The sun never did seem to have any sense. It was like a cosmic joke arranged between the heavens and earth. Whenever some sunlight is necessary, a cloud meanders in the way. Right now, a cloud would be a welcome intrusion, but none was to be seen. The throng gathered under the delighted sun, prisoners to its terrible sense of humor. They had been there for hours and now the pleasure of the eye in the sky melted away into displeasure at their continued presence, making one last bid to chase them to shelter before it settled behind the hills for its nightly rest. Still no one rose to leave. This was not the kind of place to casually walk away from. After all, they were at the feet of the teacher, the prophet.
More incredible than the disdain of the sun was the stamina of Jesus. Addressing a crowd of thousands required a commanding voice to be sure, but to sustain that voice for a length of time was a daunting task. Jesus had been at it for more than four hours already. Signs of tiring began to show as the day drew to an end, but he would not be hindered.
Epaphros had never seen such a supreme eloquence, noble compassion, or enlightened wisdom. For years, desperate for something more than his mediocre profession and disappointing personal life, Epaphros had journeyed from city to city to better himself. He would attach himself to the wise men and the teachers, leeching away any knowledge he could get his hands on. From the moment he woke until the moment he slept, he devoted his life to one goal: to become better. To become stronger. To become wiser. To become pious. To be a better man. But what did that really mean? For all his dedication, each day he awoke to the same face, the same weaknesses, the same man. In the end, the failures overcame the flame for growth. Apathy swept away all desires that previously inflamed him to succeed. The light of life had all but faded from him until a name casually mentioned had rekindled his ambition. It was the name of Jesus. A name that he and three others had held in their hearts for thirty years.
Forsaking all other duties, Epaphros followed every story and rumor until he had been led to this place. In his heart, he had been hoping for a private meeting with Jesus, but the large assembly before him removed any such poetic illusions from his mind. And yet, he was not in the least disappointed. He was enthralled, entranced by every word that proceeded from the mouth of the prophet. He taught his listeners what they needed to be blessed and to avoid woe.
“Can the blind lead the blind?” Jesus asked. “Will they not both fall into the ditch? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.” That’s it, Epaphros reveled, so simply stated, but perfectly true. For all his searching and trying, a man cannot grow or better himself if he is following a blind teacher. Blindness begets blindness. But if the right teaching is followed, one can be whole. “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good.” If the heart can be disciplined…no, if the heart desires good, good will be found. Even still, doubt nagged Epaphros.
Here was truth before him, yet it still felt unattainable. It seemed as though a titanic wall impeded him from crossing over. How can such a teaching be found or truly followed?
Jesus paused, changing to another story. He told of to men building houses. One built his house on the rock and it was firm. If a man put his faith in a solid foundation, then every stone laid thereafter would be strong. This was the key, the firm foundation! If he could build upon solid ground, then growth was inevitable and inexhaustible. If he built on sand, then the whole structure would collapse. “And great was its fall,” Jesus declaimed. And the wall between Epaphros and the truth tumbled with a groan.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Four Hearts, One Song - 1
The rumors hadn’t meant anything to him. Gossip seemed to be the only thing people could agree on and consequently was worth nothing. Just smoke and dust. Nothing substantial to grab on to. Nothing that he really needed. Men who drew this kind of attention from the masses came along every once in awhile, stirring up the rabble and satiating the thirst of the rumormongers. Some of them had been men of some merit to be sure, but were not quite so. Regardless they were fools and charlatans all of them. There did seem to be something different about this one. Rather than just the excited peddlers of new, eyewitnesses related their tales of the new prophet with an uncharacteristic sense of reverence and genuine awe. People that spread the word about the prophet were not excited about telling something, but telling of an exciting new something.
Still he would have disdained this growing exuberance if it had not been for the name. “Eli, you must come with us,” one of his friends had begged, “This man is simply amazing. The things he does seem impossible, yet he does them. You must see him yourself. This Jesus is a true prophet ... ”
The eager young man prattled on, but Eli was transfixed. That name awoke in him something that he had not felt for a very long time. In a moment, he was whisked away from his home and felt the prickle of hay and dust on his knee as he knelt in a tiny barn before a woman and her child. Eli’s friend tugged at his shoulder and Eli found himself being easily dragged along, a man who had for years never gone where he did not decide himself to go.
Eli followed the tugging arm on his shoulder, where he was going he did not know, nor care, He was a man on the verge of remembering something vitally important, a feeling, and would not be roused by anything else. Before long, he and his guide reached the local synagogue, the surprisingly crowded synagogue. The crowd was so great that many of the more timid were forced to stand outside. Led by the vice grip of his friend, Eli waded through the knot of people and pushed as far forward as he could. Following the gaze of the onlookers, Eli’s eyes fell on the prophet Jesus standing amidst the crowd in the middle of an impassioned speech. He was simply clad, without extravagant colors or jewelry, and his motions matched his attire, simple and understated. It was his voice that made its impression on everyone gathered. The sound of his voice did not seem to be an outside force, but an emanating vibration that generated within the listener, rising and spreading from the center of the body all the way to the fingertips and beyond. Even if the words could not be understood, its impact was undeniably felt. Eli stood mesmerized, unable to comprehend the words. He saw the man, Jesus, wielding the whole of the synagogue like a sword, thrusting it deep into the hearts of everyone present. For a moment, Eli could picture the whole world in the prophet’s hands, molding and shaping it how he saw fit or, if it would not be molded, breaking it over his knee into a thousand fragments. Perhaps this man really can change something, Eli hoped.
In the forefront of the crowd, a man knelt on the ground before Jesus. A middle-aged man of meager means, he was known to many of those assembled including Eli. Jacob was his name. Eli only paid attention to him because Jacob was in the middle of doing something he had never seen him do. He was kneeling with his head bowed and his hands clasped in front of him as if in fervent prayer. He was showing his hand! Gnarled and mangled, Jacob’s right hand drew almost as much attention as Jesus did. It had been crushed beyond recognition years before and Jacob was always careful to keep it stowed away from view. If he lifted his hands to praise, he lifted only his left. If he greeted someone, it was with an awkward wave. If there was anything that he would need to carry with two hands, he would instead drag it behind him with his one good hand. Yet, here he was displaying his sorrow before this whole congregation. Tears trickled from his closed eyelids and his lips repeated a single mantra, “Please Jesus…Please Jesus…Please Jesus.”
Eli began to scan the crowd to see if they were equally awestruck by Jacob’s display. His eyes finally came to rest on the only other set of people that were speaking in the entirety of the building. The Pharisees occupied one of the corners, holding their heads close together in quiet conference. Occasionally one of their number would look up, first at Jesus and then at Jacob, before returning his head to the circle. If Eli did not feel such an abiding loathing for these men, he would have laughed at their comical appearance, a bunch of gaudily-dressed fools having a private meeting in the middle of a multitude. No one disgusted Eli more than these religious elite. For all their religious holiness and righteousness, the only thing that was truly valuable to them was stagnation. Every “good deed” or “holy act” was merely an excuse to maintain their arrogant equilibrium, their status quo. They would merrily burn an innocent man at the stake to keep their sacred law.
With this thought, it occurred to Eli what their impromptu meeting was about. They wanted to see if Jesus would heal Jacob. Healing on the Sabbath would be a clear violation of their interpretation of the Law. Jesus could not dare to heal the man or he would be deemed a heretic and a pagan. Eli inwardly cringed, Nothing will ever change. No one can do anything about that. With a terrible ache in his chest, Eli turned again to listen to Jesus. But he was not speaking. He was casting his melancholy eyes across the crowd. All thought that he was done speaking. When his eyes fell on the contingent of Pharisees, a cloud passed over his brow. Turning to Jacob, he spoke soothingly but loudly enough to be heard by all, “Rise to your feet.” Jacob instantly obeyed. Facing the crowd and allowing his eyes to fix on the Pharisees, he raised both hands and thundered, “I will ask you one thing.” Even the Pharisees stopped whispering, thinking that Jesus was addressing them. Everyone in the crowd waited eagerly for his question, anticipating something momentous. “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil, to save life, or to destroy?” Everyone in the place blanched at once. What a question was that? Jesus patiently waited, passing his blazing eyes across the room, pausing at every person who would meet his gaze before moving on. The roving eyes meet Eli’s. Any hint of an answer to the question posed vanished tranquilly from his mind and he once again felt himself being transported through time. He was back on his knees in the barn before that woman and child. And there it was, those eyes of the prophet’s matched perfectly with the eyes of that woman.
Eli dimly heard Jesus’ voice again, “Stretch out your hand.” Both he and Jacob did as commanded. With outstretched hands, Eli implored, “Is this the Christ?” The woman looked at him sorrowfully.
Eli stirred from his vision at the cry of Jacob. The cripple was gazing dumbfounded at his good hand. Then he lifted up his other hand…his left hand. Everyone understood at the same moment. He had two good hands! An instantaneous murmur rippled through the crowd. The Pharisees turned back into their circle only this time in angry whispers and pointed gestures. But it didn’t matter. Eli had finally found what he had always searched for. Not only had Jesus changed the life of Jacob, but he challenged the law. Things could change after all. It would be like his previous vision; Jesus would either shape the world or snap it to pieces. Either way, there would be change. Eli smiled a satisfied smile before looking at Jesus again.
The prophet still remained in the same place and he was staring placidly at Eli. Those eyes one again reminded him of the mother in the barn, but this time he remembered something she had said, something that had meant a lot time him at the time. “Not only will he change the world,” she had said, “but he will change lives and show people what it means to change.”
So that was it, Eli realized. He’s not here to change governments or law. He’s here to change us, individually, and to show us that we can change. We may be hopelessly lost, but with the true guide, we can find our way into a new world. The tears came to him as they had so many long years ago in a little barn. Jesus nodded with a compassionate and comprehending smile and walked away.
Still he would have disdained this growing exuberance if it had not been for the name. “Eli, you must come with us,” one of his friends had begged, “This man is simply amazing. The things he does seem impossible, yet he does them. You must see him yourself. This Jesus is a true prophet ... ”
The eager young man prattled on, but Eli was transfixed. That name awoke in him something that he had not felt for a very long time. In a moment, he was whisked away from his home and felt the prickle of hay and dust on his knee as he knelt in a tiny barn before a woman and her child. Eli’s friend tugged at his shoulder and Eli found himself being easily dragged along, a man who had for years never gone where he did not decide himself to go.
Eli followed the tugging arm on his shoulder, where he was going he did not know, nor care, He was a man on the verge of remembering something vitally important, a feeling, and would not be roused by anything else. Before long, he and his guide reached the local synagogue, the surprisingly crowded synagogue. The crowd was so great that many of the more timid were forced to stand outside. Led by the vice grip of his friend, Eli waded through the knot of people and pushed as far forward as he could. Following the gaze of the onlookers, Eli’s eyes fell on the prophet Jesus standing amidst the crowd in the middle of an impassioned speech. He was simply clad, without extravagant colors or jewelry, and his motions matched his attire, simple and understated. It was his voice that made its impression on everyone gathered. The sound of his voice did not seem to be an outside force, but an emanating vibration that generated within the listener, rising and spreading from the center of the body all the way to the fingertips and beyond. Even if the words could not be understood, its impact was undeniably felt. Eli stood mesmerized, unable to comprehend the words. He saw the man, Jesus, wielding the whole of the synagogue like a sword, thrusting it deep into the hearts of everyone present. For a moment, Eli could picture the whole world in the prophet’s hands, molding and shaping it how he saw fit or, if it would not be molded, breaking it over his knee into a thousand fragments. Perhaps this man really can change something, Eli hoped.
In the forefront of the crowd, a man knelt on the ground before Jesus. A middle-aged man of meager means, he was known to many of those assembled including Eli. Jacob was his name. Eli only paid attention to him because Jacob was in the middle of doing something he had never seen him do. He was kneeling with his head bowed and his hands clasped in front of him as if in fervent prayer. He was showing his hand! Gnarled and mangled, Jacob’s right hand drew almost as much attention as Jesus did. It had been crushed beyond recognition years before and Jacob was always careful to keep it stowed away from view. If he lifted his hands to praise, he lifted only his left. If he greeted someone, it was with an awkward wave. If there was anything that he would need to carry with two hands, he would instead drag it behind him with his one good hand. Yet, here he was displaying his sorrow before this whole congregation. Tears trickled from his closed eyelids and his lips repeated a single mantra, “Please Jesus…Please Jesus…Please Jesus.”
Eli began to scan the crowd to see if they were equally awestruck by Jacob’s display. His eyes finally came to rest on the only other set of people that were speaking in the entirety of the building. The Pharisees occupied one of the corners, holding their heads close together in quiet conference. Occasionally one of their number would look up, first at Jesus and then at Jacob, before returning his head to the circle. If Eli did not feel such an abiding loathing for these men, he would have laughed at their comical appearance, a bunch of gaudily-dressed fools having a private meeting in the middle of a multitude. No one disgusted Eli more than these religious elite. For all their religious holiness and righteousness, the only thing that was truly valuable to them was stagnation. Every “good deed” or “holy act” was merely an excuse to maintain their arrogant equilibrium, their status quo. They would merrily burn an innocent man at the stake to keep their sacred law.
With this thought, it occurred to Eli what their impromptu meeting was about. They wanted to see if Jesus would heal Jacob. Healing on the Sabbath would be a clear violation of their interpretation of the Law. Jesus could not dare to heal the man or he would be deemed a heretic and a pagan. Eli inwardly cringed, Nothing will ever change. No one can do anything about that. With a terrible ache in his chest, Eli turned again to listen to Jesus. But he was not speaking. He was casting his melancholy eyes across the crowd. All thought that he was done speaking. When his eyes fell on the contingent of Pharisees, a cloud passed over his brow. Turning to Jacob, he spoke soothingly but loudly enough to be heard by all, “Rise to your feet.” Jacob instantly obeyed. Facing the crowd and allowing his eyes to fix on the Pharisees, he raised both hands and thundered, “I will ask you one thing.” Even the Pharisees stopped whispering, thinking that Jesus was addressing them. Everyone in the crowd waited eagerly for his question, anticipating something momentous. “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil, to save life, or to destroy?” Everyone in the place blanched at once. What a question was that? Jesus patiently waited, passing his blazing eyes across the room, pausing at every person who would meet his gaze before moving on. The roving eyes meet Eli’s. Any hint of an answer to the question posed vanished tranquilly from his mind and he once again felt himself being transported through time. He was back on his knees in the barn before that woman and child. And there it was, those eyes of the prophet’s matched perfectly with the eyes of that woman.
Eli dimly heard Jesus’ voice again, “Stretch out your hand.” Both he and Jacob did as commanded. With outstretched hands, Eli implored, “Is this the Christ?” The woman looked at him sorrowfully.
Eli stirred from his vision at the cry of Jacob. The cripple was gazing dumbfounded at his good hand. Then he lifted up his other hand…his left hand. Everyone understood at the same moment. He had two good hands! An instantaneous murmur rippled through the crowd. The Pharisees turned back into their circle only this time in angry whispers and pointed gestures. But it didn’t matter. Eli had finally found what he had always searched for. Not only had Jesus changed the life of Jacob, but he challenged the law. Things could change after all. It would be like his previous vision; Jesus would either shape the world or snap it to pieces. Either way, there would be change. Eli smiled a satisfied smile before looking at Jesus again.
The prophet still remained in the same place and he was staring placidly at Eli. Those eyes one again reminded him of the mother in the barn, but this time he remembered something she had said, something that had meant a lot time him at the time. “Not only will he change the world,” she had said, “but he will change lives and show people what it means to change.”
So that was it, Eli realized. He’s not here to change governments or law. He’s here to change us, individually, and to show us that we can change. We may be hopelessly lost, but with the true guide, we can find our way into a new world. The tears came to him as they had so many long years ago in a little barn. Jesus nodded with a compassionate and comprehending smile and walked away.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Four Hearts, One Song - Introduction
To the reader: This begins a five-part fictional series. Stay tuned ...
Rain had been falling for some time, even though the now cloudless sky and humid night air gave no sign of it. The heady smell of water-soaked hay gave proof to the ever-shifting temperament of the skies. Standing at the entrance to the barn, a man stared out into the heavens as if searching for a sign. It really was the smells that made this little barn alive. The damp hay was equally matched by the random aromas given off by the sweating animals as they shifted uneasily about the cramped space. A couple of cows nestled close together in one corner, a few timid sheep in another, and a solitary donkey walked amidst them all. The man contemplated these smells and these surroundings in silent thought as he maintained his position at the door. Certainly a strange place for a child to be born, he mused. But it was much more than that. He glanced back over his shoulder, surveying the whole interior without seeming to take in anything. His roving eye fell on one area near the center of the barn. He had heaped together a pile of hay over which a couple of blankets had been carefully placed. Lying on the makeshift bed was his wife.
The starlight lit up the area where she reclined, bathing her face in a soft, pure glow. Her face was flushed, tendrils of brown hair sticking to her forehead. Slow, ragged breaths caused her face to crease as though straining against some unseen burden. But for all the signs of weariness in her face, her eyes spoke much differently. They had the look of peace and hope that only one kind of person can ever truly appreciate. She gazed lovingly at the tiny bundle caught against her chest, her newborn babe.
“Joseph, how long will you stand at the door? Won’t you come and hold our baby?” Her voice was filled at once with the charity of love and the pride of motherhood.
Joseph left his place at the door and came to stand beside Mary. She held the little bundle up as it squirmed slightly and feebly. Nestling the baby in the crook of one arm, the father caressed the baby’s head, smoothing the tangles of hair into some kind of order. Mary smiled wanly and spoke again, this time more softly as if to herself, “It is just wonderful, Joseph. Everything is happening just as the angels told us. It was too hard to understand, but now that we have our baby, things are starting to make more sense.”
The mention of angels brought Joseph back from his silent reveries. Imprinted fixedly on his mind was the dream he had of the angel so long ago. Every word spoken weighed on his mind and heart like an everlasting chain fastened around his very soul. The angel had given him words of hope and despair. Yes, he inwardly sighed, everything is happening as was said. This child has a destiny far greater than we can ever know. Lord, please give me strength to raise your child. The streak of distress that passed his face did not go unnoticed by Mary. She knew his struggle and his sadness and, though she didn’t always condone it, she empathized with it. This was not his child….but it was hers.
Both of them were interrupted from their private thoughts by a scuffling of feet outside the door. Returning the baby gingerly to the welcoming arms of his mother, Joseph turned to face whoever had come to invade this haven of peace. The rugged, tear-streaked face of a young man peeked around the corner of the door. Joseph met the gaze of the intruder placidly, arms folded across his burly chest. The man’s eyes mirrored his soul; a soul tormented by fear and wonder. Joseph had never seen eyes like his. But after a moment, he was confronted by three more sets of eyes bearing the same mark. All four men were about the same age and similarly dressed, each as timid as a lamb, standing in the doorway with mouths gaping and eyes glistening. They were shepherds by their garb.
After some time of this silent face-off, the oldest looking of them found his tongue, stammering out in a half-yelp, half-groan, “We ... We ... We were told that this is, uh, is, uh, the place. We had ... we had to come.” He paused as though this explained everything and there was nothing more to say. However when Joseph did not respond, he continued, “Well, the angels ... you see ... the angels….how frightening they were ... beautiful. It was them. They ... they, ummm ... told us to come. We came to find him.” All four pairs of eyes left Joseph and roved the room freely, settling naturally at the mother and son in the middle of the room.
The speaker unconsciously stepped forward, the others leaning in close against his back. The first fell down with a clump to one knee and beseeched the mother, “Is this ... is this the Christ?”
These four men held such hope and fear that at first she found herself too abashed to speak. Her child was only just born and already these young men came seeking to rob her of her joy. She was infuriated. The color rushed to her cheeks at this abhorrent thought and she nearly sent them away in fury. But a still, small voice interrupted her rage, This is your child, but not only yours. From this day forth, you must share him with the rest of the world. This is your burden to bear. Rejoice in your burden, though heavy it may be; it is for the salvation of the world. The words of contempt she had prepared for the men caught in her throat at these thoughts. Closing her eyes against the terrible truth behind them, she sought inner peace. When she opened her eyes again, the thieves of her happiness were gone, replaced by the image of four lost and suffering souls in search of answers.
They appeared emaciated and old, mere skeletons deprived of life and purpose. They were horrid, but not in a way that to inspire revulsion but instead pity. Their parched lips longed for the quenching drink of hope to slake their inner thirst. Their hollow eyes pleaded to see just one glimpse of something truly beautiful, truly free of the deforming plague and crippling corruption that seized everything else in the world. Their ears despaired of hearing those few precious words, “There is Life!”
The vision shifted and now she saw them for who they really were. The only one who had spoken still knelt before her and all his life spanned before Mary’s eyes as the deep sea. He was not much older than the rest, but he was one who had lived life beyond his years; someone who had suffered through the utter monotony of sequential pain and disappointment that leads up to the one, inexorable fact: Nothing ever changes. This was his truth; he had never know anything else in his whole life.
Just behind him stood his brother, both hands tightly clenching the right shoulder of his elder sibling. Unlike his brother, this young man was filled with the fire and hope of youth. No height was unattainable, no obstacle insurmountable. He would search every hill and dale for a chance to better himself so that he could rise above his lot in life and declare, “I am of worth!” The calluses of toil had not yet hardened his hands and the rocky paths of destitution had not yet tamed his fiery spirit. Every new idea held a wealth of opportunity. The world was a thing to be conquered, and conquer it he fully intended to do.
The third youth was nothing more than a child, twelve years at the most. Yet those twelve years spoke volumes. He was a handsome child, complete with youth’s charming softness and maturity’s strength and character. One might even say he looked flawless, if not for the ugly purple bruise along his right cheek that marred his otherwise enchanting features. Of the four, his eyes glowed the most with hope. They were eyes that seemed to be seeing hope for the first time, making it even more appealing for its freshness and promise. Here was someone that desperately needed to believe that something better was on the horizon.
Unlike the others, the last of the shepherd was not so easily interpreted by Mary’s vision. There was a mystery that hid everything from sight. Whether it was darkness, fear, or confusion, she could not tell. Of the four, this one seemed to be the one with the most fear and his whole body trembled with it. He did not appear to be willfully here, more than half of his body was still outside the door as if preparing to bolt for freedom. Mary feared this man. Yet her inner eye finally awoke when she beheld his eyes. They were luminous and liquid, two hollow pools of light staring back out of a corner of a forgotten soul. All else spoke of shame, torment, and fear except for those two little pinpricks, gasping, wallowing, surging forward to some unbidden and uncertain freedom from the manacles of fate.
And Mary wept. Hot, flooding tears poured down her cheeks in a torrent of irrepressible emotion, alarming herself as much as it did the men. Even Joseph was frightened now. No, this child was not only hers. There would be times that he would need his mother, but she needed him more, and these men needed him with a blinding desperation. Mary closed her eyes against the vision before her, the life behind her, and the future in front of her. The road ahead would be fraught with difficulty and the ominous possibilities loomed up above her with disconcerting clarity. Now was the time to begin walking down that path with her burden in tow. With an effort, she subdued her tears and with a shudder, she realized it would not be the last time she would have to do that. She clutched the baby a little tighter, deriving her strength from his tiny, frail body. Her eyes opened and she spoke, “Welcome. This is Jesus.”
... to be continued.
Rain had been falling for some time, even though the now cloudless sky and humid night air gave no sign of it. The heady smell of water-soaked hay gave proof to the ever-shifting temperament of the skies. Standing at the entrance to the barn, a man stared out into the heavens as if searching for a sign. It really was the smells that made this little barn alive. The damp hay was equally matched by the random aromas given off by the sweating animals as they shifted uneasily about the cramped space. A couple of cows nestled close together in one corner, a few timid sheep in another, and a solitary donkey walked amidst them all. The man contemplated these smells and these surroundings in silent thought as he maintained his position at the door. Certainly a strange place for a child to be born, he mused. But it was much more than that. He glanced back over his shoulder, surveying the whole interior without seeming to take in anything. His roving eye fell on one area near the center of the barn. He had heaped together a pile of hay over which a couple of blankets had been carefully placed. Lying on the makeshift bed was his wife.
The starlight lit up the area where she reclined, bathing her face in a soft, pure glow. Her face was flushed, tendrils of brown hair sticking to her forehead. Slow, ragged breaths caused her face to crease as though straining against some unseen burden. But for all the signs of weariness in her face, her eyes spoke much differently. They had the look of peace and hope that only one kind of person can ever truly appreciate. She gazed lovingly at the tiny bundle caught against her chest, her newborn babe.
“Joseph, how long will you stand at the door? Won’t you come and hold our baby?” Her voice was filled at once with the charity of love and the pride of motherhood.
Joseph left his place at the door and came to stand beside Mary. She held the little bundle up as it squirmed slightly and feebly. Nestling the baby in the crook of one arm, the father caressed the baby’s head, smoothing the tangles of hair into some kind of order. Mary smiled wanly and spoke again, this time more softly as if to herself, “It is just wonderful, Joseph. Everything is happening just as the angels told us. It was too hard to understand, but now that we have our baby, things are starting to make more sense.”
The mention of angels brought Joseph back from his silent reveries. Imprinted fixedly on his mind was the dream he had of the angel so long ago. Every word spoken weighed on his mind and heart like an everlasting chain fastened around his very soul. The angel had given him words of hope and despair. Yes, he inwardly sighed, everything is happening as was said. This child has a destiny far greater than we can ever know. Lord, please give me strength to raise your child. The streak of distress that passed his face did not go unnoticed by Mary. She knew his struggle and his sadness and, though she didn’t always condone it, she empathized with it. This was not his child….but it was hers.
Both of them were interrupted from their private thoughts by a scuffling of feet outside the door. Returning the baby gingerly to the welcoming arms of his mother, Joseph turned to face whoever had come to invade this haven of peace. The rugged, tear-streaked face of a young man peeked around the corner of the door. Joseph met the gaze of the intruder placidly, arms folded across his burly chest. The man’s eyes mirrored his soul; a soul tormented by fear and wonder. Joseph had never seen eyes like his. But after a moment, he was confronted by three more sets of eyes bearing the same mark. All four men were about the same age and similarly dressed, each as timid as a lamb, standing in the doorway with mouths gaping and eyes glistening. They were shepherds by their garb.
After some time of this silent face-off, the oldest looking of them found his tongue, stammering out in a half-yelp, half-groan, “We ... We ... We were told that this is, uh, is, uh, the place. We had ... we had to come.” He paused as though this explained everything and there was nothing more to say. However when Joseph did not respond, he continued, “Well, the angels ... you see ... the angels….how frightening they were ... beautiful. It was them. They ... they, ummm ... told us to come. We came to find him.” All four pairs of eyes left Joseph and roved the room freely, settling naturally at the mother and son in the middle of the room.
The speaker unconsciously stepped forward, the others leaning in close against his back. The first fell down with a clump to one knee and beseeched the mother, “Is this ... is this the Christ?”
These four men held such hope and fear that at first she found herself too abashed to speak. Her child was only just born and already these young men came seeking to rob her of her joy. She was infuriated. The color rushed to her cheeks at this abhorrent thought and she nearly sent them away in fury. But a still, small voice interrupted her rage, This is your child, but not only yours. From this day forth, you must share him with the rest of the world. This is your burden to bear. Rejoice in your burden, though heavy it may be; it is for the salvation of the world. The words of contempt she had prepared for the men caught in her throat at these thoughts. Closing her eyes against the terrible truth behind them, she sought inner peace. When she opened her eyes again, the thieves of her happiness were gone, replaced by the image of four lost and suffering souls in search of answers.
They appeared emaciated and old, mere skeletons deprived of life and purpose. They were horrid, but not in a way that to inspire revulsion but instead pity. Their parched lips longed for the quenching drink of hope to slake their inner thirst. Their hollow eyes pleaded to see just one glimpse of something truly beautiful, truly free of the deforming plague and crippling corruption that seized everything else in the world. Their ears despaired of hearing those few precious words, “There is Life!”
The vision shifted and now she saw them for who they really were. The only one who had spoken still knelt before her and all his life spanned before Mary’s eyes as the deep sea. He was not much older than the rest, but he was one who had lived life beyond his years; someone who had suffered through the utter monotony of sequential pain and disappointment that leads up to the one, inexorable fact: Nothing ever changes. This was his truth; he had never know anything else in his whole life.
Just behind him stood his brother, both hands tightly clenching the right shoulder of his elder sibling. Unlike his brother, this young man was filled with the fire and hope of youth. No height was unattainable, no obstacle insurmountable. He would search every hill and dale for a chance to better himself so that he could rise above his lot in life and declare, “I am of worth!” The calluses of toil had not yet hardened his hands and the rocky paths of destitution had not yet tamed his fiery spirit. Every new idea held a wealth of opportunity. The world was a thing to be conquered, and conquer it he fully intended to do.
The third youth was nothing more than a child, twelve years at the most. Yet those twelve years spoke volumes. He was a handsome child, complete with youth’s charming softness and maturity’s strength and character. One might even say he looked flawless, if not for the ugly purple bruise along his right cheek that marred his otherwise enchanting features. Of the four, his eyes glowed the most with hope. They were eyes that seemed to be seeing hope for the first time, making it even more appealing for its freshness and promise. Here was someone that desperately needed to believe that something better was on the horizon.
Unlike the others, the last of the shepherd was not so easily interpreted by Mary’s vision. There was a mystery that hid everything from sight. Whether it was darkness, fear, or confusion, she could not tell. Of the four, this one seemed to be the one with the most fear and his whole body trembled with it. He did not appear to be willfully here, more than half of his body was still outside the door as if preparing to bolt for freedom. Mary feared this man. Yet her inner eye finally awoke when she beheld his eyes. They were luminous and liquid, two hollow pools of light staring back out of a corner of a forgotten soul. All else spoke of shame, torment, and fear except for those two little pinpricks, gasping, wallowing, surging forward to some unbidden and uncertain freedom from the manacles of fate.
And Mary wept. Hot, flooding tears poured down her cheeks in a torrent of irrepressible emotion, alarming herself as much as it did the men. Even Joseph was frightened now. No, this child was not only hers. There would be times that he would need his mother, but she needed him more, and these men needed him with a blinding desperation. Mary closed her eyes against the vision before her, the life behind her, and the future in front of her. The road ahead would be fraught with difficulty and the ominous possibilities loomed up above her with disconcerting clarity. Now was the time to begin walking down that path with her burden in tow. With an effort, she subdued her tears and with a shudder, she realized it would not be the last time she would have to do that. She clutched the baby a little tighter, deriving her strength from his tiny, frail body. Her eyes opened and she spoke, “Welcome. This is Jesus.”
... to be continued.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Let's Talk about Faith
The Reformation is known for its "five solas": sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, sola scriptura, and soli Deo gloria. They represented the Reformers notion of the five distinctives between what they were teaching and what the Roman Catholic Church taught. Today, they have returned to a largely misunderstood position.
One of them, sola fide, has fallen into particular disfavor. The Roman Catholic Church argued that faith and good works renders one just before God. The Reformers argued that justification -- being declared right before God -- is accomplished by faith apart from good works. Note, at the outset, one of the single most common points of confusion. Sola fide does not argue that "faith alone" is all there is. That would be nonsense. The "faith alone" is a reference to "faith apart from works", not faith apart from grace or Christ. The separation of faith is not from all other things, but from works. The Reformers as well as those of the Reformed faith obviously hold to the necessity of grace and the absolute necessity of Christ in salvation. Arguing otherwise is a strawman argument.
Having cleared up the easiest misconception, let's look again at "faith alone". Martin Luther called this "the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls." And it is a biblical concept:
So it would appear that it's a done deal. Obviously we are saved "by faith apart from works". Indeed, our definition of grace has deviated from the Greek word because of Scripture. The Greek word, charis, means simply "favor", but we have come to define it as "unmerited favor" because of this concept of "faith apart from works" and verses like Rom. 11:6 that say, "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Christianity draws a distinction between salvation earned and salvation applied. It is one of the distinguishing differences between Christianity and every other religion. Everyone else knows that you have to be good to go to heaven. It doesn't matter if you're Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu; you have to be good to go to heaven. Christianity, on the other hand, says, "Going to heaven is not a function of being good; it is a function of faith in Christ. (That faith and all of salvation is a matter of the grace of God ... linking the three together -- sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus.)
So why would there be such division among non-Catholics about this sola fide prescription for salvation? Well, first, I suspect it's a product of exactly the fact that everyone knows you have to be good to go to heaven. This "something for nothing" concept of "saved by faith apart from works" just doesn't sit right. Beyond that, there is the constant argument that is it not "apart from any work at all". "You have to believe. You have to repent. You have to be baptized. There are works involved." And, of course, there is the "top of the line" argument: Scripture says otherwise.
Well, it's not, as it turns out. If it is absolutely clear, it stands in stark opposition to all the other passages listed above, and we have a genuine contradiction. So is it possible to read these Scriptures without contradicting each other? I think so. Let's give it a whirl.
First, remember the intent of Eph. 2:8-9: "So that no one may boast." Now, there are some that would argue that since some of the passages above refer to "works of the Law", the references to "faith apart from works" are only references to "faith apart from works of the Law", not all works. However, if that is the case, then works of any type would be cause to boast, and the intent of Ephesians 2 would be lost. "No," they argue, "The works required for salvation don't merit anything and, as such, don't give room for boasting." Well, perhaps in someone's mind that's true, but I can't imagine it. Think of that glorious time in heaven. We're all standing around praising God. You're standing with a couple of angels. "Hey, look," they say, "We really loved that 'grace of God' thing. It was marvelous to watch. But we weren't actually there, so we didn't quite understand something, and you can explain it to us. When you were saved, a couple of people from the local church came to your door and gave you the Gospel. You received it with thanksgiving and were saved. Then they went next door and the guy there didn't and wasn't. What was the difference? Why did you receive it and he didn't?" You work out the answer. If it is anything except "faith apart from works of any type", I can't find a satisfactory answer that doesn't paint me in a better light than my neighbor. "I had the faith." "I was spiritually wiser." "I did what was required and he didn't." It doesn't work.
So, how can we re-read James or re-read all the other passages to make them align? I think the passage to look at again is the James passage. Our problem is that often we lump words together. "Saved", to us, often means "saved from the wrath of God", but it doesn't always mean that in the Bible. In 1 Tim. 2:15 it says, "She will be saved through childbearing ..." suggesting either that women must have children to be saved from the wrath of God, or that there is more than one meaning of "saved". The same is true for "justified". In Luke 7:35, Jesus says, "Wisdom is justified by all her children." Now, normally "justified" means "declared right in the eyes of God", but clearly in this case it means simply "declared right". Wisdom is shown to be right by the results of wisdom (her children). So is it possible that James is speaking of some different sense of "justification" than our normal "Christianese"? I think, if you examine it, he is clearly speaking of something else. In the James 2 passage, he speaks of two types of faith: Dead faith and live faith (implied). Dead faith is faith that has no results (works). Therefore, live faith -- faith that saves -- is faith that produces works. In the James 2:21-24 part, he references the same example of Abraham that Paul uses in Rom. 4:2-5 when he demonstrates justification apart from works. The difference is the time frame. Paul references Gen. 15:6 while James references Gen. 22. In other words, Paul says that Abraham was justified at the point of faith (Gen. 15:6), while the justification of which James speaks occurs at the end of Abraham's life. In fact, if you read James, you find that he explains what was "justified": "the Scripture was fulfilled." In James's use of the term "justified", he is referring to the other sense of the word, the simpler sense. Abraham was declared right by the work of faith that he performed. That doesn't mean that he was declared right before God at that point; he was demonstrated to already be right. To put it in the terms that Jesus used it, "Abraham's faith was justified by her children." He was shown to have right standing with God when he acted on the faith that, long ago, linked him to God's declaration that he was now righteous.
It looks as if James 2 does not actually support the notion that sola fide is a lie. It is a different use of the term "justified". If this is the case, we have managed to eliminate a paradox -- an apparent contradiction -- and allowed Scripture to align with Scripture without modifying anything at all. In this aspect we allow Christianity to retain its distinctive: salvation apart from works. In this approach we allow Scripture to remain God's Word rather than contradictory passages written by men. In this way we retain sola fide, the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.
One of them, sola fide, has fallen into particular disfavor. The Roman Catholic Church argued that faith and good works renders one just before God. The Reformers argued that justification -- being declared right before God -- is accomplished by faith apart from good works. Note, at the outset, one of the single most common points of confusion. Sola fide does not argue that "faith alone" is all there is. That would be nonsense. The "faith alone" is a reference to "faith apart from works", not faith apart from grace or Christ. The separation of faith is not from all other things, but from works. The Reformers as well as those of the Reformed faith obviously hold to the necessity of grace and the absolute necessity of Christ in salvation. Arguing otherwise is a strawman argument.
Having cleared up the easiest misconception, let's look again at "faith alone". Martin Luther called this "the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls." And it is a biblical concept:
2 If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Rom. 4:2-5).I put that last one last so it would be freshest in your mind. Note the intent: "So that no one may boast." That's important.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Rom. 3:28).
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (John 5:24).
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith (Phil. 3:8-9).
Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:16).
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
So it would appear that it's a done deal. Obviously we are saved "by faith apart from works". Indeed, our definition of grace has deviated from the Greek word because of Scripture. The Greek word, charis, means simply "favor", but we have come to define it as "unmerited favor" because of this concept of "faith apart from works" and verses like Rom. 11:6 that say, "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Christianity draws a distinction between salvation earned and salvation applied. It is one of the distinguishing differences between Christianity and every other religion. Everyone else knows that you have to be good to go to heaven. It doesn't matter if you're Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu; you have to be good to go to heaven. Christianity, on the other hand, says, "Going to heaven is not a function of being good; it is a function of faith in Christ. (That faith and all of salvation is a matter of the grace of God ... linking the three together -- sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus.)
So why would there be such division among non-Catholics about this sola fide prescription for salvation? Well, first, I suspect it's a product of exactly the fact that everyone knows you have to be good to go to heaven. This "something for nothing" concept of "saved by faith apart from works" just doesn't sit right. Beyond that, there is the constant argument that is it not "apart from any work at all". "You have to believe. You have to repent. You have to be baptized. There are works involved." And, of course, there is the "top of the line" argument: Scripture says otherwise.
14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:14, 21-24).Really, I'm not sure how much more we need to look at. "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone." That's absolutely clear.
Well, it's not, as it turns out. If it is absolutely clear, it stands in stark opposition to all the other passages listed above, and we have a genuine contradiction. So is it possible to read these Scriptures without contradicting each other? I think so. Let's give it a whirl.
First, remember the intent of Eph. 2:8-9: "So that no one may boast." Now, there are some that would argue that since some of the passages above refer to "works of the Law", the references to "faith apart from works" are only references to "faith apart from works of the Law", not all works. However, if that is the case, then works of any type would be cause to boast, and the intent of Ephesians 2 would be lost. "No," they argue, "The works required for salvation don't merit anything and, as such, don't give room for boasting." Well, perhaps in someone's mind that's true, but I can't imagine it. Think of that glorious time in heaven. We're all standing around praising God. You're standing with a couple of angels. "Hey, look," they say, "We really loved that 'grace of God' thing. It was marvelous to watch. But we weren't actually there, so we didn't quite understand something, and you can explain it to us. When you were saved, a couple of people from the local church came to your door and gave you the Gospel. You received it with thanksgiving and were saved. Then they went next door and the guy there didn't and wasn't. What was the difference? Why did you receive it and he didn't?" You work out the answer. If it is anything except "faith apart from works of any type", I can't find a satisfactory answer that doesn't paint me in a better light than my neighbor. "I had the faith." "I was spiritually wiser." "I did what was required and he didn't." It doesn't work.
So, how can we re-read James or re-read all the other passages to make them align? I think the passage to look at again is the James passage. Our problem is that often we lump words together. "Saved", to us, often means "saved from the wrath of God", but it doesn't always mean that in the Bible. In 1 Tim. 2:15 it says, "She will be saved through childbearing ..." suggesting either that women must have children to be saved from the wrath of God, or that there is more than one meaning of "saved". The same is true for "justified". In Luke 7:35, Jesus says, "Wisdom is justified by all her children." Now, normally "justified" means "declared right in the eyes of God", but clearly in this case it means simply "declared right". Wisdom is shown to be right by the results of wisdom (her children). So is it possible that James is speaking of some different sense of "justification" than our normal "Christianese"? I think, if you examine it, he is clearly speaking of something else. In the James 2 passage, he speaks of two types of faith: Dead faith and live faith (implied). Dead faith is faith that has no results (works). Therefore, live faith -- faith that saves -- is faith that produces works. In the James 2:21-24 part, he references the same example of Abraham that Paul uses in Rom. 4:2-5 when he demonstrates justification apart from works. The difference is the time frame. Paul references Gen. 15:6 while James references Gen. 22. In other words, Paul says that Abraham was justified at the point of faith (Gen. 15:6), while the justification of which James speaks occurs at the end of Abraham's life. In fact, if you read James, you find that he explains what was "justified": "the Scripture was fulfilled." In James's use of the term "justified", he is referring to the other sense of the word, the simpler sense. Abraham was declared right by the work of faith that he performed. That doesn't mean that he was declared right before God at that point; he was demonstrated to already be right. To put it in the terms that Jesus used it, "Abraham's faith was justified by her children." He was shown to have right standing with God when he acted on the faith that, long ago, linked him to God's declaration that he was now righteous.
It looks as if James 2 does not actually support the notion that sola fide is a lie. It is a different use of the term "justified". If this is the case, we have managed to eliminate a paradox -- an apparent contradiction -- and allowed Scripture to align with Scripture without modifying anything at all. In this aspect we allow Christianity to retain its distinctive: salvation apart from works. In this approach we allow Scripture to remain God's Word rather than contradictory passages written by men. In this way we retain sola fide, the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
That's Not Fair!
We hear it all the time. The kids say it when they don't get their way. People offer this protest when they believe they've been discriminated against (or at least when they think they can use that line to get what they want). Here in Arizona, university students who are not in this country legally are shouting it because Arizonans voted that illegal aliens should not get resident tuition rates. It's not fair that we are controlling our borders and it's not fair that some people make so much more money than other people. It's not fair to all the people that would benefit that Christians are opposed to embryonic stem cell research. It's not fair that other people get to do what we can't. It is extremely common for this phrase to be aimed at God. Whenever we think we've gotten a raw deal, "It's not fair!"
What we mean by that may vary slightly. Sometimes we mean "just", referring to something as "not fair" as "unjust". Other times -- more often, I suspect -- we mean "equitable". These two are not the same thing. To be "fair" is often thought of as "impartial" or "unbiased". But, as my dear mother taught me, "Whoever told you life was fair?"
R.C. Sproul tells the story of a college class he taught. At the outset of the freshmen course, he explained that papers would be due on October 1st, November 1st, and December 1st. Late entries would be an automatic "F". Well, on October 1st, 90% of the students handed in their papers. A few showed up sheepishly. When asked for their papers, they had reasons why they weren't done. "We're adjusting to college life." "There was just so much work we had to do." "Please give us until next week to finish." And the good professor acquiesced. "But, be sure to be on time for next month's paper," he warned. November 1st came around, and 80% of the students handed in their papers. The others were tentative. "We're so sorry, Dr. Sproul. We had so much homework for all our classes, we just couldn't get this one done. We'll do better next time. Please show mercy." And the good professor acquiesced. "But, be sure to be on time for next month's paper," he warned. The response was an almost spontaneous song. "We love you, Dr. Sproul; we love you so ..." December 1st came to pass, and maybe 75% of the class showed up with papers in hand. The rest sauntered in. Dr. Sproul started taking roll. "Johnson, where's your paper?" "Ah, don't worry about it, prof, I'll get it to you in a week or so." "Johnson, weren't you late in October and September?" "Yeah, but I'll get it done." "Johnson -- 'F'." The professor moved on. "Smith, where's your paper?" Smith wasn't quite as cocky. "I'm almost done with it." "Smith -- 'F'." And as he ticked on down the list of no-papers, the outrage rose. Instead of songs of praise, they erupted with the standby: "That's not fair!" So he asked them, "Johnson, you were late in October and September, weren't you?" "Yes." "You want fair?" "Yes." "Okay, then you have an 'F' for September and October. Who else wants fair?"
We are arrogant folks by nature. He died "before his time." Life didn't give her "a fair shake." People have the right to health care and long life and better living. "You deserve a break today." It is built into our nature -- our sin nature. God, we believe, is obligated to treat all humans the same way. He is not allowed to have any bias or inequity. He cannot love one over another. He cannot give to one over another. He cannot take from one rather than another.
Over against this faulty perspective is Scripture. "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom. 9:20-21). We don't recognize that we are universally an affront to His character, a stench in His nostrils, worthy of eternal damnation. If we were really aware of our true condition and just deserts, we would never cry to God, "That's not fair!" Instead, it would be a chorus of "Have mercy on me!"
What we mean by that may vary slightly. Sometimes we mean "just", referring to something as "not fair" as "unjust". Other times -- more often, I suspect -- we mean "equitable". These two are not the same thing. To be "fair" is often thought of as "impartial" or "unbiased". But, as my dear mother taught me, "Whoever told you life was fair?"
R.C. Sproul tells the story of a college class he taught. At the outset of the freshmen course, he explained that papers would be due on October 1st, November 1st, and December 1st. Late entries would be an automatic "F". Well, on October 1st, 90% of the students handed in their papers. A few showed up sheepishly. When asked for their papers, they had reasons why they weren't done. "We're adjusting to college life." "There was just so much work we had to do." "Please give us until next week to finish." And the good professor acquiesced. "But, be sure to be on time for next month's paper," he warned. November 1st came around, and 80% of the students handed in their papers. The others were tentative. "We're so sorry, Dr. Sproul. We had so much homework for all our classes, we just couldn't get this one done. We'll do better next time. Please show mercy." And the good professor acquiesced. "But, be sure to be on time for next month's paper," he warned. The response was an almost spontaneous song. "We love you, Dr. Sproul; we love you so ..." December 1st came to pass, and maybe 75% of the class showed up with papers in hand. The rest sauntered in. Dr. Sproul started taking roll. "Johnson, where's your paper?" "Ah, don't worry about it, prof, I'll get it to you in a week or so." "Johnson, weren't you late in October and September?" "Yeah, but I'll get it done." "Johnson -- 'F'." The professor moved on. "Smith, where's your paper?" Smith wasn't quite as cocky. "I'm almost done with it." "Smith -- 'F'." And as he ticked on down the list of no-papers, the outrage rose. Instead of songs of praise, they erupted with the standby: "That's not fair!" So he asked them, "Johnson, you were late in October and September, weren't you?" "Yes." "You want fair?" "Yes." "Okay, then you have an 'F' for September and October. Who else wants fair?"
We are arrogant folks by nature. He died "before his time." Life didn't give her "a fair shake." People have the right to health care and long life and better living. "You deserve a break today." It is built into our nature -- our sin nature. God, we believe, is obligated to treat all humans the same way. He is not allowed to have any bias or inequity. He cannot love one over another. He cannot give to one over another. He cannot take from one rather than another.
Over against this faulty perspective is Scripture. "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom. 9:20-21). We don't recognize that we are universally an affront to His character, a stench in His nostrils, worthy of eternal damnation. If we were really aware of our true condition and just deserts, we would never cry to God, "That's not fair!" Instead, it would be a chorus of "Have mercy on me!"
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Just War Theory
There is a theory known as "Just War Theory" that outlines the requirements that must be met for a war to be considered just. Of course, the basic points are always in question (because all moral values are always in question), but these are the generally accepted principles:
1. The war must have a cause that is just.
2. It must be a last resort. All other avenues of correcting the problem must have been exhausted.
3. The one prosecuting the war must have the proper authority to do so.
4. The evil caused by the war must be less than the evil that is removed by it.
5. There must be a reasonable probability of success.
Assuming that this theory is correct (It has been accepted as valid since the Middle Ages.), the question becomes, "Do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fall in the 'Just War' category?"
All five principles are in question, of course, more so in Iraq than in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it was clear that the perpetrator of the attack of Sep. 11 was in the country, protected by the government there. (That would constitute "just cause".) The negotiations to surrender him failed and the country remained defiant. (That would constitute "last resort".) Since we were the attacked and they were the attackers, it seemed that we should have the authority to respond with military force. (That would constitute "proper authority".) It appears that the removing of the Taliban and replacing it with a duly elected government with a minimum of collateral damage would satisfy the fourth principle. From all appearances, that war has been a success. Despite all of what appears to be the case, however, some still argue that our attack of Afghanistan was not just, and that we didn't have the proper authority to do it. You can decide. It seems to me of little debate whether the war with Afghanistan meets these criteria.
The war with Iraq isn't as clear. The President launched a preemptive strike, always a question with "just cause". The U.N. has argued all along that negotiations were ongoing and that they hadn't exhausted all other possibilities. The apparent lack of weapons of mass destruction (I say "apparent" because it is not strictly true that no such weapons were found despite the repeated claim of the media that this is the case.) and the international nature of the venture (That is, was America herself threatened?) would suggest that we didn't have the proper authority to go there. There seems to be no end to the bickering over whether we caused more evil than we stopped. And, truth be told, no one, to this day, has any clue if there is a reasonable probability for success. It seems that all five points are in question.
There aren't too many voices currently addressing the possibility that this might have been a Just War. I'd like to offer a few ideas on it just for your consideration. Maybe, just maybe, there is reason to think otherwise about this war in Iraq. Let's set aside emotion for a few minutes (none of us like the fact that Americans are dying over there) and try to see if there isn't the possibility that this is a just war.
Is there just cause? In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S., as part of a coalition, stepped in and forced Hussein to withdraw. Part of the agreement in the subsequent ceasefire was that Iraq would disarm and open up to inspections. For more than a decade Iraq fought against that to which they had agreed. They repeatedly blocked inspectors. They repeatedly ejected them from the country. The U.N. tried everything. They tried sanctions, negotiations, threats, all to no avail. Instead, Hussein continued to claim he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and would use them as he saw fit. In 1998, President Clinton stated that Iraq's efforts to dominate the Middle East was a threat to America's allies and vital interests. John McCain considered Saddam Hussein "a clear and present danger to the United States of America." Senator Lieberman was quoted as saying, "Every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world." This wasn't a "neo-con" perspective or some "hawk" viewpoint. It was the common perspective of the government of the United States. After 9/11, it was shared by nearly all in the government. Even those who are currently raising their voices loudest to bring home the troops were shouting with equal volume the dangers of leaving Saddam in power. Was it a just cause? From all that we knew at the time that we started the attack, it would seem to be that we were acting out of self-defense and the defense of our allies. That is just cause, even if the information is faulty.
What led to this attack? The war against Iraq was preceded by more than a decade of conflict with Iraq. We tried sanctions, threats, negotiations. We tried various avenues including the U.N., other nations, and direct discussions. We simply required that Iraq abide by the agreements they made when they surrendered in the Desert Storm conflict. They refused repeatedly. And beyond merely refusing, Saddam shook his fist at us and threatened to use his weapons of mass destruction. Finally, when radical anti-Americans carried out an attack on Americans in New York City and Washington D.C., the government and people of Iraq cheered. They may not have had direct ties to the attack, but they certainly supported it and offered safe haven to those who would attack us. It could be argued that this war was a last resort.
Did President Bush have the authority to go to war with Iraq? That question might be a little more tricky. It is difficult to draw a direct line of threat from Iraq to America. And a preemptive strike will always raise a haze to the question. Ultimately we don't really know the danger Iraq may have posed to us. However, the perception at the time was that Saddam posed "a clear and present danger to the United States of America." John Kerry said, "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world." Indeed, this is the consensus at the time:
The perspective was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and the will to harm America. If that was the case, then it would seem that it was within the legal and moral rights of the government of the country to act to defend its people. Arguments can be made that the information was faulty. People can point out that the intelligence has since proven to be false. That's a different issue. The questions of "just cause" and "proper authority" can only be based on what they believed at the time. That the information was faulty can only be factored in if it is argued that it was knowingly faulty, and that has not been the case. It is reasonable to argue that the U.S. government (not merely President Bush) believed that there was an imminent threat from Iraq and to act to defend against that threat is acting on proper authority.
The last two will likely be subjects of debate for a long time to come. How much evil did the war cause? How much did it end? Would Iraq and the world be better off today if Hussein was still in power? That's the real question here. And is there a reasonable probability of success? That is the other real question here. Now, to be fair, one should ask if they had a reasonable probability of success when they started rather than if there continues to be a reasonable probability of success. Was there good rationale for the government to believe they could succeed in 1) removing the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and 2) putting a democratic government in place in Iraq? In hindsight one has to wonder, but how many voices were there prior to the war that warned that it wasn't reasonable? I don't know the answer to that. I do think that it is possible to argue that they believed that the damage they caused would be less than the damage they corrected, and that there was a reasonable probability of success. If that is the case then this could be classified as a "just war".
It's not a "done deal". Depending on your preconceptions, prejudices, and a priori conditions (and don't fool yourself ... everyone has them), the argument will continue. I don't anticipate that I've solved the problem and provided proof to everyone's satisfaction. That wasn't my goal. Perhaps ... just maybe ... someone reading this might say, "Well, I suppose it could be argued that this was a just war." Perhaps. And a different perspective than the screaming anti-war of the airwaves isn't necessarily a bad thing. (For more on this possibility, read Robert George on the question.)
1. The war must have a cause that is just.
2. It must be a last resort. All other avenues of correcting the problem must have been exhausted.
3. The one prosecuting the war must have the proper authority to do so.
4. The evil caused by the war must be less than the evil that is removed by it.
5. There must be a reasonable probability of success.
Assuming that this theory is correct (It has been accepted as valid since the Middle Ages.), the question becomes, "Do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fall in the 'Just War' category?"
All five principles are in question, of course, more so in Iraq than in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it was clear that the perpetrator of the attack of Sep. 11 was in the country, protected by the government there. (That would constitute "just cause".) The negotiations to surrender him failed and the country remained defiant. (That would constitute "last resort".) Since we were the attacked and they were the attackers, it seemed that we should have the authority to respond with military force. (That would constitute "proper authority".) It appears that the removing of the Taliban and replacing it with a duly elected government with a minimum of collateral damage would satisfy the fourth principle. From all appearances, that war has been a success. Despite all of what appears to be the case, however, some still argue that our attack of Afghanistan was not just, and that we didn't have the proper authority to do it. You can decide. It seems to me of little debate whether the war with Afghanistan meets these criteria.
The war with Iraq isn't as clear. The President launched a preemptive strike, always a question with "just cause". The U.N. has argued all along that negotiations were ongoing and that they hadn't exhausted all other possibilities. The apparent lack of weapons of mass destruction (I say "apparent" because it is not strictly true that no such weapons were found despite the repeated claim of the media that this is the case.) and the international nature of the venture (That is, was America herself threatened?) would suggest that we didn't have the proper authority to go there. There seems to be no end to the bickering over whether we caused more evil than we stopped. And, truth be told, no one, to this day, has any clue if there is a reasonable probability for success. It seems that all five points are in question.
There aren't too many voices currently addressing the possibility that this might have been a Just War. I'd like to offer a few ideas on it just for your consideration. Maybe, just maybe, there is reason to think otherwise about this war in Iraq. Let's set aside emotion for a few minutes (none of us like the fact that Americans are dying over there) and try to see if there isn't the possibility that this is a just war.
Is there just cause? In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S., as part of a coalition, stepped in and forced Hussein to withdraw. Part of the agreement in the subsequent ceasefire was that Iraq would disarm and open up to inspections. For more than a decade Iraq fought against that to which they had agreed. They repeatedly blocked inspectors. They repeatedly ejected them from the country. The U.N. tried everything. They tried sanctions, negotiations, threats, all to no avail. Instead, Hussein continued to claim he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and would use them as he saw fit. In 1998, President Clinton stated that Iraq's efforts to dominate the Middle East was a threat to America's allies and vital interests. John McCain considered Saddam Hussein "a clear and present danger to the United States of America." Senator Lieberman was quoted as saying, "Every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world." This wasn't a "neo-con" perspective or some "hawk" viewpoint. It was the common perspective of the government of the United States. After 9/11, it was shared by nearly all in the government. Even those who are currently raising their voices loudest to bring home the troops were shouting with equal volume the dangers of leaving Saddam in power. Was it a just cause? From all that we knew at the time that we started the attack, it would seem to be that we were acting out of self-defense and the defense of our allies. That is just cause, even if the information is faulty.
What led to this attack? The war against Iraq was preceded by more than a decade of conflict with Iraq. We tried sanctions, threats, negotiations. We tried various avenues including the U.N., other nations, and direct discussions. We simply required that Iraq abide by the agreements they made when they surrendered in the Desert Storm conflict. They refused repeatedly. And beyond merely refusing, Saddam shook his fist at us and threatened to use his weapons of mass destruction. Finally, when radical anti-Americans carried out an attack on Americans in New York City and Washington D.C., the government and people of Iraq cheered. They may not have had direct ties to the attack, but they certainly supported it and offered safe haven to those who would attack us. It could be argued that this war was a last resort.
Did President Bush have the authority to go to war with Iraq? That question might be a little more tricky. It is difficult to draw a direct line of threat from Iraq to America. And a preemptive strike will always raise a haze to the question. Ultimately we don't really know the danger Iraq may have posed to us. However, the perception at the time was that Saddam posed "a clear and present danger to the United States of America." John Kerry said, "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world." Indeed, this is the consensus at the time:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.(Source)
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
The perspective was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and the will to harm America. If that was the case, then it would seem that it was within the legal and moral rights of the government of the country to act to defend its people. Arguments can be made that the information was faulty. People can point out that the intelligence has since proven to be false. That's a different issue. The questions of "just cause" and "proper authority" can only be based on what they believed at the time. That the information was faulty can only be factored in if it is argued that it was knowingly faulty, and that has not been the case. It is reasonable to argue that the U.S. government (not merely President Bush) believed that there was an imminent threat from Iraq and to act to defend against that threat is acting on proper authority.
The last two will likely be subjects of debate for a long time to come. How much evil did the war cause? How much did it end? Would Iraq and the world be better off today if Hussein was still in power? That's the real question here. And is there a reasonable probability of success? That is the other real question here. Now, to be fair, one should ask if they had a reasonable probability of success when they started rather than if there continues to be a reasonable probability of success. Was there good rationale for the government to believe they could succeed in 1) removing the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and 2) putting a democratic government in place in Iraq? In hindsight one has to wonder, but how many voices were there prior to the war that warned that it wasn't reasonable? I don't know the answer to that. I do think that it is possible to argue that they believed that the damage they caused would be less than the damage they corrected, and that there was a reasonable probability of success. If that is the case then this could be classified as a "just war".
It's not a "done deal". Depending on your preconceptions, prejudices, and a priori conditions (and don't fool yourself ... everyone has them), the argument will continue. I don't anticipate that I've solved the problem and provided proof to everyone's satisfaction. That wasn't my goal. Perhaps ... just maybe ... someone reading this might say, "Well, I suppose it could be argued that this was a just war." Perhaps. And a different perspective than the screaming anti-war of the airwaves isn't necessarily a bad thing. (For more on this possibility, read Robert George on the question.)
Monday, February 12, 2007
He Won't Stand for It
Maybe news of City Councilman Tom Rawls of Mesa has gotten out of our valley and maybe it hasn't. In case you've never heard about him, Councilman Rawls is in the news these days here because he has decided refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance at Council meetings in protest of the Iraq War. He figures that since he isn't going to run again, it won't cost him votes. As a result of his stand (or, rather, lack thereof) he has been subject to death threats. The Mesa Police have assigned protection to him. (He says he doesn't want it, but the police think it would look bad if a councilman was killed.) And every week he sits in the Council meeting and refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
There are a variety of responses. "Good for you, Tom," some are saying. They defend his right to free speech. Others are upset. "He shouldn't be doing this on our time." A soldier in Iraq ("wes2273") wrote to say how disgusted he was at the whole thing. He pointed out that our infighting is giving the enemy encouragement. He said, "If someone sees him not stand for the pledge again, I don't care who he is, go up and slap him upside the head." And I'm sure there are many who share his sentiment.
Me? I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to say. Let's see if I get it right. He is refusing to acknowledge or show respect for the Pledge of Allegiance. That is, he is refusing to have allegiance for the flag and that for which it stands. His protest of the war in Iraq has caused him to withdraw his loyalty to his country. The message he is sending, as far as I can tell, is, "As long as the government of this country doesn't do what I want it to do, I will offer no loyalty to this country. When it does what I want it to, I will return to being loyal." Or, to put it another way, "I will only be loyal to my own belief on what the government should do." If, on the other hand, this is not his message, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what he is trying to say.
Now, I would concur with many who say Mr. Rawls has the right of free speech. I have to wonder, however, if you want someone in your city government (any government, for that matter) who is loyal always and only to himself. Unfortunately, this is the same basic message that is being broadcast on our news to the world. You see, we have a system of government. America is a republic, governed by a Constitution. Our government is not a democracy. We elect officials to make decisions for us. If they don't do what we want, we don't elect them again. We don't surrender our citizenship and disavow loyalty to our country.
So here's the thinking. Some majority percentage of our country are against the war in Iraq. Therefore, the war in Iraq should be terminated. The majority rules. That's a democracy. That's the way it is. The government should surrender to the will of the people. But this isn't the case. We are not a democracy. We are a republic. For our government to operate by the will of the people -- by popular vote -- we would need to end the United States as it now stands and draft a new Constitution. There would be no President, no Congress, and no real need for a Supreme Court. There would simply need to be governmental organizations that wait for the people to decide and then carry it out. That is not the current government of the United States, and all the calling of "majority rules" doesn't make it so.
It's up to the city of Mesa to do what they will with a councilman whose sole allegiance is his own views, with nothing higher than that. And I'm not completely sold on this war in Iraq. What I am sure of is that I am against rewriting our Constitution to strip the Commander in Chief of his powers, handing them over to the American public instead. No government is perfect, but trying to so radically alter ours would be a disaster.
There are a variety of responses. "Good for you, Tom," some are saying. They defend his right to free speech. Others are upset. "He shouldn't be doing this on our time." A soldier in Iraq ("wes2273") wrote to say how disgusted he was at the whole thing. He pointed out that our infighting is giving the enemy encouragement. He said, "If someone sees him not stand for the pledge again, I don't care who he is, go up and slap him upside the head." And I'm sure there are many who share his sentiment.
Me? I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to say. Let's see if I get it right. He is refusing to acknowledge or show respect for the Pledge of Allegiance. That is, he is refusing to have allegiance for the flag and that for which it stands. His protest of the war in Iraq has caused him to withdraw his loyalty to his country. The message he is sending, as far as I can tell, is, "As long as the government of this country doesn't do what I want it to do, I will offer no loyalty to this country. When it does what I want it to, I will return to being loyal." Or, to put it another way, "I will only be loyal to my own belief on what the government should do." If, on the other hand, this is not his message, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what he is trying to say.
Now, I would concur with many who say Mr. Rawls has the right of free speech. I have to wonder, however, if you want someone in your city government (any government, for that matter) who is loyal always and only to himself. Unfortunately, this is the same basic message that is being broadcast on our news to the world. You see, we have a system of government. America is a republic, governed by a Constitution. Our government is not a democracy. We elect officials to make decisions for us. If they don't do what we want, we don't elect them again. We don't surrender our citizenship and disavow loyalty to our country.
So here's the thinking. Some majority percentage of our country are against the war in Iraq. Therefore, the war in Iraq should be terminated. The majority rules. That's a democracy. That's the way it is. The government should surrender to the will of the people. But this isn't the case. We are not a democracy. We are a republic. For our government to operate by the will of the people -- by popular vote -- we would need to end the United States as it now stands and draft a new Constitution. There would be no President, no Congress, and no real need for a Supreme Court. There would simply need to be governmental organizations that wait for the people to decide and then carry it out. That is not the current government of the United States, and all the calling of "majority rules" doesn't make it so.
It's up to the city of Mesa to do what they will with a councilman whose sole allegiance is his own views, with nothing higher than that. And I'm not completely sold on this war in Iraq. What I am sure of is that I am against rewriting our Constitution to strip the Commander in Chief of his powers, handing them over to the American public instead. No government is perfect, but trying to so radically alter ours would be a disaster.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Default Prayer
Prayer means many things to many people. It means worship and it means requests. It means lifting up our thoughts to God and sometimes even listening for answers. A lot is written on prayer, both in books and in Scripture. I wonder if one of the reasons for this is the repeated prayers and instructions to pray in Scripture over against the confusion we all experience over prayer.
Prayer can be a difficult concept. How do we pray? If you haven't asked that, you may not be a disciple of Christ. His own disciples asked Him that and He answered. But more than that, what do we pray about? What is appropriate and what isn't? How do we deal with unanswered prayers? Even that question is a matter of debate. One side says, "God answers all prayers", but we all know what "unanswered prayer" feels like, so the question remains. Paul wrote that we don't know how to pray (Rom. 8:26). And there is always the question about the efficacy of prayer. (Yeah, that's a theologians term, isn't it?) We all wonder about just how effective prayer is. Some suggest that by praying we can change God's mind. Given an omniscient, immutable God, that's nonsense. So what does prayer do? If God knows everything, why tell Him anything?
Anyone who has read my blog for any amount of time knows that I don't claim to be the "Bible Answer Man" by any means. I tend to be the "Bible Question Man" more often than not. So I won't offer solutions to these thorny questions on prayer and its effects. What I would like to do is offer a default prayer. This prayer is a prayer that is always good. It will always have positive effects. It is always welcome to God's ears and always beneficial to the one who prays it. It is likely that this prayer should be not simply the default prayer ... the prayer that we pray when we're not sure what to say ... but probably the most common prayer we offer.
What is this wonderful prayer? It is a prayer sadly lacking among human beings in general and even among believers. This is due to a basic problem in the human nature. But along with the consummate command to pray, we are given the parallel command to pray this prayer. What is it?
When? "In everything." For what? "For everything." How often? Whenever you pray. To what degree? "Abounding in thanksgiving". So when you stop to spend time with the Lord, say, "Thanks." When you're driving to or from work, say, "Thanks." When that crazy driver cuts you off and slams on his brakes, say, "Thanks." When something good happens, say, "Thanks." When something happens that isn't pleasant (but is guaranteed to be good - Rom. 8:28), say, "Thanks." Trust me. If you learn this prayer as a default prayer, it will have a marvelous impact on your life. It will decrease worry, increase contentment, improve your disposition, help mend relationships ... oh, the benefits go on and on. Try it; you'll like it.
Prayer can be a difficult concept. How do we pray? If you haven't asked that, you may not be a disciple of Christ. His own disciples asked Him that and He answered. But more than that, what do we pray about? What is appropriate and what isn't? How do we deal with unanswered prayers? Even that question is a matter of debate. One side says, "God answers all prayers", but we all know what "unanswered prayer" feels like, so the question remains. Paul wrote that we don't know how to pray (Rom. 8:26). And there is always the question about the efficacy of prayer. (Yeah, that's a theologians term, isn't it?) We all wonder about just how effective prayer is. Some suggest that by praying we can change God's mind. Given an omniscient, immutable God, that's nonsense. So what does prayer do? If God knows everything, why tell Him anything?
Anyone who has read my blog for any amount of time knows that I don't claim to be the "Bible Answer Man" by any means. I tend to be the "Bible Question Man" more often than not. So I won't offer solutions to these thorny questions on prayer and its effects. What I would like to do is offer a default prayer. This prayer is a prayer that is always good. It will always have positive effects. It is always welcome to God's ears and always beneficial to the one who prays it. It is likely that this prayer should be not simply the default prayer ... the prayer that we pray when we're not sure what to say ... but probably the most common prayer we offer.
What is this wonderful prayer? It is a prayer sadly lacking among human beings in general and even among believers. This is due to a basic problem in the human nature. But along with the consummate command to pray, we are given the parallel command to pray this prayer. What is it?
Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving (Col. 4:2).You know, I'm sure, that I could go on. I didn't even touch the Old Testament with passage after passage telling us to "give thanks". I think you're likely able to figure out the "default prayer" I'm suggesting. It's simple. "Thanks."
Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving (Col. 2:6-7).
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God (Phil. 4:6).
Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving (Eph. 5:4).
Talk to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:19-20).
In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you (1 Thess. 5:18).
When? "In everything." For what? "For everything." How often? Whenever you pray. To what degree? "Abounding in thanksgiving". So when you stop to spend time with the Lord, say, "Thanks." When you're driving to or from work, say, "Thanks." When that crazy driver cuts you off and slams on his brakes, say, "Thanks." When something good happens, say, "Thanks." When something happens that isn't pleasant (but is guaranteed to be good - Rom. 8:28), say, "Thanks." Trust me. If you learn this prayer as a default prayer, it will have a marvelous impact on your life. It will decrease worry, increase contentment, improve your disposition, help mend relationships ... oh, the benefits go on and on. Try it; you'll like it.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Dangerous Ground
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:22-24).I know ... I said we couldn't talk about these things. And I know ... I'm about to take a poke at a hornet's nest. But it's on my mind, and this is my blog, so I should be able to to this kind of thing on my own blog ... right? (We'll see from the responses I get how wise this is, won't we?)
17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Col. 3:17-18).
1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external -- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1-6).
Christianity in general and the Bible in particular sometimes fall in the "politically incorrect" category. It's politically incorrect to talk about sin. Too judgmental. It's politically incorrect to talk about repentance. Too intolerant. And it's definitely politically incorrect to suggest that wives are called to submit to their husbands. Not only is it politically incorrect, but anyone with half a heart would have to admit that it can be difficult to make such a statement, given the character (or lack thereof) of so many men and the abuses women have suffered under such a suggestion. So perhaps it gives one pause to make the suggestion that wives are supposed to be subject to their husbands. Maybe it's not right?
When we look at the first one, there is always the "hand raise" from the crowd. "Doesn't it say that we should be subject to one another?" Yes, indeed. The preceding verse, Eph. 5:21, says exactly that. In fact, truth be told, Eph. 5:22 does not say, "Wives be subject to your own husbands." The Greek words simply give us, "Wives to your husbands." The translators fill in "be subject" because it is inferred from the previous verse. So, let's carry this thought through from the passage. Wives, be subject to your husbands. Husbands, be subject to your wives. Children, be subject to your parents (Eph. 6:1-3). Parents, be subject to your children. Slaves, be subject to your masters (Eph. 6:5-8). Masters, be subject to your slaves. Perhaps, when we lay it out like that, we can see that it doesn't quite work. Wives are to be subject to their husbands, but the subjection of husbands to their wives is to love them (Eph. 5:25), not submit. Children are to obey their parents, but the subjection of fathers to their children is not to exasperate them (Eph. 6:4), not to submit to them. Slaves are to be obedient to their masters, but the subjection of masters to their slaves is to please Christ and not threaten them (Eph. 6:9), not submit to them. In other words, the way each is to "be subject" is not the same for each function. The wife "ranks under" (the actual intent of "subject" or "submit") the husband's leadership. The husband subjugates his personal interests in seeking the best interests of his wife. The children obey their parents. Fathers subjugate the extent of their control so as not to exasperate their children. Slaves submit to their masters. Masters subjugate what could be their rightful control to show kindness to their slaves that their society didn't require. There is "mutual submission", but not the same kind of submission.
This is why there is no equivocation in the Col. 3 passage. This one is not stated as examples of mutual submission. Wives are to rank under their husbands.
Peter's passage starts with a tell-tale phrase: "In the same way." What way? "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). Peter lists this as part of our growth in respect to salvation (1 Peter 2:2). More specifically, it is part of "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles" (1 Peter 2:12). The verses that follow explain what this "submit yourselves" looks like. "Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable" (1 Peter 2:17-18). The rest of chapter 2 is precisely on this topic of servants submitting to unreasonable masters. "You have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21). So we find ourselves once more on the doorstep of submission. This is why Peter says to wives, "Be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives." Now, some use this as a tool to bludgeon wives. "He hasn't been won. You must not be submitting right." That isn't in the text. It says they may be won. They may not. It isn't intended to be a measurement of submission. However, it seems very hard to get around the fact that it is a call to submit in the same sense that slaves submit to masters and Christ submitted to the cross.
The problem for many is the concept of authority. While many argue for "co-equal submission and headship", it doesn't seem to work here. Some will point to the Trinity. "They're co-equal in headship." This, however, is not true. Jesus clearly indicated that He submitted in all things to His Father, and clearly the Father and the Son send the Spirit, so within the Godhead there is a submission. Paul, in fact, repeats this structure in 1 Cor. 11:3, where he says, "the head of Christ is God." Now, if Christ who is co-equal with God is in submission to the Father, what makes us think that the equivalent submission process doesn't work in human terms?
The other problem for many is the abuse of this concept. Too many over the centuries have taken this concept to extremes, requiring that wives submit to anything their husbands choose to dish out -- abuse, cruelty, anything at all. Men have used this concept to batter wives with the command: "Submit!!!" First, "submission" does not mean necessarily mean "obedience". In the case of a child's submission to his parents, it is obedience. But not in all cases. In the language, "submit" is a military term meaning "to rank under". In the military, when you are outranked, you "submit", but that does not mean you always follow orders. When the orders you are given are immoral, you are obligated to disobey them. The point is to be a helper. That does not mean to be inferior or a doormat. And sometimes the help that is needed is to withdraw. A husband on drugs does not need a wife who gets him his drugs, but a wife that refuses him his drugs. A husband who is damaging his family with abuse doesn't need a wife that lets him, but a wife that stops it. That is help. "Submit" doesn't mean "doormat". And the men that have used it to mean such have been quite foolish, considering the burden placed by God on men is much larger than that of women. I mean, seriously, guys, since you are the one that God holds as responsible for just about everything in this world (home, family, children, work, wife, church, etc.), do you really have time to be berating wives who aren't matching your twisted idea of "submit=doormat"? Bottom line, an abuse of a concept does not render the concept false. It is simply an abuse of the concept.
The Bible represents a serious departure from the culture of its time. Women were to be considered of equal value. Men were not to lord it over them. They were "co-heirs". No longer were they the chattel of their husbands. Still, God set up a "chain of command", a family order. The Son submitted to the Father. Husbands are to submit to the Son. (For some reason, no one seems to have the slightest problem with these two.) And, despite the protests of so many today, wives are to submit to their husbands. This isn't a "doormat" submission. It isn't a death of personal identity. It isn't intended to make women whipping posts. It is part of the order that God has designed. It may not be easy, and it may not always function as intended, but it is the command.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Border Patrol Uproar
Here's the email that's floating around. I'm sure you can find this information in a variety of forms. The web and the media is abounding with info about of it:
There was a link in my email to a site called grassfire.org that was spearheading a petition to get these two guys pardoned. So I looked at the website. They had a link to a story from WorldNetDaily (WND) about the story, explaining how the wrong law was used to convict the agents. (See, that's not helping me at all. We have a law that is similar to "convict border patrol agents for doing their job", but not quite the same.) So I looked at the story. In that story there was a link to an earlier interview with the prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. (And it is not a "friendly" interview.)
So I look at the interview. And here I find a completely different story. It appears that these guys weren't arrested, tried, and convicted for doing their jobs. Instead, it appears that they were arrested, tried, and convicted for shooting an unarmed man, hiding the evidence of the shooting, and filing false reports. Now, it is just my suspicion, but I'm thinking that nowhere in the job description of the U.S. Border Patrol will I find anything resembling "Shoot unarmed people and lie about it."
Now, I'll be honest. I don't know all the facts in the case. I do know that there is an uproar over this. I do know that people are angry at the government for prosecuting these two agents and angry at the president for not pardoning them. I do know that there is almost zero information being offered about why it is that they were prosecuted. I'm not suggesting that these officers were right to be prosecuted, and I'm not suggesting that they should be freed. I'm asking that people take a few minutes, examine both sides, and calm the rhetoric. Surely I'm not the only one thinking "Something is not right with the story we are being told on the 'free these guys' side." Let's not fall victims to the emotional assault.
Two U.S. Border Patrol Agents are serving decade long prison terms for attempting to apprehend a known drug smuggler for illegally crossing our border with more than 700lbs. of drugs!The first thing that comes to my mind is ... "Huh???!!!" In what world are Border Patrol Agents put in prison for doing their job? The whole thing struck me as bizarre, so I had to look further.
Almost as outrageous is that the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was given free medical care, and immunity for testifying against the agents is now suing the U.S. for $5 million -- claiming his civil rights were violated!
There was a link in my email to a site called grassfire.org that was spearheading a petition to get these two guys pardoned. So I looked at the website. They had a link to a story from WorldNetDaily (WND) about the story, explaining how the wrong law was used to convict the agents. (See, that's not helping me at all. We have a law that is similar to "convict border patrol agents for doing their job", but not quite the same.) So I looked at the story. In that story there was a link to an earlier interview with the prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. (And it is not a "friendly" interview.)
So I look at the interview. And here I find a completely different story. It appears that these guys weren't arrested, tried, and convicted for doing their jobs. Instead, it appears that they were arrested, tried, and convicted for shooting an unarmed man, hiding the evidence of the shooting, and filing false reports. Now, it is just my suspicion, but I'm thinking that nowhere in the job description of the U.S. Border Patrol will I find anything resembling "Shoot unarmed people and lie about it."
Now, I'll be honest. I don't know all the facts in the case. I do know that there is an uproar over this. I do know that people are angry at the government for prosecuting these two agents and angry at the president for not pardoning them. I do know that there is almost zero information being offered about why it is that they were prosecuted. I'm not suggesting that these officers were right to be prosecuted, and I'm not suggesting that they should be freed. I'm asking that people take a few minutes, examine both sides, and calm the rhetoric. Surely I'm not the only one thinking "Something is not right with the story we are being told on the 'free these guys' side." Let's not fall victims to the emotional assault.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Division and Unity
It has been said, "Experience unites; doctrine divides." There is truth to the statement. And we all know that unity is better than division ... right?
The Bible calls for Christians to be "one". We are to be of one spirit and one mind (Phil. 1:27), united in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13). We are to have the same judgment, without division (1 Cor. 1:10). It might appear from a multitude of passages in the Bible that unity is the highest calling and division is bad.
But, before we toss out doctrine (a suggestion by many these days), let's look a little further. Does the Bible allow for division? I would think that, with a minimum of examination, we would be forced to answer with a resounding, "Yes!" When Jesus told His famous "Sheep and Goats" parable (Matt. 25:31-46) He told about two groups of people. One group, "sheep", are put on His right hand, and the other, "goats", are placed on His left. One group fed Him and clothed Him when He was in need, and the other did not. The group on His right inherits His kingdom, while the group on His left is sent to eternal punishment. That would seem to be a clear division. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells of two types of people. The wise man builds his house on the rock, while the foolish one builds his house on the sand. That is a division. Jesus told His disciples:
Paul tells the Corinthians "I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor. 5:11). That is a division.
The accusation that "doctrine divides" is true. Truth is a divisive thing. It divides between that which is true and that which is false. The unity into which we are called is a unity in truth, not in spite of truth. And the suggestion that "experience unites" is also a truism, but it can produce false unity. People are capable of fabricating actions and mimicking experiences. We all know people who appeared to be Christians and weren't. The Bible refers to people in the Church known as "wolves in sheep clothing" (Matt. 7:15), "antichrists" (1 John 2:18-19), "tares among wheat" (Matt. 13:24-30). These are false believers who appear to be united to us by experience.
Unity is a good aim, but it must be a unity in truth. As such, doctrine, though it may divide, is a good division as long as it is true doctrine. Beware the anti-intellectualism of the age. We are called to be of one mind, but let's try to make sure that mind is set on truth as much as we can and not surrender to mere experience.
The Bible calls for Christians to be "one". We are to be of one spirit and one mind (Phil. 1:27), united in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13). We are to have the same judgment, without division (1 Cor. 1:10). It might appear from a multitude of passages in the Bible that unity is the highest calling and division is bad.
But, before we toss out doctrine (a suggestion by many these days), let's look a little further. Does the Bible allow for division? I would think that, with a minimum of examination, we would be forced to answer with a resounding, "Yes!" When Jesus told His famous "Sheep and Goats" parable (Matt. 25:31-46) He told about two groups of people. One group, "sheep", are put on His right hand, and the other, "goats", are placed on His left. One group fed Him and clothed Him when He was in need, and the other did not. The group on His right inherits His kingdom, while the group on His left is sent to eternal punishment. That would seem to be a clear division. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells of two types of people. The wise man builds his house on the rock, while the foolish one builds his house on the sand. That is a division. Jesus told His disciples:
34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:34-38)That is division.
Paul tells the Corinthians "I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor. 5:11). That is a division.
The accusation that "doctrine divides" is true. Truth is a divisive thing. It divides between that which is true and that which is false. The unity into which we are called is a unity in truth, not in spite of truth. And the suggestion that "experience unites" is also a truism, but it can produce false unity. People are capable of fabricating actions and mimicking experiences. We all know people who appeared to be Christians and weren't. The Bible refers to people in the Church known as "wolves in sheep clothing" (Matt. 7:15), "antichrists" (1 John 2:18-19), "tares among wheat" (Matt. 13:24-30). These are false believers who appear to be united to us by experience.
Unity is a good aim, but it must be a unity in truth. As such, doctrine, though it may divide, is a good division as long as it is true doctrine. Beware the anti-intellectualism of the age. We are called to be of one mind, but let's try to make sure that mind is set on truth as much as we can and not surrender to mere experience.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
You've come a long way, baby!
It's a tag line from an advertisement for Virginia Slims. You see, classy women didn't used to smoke. Then Women's Lib came along and women were allowed to do anything they wanted ... including suicide with tobacco products. Yes, a long way.
I wonder sometimes if "progress" is really that. There is a phenomenon known as "the ugly American" in which arrogant Americans travel abroad thinking that their way of life is the best of all and anything else is less. It's not accurate, however, to lay that solely at the feet of Americans. Most people think that their way of life is the best and look at others with disdain. The French, for instance, are legendary for refusing to speak English to visitors because they're so much better than English-speaking folks. And it's not merely the French. All of Europe, it seems, is quite sure that their civilized living is highly superior to other civilizations. So Americans aren't the only arrogant group of people.
When we take a look, however, at the contrasts, I have to wonder how far we've really come. Compare our lifestyles to that of, say, some remote Pacific islanders, a mostly untouched tribe in the Amazon jungle, or a distant group of Africans, and, if you're fair, you'll have to wonder. There is no doubt that our "standard of living" is higher. We certainly have more "stuff". They don't drive SUV's or use dishwashers. They don't even have running water. But what else are they lacking? They typically lack traffic congestion, unemployment, divorce, appreciable crime rates, or abortion. Their children think that it's a good idea to obey their parents and respect their elders. They are not "youth-oriented" societies, but find value in the knowledge and experience of their elders. They rarely have runaway fathers or mothers abandoning their families. Their kids never shout, "Why can't I have a cell phone??!! You don't understand me at all!" They are not contributing to the problem of greenhouse gases nor do they fear what will happen when the oil runs out. They are rarely concerned about "keeping up with the Joneses" and generally unaware that they are "living in poverty". Instead, they are uniquely blessed with a general sense of satisfaction of simply being alive. They are relatively content with what they have and seek only to live out their lives as they are.
No, I wouldn't be able to go to that way of life. I'm too "civilized". But still ... sometimes I wonder exactly how far we've really come, baby? Perhaps I should learn to be content in whatever circumstances I find myself.
I wonder sometimes if "progress" is really that. There is a phenomenon known as "the ugly American" in which arrogant Americans travel abroad thinking that their way of life is the best of all and anything else is less. It's not accurate, however, to lay that solely at the feet of Americans. Most people think that their way of life is the best and look at others with disdain. The French, for instance, are legendary for refusing to speak English to visitors because they're so much better than English-speaking folks. And it's not merely the French. All of Europe, it seems, is quite sure that their civilized living is highly superior to other civilizations. So Americans aren't the only arrogant group of people.
When we take a look, however, at the contrasts, I have to wonder how far we've really come. Compare our lifestyles to that of, say, some remote Pacific islanders, a mostly untouched tribe in the Amazon jungle, or a distant group of Africans, and, if you're fair, you'll have to wonder. There is no doubt that our "standard of living" is higher. We certainly have more "stuff". They don't drive SUV's or use dishwashers. They don't even have running water. But what else are they lacking? They typically lack traffic congestion, unemployment, divorce, appreciable crime rates, or abortion. Their children think that it's a good idea to obey their parents and respect their elders. They are not "youth-oriented" societies, but find value in the knowledge and experience of their elders. They rarely have runaway fathers or mothers abandoning their families. Their kids never shout, "Why can't I have a cell phone??!! You don't understand me at all!" They are not contributing to the problem of greenhouse gases nor do they fear what will happen when the oil runs out. They are rarely concerned about "keeping up with the Joneses" and generally unaware that they are "living in poverty". Instead, they are uniquely blessed with a general sense of satisfaction of simply being alive. They are relatively content with what they have and seek only to live out their lives as they are.
No, I wouldn't be able to go to that way of life. I'm too "civilized". But still ... sometimes I wonder exactly how far we've really come, baby? Perhaps I should learn to be content in whatever circumstances I find myself.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The Terror Within
They're raising the alarm. The global warming problem is certain. And they are 90% positive that humans are causing it. (For the uninitiated, in "science speak", "90% positive" means "there is no doubt".) Some suggest that even if we stopped dumping greenhouse gases into the air, the effect would continue for centuries. And, apparently, it is primarily the United States who is to blame for this problem.
But, don't stop there. They're raising the alarm. The AIDS epidemic is out of control. Millions are getting the disease around the world, but especially in Africa. There is no cure and precious little treatment. Children are contracting it from their infected parents. Babies are being born with it. It's a horrible problem worldwide. One of the saddest tragedies in this problem is that the United States isn't doing enough to solve it.
And they are still raising the alarm. We're losing in Iraq. It is a poor strategy with insufficient reason and inadequate goals, and we are not likely going to succeed in Iraq. Americans are dying almost daily. Worse, Iraqis are killing Iraqis in sectarian violence brought on by the U. S. intrusion into the area. Iran is feeding the violence. Syria is recruiting young men to go to fight in Iraq. It is a $400 billion mess, costing the lives of more than 3000 Americans and tens of thousands Iraqis.
And they're still raising the alarm. President Bush is the worst thing to happen to the United States since ... I don't know, I guess since its inception. He is incompetent, irrelevant, ill-advised, and dangerous. He hasn't had a good idea since he took office, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.
Surely you can see by now that this list can go on. There is disaster around every corner. It's unclear that there's anything good at all happening anywhere. Calamity is upon us from all sides. The most difficult part is that there are no answers -- just problems. "Okay, let's say that there is a problem with global warming and that Man is to blame. Now what?" The answers are either inane or non-existent. According to wikipedia, the primary sources of human emission of greenhouse gases are the use of fossil fuels, livestock, landfills, chlorofluorocarbons, and the use of fertilizers. So ... if we'd all stop driving, eliminate the use of electricity and refrigerators, stop making trash (and going to the bathroom ... one of the specific problems cited), and stop growing food with fertilizers, well, then, this global warming problem would go away ... after about 200 years ... when we're all dead. I checked one website which made practical suggestions on how each of us can decrease emissions. I already do most of them without thinking of emissions. Some of them I don't do because the cost is prohibitive. They're suggesting that if each of us properly inflated our tires and took shorter showers, well, then, the problem is fixed! (I'm over-simplifying. But the list is overly simplistic and non-effective.) The only thing that humans can do to stop this problem we've caused is to eliminate most of the human population and all of our technology and civilization and return to prehistoric times where we didn't live anywhere long, there weren't too many of us, and we had no technology.
The list goes on. There is no cure and no prevention available for AIDS. What do they recommend we do about it? There is already several ongoing investigations into cures, treatments, and immunizations. That's not enough. The epidemic is out of hand. Do something! Do what? What do they recommend we do in Iraq? If we stay there we've lost. If we pull out we've lost. What is the recommendation? What do they want us to do about our President? Shall we impeach him? Assassinate him? Tar and feather him and ride him out of Washington on a rail? None of these are useful, practical, responsible suggestions. What do you want us to do?
I sometimes wish we could make a law. "Don't complain about a problem if you aren't going to offer a viable solution." As it currently stands, all this raising of alarms is simply terrorism. It raises fears with no possibility of fixing the situation. There is no productive use for this kind of alarmist tendencies and no one is offering suggested solutions. There is very little difference between this kind of running around yelling, "The sky is falling" and the terrorism of the radical Islamist.
Here's what I suggest. For every minute that you spend listening to the fear mongering news media, spend an equal amount of time in prayer and in your Bible. For all the garbage you take in, spend an equal amount of time renewing your mind. Maybe that will help. (Just trying to offer a viable solution.)
But, don't stop there. They're raising the alarm. The AIDS epidemic is out of control. Millions are getting the disease around the world, but especially in Africa. There is no cure and precious little treatment. Children are contracting it from their infected parents. Babies are being born with it. It's a horrible problem worldwide. One of the saddest tragedies in this problem is that the United States isn't doing enough to solve it.
And they are still raising the alarm. We're losing in Iraq. It is a poor strategy with insufficient reason and inadequate goals, and we are not likely going to succeed in Iraq. Americans are dying almost daily. Worse, Iraqis are killing Iraqis in sectarian violence brought on by the U. S. intrusion into the area. Iran is feeding the violence. Syria is recruiting young men to go to fight in Iraq. It is a $400 billion mess, costing the lives of more than 3000 Americans and tens of thousands Iraqis.
And they're still raising the alarm. President Bush is the worst thing to happen to the United States since ... I don't know, I guess since its inception. He is incompetent, irrelevant, ill-advised, and dangerous. He hasn't had a good idea since he took office, and nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.
Surely you can see by now that this list can go on. There is disaster around every corner. It's unclear that there's anything good at all happening anywhere. Calamity is upon us from all sides. The most difficult part is that there are no answers -- just problems. "Okay, let's say that there is a problem with global warming and that Man is to blame. Now what?" The answers are either inane or non-existent. According to wikipedia, the primary sources of human emission of greenhouse gases are the use of fossil fuels, livestock, landfills, chlorofluorocarbons, and the use of fertilizers. So ... if we'd all stop driving, eliminate the use of electricity and refrigerators, stop making trash (and going to the bathroom ... one of the specific problems cited), and stop growing food with fertilizers, well, then, this global warming problem would go away ... after about 200 years ... when we're all dead. I checked one website which made practical suggestions on how each of us can decrease emissions. I already do most of them without thinking of emissions. Some of them I don't do because the cost is prohibitive. They're suggesting that if each of us properly inflated our tires and took shorter showers, well, then, the problem is fixed! (I'm over-simplifying. But the list is overly simplistic and non-effective.) The only thing that humans can do to stop this problem we've caused is to eliminate most of the human population and all of our technology and civilization and return to prehistoric times where we didn't live anywhere long, there weren't too many of us, and we had no technology.
The list goes on. There is no cure and no prevention available for AIDS. What do they recommend we do about it? There is already several ongoing investigations into cures, treatments, and immunizations. That's not enough. The epidemic is out of hand. Do something! Do what? What do they recommend we do in Iraq? If we stay there we've lost. If we pull out we've lost. What is the recommendation? What do they want us to do about our President? Shall we impeach him? Assassinate him? Tar and feather him and ride him out of Washington on a rail? None of these are useful, practical, responsible suggestions. What do you want us to do?
I sometimes wish we could make a law. "Don't complain about a problem if you aren't going to offer a viable solution." As it currently stands, all this raising of alarms is simply terrorism. It raises fears with no possibility of fixing the situation. There is no productive use for this kind of alarmist tendencies and no one is offering suggested solutions. There is very little difference between this kind of running around yelling, "The sky is falling" and the terrorism of the radical Islamist.
Here's what I suggest. For every minute that you spend listening to the fear mongering news media, spend an equal amount of time in prayer and in your Bible. For all the garbage you take in, spend an equal amount of time renewing your mind. Maybe that will help. (Just trying to offer a viable solution.)
Monday, February 05, 2007
Conspiracy Theory
It's a conspiracy, I tell you ... a bona fide conspiracy. Now, to those who know me, this statement would be a bit of a surprise because I'm not your typical conspiracy theorist type. I don't believe that the government is trying to read my thoughts or poison us with fluoride in the water, that the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by George Bush, or that aliens are residing in Roswell. I don't believe that John Kennedy is the Antichrist (seriously, that one was floated for a time), that the AIDS is an intentional organism aimed at killing homosexuals, or that Christianity is a product of a secret organization in France. I'm not buying any of this.
I don't believe that people are behind this conspiracy. It's not some particular group. I think it is, if you will, a scheme from the pit of Hell. Nonetheless, it is gaining ground and taking control in more places than you can imagine. So ingenious and successful is this effort that you may likely have fallen victim to it already, not know it, and even think it is a good idea.
What is the conspiracy? The goal is to emasculate men. The purpose is to strip men of that which makes them male and, in the process, devalue that which makes men men. What would be the reason for such an effort?
How is he working out this conspiracy? I think we are all aware of this major thrust in society today to "tame the beast", to take the edge off of marital problems, to fix families. The primary approach is to alter men. Men are to "get in touch with their feminine side", to find their "inner child". They are to set aside aggression, learn sensitivity, be more "feeling". (Funny thing ... why is it that we never hear anyone tell women, "You need to get in touch with your masculine side"?) The primary model we use today of "good people" is women. Women are fundamentally good. Men must become more like them. That's the thinking.
Unfortunately, that's not a biblical perspective. What we (yes, even we Christians) have forgotten is that God made men to be men and women to be women. The two genders are different, and they are different by design. Women are designed to nurture; men are not. Women are designed to multitask; men are not. When God designed the genders, He did a very odd thing. He designed the two to complement each other. Careful; check the spelling. I didn't say "compliment". To "complement" is take two parts that make up a whole. God designed men to have certain tendencies and inclinations to accomplish certain things. He designed women to have certain tendencies and inclinations to accomplish certain things. He designed the two to work in such a way that together they can accomplish much more than they ever could apart.
We've forgotten that. We've decided that the way God made men wasn't good, so we've decided to fight the very nature of the beast and try to make men in the image of women. Sometimes we seem to succeed ... by breaking the male in question. More often we fail and bemoan how awful men are. Neither of us -- male or female -- seem to be willing to take into account that women are not men and men are not women. As the French would say, Vivé la difèrence!
There are differences between men and women. Some are sinful. Some are not. We need to figure out that some of those differences are necessary and good and embrace them. Stop trying to make men into women. God designed men to be responsible. Can't we allow for God's design in that arena rather than trying to remove those characteristics? Do we really believe that we can improve on God's design? Are we really going to let the Enemy get the upper hand with this conspiracy?
I don't believe that people are behind this conspiracy. It's not some particular group. I think it is, if you will, a scheme from the pit of Hell. Nonetheless, it is gaining ground and taking control in more places than you can imagine. So ingenious and successful is this effort that you may likely have fallen victim to it already, not know it, and even think it is a good idea.
What is the conspiracy? The goal is to emasculate men. The purpose is to strip men of that which makes them male and, in the process, devalue that which makes men men. What would be the reason for such an effort?
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3).God has set up a chain of command which begins with Him. In human terms, it places males over females. The extent of that chain of command is not in question here. That is a dialog for another time. However, the existence of that chain is irrefutable. Now, if you are the Enemy (say, oh, I don't know, Satan?) and you were at war with God and wanted to mess up His system, one of the smartest things you could do is disrupt His chain of command. Of course, he has no means of disrupting either the Father or the Son, so he is left with disrupting the connections between Christ and men and between men and women.
How is he working out this conspiracy? I think we are all aware of this major thrust in society today to "tame the beast", to take the edge off of marital problems, to fix families. The primary approach is to alter men. Men are to "get in touch with their feminine side", to find their "inner child". They are to set aside aggression, learn sensitivity, be more "feeling". (Funny thing ... why is it that we never hear anyone tell women, "You need to get in touch with your masculine side"?) The primary model we use today of "good people" is women. Women are fundamentally good. Men must become more like them. That's the thinking.
Unfortunately, that's not a biblical perspective. What we (yes, even we Christians) have forgotten is that God made men to be men and women to be women. The two genders are different, and they are different by design. Women are designed to nurture; men are not. Women are designed to multitask; men are not. When God designed the genders, He did a very odd thing. He designed the two to complement each other. Careful; check the spelling. I didn't say "compliment". To "complement" is take two parts that make up a whole. God designed men to have certain tendencies and inclinations to accomplish certain things. He designed women to have certain tendencies and inclinations to accomplish certain things. He designed the two to work in such a way that together they can accomplish much more than they ever could apart.
We've forgotten that. We've decided that the way God made men wasn't good, so we've decided to fight the very nature of the beast and try to make men in the image of women. Sometimes we seem to succeed ... by breaking the male in question. More often we fail and bemoan how awful men are. Neither of us -- male or female -- seem to be willing to take into account that women are not men and men are not women. As the French would say, Vivé la difèrence!
There are differences between men and women. Some are sinful. Some are not. We need to figure out that some of those differences are necessary and good and embrace them. Stop trying to make men into women. God designed men to be responsible. Can't we allow for God's design in that arena rather than trying to remove those characteristics? Do we really believe that we can improve on God's design? Are we really going to let the Enemy get the upper hand with this conspiracy?
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Herman Who?
Theologians are quite good at muddying the waters. If there is a multi-syllabic word for a simple concept, they will find it and use it because it sounds so impressive. Now, I don't mean to be insulting to theologians. I would love to be one. And in some sense, I am. All Christians should be involved in the study of the nature of God. (See? Even "theologian" is a fancy word for "people who study the nature of God".) But wouldn't it be nice if we could all speak the same language?
Here, let me show you a prime example. If you look up the word, "hermeneutics", you'll find that it means, "the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis." There you go. Plain as day. Wait ... the branch of what that deals with the principles of what? So we learn to speak the language, not because it's superior, but because we can actually use those things if we learn to understand them. So ... slowly, now. "Theology": The study of the nature of God. Good. So there is a branch in that particular study that examines ... Biblical exegesis. Good. Okay. Now, "exegesis": the critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Oh, okay, now we're talking. So hermeneutics is the task of actually figuring out what the Bible says. Well, why didn't you say so?
Hermeneutics is an important field for any serious person who wants to know God. We need to know how to properly understand the Biblical texts without "eisegesis". I know ... slowly. Okay, if "exegesis" is what comes out of the Bible, then "eisegesis" is what goes in. That is, eisegesis is the process of putting meaning into Scripture that is a product of the reader's perception and not actually there.
This is an extremely common problem. Many people "proof text" their favorite ideas. That is, they have something that they believe, then go find verses that will support it. The verses, taken in context with proper understanding, may not actually support the view, but that's no matter. Eisegesis is fun and profitable. (Just look at the "name it and claim it" theology.)
One of the easiest errors of eisegesis is the error of the implied. We will often read a passage of Scripture and, by implication, come to a conclusion. An example would be "whosoever will". We see that concept often in Scripture. The most famous is, of course, John 3:16. Okay, all together now: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Yeah, we know that one. Now, when we read it, we conclude that "whosoever believes" means "anyone can". It is, perhaps, implied, but nothing in the text requires it. Undaunted, people still press on with the confident belief that John 3:16 teaches explicitly that it is possible for all people to believe in Christ. If you suggest that, perhaps, that's not the case, you are defying clear Scripture ... what's wrong with you?
Now, as I pointed out here, the Bible speaks explicitly in more than one place that there is a problem with the human condition that makes him unwilling and, therefore, unable to believe simply by his own choice. One of the first rules of hermeutics is that we must interpret the implicit from the explicit. So while it may be implied from John 3:16 that everyone has the capability of believing, the explicit Word of God says that this is not the case. Therefore, it is an error to assume from John 3:16 that "whosoever believes" means "anyone can believe". It is ... eisegesis.
There are a limited number of rules in hermeneutics, but we would all do well to learn what they are. Understanding what the Bible says ("hermeneutics") is key to understanding God ("theology") and a given pursuit of anyone who considers himself a follower of Christ ("Christian"). Fancy words aside, we would all do well to take some time to figure out the common rules of understanding the Bible and check our own beliefs against the possibility that we may have gone down the wrong doctrinal path from time to time. It's humbling and difficult ... but much more profitable than some false theology that God wants everyone to be rich and healthy ... or whatever other faulty theology you might find out there.
Here, let me show you a prime example. If you look up the word, "hermeneutics", you'll find that it means, "the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis." There you go. Plain as day. Wait ... the branch of what that deals with the principles of what? So we learn to speak the language, not because it's superior, but because we can actually use those things if we learn to understand them. So ... slowly, now. "Theology": The study of the nature of God. Good. So there is a branch in that particular study that examines ... Biblical exegesis. Good. Okay. Now, "exegesis": the critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Oh, okay, now we're talking. So hermeneutics is the task of actually figuring out what the Bible says. Well, why didn't you say so?
Hermeneutics is an important field for any serious person who wants to know God. We need to know how to properly understand the Biblical texts without "eisegesis". I know ... slowly. Okay, if "exegesis" is what comes out of the Bible, then "eisegesis" is what goes in. That is, eisegesis is the process of putting meaning into Scripture that is a product of the reader's perception and not actually there.
This is an extremely common problem. Many people "proof text" their favorite ideas. That is, they have something that they believe, then go find verses that will support it. The verses, taken in context with proper understanding, may not actually support the view, but that's no matter. Eisegesis is fun and profitable. (Just look at the "name it and claim it" theology.)
One of the easiest errors of eisegesis is the error of the implied. We will often read a passage of Scripture and, by implication, come to a conclusion. An example would be "whosoever will". We see that concept often in Scripture. The most famous is, of course, John 3:16. Okay, all together now: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Yeah, we know that one. Now, when we read it, we conclude that "whosoever believes" means "anyone can". It is, perhaps, implied, but nothing in the text requires it. Undaunted, people still press on with the confident belief that John 3:16 teaches explicitly that it is possible for all people to believe in Christ. If you suggest that, perhaps, that's not the case, you are defying clear Scripture ... what's wrong with you?
Now, as I pointed out here, the Bible speaks explicitly in more than one place that there is a problem with the human condition that makes him unwilling and, therefore, unable to believe simply by his own choice. One of the first rules of hermeutics is that we must interpret the implicit from the explicit. So while it may be implied from John 3:16 that everyone has the capability of believing, the explicit Word of God says that this is not the case. Therefore, it is an error to assume from John 3:16 that "whosoever believes" means "anyone can believe". It is ... eisegesis.
There are a limited number of rules in hermeneutics, but we would all do well to learn what they are. Understanding what the Bible says ("hermeneutics") is key to understanding God ("theology") and a given pursuit of anyone who considers himself a follower of Christ ("Christian"). Fancy words aside, we would all do well to take some time to figure out the common rules of understanding the Bible and check our own beliefs against the possibility that we may have gone down the wrong doctrinal path from time to time. It's humbling and difficult ... but much more profitable than some false theology that God wants everyone to be rich and healthy ... or whatever other faulty theology you might find out there.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Christ Has NOT Returned
One would think that this would be too easy to avoid, but it appears that this isn't the case.
Meet Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda. Jose is a Puerto Rican native, 60 years old, with a church in Doral, Florida. Jose has gone from Roman Catholic to Pentecostal to Baptist and then on to his own brand of doctrine. His organization is called "Growing in Grace" and he has taught that there is no sin, no Satan, and everyone is predestined to salvation. Okay. Nice. Wrong, but nice. Oh, did I mention? He also holds that he is the second coming of Christ.
One would think this was easy to avoid because apparently the second coming of Christ was an evolutionary process. In 1998, he was the reincarnation of Paul. Two years ago, he declared himself to be Christ. And last week, he declared himself the Antichrist (complete with a "666" tattooed on his arm) because he rejcts the worship of the "false Christ", Jesus of Nazareth. Apparently the second coming of Christ is an expensive process. All members of his church are required to tithe. (He took in $1.4 million last year.) He lives a lavish life with expensive jewelry and fancy cars. And apparently Christ is returning as a cult leader. He exerts absolute authority. Members disavow normal family ties and make their church their only family. One would think, with all of this, that it would be easy to see that this man is a liar from Satan's camp, but, apparently, this is not the case.
So, let's be clear. There is nothing in all of Scripture, nothing in all of Church history, and nothing in any rational person's mind that would support the idea that Jesus is going to return by "integrating" with a 60-year-old Puerto Rican, making him, somehow, God when just the night before he wasn't. Christ will not return to a sinful body, doesn't care about making money, and won't need to dominate people's lives when He comes. Indeed, when He returns, there will be no further questions about Christianity or Christ. So if you were considering the possibility of checking this guy out, please, spare yourself the effort.
Meet Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda. Jose is a Puerto Rican native, 60 years old, with a church in Doral, Florida. Jose has gone from Roman Catholic to Pentecostal to Baptist and then on to his own brand of doctrine. His organization is called "Growing in Grace" and he has taught that there is no sin, no Satan, and everyone is predestined to salvation. Okay. Nice. Wrong, but nice. Oh, did I mention? He also holds that he is the second coming of Christ.
A native of Puerto Rico, de Jesus, 60, spent his youth drifting from the Roman Catholics to the Pentecostals to the Baptists. Then one night in 1973, he says, he awoke to a vision of two hulking men at his bedside who announced the arrival of the Lord, who, says de Jesus, "came to me and integrated with me."Source
One would think this was easy to avoid because apparently the second coming of Christ was an evolutionary process. In 1998, he was the reincarnation of Paul. Two years ago, he declared himself to be Christ. And last week, he declared himself the Antichrist (complete with a "666" tattooed on his arm) because he rejcts the worship of the "false Christ", Jesus of Nazareth. Apparently the second coming of Christ is an expensive process. All members of his church are required to tithe. (He took in $1.4 million last year.) He lives a lavish life with expensive jewelry and fancy cars. And apparently Christ is returning as a cult leader. He exerts absolute authority. Members disavow normal family ties and make their church their only family. One would think, with all of this, that it would be easy to see that this man is a liar from Satan's camp, but, apparently, this is not the case.
So, let's be clear. There is nothing in all of Scripture, nothing in all of Church history, and nothing in any rational person's mind that would support the idea that Jesus is going to return by "integrating" with a 60-year-old Puerto Rican, making him, somehow, God when just the night before he wasn't. Christ will not return to a sinful body, doesn't care about making money, and won't need to dominate people's lives when He comes. Indeed, when He returns, there will be no further questions about Christianity or Christ. So if you were considering the possibility of checking this guy out, please, spare yourself the effort.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Man's Inability
One of the real sticking points many times with those who disagree with Reformed Theology is the suggestion of the "inability of Man". The position of Reformed Theology is that natural Man lacks the capacity to obey God or choose Him. More accurately, while Reformed Theology holds that Man is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel, the position is that he is morally unwilling and unable to do so.
The responsibility of Man to repent and believe is well known among Christians. It is straight out of Scripture. Over and over people are commanded to believe, to come to Christ, to seek Him. Therefore, it is concluded, Man has the capacity to do these. So why would anyone suggest we don't?
Well, that, too, is straight out of Scripture. While humans are reticent to make such a claim about the lack of ability, it appears that the Bible has no such problems. More than once Jesus used the phrase, "No man can ...", a phrase clearly highlighting the inability of man to do something. Paul writes, "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8). That doesn't speak of a weakness or shortfall; it speaks of total inability. In 1 Cor. 2:14 he writes, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." In this verse there are two statements. One speaks of whether or not it happens. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." The second speaks of the ability to do so. "He is not able to understand them." When we argue that human beings must have the natural capacity to understand and accept the things of God, we do so in the face of these Scriptures, not because of them.
The most difficult one is one of those I mentioned first, where Jesus uses the phrase "No man can ..." He uses it twice in John 6. In verse 44 He explains that Man lacks the natural ability to come to Him. But the real hard one to avoid is the one later on in verse 65. To get the full import, you have to get the context.
Jesus was speaking here to a crowd in the synagogue made up of various folks including locals (John 6:42) and followers (John 6:60). He launches into His famous "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51). This odd suggestion really doesn't sit well with many of His listeners. So He goes out of His way to smooth their feathers (not). "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (John 6:53-55). This odd talk is so unnerving that, according to John, many of His followers didn't like it (John 6:59-60). Jesus directly addresses His grumbling followers here and says, "But there are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64). So, having presented a difficult truth, He has weeded out some who claim to follow Him but who actually don't believe. Verse 65 is Jesus's explanation about those who do not believe.
"No man can ..." It's a simple phrase with a major impact. How many men? None! Zero! Zip! What about them? They cannot. They lack the ability. It is not in their capacity. "There is not one man who has the capacity ..." The capacity to what? No man has the capacity to come to Christ. Or, to invert it, all human beings lack the natural capacity to come to Christ.
The statement is a universal statement on the inability of Man to do the one thing that will save him. It, fortunately, includes an exception clause -- "unless". But it should be clear at this point that, despite our discomfort about making such statements about Man's ability, the Word of God seems to have no problem at all with stating that natural Man does not have the capacity to come to Christ or to believe in Him. If it is to happen, Jesus suggests, it can only happen if "it is granted him by the Father."
In other words, the Reformed belief of Man's Inability is a biblically-based belief coming first and foremost from the lips of our Savior.
The responsibility of Man to repent and believe is well known among Christians. It is straight out of Scripture. Over and over people are commanded to believe, to come to Christ, to seek Him. Therefore, it is concluded, Man has the capacity to do these. So why would anyone suggest we don't?
Well, that, too, is straight out of Scripture. While humans are reticent to make such a claim about the lack of ability, it appears that the Bible has no such problems. More than once Jesus used the phrase, "No man can ...", a phrase clearly highlighting the inability of man to do something. Paul writes, "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8). That doesn't speak of a weakness or shortfall; it speaks of total inability. In 1 Cor. 2:14 he writes, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." In this verse there are two statements. One speaks of whether or not it happens. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." The second speaks of the ability to do so. "He is not able to understand them." When we argue that human beings must have the natural capacity to understand and accept the things of God, we do so in the face of these Scriptures, not because of them.
The most difficult one is one of those I mentioned first, where Jesus uses the phrase "No man can ..." He uses it twice in John 6. In verse 44 He explains that Man lacks the natural ability to come to Him. But the real hard one to avoid is the one later on in verse 65. To get the full import, you have to get the context.
Jesus was speaking here to a crowd in the synagogue made up of various folks including locals (John 6:42) and followers (John 6:60). He launches into His famous "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51). This odd suggestion really doesn't sit well with many of His listeners. So He goes out of His way to smooth their feathers (not). "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (John 6:53-55). This odd talk is so unnerving that, according to John, many of His followers didn't like it (John 6:59-60). Jesus directly addresses His grumbling followers here and says, "But there are some of you who do not believe" (John 6:64). So, having presented a difficult truth, He has weeded out some who claim to follow Him but who actually don't believe. Verse 65 is Jesus's explanation about those who do not believe.
"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father"(John 6:65)."This is why I told you" He says. What is why? "There are some of you who do not believe." Jesus is answering the question, "Why is it that some do not believe?" What reason does Jesus offer as to why people do not believe? "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
"No man can ..." It's a simple phrase with a major impact. How many men? None! Zero! Zip! What about them? They cannot. They lack the ability. It is not in their capacity. "There is not one man who has the capacity ..." The capacity to what? No man has the capacity to come to Christ. Or, to invert it, all human beings lack the natural capacity to come to Christ.
The statement is a universal statement on the inability of Man to do the one thing that will save him. It, fortunately, includes an exception clause -- "unless". But it should be clear at this point that, despite our discomfort about making such statements about Man's ability, the Word of God seems to have no problem at all with stating that natural Man does not have the capacity to come to Christ or to believe in Him. If it is to happen, Jesus suggests, it can only happen if "it is granted him by the Father."
In other words, the Reformed belief of Man's Inability is a biblically-based belief coming first and foremost from the lips of our Savior.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Faith is
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1).We've heard that one before. It is frequently viewed as the biblical definition of faith. But when I read it, I don't see a definition. I see a function.
The reason people often see it as a definition is because of the word "is". "Faith is ..." There, you see, a definition. But "is" doesn't always require that something is a definition. To say, for instance, that "the Sabbath is made for Man" doesn't mean that the Sabbath is defined as "made for Man", but that there is that particular aspect of it. I see the same thing in Hebrews 11. I see the first verse as an explanation of the function of faith, not a definition. In fact, when I've seen the verse used as a definition ... I haven't come away with any definition. Let's look again. The King James puts it in this more familiar way:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Yeah, that's more familiar. The terms "substance" and "evidence" are more popular. To me, they throw more of a wrench in the works, but let's just go with them.
If this verse is intended to be a definition, then "substance" and "evidence" (or "assurance" and "conviction") would be the point. So what substance and what evidence is faith? It is, indeed, as the critics suggest, none. Faith is "believing in something for which you have no reason to believe." Faith is believing in something that normal thinking would tell you not to believe. Faith is, as the critics suggest, foolish, irrational nonsense. And if Hebrews 11:1 is the definition, we'd have to agree that faith is "irrational nonsense" while denying the "foolish" part. (Note: "Irrational" means "apart from reason" and "nonsense" means "not based on sense". Thus, it is apart from reason and not based on sense.)
But let's back up a step and see if this might not be a definition. What if it's a functional statement? In my example above, I said (essentially) that the statement "the Sabbath is made for Man" makes a functional statement about the Sabbath, not a definition. The function of the Sabbath, in this statement, is to benefit humans. If Hebrews 11:1 is a functional statement rather than a definition, what is it saying? In this approach, we might reword the verse this way: "When it comes to the things we hope for, we can be assured of them because of faith, and when it comes things of which we're sure even when we can't see them, we can maintain our conviction because of faith." You see, the term "faith" in this instance remains undefined, but you can clearly see how it functions.
I got an illustration of this the other morning, thanks to my cat. My cat operates like an atheist, while I operate like a theist. If I walked into the bedroom and saw a body-sized lump under the covers and heard heavy breathing and knew that my wife had gone in there an hour before, I would conclude, without seeing her, that my wife was in that bed. The other morning, my cat jumped onto the bed in the wee hours of the morning looking for attention. It was chilly, and my wife and I were bundled up under the covers. The cat looked around, saw no people, and left again. "They're not there," she concluded. (I know ... we can't actually know what a cat thinks. Bear with me. It's just an illustration of the point.) You see, I had "faith", while my cat only believed in what she could actually see. I was assured that my wife was there and, even though I couldn't see her, maintained the conviction that she was there because I had "faith". My cat had none.
Silly illustration, I know, but faith is not devoid of reason and, as such, cannot be defined as "irrational nonsense". The Greek word means "to be convinced" and includes the thought of "by evidence". That is not "without reason". Instead, it is simply intended to convey the substance by which we take that which we can certainly confirm to the next step, that which we can reasonably surmise. Let me give a biblical example of a faith-building exercise that will explain.
When Moses returned to Egypt from 40 years in the desert, the people of Israel were not yet ready to walk across the Red Sea. There was a process required. There were, in this case, 10 steps. We call them "the 10 plagues of Egypt". The process, basically, was "God says it", then "God does it". After the 4th plague, the Egyptians suffered while God's people didn't. In the last case, they had a clear warning and specific steps to perform that we now call "Passover" to bring about the passing over of the angel of death. So when the tenth plague had passed and Pharaoh said, "Go!!!", the people of Israel were ready to go. They were no longer in need of questioning. They had seen God work specifically and dramatically. Sure, they were frightened when Pharaoh came after them with his army, but when the Red Sea opened for them, they walked through it. Would you? If you didn't have a series of events that proved to you that God was at work and you came across an opening in a large body of water, would you walk into it? But they didn't hesitate. Why? They hoped that it would stay open for them until they got to the other side even though they didn't see what kept it in place (the two elements of the function of faith), but it was their faith-building exercises that enabled them to say, "Well, if God did all that, then I'm sure He can do this." They had assurance and conviction. They had faith that formed the substance of what they hoped for and was evidence enough for them to go. It was not "blind faith" -- an irrational belief. It was faith built on evidence.
I don't think Hebrews 11:1 was ever intended to be a definition. I think it provides a functional statement instead. It says that faith, properly understood, provides the assurance that we need that God will do what He promises even when we don't see how at the moment. That doesn't demand irrationality. It is, in fact, the most rational thing we can conclude, given the proven track record of the Sovereign Lord of the Universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)