I don't think Paul placed a premium on the world's extrabiblical reasoning to accomplish God's work. In fact, it doesn't look like God does, either.

Now, I know that God uses all sorts of means to accomplish His ends. I know that in some cases God has used cogent arguments to prick the hearts of individuals to open their eyes to the truth. I am not saying that we should abandon reason and jettison a rational defense of the faith. But it would seem from Scripture that receiving the truth about Christ, about salvation, about those things that make up the Gospel and Christianity is a matter of the Word from our end and the Spirit from God's end. We are not overcoming faulty thinking. We have to overcome the dead spirit of Natural Man. A clean argument won't do that. God appears to want prayer and the Word from us for that. We ought to give God what He wants.

Not Forgotten

Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth; break forth, O mountains, into singing! For the LORD has comforted His people and will have compassion on His afflicted. But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me." (Isa 49:13-14).

If we are honest we all go through times of depression and despair. We're always told "Sing for joy" and assured that God is on our side, that He's looking out for us, that everything will be okay. Well, everything is not okay sometimes. Sometimes they're tough. A loved one is sick or dying. We lose our jobs like everyone else. We may be struck with illness or pain that the doctor's can't solve. We can certainly suffer injustice. Sometimes we don't see a reason for singing for joy or comfort in the promise that the Lord will have compassion ... because it doesn't feel like it right now.

I suppose God knew that about us, because He has a reply to Zion from which we can benefit:

"Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands" (Isa 49:15-16).

Like always, God's people (like us) can forget God's compassion, can feel forsaken and forgotten by God. There is no doubt that we feel that way at times. And we may have good reasons, too. But God offers this assurance. In human terms, a mother cannot likely forget her child. More sure than a mother's love, however, God cannot forget you. "Behold," He says, "I have engraved you on the palms of My hands."

You know, that's better than a sticky note on the refrigerator or even a Sharpee on the back of your hand. All of that can be missed. But we whom God loves are engraved on Him -- right there on the palm of His hand. We cannot be forgotten. So when we feel forsaken and forgotten, remember. You are part of God's cheat notes, that which He refuses to forsake or forget. He will comfort His people and He will have compassion on His afflicted. No doubt. We might forget, but He won't. And that's good news.