PC Merry Christmas

I wanted to say, "Merry Christmas", but we all know that's offensive, so here's my attempt at offending no one.

*******

At this time of the start of winter in which we gather lights and gifts and wish each other well, I wish to convey to you my wish that you have a happy day noted on the standard calendar as "December 25th" and that your new year that follows would be good.

Note that "happy" in the above wish is not to be construed as a promise or even narrowly defined as what I would consider "happy". It may include a positive outlook on anything at all or even a non-negative view on something. It may include the religion of your choice or it may include no religion at all. Perhaps you will receive gifts from friends and family or perhaps you have a non-standard definition of "friend" and "family". Indeed, "happy" should not be construed to mean anything at all, but only what you intend it to mean. If this intended meaning is not legal, I have the right to withdraw any and all connection to this wish.

Note that "good" is subject to similar conditions. Perhaps it is reduced stress or socially productive or improved income. "Good" is not intended to be defined in merely the terms that I understand "good", but may be whatever "good" you wish it to be. Again, if this intended meaning is not legal, I have the right to withdraw any and all connection to such a wish.

Should any of this wish be considered offensive or pejorative, I retain the right to cancel my wish on your behalf without notice. No insult is intended, nor is any real content suggested with this "wish".

*******

There ... much better, right?

(For a more "professional" one, this was quite good.)

Jesus Didn't Say

Thursday night on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN, the last hour was consumed with a report on "What is a Christian?" It was an interesting report, fairly balanced, and covering several areas such as Christianity and politics, Christianity and environmentalism, end times, the Word Faith movement, and Unitarians. Several times during the show, Mr. Cooper interacted with a panel of three. Richard Land is pastor and president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Jim Wallis is the author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." He's also the president of Sojourners, a progressive Christian ministry. The Reverend Dwight Hopkins is an American Baptist minister and professor of theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Mr. Cooper asked the three what a Christian was. Of course, there were varying answers. Reverend Hopkins suggested that Christians were to be primarily concerned with "what Jesus Christ says in the four gospels of the New Testament." In context, it seemed innocuous, but there was a method to his madness. When the subject of homosexuality came up, Mr. Cooper asked what each thought. Reverend Hopkins fell back on his mantra. "Jesus never spoke on the issue of homosexuality. So we're at a loss as far as what Jesus has to say."

This is a standard "defense" against Christians who argue that homosexual behavior is against the Bible. I would hope that a mere moment's thought would shoot this one down in flames. "Jesus never spoke on the issue" of rape, torture, incest, child molestation ... oh, lots of things which we all agree are against the Bible. This is no form of evidence that homosexual behavior is a biblically sound practice.

The real problem for me, however, is not merely this defense. It is the further ramification. Reverend Hopkins has managed to eliminate nearly 94% of the Bible. If the primary concern of the Christian is 4 books out of 66, we've lost a lot. We've lost the wisdom of Solomon, the worship of the Psalmists, the morality of the Law, and the history of Israel. We've lost the prophets and the apostles, the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). Without Paul, we've lost the entire explanation of redemption, justification, and sanctification. Without James we wouldn't know that faith without works is dead. It is only John who tells us that the one born of God cannot make a practice of sinning. And while we may have a good idea of things like the Deity of Christ from the gospel of John, the concept is filled out in Paul's letters and in Hebrews. Let's face it. If Christianity is only concerned with the four books of the Gospels, Christianity is anemic and baseless (Eph. 2:20).

Homosexual behavior and its sinfulness aside, we dare not limit our Christianity to "what Jesus said". Too many things are at stake. We need the whole counsel of God as contained in the whole Bible. And basing our Christianity on what Jesus did not say will put us in a nightmare realm. Let's not try to push limits by removing truth.

Take Back Christmas

Let's take back Christmas. That's what I say. Consider the facts.

"Christmas" means "Christ's Church". So ... why are all these non-Christians celebrating "Christ's Church"? Seems somewhat insincere, doesn't it?

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ. Very, very, very few actually celebrate the birth of Christ. Why should they get gifts, trappings, and a holiday out of something they sharply deny?

Christmas is about the coming of the Savior ... the Savior that most people refuse. Why should they get any benefit out of a celebration of someone they refuse?

Christmas is full of imagery intended to point to Christ. The tree is supposed to represent eternal life. (Originally it represented the Christ child's conquest over Satan, believe it or not.) The lights on the tree were originally put there to glorify God in His creation. The gifts are supposed to remind us of the gifts the wise men gave to the Baby. The angels represent the angels who told the news to the shepherds. The stars represent the star that led the wise men to Him. Even Santa Claus is premised on Saint Nicholas who characterized Christ-like giving and generosity at Christmas time. Why should any of this apply to people who have no interest in Christ?

We call it a "holiday". The idea behind the word is "holy day". How can people who have no concept of the holy be allowed a holy day?

I say, let's take back Christmas. It shouldn't be a holiday. It shouldn't be a day off or a week off. There shouldn't be all the lights and trees and gifts and all. It should be a quiet celebration afforded only to those who actually wish to celebrate Christ, His coming, and His Church. Any pretenders ought to be slapped with a fine and have their gifts and lights removed.

Okay, it's all tongue in cheek, but sometimes I wonder ...

Joy To The World - Verse 4

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders of His love.

“He rules the world with truth and grace.” Somehow, this seems an understatement. Abraham asked, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen.18:25). The implication is, “of course!” Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Jesus is The Truth. In Isaiah we read, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given . . . He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever” (Isa. 9:6-7). We have seen that truth and justice are not the operating mode of America, but they are ever-present in God’s government. He is not merely truthful; He is Truth. He is the essence of integrity.

“Truth and grace,” the song says. We can only begin to sing the wonders of God’s grace. Paul says in Rom. 9:14-16 that there is no injustice in God, but all of salvation is completely dependent on God’s mercy. Paul claims that it is the grace of God that made him what he was (1 Cor. 15:10), a laborer for Christ. In Eph. 1:5-6 we read that God “predestined us to adoption as sons” according to His own kind intentions “to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” We know from Eph. 2:8-9 that our salvation occurs by grace, and in Titus 3:7 he merges the two concepts, saying that we are “justified by His grace that we might be made heirs.” Grace, in fact, is the focal point of our lives, according to Peter. We are to be “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10).

The hymn goes on to say, “and makes the nations prove the glories of His righteousness and wonders of His love.” First, I’m fascinated by the phrase, “makes the nations prove.” It is this same concept in mind in Rom. 12:2. Paul says we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we can “prove what the will of God is”. The concept is also carried forward in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah quotes God as saying, “To me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance” (Isa. 45:23). Paul echoes the prophet in Rom. 14:11 when he says, “It is written . . .” But in Phil. 2:9-11, he more fully explains the process. “God highly exalted Him (Christ), and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Although we are currently in rebellion, there will not be a rebel on the Day of Judgment. There will only be rejoicing or acquiescence.

What will the nations prove? The glories of His righteousness and wonders of His love.

We don’t seem to recognize the glory of righteousness. We see the wickedness of sins. We despise the evils we read and hear about on the news daily. But just as we don’t recognize the depths and horror of sin in our own lives, we don’t seem to grasp that righteousness is glorious. Those who appear to be righteous we ridicule as “goody goodies”. We almost revel in our humanity, our fallenness. Who hasn’t said, “Nobody’s perfect?” We all know the phrase, “to err is human.” What is the completion of that phrase? “To forgive, divine.” But the song says we will all prove the glory of His righteousness. Prov. 14:34 says that righteousness exalts a nation. Isaiah says that God makes righteousness the standard by which all else is measured (Isa. 28:17). Elihu warned Job that his righteousness could never exceed God’s (Job 35:2). The Psalms love to proclaim the righteousness of God (Psa. 7:17; 9:8; 22:31; 35:28; 36:6; etc.).

Nor can we comprehend the wonders of His love. Paul’s fervent prayer for the church at Ephesus was “that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:14-19). John says that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). In that statement of love as an attribute of God, we see that all God is and all that God does is tied up in love. That is, in His grace, He is loving; in His wrath, He is loving; in His mercy, He is loving; in His justice, He is loving. Now that is a wonder. Who can comprehend that kind of love, the kind that expresses itself in the midst of hate (Rom. 5:8)? Who can understand a love that cannot be broken (Rom. 8:38-39), that is new every morning (Lam. 3:22-23)? God will make the nations prove, that is, demonstrate, all this.

Joy is to be the way of life for us. Joy should mark our paths. The joy of the Lord shouldn’t be “in our hearts”, but in our lives displayed. We have a King, a ruling Savior, who is adored by nature itself, who will free us from the very essence of sin. We have been saved from slavery to sin! We have a Sovereign who rules with integrity and unmerited favor, who is the highest example of righteousness, and who loves us beyond our comprehension. It is the coming of this King that we celebrate at Christmas. JOY TO THE WORLD!

Joy To The World - Verse 3

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as the curse is found.

“No more let sins and sorrows grow nor thorns infest the ground.” “Here’s an impossible task,” you might conclude. “Who can prevent sin from growing?” Remarkably, Paul echoes the same theme: “Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires” (Rom. 6:12). So what does it mean to “not let sin reign”, or to “no more let sins . . . grow”? To the believer, the one with the new nature (2 Cor. 5:17), we have died in Christ (Rom. 6:2-11) to sin. We are putting to death the flesh (Rom. 8:13). We are no longer cultivating sin, but fleeing it. (Eph. 4:27; 1 Cor. 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22).

Why is this an issue? Because of the depths of sin. In Gen. 3, after mankind took up arms against God by transgressing His Law, God cursed the participants. He cursed the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15). He cursed the woman (verse 16). He cursed the man, and in it he cursed nature (verse 17-19). The thorns that mar the loveliness of the rose are a product of sin. Paul says that creation itself groans under the weight of our sin and decay, joyfully anticipating redemption (Rom. 8:19-22).

We don’t tend to use this language in our discussions. We tend to think of “sins” rather than “sin” as the problem. It is those things we have done to transgress God’s Law that we need to repent of and be saved. But the real problem is not “sins”, because these are just the result of “sin”, the natural state of the human being. Sin is the condition of the flesh into which we are born. Sin is the natural hostility we bear to the Creator. Sin is the Cosmic Treason we harbor that prods us to rebel against our Sovereign. It is this from which we need salvation.

This is in sight when the song says, “He comes to make His blessings flow far as the curse is found.” How far is the curse found? It extends to nature itself, to the thorns and thistles, to death and decay - to our very nature. In this is the great joy brought to the world. The King, the reigning Savior, is bringing release from the curse!

Joy To The World - Verse 2

Joy to the world! The Savior reigns;
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.

“Joy to the world! The Savior reigns.” In America, we have sprung from a stock that says, “We will serve no sovereign.” Above all else, we cling to freedom. So it comes as a shock to us that “the Savior reigns.” This is a difficult concept for us to grasp and even harder to accept. Yet, in light of who the Savior is and what He has done, this ought to be a point of great joy for us. As David says in 1 Chron. 29:11, “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.” There is no more joyous place to be than in the safe control of the Savior.

“Let men their songs employ.” What does it mean to “employ”? It means to put to work, to use something or someone to accomplish a particular task. This song calls on us to “employ” our songs. Paul calls on us to “speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19) and “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16). Work those songs. Put them to good use, and use them for their intended purpose – the praise of God.

This working of songs to demonstrate the joy of having a reigning Savior is picked up by all of nature. “While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains repeat the sounding joy.” This is the same thought in Psalm 96:11-13: “Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy; they will sing before the LORD, for he comes, he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in his truth.” All of God’s creation echoes His praise! Imagine it when the vast crowd in heaven sings praises to God! “After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: ‘Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God’“ (Rev. 19:1).

Joy To The World - Verse 1

It's Christmas time. I'm going to do a Christmas carol. Well, actually, I'm going to take several days to sing a Christmas carol. I'm planning on taking four days (four verses) to examine and expand Joy To The World. Let's see what we can learn from a classical Christmas hymn.

Joy to the World!
From Psalm 98, Adapted by Isaac Watts

Joy to the world! The Lord is come;
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare him room,
And heaven and nature sing,
And heaven and nature sing,
And heaven, and heaven and nature sing.

Psalm 98 says, “Shout joyfully to the Lord, all the earth; break forth and sing for joy and sing praises” (v 4). “Shout joyfully before the King, the Lord” (v 6).

Joy is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It is the natural result of the recognition of God’s care for us (Psa. 98:1-3; 100). It is commanded repeatedly (Phil. 2:18; 3:1; 4:4; 1 Thess. 5:16). Joy to the world!

It is disconcerting to hear secular singers belting out this song because of phrases like this: “The Lord is come; let earth receive her King.” Even we who believe have difficulty calling Him Lord and King, but the song calls on us to “receive” Him. This is the same word used in both a positive and negative sense in John 1:9-13. Negatively, “His own did not receive Him” (v 11). Positively, “As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God” (v 12). Our normal term today for becoming a Christian is to “accept Christ”, but the biblical term, “receive Him”, carries a fuller connotation. When you “receive” a TV signal, it is processed and displayed. When you have a “reception” for someone, it is to honor him. We are to “receive” our King, to open ourselves to Him, to appropriate and display Him, to honor Him.

“Let every heart prepare Him room.” Luke records that when it came time to deliver Jesus, “there was no room for them” (Luke 2:7). Jesus moves only into places that are vacated for Him. For us to receive our King, we must prepare Him room in our hearts.

The last line of the first verse repeats the phrase “and heaven and nature sing.” We live in a world that has divorced science and religion, the natural from the supernatural. We have divided out God and His world, and classified things as secular or sacred. God doesn’t see it as such. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, His detractors told Him to silence His disciples. He replied, “I tell you if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out" (Luke 19:40). The language of Scripture includes nature in adoring God (for example, Isa. 55:12). All of nature and all of heaven sing for joy at the coming of the King.

In the Word

People are always trying to come up with some method of reading their Bibles in meaningful ways. Often they go to Bible study books with nice fill-in-the-blank type questions and such or they'll find their favorite teacher's latest and greatest study on Ruth or Ecclesiastes or whatever. While I'm sure this is all well and good, I think it is a good idea to study for ourselves. So I am going to recommend the technique I was taught years ago. It has served me well, and for those to whom I have passed it on, it has served them well, too.

The method can be remembered using the acrostic, 2PROAPT:
P - Pray.
P - Preview.
R - Read.
O - Observe.
A - Apply.
P - Pray.
T - Tell.

It's not a difficult approach, but it encompasses all the major aspects. So, let me explain it a little.

Open with prayer. What you're looking for is God's presence as you read.

Preview the passage you will be reading. Scan it. Look it over quickly, maybe even as a larger view of a smaller section you intend to cover.

Read the passage. Maybe it's a paragraph, maybe a chapter, maybe a book. Just read it.

Having scanned it and then read it, make some notes. What do you see in the passage? "Just the facts, ma'am." What are the who, what, when, where, why, and hows of what you just read? What strikes your attention?

Now you've made observations ... hopefully things that God has impressed on you. The next step is to apply it. You're looking for specifics. Something measurable, verifiable. "Today I will _____." "For the next week I will ____." What does the passage ask you to do? Maybe it's an action. Maybe it's a thought process. Maybe it's a change of attitude. But God is speaking to you. What is He telling you?

Having noted what you believe God is telling you specifically, pray again. Make the observations and application a matter of prayer.

This final step is difficult for some, but you won't believe the value. Tell someone. Maybe you can tell a spouse. Maybe you have a "prayer partner" or an "accountability partner" you can tell. Maybe you have a pastor or friend. Maybe it's not always the same person. Just tell someone. "This is what I learned, and this is what God asked of me today." This will help motivate you and include others in what you're learning.

Packaged studies are fine, but when the Word becomes God's speaking to you, something you treat with reverence and with respect, something intended for you, perhaps the packaged studies and applications won't be what God has in mind for you. Try it. You'll like it.

The Good 1955 Wife

A friend sent me a copy of a Housekeeping Monthly article dated 13 May 1955. The title of the piece was The Good Wife's Guide. It was sent for the laugh factor. No one could actually think this was a good idea.

The article had "helpful" ideas on how to be a good wife. Some were good like "Be happy to see him" or "Try to make your home a place of peace, order, and tranquility." Nice. Some were mundane if not dated like "Have dinner ready" or "Clear away the clutter." Others were offensive to the modern American wife. "Catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction." "Remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours." "Don't ask questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity ... You have no right to question him." And the ultimate insult: "A good wife always knows her place."

Looking it over, there really isn't much of any value to today's wife. It's about a time gone by when women actually thought they were supposed to submit to their husbands. It presupposes that husbands were supposed to love their wives. It actually believes the ridiculous notion that love believes the best of the one loved. Well, the whole idea is preposterous.

But I enjoyed the fantasy. I wondered what it would be like to live in a world like that. I imagined a home where the husband is working at loving his wife as Christ loved the Church (Eph. 5:25) and the wife is submitting to her husband as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22). I dreamed about a marriage where two people consider each other as more important than themselves (Phil. 2:3). I thought about a husband who was deeply concerned with washing his bride in the Word (Eph. 5:26) instead of having a "show wife" and a wife whose goal was to adorn herself with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4) rather than a good career, family, figure, and "stuff".

Ah, yes, nice fantasy ... but reality is back. Husbands (Okay, men in general) are the bane of society and wives have to be "all" to their families while still working to get what they want out of life. That fantasy world probably didn't even exist in 1955, even though there was someone who thought it should. No, we're much more enlightened now. The war of the sexes is much better than that fantasy world ...

No Swearing Please

So, Keith Ellison wants to swear in on the Koran rather than the Bible. What's the big deal? I mean, consider the facts. Congressmen are sworn in as a group without any book present at all. The "Bible swearing" is a "photo op", a statement by the congressmen after the actual swearing in and isn't binding in any way ... since they were already sworn in. It's just so they can get their picture taken, and lots of them choose the Bible because it's the standard thing, whether or not they believe in the Bible. And there is that fact. How many atheists or, at least, practical atheists have done this "swearing in" thing (which we've already determined isn't a real swearing in) on a Bible that they don't actually believe? Is that a good thing? Isn't it better if Ellison, the first Moslem elected to Congress, does so on a book he values? Besides, religion isn't a test of office and we have a separation of Church and State here, so why would this be any issue at all?

I'm going to toss my two cents into the ring (just to mix metaphors). I think it is an issue.

Why is the Bible used for these events? It is because it is the standard -- it is what has always been done. There is no denying that the founders of America founded it on biblical principles. Even those who weren't "Christians" respected the principles of the Bible. So it is natural to include it. Doing so doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because there is no enforcement or demand made to honor it. It simply recognizes the roots of the country and the values of the values therein.

But there is more. We often hear of "multiculturalism" without actually thinking about what that means. A culture (in these terms) is defined as the common behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular group. "Multiculturalism" is a denial of culture. That is, if there is an American "culture", it is predicated on commonality, not diversity. The areas in which we are diverse are not "culture". They're not bad, but they're not culture. Thus, "multiculturalism" is an embrace of the destruction of commonality. It says, "America cannot have a culture." On the other hand, if we were to speak of what America has in common, what would that be? Well, there is the geography (which, given the vastness of this country, isn't much in common). There is a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, but most civilized countries have similar documents, so that isn't strictly "American." One of the keys, one of the undeniable facts, is that a vast majority of Americans label themselves as Christian. This isn't a legal label, but a cultural label. The majority may not follow Christianity or the Bible, but they consider it worthwhile to some extent. Our laws are often based on Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible. There is much in our culture that has at its roots (perhaps deeply and sometimes obscurely) the Bible.

Enter Congressman Ellison who decides to substitute the Koran for the Bible in his ceremonial (not actual) swearing in. What is the purpose? The original purpose for all such events is to make a statement: "I'm your new congressman and I want you to believe that I will do my job." What is Congressman Ellison saying? I can't imagine a clearer way of saying, "I want to set aside the normal beliefs and the common culture of America and substitute my own." I cannot imagine a more obvious way of saying, "I want to replace the Bible in American Law with my own beliefs." This is only exacerbated by the fact that many Moslems view the Bible as a largely good book, ironically more so than many of the elected officials who have posed for their picture with one. Yet Congressman Ellison is unwilling to allow that possibility, wishing instead to force a statement against the Bible and American culture.

Go ahead ... rant and rave about racism and bigotry and islamophobia and the like. Complain that Christians are trying to violate the Bill of Rights and make our religion the American religion. I can't imagine what any of that has to do with this. It seems to me an obvious statement that the Bible has to go and the Koran should replace it. I understand the arguments that I offered at the outset, but I think there is more going on here and I am concerned about the effects that such arguments don't take into account. Are we really ready to toss out any basis for American Law and culture? Or is it a good idea to shift the basis from the Bible to the Koran? Is that really where we want to go?

Is God Just?

One of the common objections to God is this one: "God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely unjust." I have to be honest. For a long time, that one bothered me, too. I was told the standard fare. I knew "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I knew "The wages of sin is death." Fine. But ... why? I mean, when I transgressed my parents' rules, they didn't kill me. The wages of violating normal rules around my house was variable, but never death. So why death?

The first problem in my thinking was the temporal limitations. The phrase "an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime" suggests that the time of the offense should determine the time frame of the payment. Now, we know at the start that this is nonsense. It would be like suggesting that a person can only spend as much time in jail as it took them to commit the crime. "Hey, that robbery only took me half an hour to plan and execute." "Okay, you will spend the next half hour in jail." Ridiculous! No, the time frame of the payment isn't determined by the time frame of the offense, but the severity of the offense. A drunk driving offense isn't as bad as an armed robbery offense, which, in turn, isn't as bad as a murder offense. Each offense has a time frame of payment that correlates to its seriousness, not the time it took to commit it.

The second problem in my thinking followed from the first. If it is the seriousness of the offense, exactly how serious was the offense? Well, transgressing, for instance, my parents' command to get home before midnight clearly wasn't the same as transgressing, say, the federal law against murder. What I tend to do, however, is to equate human violations to divine violations, as if my parents' commands are equal to federal law. In truth, for the creature to violate the Creator is vastly larger than any human transgression.

The third problem in my thinking was the companion of the second. The nature of the violation determines the nature of the payment. But disobeying my parents is not the same as disobeying God. When we examine the nature of the violation, it exceeds "petty crimes" and spans to a much larger transgression. Given that this is the creature defying the Creator, what we have is Cosmic Treason. I have set aside the rightful commands of the Creator and said, "No! I will be my own god!" I have overthrown the rightful government of my life.

Putting these together, I finally found the thinking processes I had been missing. In any normal country with any normal rules, the common penalty for treason is death. Given that the "country" that is violated, the "government" against which my treason was committed is an infinite, perfect, right government, it is reasonable that the violation merits eternal death. Treason against a country merits physical death. Cosmic Treason against the Most High merits spiritual death. Finally I see that "God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is perfectly just."

God is in Trouble

Look around you. The Internet is full of it. But it's in your country, your state, your town, maybe even your home. God is in trouble. As it turns out, He has lots of enemies and apparently He has a lot to answer for.

"I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am."

"If Gandhi goes to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff, then I don't want anything to do with that God."

"I am not interested in any God that is not completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving."

In his NPR piece entitled "There Is No God" Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) says, "Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us..."

These are popular objections for many. They are commonly used to refute the existence of God, but more often simply to personally choose to ignore Him. They will not settle for anything less than "hard scientific evidence." They cite wisdom like "A God who is perfect does nothing except exist" or "If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it." You've all heard the complaints, "If God is omnipotent ..." followed by some impossibility. You know ... " ... can He make a rock too big for Him to pick up" or some such. Most of all, of course, God is on trial for His problems with His image. You see, "God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely unjust."

One of the hottest contested areas in the field of theology is known as "theodicy," the branch of theology that defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. The question: How can a good, kind, loving, just, omnipotent God allow the evil we see around us? Not many unbelievers care much for the answers. However, I would suggest that the questions are all wrong.

Being humans, prone to self-centeredness (oh, how we've turned that into a trite little term rather than the ominous evil that it is), we tend to think of God from ourselves rather than vice versa. So God, if He is to be good, must be "at least as compassionate as I am," as if I am the standard of compassion. We would hear, "If Gandhi goes to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff, then I don't want anything to do with that God," as if we should have the right to declare what is right for God. (It isn't, by the way, an accurate statement to say that Gandhi would go to Hell for failing to believe the right stuff.) We create our own measure of "good" and "loving" and "forgiving" and, oddly enough, "perfect," then declare that God falls short.

I would suggest the reverse. It's interesting what we can learn from etymology sometimes. The question is whether or not there is such a thing as a "good God" in view of the evil we see. But etymologically speaking, the thing we are seeking is the same thing. The word "good" is premised on the word "God". In other words, God is good. He defines it. Without Him it does not exist. And, of course, without good, we have no concept of evil. Therefore, without a "good God", the entire question falls apart.

It isn't a satisfactory answer for unbelievers, but it doesn't make a difference. The truth is that God is not measured by justice; He is justice. He is not measured by good; He is good. He is not compared to love; He is love. Without God, none of this is, and the entire question goes away.

You see the problem, I hope. The problem is that we typically start with ourselves. We are the standard by which everything else is measured. If God does not measure up to the standards we choose, God fails. Never mind that we have no right or ability to make such standards, nor any reason to believe that God should measure up to them. Take, for instance, the demand for "hard scientific evidence." Demanding that we provide natural evidence for a supernatural being is simply nonsensical. It's like claiming that sound doesn't exist because I can't see it or light doesn't exist because I can't hear it. The supernatural, by definition, is outside of the realm of science and, therefore, by definition beyond the realm of "hard scientific evidence." Yet, it is the standard we are required to meet. It is, in short, the fundamental problem of human nature: "I will be like the Most High."

More

I recently read a post from Peter Beddow about experiencing God. In his piece he gives one person's experience, Ilona, who experienced meeting God. On the other hand, he describes his own experience where he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but didn't feel anything. He says, "I have never been able to shed the doubts about that experience, and though I still retain the ability to speak in that new language, I still ask God whether it is His Holy Spirit or whether I've created it out of my pride."

I understand this. My experience is slightly different, but I understand the sentiment. Years ago I was close with some people who believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues. Now, not wanting to limit God in any way, despite the fact that I had never seen this concept in Scripture, I went with them to see if God had more for me than what I currently had received. It was a Wednesday night service, and the pastor invited anyone who wanted to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues to come down to the front and be prayed over.

Well, along with the three other people with me, we went on down. The pastor instructed us, before he started to pray for us, to babble. We were to speak in "baby talk." It was like priming the pump. We would start the babbling, but God would take over when the Spirit came upon us. So we started, and the pastor started praying. The three others with me received the Spirit with tongues, but eventually I gave up the babbling and went back to my seat with the rest, rejected.

What happened? Why did God reject me? I came to Him with open heart and fervent prayer and a desire for everything He wanted for me. I didn't let past teaching or beliefs get in the way. I didn't allow for doubt or questioning. I went up for it all, and came back with nothing. My friends, on the other hand, came back dancing in the Spirit.

These questions plagued me for years. I pushed them aside without answers, but they still were nagging at me. Did I block God? Or did God reject me? Or was I just not good enough? I answered the questions with biblical responses and that eased things for me, but it still felt bad. Then one day God pointed out the outcomes. One of the others who had received this special blessing had degenerated into lunacy. I'm not being trite. She literally lost her mind. The other threw Christianity out the window, embraced blatant, overt sin, cursed God, and today lives a sad, lonely existence. Me? I love the Lord more today than ever before, have a lovely wife whom I love dearly, and am still hard after all that God has to give me. How is that possible? How is it that they could receive more from God than I and they have such poor outcomes?

I don't have answers for that. I don't wish to cast aspersions on the experiences of others. I certainly don't want to suggest that "the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues" is a false experience. What I do believe is that, rather than being something "more", it is often the result of an experience-seeking mindset that is not satisfied with truth and seeks, instead, something beyond what God intends. Paul says, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil. 3:8), and prayed "that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3:10-11). For Paul, knowing Christ was the highest possible thing. To many Christians, personal experience is the highest possible thing. Paul longed to know the suffering and death of Christ. Many Christians simply seek the sweetness. A missionary once wrote this: "My goal is God Himself. Not joy or peace or even blessing, but Himself, my God. 'Tis His to lead me there - not mine, but His. By any road, dear Lord, at any cost." That, too, is my prayer.

Do Not Love the World - 1 John 2:15

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD! (Isa. 31:1).

It happened more than once to Israel. They faced enemies that outnumbered them. The odds were bleak. Their options were limited. The outcome was fairly certain, and it was failure, destruction. So Israel would often take up alliances with godless nations around them. Find strong armies to help defend them. That would protect them. The result, of course, was always the same. Their "wise approach" proved no help whatsoever. Instead of fending off disaster, they received it double.

One of the brightest exceptions was King Jehoshaphat. The Moabites and the Ammonites joined to go to war against Jehoshaphat. His choice of action? Pray (2 Chron. 20:3-4). God told Jehoshaphat, "Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's" (2 Chron. 20:15). Jehoshaphat followed God's instructions and developed a different battle plan than the oft repeated, always failed approach of others of joining with the godless. He took the people to a hill overlooking the approach of the enemy, called up the choir to sing, and watched God annihilate their enemies (2 Chron. 20:20-24). All they had to do was go down to their encampment and pick up the spoils. Not a bad approach.

As the 20th century was winding down, Christian "prophets of doom" began warning of the impending demise of the Church. "If we don't come up with new techniques, the Church will vanish by the early 21st century." It was a dire prediction from the likes of George Barna, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, and many, many more. The response of the Church, largely, was not prayer, but an alliance with the world. Take up the world's techniques. Use their marketing methods. Join in their entertainment mentality. Appropriate their musical styles. Give the people want they want (2 Tim. 4:3). The result was the "megachurch." The megachurch phenomenon goes on today. Oddly, it isn't a result of more people going to church, but simply people leaving smaller churches for larger churches where they can get what they want. And while it might appear that the Church is improving her position, I would contend, instead, that she is preparing herself for double disaster.

What would make me think that? Jesus said, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). In Acts 2:42-47, the first Christian church found itself "praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day" (Acts 2:47). One would think from this, then, that a large gathering of growing Christians would produce an effect in their immediate surroundings. What we find instead is a growing number of people pointing to the fact that immorality is just as prevalent in Christians as non-Christians and that the United States, a "Christian nation", has a higher crime rate than other, less "Christian" nations. This is not an improvement in the Church; it is a serious decline.

What else is in decline? One of the biggest things is worship. It is connected to the borrowing of worldly techniques. Many, many Christians have learned that "worship" is defined as "feeling good toward God". When they experience feeling warmly toward God in church, they say they worshiped. If they felt nothing, they didn't worship. Indeed, many churches have turned their sights on "felt needs". Meet the felt needs of the people that show up, and they will be inclined to be Christians. In other words, "worship" has changed from a singular focus of attention on God's worth (the definition of "worship") to self, what I need, and how I feel. God gets an admirable spot in the Church, but He is certainly not the sole or even primary attention. Paul says that worship is self dying (Rom. 12:1), but we've made self the focus of worship because self is the focus of the world and its techniques. Self-esteem, warm feelings, and so on are the goals of the world, not the Word.

I'm not a Christian prophet of doom. I don't believe the Church will cease to exist. I believe that the Church is the function of God and His work. It is aimed at building believers, not meeting their felt needs and making them feel warmly toward God. It doesn't belong to us, depend on our techniques, or hinge on our ability to make it function. But I do suspect that the Church as we know it is headed for radical losses if she doesn't learn to approach the crisis with Jehoshaphat's successful method of depending solely on God rather than Israel's failed method of depending on the world's methods.

Ruth Doesn't Get Church

In her splendidly candid post entitled I Still Don't Get Church, Ruth of Journal of Ruth has some interesting things to say. She expresses what I think a large number of Christians feel, things like "I think I have too high an expectations from the church" or "I always feel like I’m outside." One of the biggest, I think, is "They get church. For some reason, they get it and I don’t."

I think that a large number of believers feel like this. I also think that the truth is that most don't. They don't "get church". They don't feel like insiders. They don't even meet their own expectations for church.

One of the comments she made was very interesting to me:

I feel like I can be honest with my non-Christian friends, but I feel like if I really tell Christians what I really feel like, they’ll be uncomfortable.

I suspect she's quite right. I suspect that nearly all believers don't feel like they can be completely honest and up front with their church friends. After all, their church friends get it and they don't. Their church friends are godly folks and they aren't. Their church friends never speak of doubt or temptation or struggles with sin. And, perhaps, the light begins to dawn? They don't feel comfortable speaking about it ... with you, either.

The church has a lot to commend it. First, it is biblical. It was established by God for God. It is commanded. "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another" (Heb. 10:24-25). But it is also very beneficial. It promotes unity, spiritual growth, worship. It provides fellowship, a place where we can bear one another's burdens, a place to teach and be taught, to sharpen one another, to comfort one another. All well and good.

So ... what's wrong? Why is it that many think we have to revamp the Church or lose it? Why do so many feel like "I don't get it" and so few others know it? I suspect the answer is not simple. Part of it is that many, many churches have lost the notion of what church is supposed to be. A large number believe that church is intended to make converts. The Bible says it is intended to build believers. I think many churches have lost the notion of discipleship, part of the Great Commission that seems to be nearly lost today. (We aren't commanded "Go into all the world and make converts." We are commanded to make disciples ... and, oh, by the way, "teaching them all that I have commanded you.") I think there is a scarcity of churches (and, subsequently, Christians) that even know what worship is anymore.

I suspect, however, that the biggest problem is sin. Perhaps it's ignorant sin. Perhaps we aren't aware of it. Perhaps it's not intentional sin. But when we are commanded to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal. 6:2) and we don't, it's sin. When we are told "confess your sins one to another" (James 5:16) and we don't, it's sin. When the singular hallmark of being a Christian -- love for the brethren (John 13:35) -- is largely missing from the church, it's sin.

I understand Ruth's feelings. I share them. I know what it's like to walk into a church and no one notices. I know what it's like to even try to work your way into the church, to be "inside", and no one notices. I know what it feels like to look at all this "spiritual people" and think, "They get it, and I don't." But these are feelings, and I suspect that the truth is that these feelings are a lie. The problem isn't that they get it. The problem is that we are sinning, refusing to love, and we are not going to talk about it. Now, can we just sing a nice little ditty about how much we love God and get on with the pleasant sermon? Please?

As I said, I don't suppose it's a simple answer. Perhaps there are things the Ruths of Christianity ought to be doing. Perhaps there are things other Christians ought to be doing. Maybe not. But there are clear things that are wrong. Perhaps we -- individuals -- need to start with "I" and work on love and spread that around a bit. We ought to work on "bear one anothers burdens" and "confess your sins" and "love one another" and see ... just see if it makes a difference. I suspect that, at least for the individual who chooses to obey God this way, it will.

Both - And

Has this ever happened to you? I'm muddling about, trying to find answers to a question. Maybe it's "What should I do about ___?" or (more likely) "What does this mean?" or other possibilities. Then, without working at it, I open my Bible to read and ... POP ... there it is.

I posted a couple days ago about the need for sanctified Christians here followed here with a post about my confusion on the question. We have this dichotomy. It appears that Scripture is abundantly clear that we are not saved by works. It seems that Scripture is abundantly clear that if there is no change in the person, they are not saved. So what am I to make of it?

Well, I've been reading through Paul's letters in sequence, and inevitably I come across this:

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth (2 Thess. 2:13).

Paul is not ambivalent here. He is not unclear. Paul affirms Election ("God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation"). And Paul makes this amazing claim ... that we are to be saved through sanctification. Oh, okay, now it's clear. Hodges is wrong; MacArthur is right. Salvation is by sanctification -- the process of becoming Christ-like. No, it's not so clear. This sanctification occurs "by the Spirit and faith in the truth."

And, of course, since I am reading through Paul's letters sequentially, I just read this:

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; He will surely do it (1 Thess. 5:23-24).

There it is again -- sanctification. Sanctification is the process by which we cooperate with God to be made into the image of Christ. But Paul here says that God Himself will sanctify us completely. Then, in a typical Hebraism, he reiterates "He who calls you is faithful; He will surely do it." In other words, He will sanctify us completely, He will sanctify us completely. You can count on it.

Again, it looks like a contradiction. It's not. It's a paradox. A contradiction is a violation of logic; a paradox is an apparent contradiction ... which may or may not be an actual contradiction. What we're seeing here is two sides of the same coin. One -- the one I've expressed here -- is God's perspective. He will do it. We are sanctified by the Spirit. He will surely do it ... completely. One side of the coin. The other side is our perspective: Work!!

It is the same two-sided perspective offered in Phil. 2.

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13).

So ... is it my job to work out my salvation, or God's? Yes. No, no, you don't understand ... Do I work? Yes. Oh, okay, so it's not God's work but mine. No. Oh, then it's God's work. Yes. So it's not my work; it's God's. No. The answer is work because God is at work in you. The answer is that we always act on what we truly believe, so if you truly believe that Jesus is Lord, you will necessarily submit to Him ... because God is at work in you. The answer is that a person who is born of God will not make a practice of sin (my work) because God's seed abides in him (God's work) (1 John 3:9).

Do we work out our salvation? Yes. We need to work as if it's all up to us. Does that save us? No!!! Then ...? We work because God is the one at work in us, enabling us to do the work and giving us the will to do the work and, ultimately, accomplishing the work in us. Since He enables both the will and the power to do it and carries it through to its conclusion, we cannot say we earned anything. We can say we worked at it.

The question is primarily one of assurance. Does our assurance come from our work or our faith? MacArthur seems to say it comes from our work. Hodges seems to say it comes from our faith. Clearly, work and faith are at work. Clearly God is at work and the believer will work. Assurance, then, comes from faith. We can know we have eternal life (assurance) if we believe. The alarm being raised about "test yourself" and "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and "faith, if it has no works, is dead" is this. Your assurance comes from faith. However, if there is no works, no change of the person, then there is reason to question your faith.

Zane or John - and the Bible

Scott over at Christian Telegram references an article by Dr. M. James Sawyer entitled Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation in which he compares and contrasts Zane Hodges's "Free Grace" with John MacArthur's "Lordship Salvation".

Briefly, John MacArthur (and others) advocate that a person who becomes a believer must actually submit to Jesus as Lord, while Zane Hodges (and others) counter with "No, no, no! All you need to do is believe."

It is an interesting article, but, in all honesty, it simply leaves me wondering what the truth is.

On Hodges he writes, "Hodges is responding to a caricature of a position rather than fully grasping what the Lordship position is saying, due in part to his own presuppositions. He hears the Lordship position insisting on the necessity of good works and interprets this as making works a condition of salvation." He believes that the problem occurs because of "the desire for absolute certainty that an individual possesses salvation." He thinks that Hodges fails to properly grasp or define faith, saying, "His working definition seems often to have reference to assensus and possibly notitia but without fiducia."

On MacArthur he says, "There is a hardness, an absoluteness, in the form of statements which preclude discussion." He believes that much of what MacArthur espouses is right, but he complains, "It is not a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. It is, however, being read as such, and as such it presents an unbalanced view of what the gospel is all about." I think one of the telling sentences begins "While I applaud the Lordship position in its insistence that the believer in Jesus Christ will show by his life that he is a believer, the rhetoric I hear ..."

I have to wonder if the rhetoric isn't the problem. I have to wonder if the opposition to Lordship Salvation isn't a product of misunderstood rhetoric. More accurately, I wonder if the Lordship Salvation position isn't intended to be an overstatement for effect. Sometimes, when we see a particularly egregious erroneous viewpoint, we can try to compensate by firm, deliberate, even excessive statements to the contrary. I have to wonder if MacArthur (and others) aren't responding to what they perceive to be a serious error and are, therefore, using more serious language than would ordinarily be used. Lordship Salvation, for instance, is not intended to provide a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. Dr. Sawyer is absolutely right. So is it possible that the critics are responding to something never intended?

As for me, I'm more confused than ever. I concur with Hodges (and MacArthur) on the doctrine of sola fide -- justification by faith alone (apart from works). We are not saved by works ... period. We do not contribute to our salvation. We do not earn, merit, achieve anything to do with our salvation. It is a gift, grace apart from my merit. And I agree with Sawyer that Hodges's approach lays the foundation for antinomianism. The sharp separation between justification and sanctification -- the hard-nosed battle cry that works are not part of Christianity -- flies in the face of Scripture after Scripture. But where is the balance?

On one hand we hear comforting words all around. John says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). There it is, plain as day. If you believe, you can know that you have eternal life. Paul writes, "This was according to the eternal purpose that He has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him" (Eph. 3:11-12). See? "Confidence through our faith." What more do we need? On the other hand there are resounding alarms throughout Scripture, warnings that "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17) and that "anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God" (1 John 3:10). We must test ourselves to see if we're in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). We must make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). We are warned -- warned -- to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).

This same dichotomy is carried out in Scripture in plain sight. We don't have to dig for it; it is explicit.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:8-10).

So how do we handle this? Is assurance certain? Do we need to work or don't we? How do we correlate "not of works" with "for good works"? MacArthur and Hodges seem to go head to head. Both seem to be right ... and wrong. Without regard for either MacArthur or Hodges, how do we make sense of the Scriptures?

Testing Testing

... one, two, three.

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you — unless indeed you fail the test? (2 Cor. 13:5).

Samantha over at Carry your Candle has linked to a sermon to a youth group by Paul Washer. I'm afraid the good preacher didn't score many points with his audience. He spoke on a taboo topic: "Test Yourself." You see, poor Paul is deluded. He thinks that simply saying a prayer to accept Jesus isn't enough to make you a Christian. He thinks that not only is there a narrow gate into heaven, but a narrow path. He actually believes that real Christians have a new nature that alters their lives, changes their way of living, and demands personal holiness. In other words, Paul Washer agrees with ... Paul the Apostle.

We are not privy to many sermons on this topic. "Test yourself." We are told that Christians can be "carnal", meaning that they may never ever display any hint of "Christianity" once they become Christians. We are told that all it takes to become a Christian is to say the Sinner's Prayer. And when folks like John MacArthur write books about the evil "Lordship Salvation" concept, there is an uproar. In a Tina Turner parody they cry, "What's works got to do with it?!?" Unfortunately, their outcry isn't against Washer or MacArthur, but against Scripture.

What do we know? We know that "each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work" (1 Cor. 3:13). We know that "the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:8-10). We know that Peter, writing to "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1), warns, "Brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you" (2 Peter 1:10).

Now, I'm one who believes in the "Doctrines of Grace" which means that I believe in Election. Yet Peter warns that we should each be diligent to make certain that we are among the chosen. Look at that passage and find out what Peter suggests as a test:

² Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; ³ seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. ⁴ For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. ⁵ Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; ⁶ and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; ⁷ and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. ⁸ For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. ¹⁰ Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; ¹¹ for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. (2 Peter 1:2-11).

Apparently Peter suffers from the same silly delusions that John MacArthur and Paul Washer suffer from -- works are a necessary part of being a Christian. Let's look more closely at what Peter actually says here.

Peter affirms Election when he refers to "Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." He affirms the sufficiency of salvation when he says, "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness." So far he's right in line with modern American Christianity. Then he deviates. He suggests that we become "partakers of the divine nature" by ... escaping the corruption that is in the world? No, no, Peter, we're just fine with all that. It's ours. We possess it. We're redeeming it. We can be in the world but not of it, and it's okay. We can watch the garbage that the world feeds us, listen to the garbage that its music plays for us, indulge in all the same sin that the world does and still be Christians. No need to "escape" ... right? No, not right. Peter says that we must add to faith. What is added? "In your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love." Oh, yeah, love ... that's good. That's the end of the list. It starts with things that much of American Christianity has jettisoned: Moral excellence, knowledge, self-control. Wait ... it gets worse. "If these qualities are yours and are increasing ..." This climb from faith to love is an ever increasing spiral, building on lower level excellence to greater and greater excellence.

And here's my point ... or, rather, Peter's point: These are not trivial issues. They're not "nice to have." I'm not suggesting you feel badly and get to work on these things. Peter says that if you are not working on these things, you aren't merely being a bad Christian -- you may not be a Christian at all. Peter says that practicing such things are the means by which "the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

Christians, these aren't small matters. God is not in the business of making bad people into good people. He is in the business of making dead people into living people. Living people respond differently than dead people. So when we think we're among the living, but our lives reflect nothing of the sort, it's not a matter of self-improvement; it's a matter of being dead. The fix is not to work harder; the fix is to fall on your knees and repent, to come to Christ with nothing in your hand and beg of Him forgiveness and new life.

I suspect that a large number of folks calling themselves "Christians" in America today will have a rude awakening come Judgment Day. The authors of Scripture (and, therefore, their Inspiration) worked hard to warn us away from "casual Christianity." We have largely ignored that warning. We even get angry when people suggest that not all Christians are Christians. Well, don't take it up with me; take it up with God. These are His warnings. We dare not despise them.

Innocent Until ...

One of the fundamental positions in our justice system is the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. When you stop to think about that, it seems an impossibility.

Recently I read a report about an Iranian student at UCLA who was tasered by the campus police when he failed to comply with an order. I don't know the source of the story or I would cite it, but for the purpose of this thought, not knowing the source is helpful. Having been given this information, it is inevitable that we will draw our conclusions. What do we know? Well, we know that the man was attacked for being a Muslim. No, no, we don't know that. He was clearly attacked for being from the Middle East. No, we don't know that either. Well, obviously it is a case of police brutality. Maybe, but the information I've offered doesn't give you that. Apparently the student was disruptive and combative and required these measures to get him to comply. No, we don't have that, either. What do we know? Well, to be honest, we don't know anything. We don't know what the problem was, why the student was asked to leave, if race or perceived religion was an issue, how much force was actually used, or who was actually at fault. However, everyone has come to their own conclusion. The cops are bad. Or the student had it coming. Someone is guilty without ever having been proved guilty.

You know you do it. I do. O. J. was guilty and we all knew it. Now, I'm relatively sure that none of my readers were on that jury, and I'm absolutely sure that none of my readers knows all the facts, but we're mostly convinced that O. J. killed his wife even though the courts acquitted him. That is, Simpson was guilty after being declared innocent.

I'm not just speaking to you here. It's me, too. It is not possible to read or hear an account of something without coming to a conclusion regarding guilt or innocence. And it doesn't really matter the source. If you dislike or distrust the source, you might come to a different conclusion than they do, but you will come to a conclusion. Someone is guilty. No proof. Just an assumption. Maybe even a good assumption, but still an assumption.

One of the fundamental positions in our justice system is the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, yet we all come to our conclusions without the requisite proof. Is there is any hope for justice in our courts? This isn't one of those complaining pieces. I am pointing out that "innocent until proven guilty" runs against our grain and yet I think that justice is often the result of our court system. This is a case of imperfect people in an imperfect premise producing a flawed but pretty impressive system of justice. Kind of makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Baby, It's Cold Outside

It's cold here ... miserable cold. I've had to start wearing long sleeves to work. The highs barely break the 70's, and the lows drop way down into the upper 40's. I don't know how anyone lives in these cold climates.

Of course, most of you are saying, "Oh shut up!" Bear with me; I'm making a point.

I live at the northern edge of the Sonoran Desert. From mid-May to mid-October we average 93 days above 100°F. This year Phoenix had 105 days at or above the 100° mark, with a peak at 118°. Beyond that, from the first of April to the first of November we have an average high over 80° each day. In this climate, it is really easy to become used to warmth. In fact, it is a necessity if you are going to live here. My wife and I actually like it. We've grown accustomed to this heat. So for us, when it drops below 80°, we're headed toward "the dead of winter" -- "miserable cold". My point? One word: acclimated.

It's very easy to get acclimated. You immerse yourself in a place or a culture or some such. Before long the novelty wears off, the oddity is no more, and you're ... acclimated. Your comfortable with your surroundings. It is this very human phenomenon that accounts for a big problem today with Christians. We are acclimated. We live in our culture, immersed. We're accustomed to the sin, so much so that we begin to consider it not only "not sin", but normal. We develop tendencies like an equivalent divorce rate with our culture, even though the Bible is undeniably anti-divorce. We begin to not only accept fornication around us, but to defend it for ourselves. A couple of weeks ago, on a Christian radio station, they had people call in and explain if it's okay to live together before getting married. I was amazed at the number of people who called themselves Christians and defended sex before marriage. "How else are you going to know if you're compatible?" Women's Lib has taken the culture, so it has seeped into the Church. Gay pride has taken the culture, so it is has seeped into the Church. We have become those of whom Isaiah warned: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5:20).

How did this happen? We got acclimated. We immersed ourselves in our culture. We forgot the command: "Come out from their midst and be separate" (2 Cor 6:17). We invited the world into our churches without being cautious of the sin they would bring. We stood so silent when sin crept in all around us that sin is no longer an allowable topic in some churches. Like the frog in the pot, we became comfortable in water not our own, and when the heat was slowly turned up, we were unaware that we were getting cooked.

We are called to be a light on the hill. We are to "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). We are to be salt and light to the world. Instead, we have lost our savor and hidden our lights and, instead of supplying what our world lacks, we've joined in their loss.

Of course, 70° is not cold. When you're used to 100°, that 30° difference feels cold, but it's not cold. By the same token, much of what we've come to view as "normal" is not normal or, worse, not right. Moving from the "normal", the "popular", the "currently acceptable" to the biblical will also not "feel right". It will be a change. It might feel "cold". It isn't. But move we must. It is necessary to stand for what is true, for the biblical perspective, rather than the pop-culture.

It's not popular or pleasant to stand. In Scripture you won't find much in the way of "Onward Christian Soldiers", but you will find many times that it says, "Stand firm." We are not anticipating better times. We're expecting it to get so bad they will "mislead, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24:24). The people around us cannot afford to have us hanging around, knee deep in sin, lights covered. We need to recognize our acclimation and begin the difficult process of climbing out of it -- else our frog will be cooked.

My Trinity Question

As indicated way back in this post, even though the question was settled some 1600 years ago, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity continues to surface and face argument. It is not uncommon to hear people say, "The Trinity is not found or taught in the Bible" or "The Trinity is an antichrist doctrine cooked up in the church of Rome." They'll tell you it is tritheism, borrowed from pagan beliefs, an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. They are not dealing with the facts.

There is one question (at least one) that I have never had answered from the anti-Trinitarians. Most don't even try. It comes from one of the clearest expressions of the Deity of Christ as well as His "difference" with God -- John 1.

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:1-3).

First, the easy stuff. What can we see without doing any real work?

We can see that "the Word" is an enigma. This "Word" is both God and with God. This Word, then, has both the same nature as God and yet a distinction from God.

We can see that this Word is the Creator. This is really problematic to those who claim that Jesus was a created being, because John goes out of his way to say this as categorically as he can. "All things were made through Him." No, that's not sufficient. Let's see it another way. "Without Him was not any thing made." Yeah, that says it again in reverse. But wait ... there's more. One might think that "any thing" refers to "any thing but him, of course." But John is equally clear as to what "any thing" refers: "Any thing that was made." Well, let's see ... what was made? That would be all Creation. That would exclude God. Anything but God was "made." So if "the Word" made everything that was made (which would include everything except God), then "the Word" cannot be a created being, else He would have made Himself -- an absolute impossibility.

So the "sticky" question ... who is "the Word"? Well, John doesn't leave us in the dark about that, either.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

That leaves little room for guessing. "The Word" is "the only Son from the Father," who, as John goes on to explain, is Jesus.

Putting it together, we have Jesus (prior to becoming flesh) who is both the same nature as God and yet distinct from God who is also the Creator of all that exists. (If you still trip over "But ... God exists", perhaps it's a good time to review.) This seems to be an insurmountable question to me. To the modalist -- those who hold that God has operated in different modes, starting as YHWH and now as Jesus (including the "Jesus Only" crowd) -- you have a problem. John presents a distinction between God and the Word. To the Arians -- those who hold that Jesus was a created being -- and the Socinians -- those who teach that Jesus was a deified man -- you have a problem. John presents Him as the Creator of all things that were created. How did He make Himself? To the monophysite -- those that hold that Jesus only had one nature ... a divine one -- you have a problem. John clearly states that He became flesh. To the tritheist -- those who hold that there are three distinct gods (Yes, there are those who actually argue that.) -- you have a problem. John clearly says that Jesus was God -- a unity.

Now, admittedly this passage does not address the third person of the Trinity, but I have yet to have a valid answer from an anti-Trinitarian that explains this passage. The worst, the ones that don't even try, are the ones that claim that Jesus was a created being. How is it even remotely possible that this created being created Himself?

So the next time you hear "The Trinity is not found or taught in the Bible," keep in mind this passage and try to figure out for yourself how it is possible that such a claim could stand on its own for long.

Marriage at its End?

Is marriage on its way out?

I was initially sparked to ask this question when Arizona defeated the Protect Marriage Act. But one begins to wonder if it can be protected. Arizona's defeat of this proposition (even though it was on the basis of what the proposition said about unmarried couples rather than what it said about homosexual marriage) has hit the news media as a victory for homosexual marriage. It's still illegal here in Arizona, but many news outlets have assured us that the gay and lesbian community see this as a win. And as the media continues to pour out a steady fare of "There's certainly nothing unusual or noticeable about homosexuality" on its entertainment screens, public opinion is swayed.

Of course, the homosexual community is only one aspect of the marriage question. The heterosexual community is adding its own contributions. The New York Times announced, "To Be Married Is To Be Outnumbered", citing census information that says that there are fewer people living as married couples than those who are not. Many couples are in "alternative living arrangements". They're ... shacking up. With the prevalence of this kind of arrangement, one has to ask, "Why marry?" Children from divorced homes tend to be less likely to marry and more likely to "shack up". ("Live together" sounds so nice; I don't want to portray it as such.) Most of society believes that shacking up isn't only acceptable ... it's advisable. I mean, how can you know what a person is really like if you haven't lived with them? Two facts -- the fact that shacking up is not the same as marriage and, therefore, not a valid test and the fact that couples that live together before marriage tend to have higher divorce rates -- don't seem to have any sway in this popular wisdom. So couples are shacking up, forming "domestic partnerships" in which they buy houses, engage in sex, have children ... do most everything that married couples do without the commitment. Why marry?

Divorce is a major problem in America today. Many states have "no-fault" divorce. That means that there does not have to be a genuine reason for terminating a marriage. If he says, "I don't want to be married anymore" and she says, "I do", it's considered "irreconcilable differences" and the marriage is terminated. Despite all the difficulties that divorce brings and despite the studies that have repeatedly said that divorce causes more problems than it solves, divorce rates continue to rise.

Christians aren't helping matters. Statistically, people who identify themselves as Christians are just as likely to shack up and just as likely to divorce as anyone else. One would think this wouldn't be the case, since Christianity is clearly against both, but those who call themselves followers of Christ are blatantly ignoring His views on the subjects of sex outside of marriage and divorce in growing numbers.

Marriage is in trouble in America. Who knows if it can be saved? Should it be saved? The biblical answer would be a resounding "Yes!" Marriage has a variety of positive values. First and foremost, it is ordained and blessed by God. That alone should be sufficient. But there are other values -- practical ones. People who marry and stay married tend to live longer than those who don't. Marriage -- a father and mother indefinitely committed to each other and the family -- provides the healthiest environment for raising children. Marriage tends to "domesticate" men. Now, guys might say, "How is that a positive value?" By "domesticate" I mean it tends to rub off the wild tendencies -- you know, the ones that cause all the problems. Married men -- men committed to their wives and their families -- tend toward less crime, less violence, less problems in society. Instead, they tend toward better selves, better contributors to society, better involvement in their neighborhoods and the lives of others. If, for instance, a man is married -- truly married with no thought of escape -- the instances of adultery plummet. It becomes an untenable option. Children in homes where their parents are married tend to be better adjusted -- better people. They tend to propagate this improvement as well. One other benefit of marriage is a Christian one, again. Marriage is God's image of His Son's relationship with His people. The Church is "the Bride of Christ". It carries a variety of images from caring to unity, from protection to intimacy. It is an image created by God to bring more sharply into focus the relationship of His Son to His people. Tarnishing that image is an affront to God.

Marriage is worth saving. Will America step up and do it? There's no way to tell right now. Will Christians step up and do it? Even that is hard to say. So it falls on us, as individuals, to protect it in our homes and our lives. The troubles marriage faces in our society is no excuse for us. While we wonder, "Exactly how 'Christian' is a 'Christian' who disdains the obvious commands of God?" we still need to proceed with doing what we know to be right, being lights in the darkness, so that they may see our good marriages and glorify God.

Unpardonable Sin

The "unpardonable sin" ... what is it? Growing up, I was taught, "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior. It is the only unforgivable sin." Unbelief ... that was it. It's a comfortable position. It makes God seem "broad-minded" and grace seem large. But when I read the text in which we find the reference to the unpardonable sin, it doesn't seem to fit, and, worse, when I begin to analyze it, I run into serious problems.

First, the text:

²²A demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. ²³ All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" ²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons" (Matt. 12:22-24)

Jesus was causing a stir among the people. The Pharisees had to shut it down. So they accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan. This gives rise to a famous saying that Jesus gives in response:

²⁵And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. ²⁶ If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? ²⁷ If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt. 12:25-28).

"A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln used it to explain why we had to fight against the South seceding from the Union. And Jesus, in the context of the accusation of the Pharisees and His assurance that their accusation is impossible, speaks of a sin that cannot be forgiven here or in the afterlife:

"²⁹Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. ³⁰ He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. ³¹ Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. ³² Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:29-32).

There you have it. Other translations use the term "blasphemy." The NASB here uses the term "speaks against," which is the general meaning of "blasphemy." Jesus here appears to caution the Pharisees. He appears to say, "Be careful, guys ... you are really close to putting yourself in a category without hope. You've spoken against Me, and that can be forgiven, but you are right on the edge of speaking against the Holy Spirit, and that is unforgiveable." There appears, from the context, to be an unbreakable link between the accusation of the Pharisees and the sin we call "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

It doesn't seem that the context supports the idea that "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior." Instead, it appears to be that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more like attributing to Satan the actions of the Holy Spirit. I can't see how "not accepting Jesus as Savior" fits anything in the context of the statement.

Beyond that, it becomes problematic when you analyze it. If the unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior, everyone is guilty of that sin at some point. Everyone has a time frame in which they did not (read "refused to") accept Jesus as Savior. (Oh, how I hate that phrase. But let's move on.) No one is innocent of refusing Jesus as Savior at some time in their life. So it would seem that if this was an accurate representation of the unpardonable sin, then it must require more clarification. The standard addendum is "for life" -- "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior ... for life." In other words, no one can commit this sin until they die. Now, trying to fit that into the context of Jesus's warning to the Pharisees gets even more difficult. If that was what He intended to say, it is extremely obscure. "You Pharisees be careful! Don't die with that attitude of rejecting Me." Further, if the sin is dying without having received Christ, then the fix is ... self-help. "Do it yourself." I avoid committing the unpardonable sin by receiving Christ. The problem here is that if the only thing that can keep me from Heaven is that one thing, and I accomplish (or rather avoid) that one thing, how have I not earned Heaven?

I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense to me. Context doesn't seem to support it. Reason doesn't seem to support it. I like the idea, to be sure, but I cannot bring myself to agree with it. From my perspective, it makes God quite narrow-minded, and grace becomes totally dependent on my choice ... nullifying grace. I can only conclude that the unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- assigning to Satan the acts performed by the Holy Spirit. Anything else just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Work ... the Curse?

I was listening to my local Christian radio station at a time I would not normally be listening to my local Christian radio station (I typically listen for an hour driving home from work and no other time.) when I heard the speaker tell me that work is a curse. Works is a curse????

As proof, we were offered this tidbit from God's curse of Adam and Eve in the Garden:

"Cursed is the ground because of you. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (Gen. 3:17).

Well, there you have it, plain as day. "Toil" is part the curse. Work is a curse.

I find that notion completely bizarre. There is more than one reason. First, didn't God give Adam work to do before he sinned? Let's see ... oh yes:

The LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it (Gen. 2:15).

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them (Gen. 2:19).

So, Adam was given a one-time task of naming all the animals (Imagine the magnitude of that task.) and an ongoing job of cultivating and maintaining the Garden. Adam had work to do.

Second, it seems that Man is built for work. The story is told of a Nazi prison camp in which the Jewish prisoners were dying from nothing to do (among everything else they were enduring). The commandant decided to give them something to do, so he ordered them to move a large pile of sand that was on the compound. When they started into the task, the guards noticed a dramatic change in the prisoners. Poorly fed, poorly treated, and in miserable physical condition, they still displayed a sense of confidence and pride. Their morale improved. They had meaning. When the task was done, the commandant decided to prolong the work by having them move the pile back to its original position. Interestingly, when the prisoners discovered that their task had no meaning, their attitudes reverted to the depression they had before.

Man is built for work. Everyone needs a sense of meaning, of accomplishment, of significance. Males in particular are wired for this. The most common cause of the "mid-life crisis" is when a person gets past the middle point of his (or her) life and thinks that they haven't accomplished what they hoped. Accomplishment, meaning, significance ... these are essential to the well-being of the human being.

Based on the fact that Adam had a job to do before sin, and based on the intrinsic need of human beings to do work, I have to disagree with the teacher on the radio. I have no doubt that it is a popular perception. I have no doubt that many Christians think that work is part of the Curse. But that's not the case, nor is it what God said to Adam.

What did God say to Adam? He didn't say that work was the curse. He said that hard work was the curse. He said that the ground was cursed because of sin. That meant that the work, which originally would have been easy, will now become difficult. God, in essence, sentenced us to hard labor. Labor is not part of the Curse; just hard labor. Work itself is a gift from God, designed by God to meet the needs of His creation. If we disdain that gift and call it a curse, we miss out on the blessings that God intended when He originally designed us.

Ted's Eatery

Meet Ted. Ted is the proud owner and operator of a small little take-out place. Ted is running his business fairly, not overcharging customers and not underpaying workers (according to the law). After all the cost of running his business is done, Ted takes home $40,000 a year.

Ted has four employees. Two are minimum wage earners, working 40 hours a week for $5.15 an hour. Ernie, his cook, has been with Ted for a year, so Ernie is making $6.15 an hour at 40 hours a week. Bill has been with Ted for a couple of years. He is the night shift supervisor, so he makes $7.15 an hour at 40 hours a week. In total, Ted is currently paying $49,088 a year in wages for his workers.

Enter the minimum wage hike. When Congress raises the minimum wage to the projected $7.25 an hour, Ted will comply. The two minimum wage workers will get a $2.10 an hour raise. Of course, Ernie could get a $1.10 an hour raise to bring him up to minimum wage, but that hardly seems fair to put him at the same level as the entry-level workers. And it is less fair for his long time employee and shift manager to make the same as the entry-level workers, even though he would see a $.10 an hour raise. So Ted does the fair thing and shifts everyone by $2.10 an hour. Now Ted is paying $66,560 a year in wages for his workers.

Ted has a tough decision now. He can take the loss himself, requiring him to live off of $22,528 a year, or he can find some other way to equalize the business. If he lets one of his entry-level workers go, he would gain $15,080 a year and only drop to $37,608 a year. Of course, that would leave him short handed. He could avoid making the wage hikes for Ernie and Bob, but they wouldn't stick around long at that rate, and he'd be short handed and out of the experienced workers he had. So Ted has another option. He can hand off the cost to his customers. Dividing it over hundreds of customers shouldn't be too bad, so he boosts his prices to compensate for the $17,472 he has lost in income.

Funny thing. While not everyone is making the same decision, many are. Of course, those with more employees make bigger changes because those with more employees are having more dramatic effects on their businesses. Ted is not hiring that new employee he was hoping for. Others are laying off some of theirs. A lot are adjusting their prices to compensate. And, as it turns out, the cost of living ... everywhere ... goes up. As it happens, when Ted's wage requirements match California's wage requirements, the cost of living matches California's cost of living.

Well, of course, now those minimum wage workers are having trouble making ends meet ... again. They boost in pay was nice, but everything costs more now, so it doesn't feel like much of a pay boost. And the losses of entry level jobs is having a drag on the employment market. It was nice for a short time, but now $7.25 is a sub-poverty wage. Why doesn't someone do something about it? Shouldn't the government raise the minimum wage? Surely anyone who works for 40 hours a week deserves not to live in poverty ...

Maybe it will happen this way, and maybe it won't. But those who argue that the minimum wage needs to be increased, I think, are not taking into account all the factors, including the fact that it hasn't made those workers in other states with higher minimum wages any better off where they live than those with lower minimum wages. Yes, yes, I know ... economists are not in agreement about how this all works itself out. Yes, yes, I know ... my scenario is overly simplified. I'm not really trying to prove a point here. All I'm asking is this: Are we really thinking this through ... for everyone?

Thanks

It's Thanksgiving Day. What a unique opportunity! Most countries don't have a day set aside to give thanks. And even though many Americans don't know to Whom they're giving thanks, we still have Thanksgiving Day.

According to Paul, a lack of gratitude is one of Man's main problems. In his explanation of the decline of Man in sin from Rom. 1, he says early on, "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom. 1:21).

A lack of gratitude, spawned from a refusal to honor God, produces ... insanity. It produces futile speculations and foolish, dark hearts. The result is a continuing decline in Romans 1 until we find that people "know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death" and yet "they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Rom. 1:32).

Climbing out of the natural condition of "ungrateful" isn't easy. It takes time and effort. We need to work at "thanks." Today is a day to do that.

I'm grateful for so much, and I should be grateful for so much more.

I'm grateful for Christ, His sacrifice on my behalf, and His offer of salvation. I'm grateful for a wife who loves me, for children, for family. I'm grateful for employment and all that that provides. I'm grateful for a house to live in, food to eat, clothes to wear. I'm grateful for running water. (Are you aware that a majority of Earth's population does not have indoor plumbing?) I'm grateful for reliable transportation, for friends, for health. I'm grateful for the painful lessons God has taught me and the comfort He provided afterward. I'm grateful for His promises on my behalf. I'm grateful for answered and unanswered prayer. Where would I be if God did everything I asked Him to do? I'm grateful for the things He has given me and the things He has taken from me. I'm grateful for the plans He has for me. I'm grateful mostly that "me" is not His primary view.

The list goes on and on. It is woefully short. If I am honest, I have to admit that I am too often among the ungrateful. So I'm grateful to live in a country that recognizes a day, at least, to remind us to give thanks.

(As a postscript, I also need to shout out a "Happy Birthday" to my youngest son. On rare occasions his birthday aligns with Thanksgiving Day. On the other hand, I rarely forget to be thankful for him.)