It's Not In There!

I love this line of thinking: "Well, Jesus never said anything about it!" The suggestion, of course, is that it must be okay. And, of course, this is a seriously nonsensical position to take. I mean, Jesus never said anything about genocide, child molesting, bestiality, or a myriad of other horrors we all agree aren't perfectly okay. But if you are going to be consistent in your thinking, if you argue that "Jesus never said anything about it and so it's okay", you will need to agree that all those other things (and more) are equally okay.

Next to this one is the "If the Bible is silent on a subject, we should be, too" line. On the surface that one sounds quite reasonable. And, to be honest, for the most part it is. But, just like Jesus's silence on some subjects, just because the Bible is silent on some subjects is not a reason to conclude that it's okay (let alone, as some allege, blessed by God).

There are a few considerations to take into account on subjects on which the Bible is silent. Sometimes the Bible is silent because there is nothing to say. Take, for instance, circular squares. The Bible is silent on that subject, so it must be perfectly okay to have circular squares, right? And, of course, that's just silly. The Bible is silent on circular squares because they don't exist. The Bible nothing to say on anything that doesn't exist.

Sometimes a specific isn't mentioned because the principle involved is already taken care of. For instance, there isn't a word in the Bible about speeding. Thus, we can rightly conclude that it's perfectly okay to speed ... well, as long as you don't get caught, right? But the fact is that the principle behind this concept is covered.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (Rom 13:1-2).

This covers a multitude of things the Bible doesn't talk about. Is it okay to smoke marijuana? The Bible doesn't say. But it is illegal (in this country, at least), so there's your answer. How about if I cheat on my taxes? The Bible doesn't say I can't cheat on my taxes. No, but the authority that God has established says it's illegal, so the Bible is not exactly "silent" on the issue even though it is not specifically mentioned.

Here's another example. No one can argue that the Bible directly addresses abortion. It's not in there. It does, however, address the sanctity of life and the sin of murder. So just because there is no verse that says "Thou shalt not abort your baby" does not mean that the Bible is silent on the topic.

There are certainly things on which the Bible is actually silent. Is it a sin to watch TV? The Bible doesn't say. There are considerations (wasted time, perhaps, or sinful content, certainly), but a blanket "It's a sin to watch TV" is not in there. There is a lot of room for Christian Liberty that gets closed up by well-meaning but misguided Christians falling into the trap of Eve. (God said not to eat of the tree, but she said not to touch it.) I remember hearing about "no dancing" and "no movies" and "no card playing" because it might be misconstrued. But the Bible says no such thing, and on these things we might be better of remaining silent ourselves.

The most recent one I've heard is "The Bible is silent on gay marriage." Seriously? You want to stand on that? I mean, certainly there is no mention of "gay marriage" in the Bible. (Well, actually I think there were some happy weddings, but ...) Does that mean that this falls into that third category -- let's keep silent on it? I don't think so. First, the Bible has nothing to say on "same sex marriage" because the Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As such, it wouldn't comment on two people of the same gender marrying, the marriage of a man and his dog, or any other such nonsense. It doesn't exist. Second, the Bible is not unclear on its views on homosexual behavior. Argue if you want, but it cannot be said that the Bible is silent on "a man lying with a man as with a woman" (and vice versa). So the activity is a sin. Now, would I anticipate that the Bible would need to explicitly forbid a man marrying a man? No. It falls outside the definition of "marry" and it falls within the definition of sin. I wouldn't expect the Bible to talk about a man marrying his dog, either, for both of the same reasons.

This whole "The Bible is silent" issue seems to me to be disingenuous most of the time. On one hand, there is so much about which the Bible is not silent that one has to ask, "Are you doing those?" So many people ask, "What is God's will for my life?" Too often the answers are ignored. It's God's will that you do justly, that you love your neighbor, that you love mercy, that you love God ... tell you what; when you get all that done, we'll get back to your question. Far too often the ones touting "The Bible is silent on ..." are ignoring what the Bible does say. On the other hand, in most cases that I hear "The Bible is silent" I find that the Bible really isn't silent and the goal is not to rightly determine what God wants, but to simply legitimize a pet sin. Are we really limited to the exact words of the Bible? Is our real goal to obey to the minimum level? Are we afraid that we might end up, in the final analysis, obeying too much? I don't get that at all.

Eschatology Enigma

I was born and raised a Pre-millennial Dispensationalist. Don't know the term? No problem. You certainly know the concept. It is by far the most prevalent view on end times (eschatology) today. Here's the basic package. Jesus came once, lived, died, and rose again. The Bible is certainly clear that there will be a Second Coming. (Yes, we even capitalize that term because it's so big.) While views vary on that event, the most common is this Pre-millennial Dispensational one. The idea is that at some point in the future (most of us believe in the near future) there will be an event commonly referred to as "the Rapture" where all Christians (true believers, mind you) will be taken up out of this world. This will start the period known as "the Great Tribulation" (which, again, is so great that we capitalize that term, too). We know a lot about this time. There will be 3 1/2 years of peace and 3 1/2 years of horror. There will be a character called "the Antichrist" (who is, in some way, different than John's references to "antichrists") who will be the one-world leader. As "the Beast" along with Satan as a God-the-Father mimic (the Dragon) and the False Prophet, he will be a major part of the unholy trinity that rules the world during this 7-year period. We know that there will be 144,000 Jews saved during this time, that all sorts of wrath from God will be poured out during this time, and that it will end in Armageddon, the ultimate battle between Christ and the Antichrist. Then begins the Millennium (thus the concept of "pre-millennium"), a thousand-year period of Christ's reign followed by a showdown between Satan and Christ that ends in Satan's defeat and brings on the Great White Throne Judgment ... end of story. Well, of course, not the end. More like beginning. But you get the idea.

This is what I grew up with and this is what I believed. We had lots of information about it. We knew, for instance, that the "locust" with "lion's teeth" and "tails like scorpions" would likely be some sort of modern attack helicopters. We had a pretty detailed time line of what would happen when and, while the accounts were vague (because they were largely written by a 1st century guy looking into the 21st century), we had a pretty good idea of what it all meant. It is, to this day, the prevailing view.

Atheist Bertrand Russell wrote Why I Am Not a Christian. In it he offers what he considered to be a great problem for Christianity -- the Second Coming of Christ. You see ... it didn't happen. It is clear in Scripture that the authors and Jesus thought it would be soon, but we figured out that terms like "quickly" didn't actually mean "quickly", but something different. I understood that when Jesus said, "This generation will not pass away ..." (Matt 24:34), He actually meant "the generation that is around when it starts". But, to be honest, even C.S. Lewis identified this as "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible".

So I was interested one day when someone (I can't remember who) challenged me to read Gary Demar's Last Days Madness. In it, Demar lays out what I have learned is the Partial-Preterist Amillennial view. This view holds that (most of) the events of Revelation and Matthew 24 have already happened. (It is "partial-preterist" because the full preterist would say that all have occurred, a position I cannot fathom.) Now, while the Pre-disp (so I don't have to type out that whole long name every time) would say, "Those preterists are taking Scripture as analogy rather than literally true like we are", the truth is that the preterists are taking some Scriptures as literal and others as analogy while the pre-disps are taking those literal Scriptures as analogy and the other as literal. Note, also, that one of the keys to the pre-disp position is the dating of the Revelation (you know, that last book in the Bible). If, as Demar (and others) argues, the book was written prior to 70AD instead of closer to the mid-90s, then the prophecies would more likely be about things reflected in 70AD instead of some distant future.

Well, as I said, I was grew up as a pre-disp. Changing that was not going to be easy. After reading Demar's book, I concluded, "Huh ... now I'm not sure anymore." He made the point that all those repeated references to "soon" and "quickly" and "near" really seemed to indicate "soon" and "quickly" and "near". So I was no longer convinced of either. Lately I have been reading in Matthew. In Matthew 10 Jesus is sending His disciples out on their first "missions trip". He specifies, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans", so this is a limited (as opposed to global) mission. He tells them, "Truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt 10:23). Now, that's a bit more specific than "quickly" or "near" or even "this generation". And it isn't the only place. In Matthew 16, Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Again, this is pretty specific. He references "some standing here", much more clear than "this generation". And the event they would see was "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".

Now, there seems to me to be only a few possibilities. First, it could be that Jesus was wrong. Of course, we have to throw that one out if we want to retain Christianity at all. So we'll move to the second. It could be that He didn't mean what He said. No, no, I don't mean that like it sounds. Maybe He meant "some standing here" to mean something other than that or "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" to mean something other than that. Some, for instance, have suggested that He simply referenced the next event -- the Transfiguration. The third possibility would be that He meant exactly what He said. No dodging about. No allegorizing. Some of those standing there at that time would see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Of course, then we'd have to figure out what that meant. The preterists would argue that this is a reference to the events of 70AD when the Jewish Temple was destroyed. (Preterists, by the way, explain that there actually was an event in the sky that would have corresponded to the event in Matt. 24:30 that says, "the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky.") Of course, if this is true, then the popular pre-disp concepts that I offered at the beginning begin to fall apart. Anyway, something to think about.

Stewardship

The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it (Psa 24:1).

In a recent comment someone noted that "It's not 'my' property. It's not 'your' property. It belongs to God." The comment was in context of whether or not he would be fine with having strangers come into his home against his will and take whatever they wanted and he'd be required to give them whatever they wanted. It was an argument about illegal immigration. As such, I questioned his position. "In your understanding of truth in general and Christianity in particular, the concept of 'private property' is not allowed?"

This post is not about the illegal immigration arguments or about his comments (or mine). This is about the thought process of "It belongs to God." Given the quote from Psalm 24 (a repeated statement in Scripture, in fact), it is clear that in reality it all belongs to God. We often tell parents, "Your kids are on loan from God." It is a biblical and Christian fact. Still, what does it mean?

You see, I've known lots of people who rented apartments or cars or whatever other things you might think of and, because "It doesn't belong to me", they did nothing to take care of it. Indeed, many trashed these things. Why not? It wasn't theirs. Why should they care? And that's not an uncommon perspective. I need to take care of those things that belong to me, but those things that don't belong to me aren't my responsibility.

That is not the biblical perspective. Take, for instance, the parable of the talents. (Please don't get caught up in the coincidence that the New Testament word for a particular piece of money is the same as an English word for a marked innate ability.) The master gave servants varying money to manage. Stop! Whose money was it? It was given to the servants, but it belonged to the master. Now, going on, the first two doubled their money and were rewarded. The last one did not. He simply returned the money he got. And he was punished.

Now we have two facts in front of us. 1) God owns everything. Whatever we have is on loan. 2) We cannot mistreat what we have. We are required to take care of what we have even though it doesn't belong to us. It's called "stewardship". So ... what now? What does that look like? I've seen arguments in both directions. Do we take steps to protect what we have because that is good stewardship? Or do we simply let whatever happens happen because that's faith? Is it good stewardship to leave your door unlocked when you go away on vacation because someone might want to get in and take what they need, or is it good stewardship to lock the doors and ask a neighbor to keep an eye on it because that is good stewardship? Is it poor stewardship to develop a career instead of going to the mission field? Is it poor stewardship to get into so much debt that you can't get out easily because God may want you to move on at some point? What does good stewardship look like?

(Contrary to the opinions of some, I do not have all the answers.)

By Their Fruits

If I were to ask you the name of the primary spokesman for Global Warming (I'm sorry, "global climate change"), I'm pretty sure that no one would think of anyone first besides Al Gore. He has been the loudest voice warning about anthropogenic global warming for some time. Indeed, in 2007 he won a Nobel Peace Prize for it. Now, that's all well and good, but I have to ask, "Does Al Gore actually believe in anthropogenic global warming?" Sure, it may sound like a silly question to start. After all, he is the loudest voice. But the reason I ask is, well, he doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. He lives in a huge, energy-consuming house and just added another to his portfolio. He travels in a private jets to and from locations and in SUVs to and from airports. He doesn't even use green energy available to him. So, if you tell me, "There's a bomb under my desk!" and you don't move at all, I have to ask, "Do you actually believe there's a bomb under your desk?" If you warn of anthropogenic global warming and take no action yourself to change it, do you actually believe in anthropogenic global warming?

Jesus said, "You will recognize them by their fruits." What does that mean? It means that you can tell what people really believe by what they do. James said essentially the same thing in James 2:14-26. He describes live faith and dead faith, where dead faith (which does no one any good) is claiming to believe but without having any fruit. You see, you will always act on what you truly believe. Saying you believe something doesn't mean you actually believe it.

So, what do you believe? If you say, for instance, "Poor people are blessed" (as some have said to me), the only rational "fruit" would be to strive to be poor. I mean, you want to be blessed, don't you? You want the people you care about to be blessed, don't you? Well, then! If we know that poor people are blessed, why aren't you poor and encouraging everyone else to do the same? Even if you say, "No, that's not what it means", most often those who are clamoring to help the poor aren't actually willing to change their own station in life to do it. Oh, there are certainly some, but most are more willing to take money from someone else that they deem as having more than they need. It isn't in line with what they say they believe.

If you say, "Morality (or truth) is relative", the only rational "fruit" would be to simply ignore the morality (or truth) claims of others. If you believe that morality is relative, then you would have no grounds on which to complain about the moral views of others. If you argue that truth is relative, you would have no grounds to claim that someone else's truth claims are false. If you really believe those things, it ought to show in your actions. Claiming that others are being bad or are wrong is not in line with the belief that morality or truth is relative.

If you say, "Jesus is Lord", the only rational "fruit" would be to submit to Jesus as Lord. His commands would direct your life. Admittedly, no one would be perfect at that, but in no sense could you use the oxymoronic phrase, "No, Lord." You might not be able to obey perfectly, but you could not stand there and defend sexual immorality or murder or so many other things that people who claim to be followers of Christ today indulge and defend. The Lordship of Christ does not align with the lordship of man.

I know. I'm not immune. I bear the same question. If I believe what I say I'm believe, am I acting on it or am I not? If not, do I really believe it? It's a hard question for me to face. I just thought I'd share the trial.

It's All In Your Head

I have a real problem with needles. Oh, no. It's not a pain threshold thing. It's something in my head. I remember when I was in basic training they got up in front of the group to explain what they would be doing. They would be taking blood. He explained in detail how they would stick a needle in your arm and draw blood and ... well, I had to lie down before any needle got near me. On the other hand, I've had actual blood draws that haven't phased me in the least. Why? Because I went somewhere else in my mind. You see, it's all in my head.

It's a funny thing with me. When I'm just going through my normal routine, I don't get hungry. I can walk by a vending machine full of sweet treats and not bat an eye. Food isn't much of an issue with me. But put me on a diet and suddenly I'm hungry all the time. The vending machine calls my name. I desperately want to eat. Nothing really changed. I'm not really more hungry than before. It's just that I can't eat whatever I want when I'm on a diet, so I want to. You see, it's all in my head.

The mind is a complicated thing. We can operate from the subconscious or we can operate from the conscious. The military and the police and the fire department and all sorts of others have training exercises to insert responses into the subconscious that should be taken without thinking in certain situations. Because, you see, we all have both the subconscious and the conscious. So the subconscious can be a very good thing. It can act without analysis when analysis just isn't appropriate. On the other hand, it can be a bad thing. It can, for instance, make you dizzy when someone talks about needles or make you hungry because you can't eat when neither is really necessary.

The news media knows this. So do a lot of others with causes. They like to appeal to the subconscious. Don't make a coherent argument for the conscious mind to analyze. No, no, that would be a bad thing. Don't think; feel. I saw a benign example of this back when that earthquake devastated Haiti. The talking head was bemoaning the fact that help had not yet arrived. Now, the subconscious could run with this. It tugged at your heart. You could feel the pain of the little kids they were showing and the sadness of everyone around in tragic circumstances and the goal was to make you cry out in anger that no help had yet arrived. The truth was that help was all around. There were simply major logistical problems to overcome. There was precious little airfield space to land and offload supplies. Once it was there, there were precious few roads that could manage the means of transporting these supplies. It was an earthquake, for pity sake. The infrastructure was gone and people were moving as fast as they could to get help in to those who needed it. But, you see, those were the rational facts, requiring the conscious brain to figure out.

These days we are encouraged more and more not to engage that conscious brain. When you are berated for saying that it's a sin, for instance, to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage because "That's so judgmental", you are not supposed to analyze that and realize that those who are berating you are being judgmental. When you stand for truth and are told "It's your truth; truth is relative", you're not supposed to think it through to see that the statement is a truth statement that you are supposed to accept as true in contradiction to your own perception of truth. When someone says, "I'm a Christian" and you can't see the slightest clue that it's true but every indication that it's not, it's wrong of you to question their veracity because, you see, that's rational and you're not supposed to think that way.

We are commanded to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). We're pretty happy with the "heart" and "soul" ideas, but we're often way too quick to toss out the "mind" part. Faith and reason, we are told, are not connected. Love is a feeling anyway, right? Know that you're being lied to when you hear those things. We are to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. You've probably read that. But do you know why? "So that you may prove what the will of God is" (Rom 12:2). That's right. You're mind is skewed as an unbeliever (Rom 1:22, 28) and needs to be healed -- transformed -- so that you will be capable of proving what God's will is. The subconscious has its uses and it can be good, but I beg of you to work at engaging your conscious thinking in life. I beg of you -- not I, but the Lord -- to love the Lord your God with all your mind.

Worship in Truth

What goes into a church service? There are debates, to be sure, but we can find several common components. There is likely some singing (we call it "worship" even though genuine worship is much larger than a few songs on Sunday morning). There is probably an opportunity to give to the financial needs of the church. There is a sermon, of course. There may be other things. Perhaps there are announcements or maybe your church likes to have an "altar call" or whatever other trappings there might be, but I think those three basic components are found just about everywhere. Sometimes the singing is accompanied by instruments and in a few places those instruments are considered "evil" and kept out. Maybe the giving part is in the middle and others might just put boxes at the doors to let people do it on the way out. Perhaps the sermon is an hour and a half long or, more likely these days, just a brief soliloquy.

Most common these days is to "drum up" warm feelings toward God with lots of cool singing in the favorite mode of the day. You know, maybe it's hand-clapping, foot-stomping music or maybe it's something that warms your heart, but the aim is to encourage us to "be in love" with God. This may go on for a half hour if it's really "spiritual", you know, because your "personal worship time" is the primary point of church, right? I mean, no one wants to sit for hours on end listening to someone explain the meaning of Bible verses to us. Sure, sure, we all want to hear a brief explanation about how God loves us or how to be happy in the Lord, but let's not do this stuff too long, okay? I mean, worship is about how I feel toward God, not about what some guy has to say about the Bible, right?

Funny thing. When I look at gatherings of believers in the Bible, I see a somewhat different construct. Now, to be clear, they have the same three components. It just seems that they're in a different priority structure. Take, for instance, the gathering of the disciples in the upper room on the night of Jesus's arrest. John's account starts in chapter 13 and ends in chapter 17 ... and most of it is in red. That is Jesus was talking most of the time. Matthew and Mark mention that they sang a hymn and went out. One song and a couple of hours of sermon. In Acts 20, Paul preached his Sunday sermon until midnight. Oh, sure, it was fatal to Eutychus, but it came out okay for him. (If that was vague, just go read the account. It's short.) Scripture speaks of the need for hymns and spiritual songs. Of that there is no doubt. But what the Bible really emphasizes is the power of the Word of God. That is the most important thing.

Worship is much more than "warm feelings toward God". It is an accurate reflection of His character. It is a recognition of His goodness. It is a daily lifestyle that bears itself out in good works (Matt 5:16), self-sacrifice (Rom 12:1-2), and living in the image of Christ (Rom 8:29). This kind of worship is best fed on the truth of the Word that brings about the renewal of the mind, supported (as opposed to powered) by a new set of emotions toward God.

As you gather with other believers today, I hope you get a good dose of the Word covered in prayer with some fine trappings of music and giving. It is the real source of worship and the best medicine for worldliness. The Word is the power of God that works in His people. Songs are nice. Giving is good. But when we shortchange the Word, we will be losing a lot.

One of These Things

ABC's 20/20 decided to do a show on dangerous things that parents allow their kids to do. One story was of the father who took his 13-year-old son to the top of Mount Everest. Another was about Abby Sunderland, the 16-year-old who is sailing around the world solo. Then there is Rafita Mirabal, an 11-year-old matador that faced his first bull at the age of 5. And how about the story about the Westboro Baptist Church who, in the words of the news story, teaches their kids to hate? And I had to ask myself, "Which of these things is not like the other?"

Paul Romero is taking heat for letting his son, Jordan, climb Mount Everest. The other day a British climber died on that climb hours after reaching the peak. Cause of death isn't known, but the fact that such a climb is hazardous isn't unknown. According to Answers.com, more than 200 people have died making that ascent. So was Paul Romero a negligent father for letting his son make the climb? He says, "No." He says that they prepared for it for years. He says that his son has made climbs all over the world. He says his son was ready. Others disagree.

Last year Abby Sunderland decided to become the youngest person ever to circumnavigate the globe. She soloed in a sailboat at the age of 13. Her older brother broke the record at 17. In January, 2010, she set out to make a new record. She's still at it. She left Cape Town, South Africa, on May 21st and is still going. Are her parents derelict in their duties for letting her risk her life like that?

The climber, the sailor, the matador, these are all very young kids who are busily risking their lives with their parents' permission. While many think, "Wow! That's amazing!", it makes people wonder. Do good parents allow their young kids to risk their lives for things like this? Valid question. But my question is about the Westboro Baptist Church thing. How does teaching children that homosexuals and Jews are going to hell correlate to kids who risk their lives in recreational activities?

Don't get me wrong. I think that Westboro Baptist Church is dead wrong in their position. No, I'll go a step further. So far are they from anything biblical that I would have to place them in the CINO category. It's wrong. No question. But is it the same thing as hiking Everest or sailing around the world? I don't see how it is.

Worse, it begs the question. You see, here is the "apparent" connection: Parents should not be allowed to raise their kids as they see fit. Some things are not acceptable, and we ought to stop it. So, who decides? Westboro Baptist is teaching their kids to hate. Fine. I won't argue it. But are parents who say, "Look, son, the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin, so you need to reach out to them with the Gospel" teaching hate? If parents teach their children that Jesus is the only way to heaven, are they teaching their children to hate? And at what point do we intervene? At what point does society step in and say, "No, you cannot do this with your children. You are being superseded"?

I don't like the nonsense that Pastor Fred Phelps is teaching his congregation. By the same token, I don't like the nonsense that Pastor John Shuck is foisting off on his congregation. But I'm not calling on the government to shut either of them down. When our world decides that parents cannot teach their children what they believe to be true, we walk into dangerous territory. I think that the 20/20 piece is asking that very ominous question.

How to Secure Defeat

My friend and I were discussing this and that over a cup of coffee the other day and the subject of the Vietnam War came up. He wondered if Vietnam was somehow prophetic of today's Church.

"What?" you say. "In what possible sense is Vietnam related to the Church?!" I can even detect a little indignation in your question. So let's examine the idea for a moment. There is a lot that can be said about that conflict, but the most obvious one is ... we lost. It was the first major conflict that the American military entered and lost. I know, I know, there are those who argue, "We didn't lose!", but we withdrew and South Vietnam fell and we failed to meet our objective, so that's a "lose". The question, though, is why?

There are two basic reasons that America lost in South Vietnam. Those reasons do not include a lack of ability, a lack of resources, a lack of firepower, a lack of skill or experience, or any such thing. No, it was something else. The first reason is a failure to comprehend the enemy. While the North Vietnamese fought to free their southern brethren, Americans fought to defend freedom, some vague concept never really made clear. The battle was against "the domino effect", the belief that one nation falling to communism would cause others to go with it. That's a vague concept for soldiers to fight for in the field. The Viet Cong were able to move into the midst of the Americans, infiltrating, sabotaging, surprising. Devoted Vietnamese (devoted to nationalism) would give a child a grenade and send them into the midst of American soldiers bringing a horribly efficient means of killing groups of men. While the American military thought they were fighting a poorly equipped, poorly organized, rag-tag enemy, it turned out they were devastatingly well organized and capable. The problem, then, was an underestimation of the enemy, allowing them to end up in our midst.

The second problem was the biggest. It showed itself in a couple of ways. On one hand, the military leadership fought a "limited war". Targets were selected and ignored. Choices were made for political reasons as much as military reasons. Strategic targets were banned while nonsense targets were hit. Avoiding civilian casualties was a big priority, even if it meant leaving alone some of the most important targets of all. The military leadership, then, tied the hands of their own forces to prosecute the war. The leadership, however, was itself bound by the American government and its people. While the hundreds of thousands of deaths in World War II were "tragic but necessary", any death in Vietnam was too much. The American politicians and American people lacked the will to carry out this war. Part of this was because of the limitations on the military. In Korea Allied forces pushed all the way to China's border before being pushed back, but in South Vietnam no such initiative was allowed. It was a long, cold, "stand your ground" war with no sense of purpose, no sense of success, and no hope for a positive outcome. This second problem, then, was the lack of will both on the part of the military and on the part of Americans. Nothing will lose a war faster than that.

Okay, so how does any of this relate to the Church? First, the Bible is quite clear that we are not at peace. We are at war. Paul's famous passage on "the armor of God" isn't vague.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm" (Eph 6:10-13).

We are at war. It's not against flesh and blood. It's against spiritual forces of wickedness. Of that we should be certain. But ... we're not, it seems. In so much of today's church, we're not really at war at all. The enemy is often political correctness or the fear of offending people with the Gospel. We want to entertain rather than convict. We don't want to be judgmental or intolerant. And we give ground in areas we can't afford to surrender because, well, we have underestimated the enemy. So they are able to slip into our very inner circle. They hang a badge on their uniform -- "Christian" -- and if you even question it you're being mean. How dare you question another's salvation?!! That's just wrong! And they sit in our midst and blow us apart from within because we don't even know the difference between the enemy and an ally.

Worse, much of the church today lacks the will to fight. We surrendered our political voice in the 1950's with the 501(c)(3) concept when the government bought our silence. But, truthfully, political silence is small compared to the unwillingness so many have today on matters of much more importance. Now it's considered bad form to call sin sin. People don't want to hear lengthy sermons on the Bible, so we are trying to make preaching "more applicable", "more relevant". Oh, and by all means keep it short. Look, in fact, if we can leave off the term "sin" from our sharing of the Gospel and set aside any real hard work like, you know, discipleship or the like, it will be so much easier to get people in ... won't it? We lack the will to fight.

America was crippled because it fought a defensive war with no apparent victory in sight. We are commanded as believers to "stand firm", and our victory, while sure, isn't apparent either. Many lack the will to stand firm and many don't even recognize the enemy, his tactics, or how dangerous he really is. You know, I thought my friend was on a tangent with his "Was Vietnam somehow a prophecy about the Church?" question, but I can begin to see where he was going with that ... and it's not pretty.

Deconversion

"I stopped believing when ..."

You've heard stories like that. And I'm not trying to minimize them. These people are expressing their experience. You know how it goes. Some experienced some sort of peripheral trappings of Christianity, like the CINO, and decided that wasn't real and tossed it. Some have run up against hardships -- a sad death, some perpetrated evil, a personal tragedy -- and they place that at the end of the sentence, "I stopped believing when ..." There are, of course, those who say, "I examined all the evidence and found it wanting" and that's when they stopped believing.

I worked with an atheist once who was remarkably honest. As the time passed and we had a variety of interactions, I knowing he was an atheist and he knowing I was a believer, we came across an interesting, mutual conclusion. You see, he had endured hardship in his life. His father died when he was 12. In his twenties he had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a death sentence preceded by a life of pain. "You know," I finally told him, "I'm not sure you qualify as an atheist." "Sure I do!" he assured me. "Well, it seems to me," I explained, "that you're mad at God." Like I said, a remarkably honest atheist, he had to admit to me that it was true.

Now, I know ... this is an anecdote. It is not an explanation of all atheists. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. But it seems to me that being angry at God eliminated for him any possibility of any relief. Oddly enough, that does seem to be a common malady for atheists. Take, for instance, the deconvert who says something like, "I stopped believing when my friend asked me why God allowed her uncle to sexually abuse her when she was six." Tough question, to be sure. It would be foolish to pass it off as easy. But if we say, "God didn't allow it" and, beyond that, "in fact, there is no God", then what are we left with? What answer remains? "Too bad. Stuff happens. Suck it up. There is no rhyme or reason to what happens, so get over it."

God never promised that we wouldn't run into hypocrites who claim to be Christians and misrepresent genuine Christianity. God never promised that there would be no "untimely deaths", no personal tragedies, no evil. He didn't make a world without hardships. And He didn't offer scientific evidence of His existence (a nonsensical concept if you think about it). So holding God to a standard He never promised to meet makes little sense. Conversely, tossing out the only possible answer to the pain and suffering and death that every human encounters makes equally little sense.

Boycott Arizona

The battle continues. Now the County of Los Angeles has voted to boycott Arizona. It joins with the city of Los Angeles and a growing list of California as well as other American locations who believe that attacking Arizona's economy is the best way to force us to stop enforcing the law. According to Arizona Boycott Clearinghouse, cities boycotting Arizona include Boston, MA, St. Paul, MN, Oakland, CA, San Diego, CA, West Hollywood, CA, El Paso, TX, Boulder, CO, Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, and Los Angeles, CA.

So, what would this sort of thing entail? Well, California buys a reported 25% of their power from Arizona, but we're pretty sure that won't change. California sells a lot of food to Arizona, and that likely won't change. According to the L.A. Times, "LAX receives $22 million in revenue from two Arizona-based airlines -- US Airways and Mesa Air. The port relies on three Arizona firms for new, low-emission big rigs, part of the city's 'clean truck' program that is expected to reduce truck-related pollution at the port by 80% by 2012." You know that won't change. Cook County, the county in Illinois where Chicago resides, approved a boycott of Arizona businesses and then awarded Scottsdale firm, Redflex, the contract to supply red-light camera systems. Well-known companies like Best Western, Sky Mall, Ramada, U-Haul, and several airlines are headquartered here. And don't forget Phelps Dodge, the biggest provider of copper in the country. Yeah, I'm pretty sure not much will change there. I mean, "We want to force Arizona to knuckle under to our will ... but we don't want to be inconvenienced doing it."

What would a boycott entail? Well, targets include the Arizona Diamondbacks, Anheuser-Busch Bud Light Beer, Tostitos, and Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches (mostly for reasons I don't understand). It is likely that they'll stop traveling to Arizona for conferences or that sort of thing. So, that will impact the privately-owned tourist segment ... you know, the one that hires the majority of Hispanics for all sorts of hospitality and service jobs. Phoenix says they could lose something like $90 million in lost convention business. Time to start laying off illegal aliens, I guess.

What do they want? They want to stop Arizona's decision to enforce federal law. They want to decide for Arizona what they want Arizona to do. They want to do it using force and intimidation. And they want to do it by affecting the most vulnerable in Arizona, the minorities they are trying to protect.

Well, you go for it, guys. Polls say that more than 60% of Americans favor the law. Recent polls say that almost half of Americans want similar laws in their own states. Further, 76% of voters think the boycott idea is a bad one. Even Californians support the Arizona law. And places like San Diego will be paying for their choice after Arizonans cancel their plans to visit that perennially favorite vacation spot for Arizonans.

It seems highly unlikely that a boycott will cause the Arizona legislature to change their minds. It is in opposition to popular perceptions. It is a misrepresentation of the law. And it does the most damage to the people they wanted to protect. So ... how does this make sense?

CINO

Ever hear of the Blue Dog Democrats? They are a group of democrats who believe that, since Americans seem to be shifting toward more conservative views, Democrats ought to follow suit. They are opposed to the radical liberal agenda of much of the Democratic party. They are, in essence, Democrats in name only.

The Republicans have a similar problem. While the group is not official, Republicans have "RINOs", Republicans In Name Only. They classify themselves as Republican but embrace the liberal agenda of the Democrats. They are the "moderates". They might call themselves "centrists", the "bigger tent" folk. They ask Republicans to set aside their conservative and move toward a more liberal outlook. They reject Republican values and become Republicans in name only.

One you've never heard of, most likely, is the CINO. These are the "Christians In Name Only". You've never heard the term, I would think, but the idea isn't unusual. Surveys in the past decade have reported that something like 60-70% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian". This would include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as well as Catholics, Protestants, and anything else remotely related including self-identified "non-denominational" types. If that was an accurate number, I think we'd be in the midst of the biggest revival of all time and the president would have been incorrect when he told the world that we are not a Christian nation.

I think, however, that he was accurate and that "self-identified Christian" does not necessarily classify one as actually Christian. Consider the following facts. According to a 2009 Barna survey of "self-described Christians", 22% believe things contradictory to Christianity about God, such as "everyone is god, god refers to the realization of human potential," and so on. Did you read that? These are people who call themselves "Christian". And it doesn't get better when you ask more questions. Some 59% don't believe that Satan is real. Nor do 58% believe the Holy Spirit is real. They do believe that evil spirits and supernatural forces exist, just not that Satan or the Holy Spirit are actual beings. When asked about Jesus (remember, "Christian" means "follower of Christ"), 39% believe that Jesus sinned in His lifetime. If this were true, Christianity would be nullified because Jesus would neither have been God Incarnate nor would He have been able to pay for sins. It is no wonder, then, that 38% believe that their beliefs have not transformed their lives much. Oddly, while denying so much essential to Christianity, 89% hold that their main goal in life is to "love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul." It begs the question, doesn't it? "What God?"

The Bible itself is problematic to Christians. In this survey, a majority (63%) believe the Bible is accurate in what it teaches, but 39% think the Koran and the Book of Mormon are just as accurate, that they teach the same principles as the Bible. In another study, there is a sharp decline in how reliable they think the Bible is. Only 30% of 18-to-25-year-olds think the Bible is accurate contrasted with 58% of the 64-plus group. The fear of the Barna group is that "the Bible will continue to lose hold on the next generation."

I hear a lot of people commenting on what Christians believe and what Christians are like. It makes me wonder to whom they are referring. When people self-identify as "Christian" while openly denying Christianity, is it reasonable to point to them as examples of what a Christian is like or what Christians believe? That makes no sense. So here we stand, Christians believing orthodox Christianity, trying to defend against ... Christians. These things ought not be.

Memorial Day, 2010

Meet Jared Monti. Jared is from Massachusetts. At age 21, Jared was part of an intelligence-gathering patrol in northeastern Afghanistan. The 16-man team was attacked by more than 60 enemy troops. Jared called for artillery and air support. One of his patrol was killed and another, Specialist Brian Bradbury, was wounded. The leader of the patrol's sniper team said he was going to get Bradbury, but Monti called him off. "That's my guy. I'm going to get him." Jared tried three times. The first two times he was chased back by enemy fire, and on the third he was hit by an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). Monti died a few moments later of his wounds. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions on July 24, 2009.

Private Charles Barker served in the Infantry in Korea, a war fought to stop the spread of Communism into South Korea. He was at the famous Pork Chop Hill. His patrol surprised some enemy soldiers digging emplacements on the hill. His patrol took up firing positions while Private Barker moved through open ground firing and throwing grenades at enemy positions. Low on ammunition and hit by friendly mortar fire, the patrol was ordered to retreat. Private Barker remained behind to cover their withdrawal. He was last seen in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy, allowing the rest of his patrol to safely retreat. Private Charles Barker was awarded the Medal of Honor for his "conspicuous gallantry and indomitable courage above and beyond the call of duty".

In World War II, some of the fiercest fighting took place on obscure islands in the Pacific. One of these was Peleliu, an island in the island nation of Palau. It is a tiny island southwest of the Philippines, and the Battle of Peleliu is legendary. One of the first ashore in the landing was Corporal Lewis Bausell of Virginia. He led his men in a charge against an enemy pillbox. Reaching the gun emplacement first, he fired through the slit until his men could join him. The Japanese threw a grenade into their midst and Corporal Bausell didn't hesitate. He threw himself on the grenade, absorbing the blast and saving the lives of his men. But he wasn't alone. Private First Class Richard Kraus of Illinois volunteered to evacuate a wounded comrade. He and three others were heading for the rear when they came across some Marines. Demanding the password, the Japanese disguised as Marines threw a grenade at the group. PFC Kraus threw himself on the grenade and saved the lives of his three companions. So did PFC John New, a resident of Alabama. He threw himself on an enemy grenade and saved the lives of his two fellow soldiers. PFC Charles Roan of Texas was wounded by an enemy grenade. When a second one landed in their midst, he threw himself on it and saved the lives of four men. All of these men were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions.

According to infoplease, more than 4,400 Americans died in the American Revolution. In the Civil War, the Union suffered 140,000 combat deaths and the Confederacy suffered 74,000 combat deaths. Some 53,000 American soldiers died in World War I. In World War II, over 290,000 members of the American military lost their lives. The Korean War cost the lives of 33,000 American fighters. More than 47,000 Americans died defending liberty in Vietnam. In total, America has lost more than 650,000 in battle.

Veterans Day is a day that we salute all military veterans, living and dead. They may have served in battle or they may have served in peace. They may have been on the front lines or they may have been cooking meals behind the scenes. All who served in the military are honored on Veterans Day. But today is Memorial Day. This day is set aside as a special remembrance of the men and women who gave their lives in service to this country. Some say, "You can't make a perfect world with bombs" and I understand the point. On the other hand, there are things worth giving one's life for and things worth defending ... with force if necessary. You may voice disagreement with the government in this action or that war and you're free to do that ... because thousands of men and women in the military gave their lives believing they were fighting for what was right. For their sacrifice, for the freedom they secured for us, for the liberty they have given us and to others, for the price they paid selflessly and generously, I am truly thankful.

2 Chronicles 7:14

We live in difficult times. Morality is declining. Evil is becoming the norm. The economy is in trouble. There are wars and rumors of wars. There have been a sudden spate of earthquakes. The Church is in decline. We don't know where our country is going or how it will turn out. And on and on it goes. So a verse like this is very popular these days.

[If] My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land (2 Chron 7:14).

So the call goes out to Christians all over the country "Humble yourself and pray and seek God's face and turn from wickedness" in the hopes that God will hear from heaven and forgive our sin and heal our land.

Unfortunately, this isn't the intent of the passage. There are a few reasons this is apparent. First, we know that forgiveness is not a product of turning from wickedness. Forgiveness is forensic. That is, it is applied to those who are called according to His purposes, to those who are born again. In Jesus's words, "It is finished." We can't out-sin Jesus's Atonement on our behalf, nor can we earn it. Second, the context is not the Church. The context is Israel. The "My people" to whom God is referring when He makes the statement is Israel. Some of Israel believed and some didn't. The context of the statement (verse 14 is in the middle of a sentence) is "If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people ..." (1 Chron 7:13). The intent was that, in the time of God's judgment, unbelieving Israel needed to repent. The third reason is linked. The Church does not have land. The Communion of the Saints crosses all boundaries and time. Israel had a land to be healed. Christians are outside of geographic boundaries.

Fortunately, all is not lost. History shows us that those nations that repent receive blessing from God and those who do not ... do not. So the task of sharing the Gospel -- you know, like we're commanded -- ought to be a priority. And we would certainly call all Christians to humility, prayer, seeking God's face, and repentance. We would like to see this passage as a promise, but it isn't. Still, it isn't the promise of this passage that we need. It is a confidence in God to do what's right. And nothing in the context or content of this passage will prevent that from happening. Thank God!

Making History

You may never have heard of historian, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, but you probably have heard or seen her quote: "Well-behaved women rarely make history." See what she did there? Don't think about it; feel it. What are you supposed to assume? Well-behaved women don't mean much; it's the outlandish that make history. That's what's important.

You see, making history is important. You know, like Adolf Hitler who continues to be the standard of evil against which others will compare ... oh, wait, no, that's not right. No, how about Lenin? He united a nation from under an evil government and issued in communism, bringing peace to his land. When he announced the policy of Red Terror, a civil war ensued that killed an estimated 10 million Russians ... no, no, that's not right. We're talking about women. You know, like Lizzie Borden, one of the most famous killers of our time ... oh, wait a minute, that's not right either. Okay, okay, how about this one? Benazir Bhutto was the first female Prime Minister to be elected to govern in a Muslim nation, the country of Pakistan. There you go. She was deposed 20 months later when the president of Pakistan dissolved the Parliament, but she didn't fade. She was re-elected in 1993 ... and fired three years later for corruption. Um, bad example? How about the famous Bonnie Parker? No, that isn't right either.

Wait, wait ... I seem to have gotten lost here. What was the point? Oh, yeah! It's good to make history ... right? Well, maybe not.

The Problem of Language

Language can be difficult. I remember walking into an area at work that had just been modified. Signs on the wall proclaimed "Wet Paint". My first inclination, of course, was wrong. Remembering the unfortunate "Wet Floor" incident where attempting to follow instructions got me into trouble, I reexamined the possibilities. Maybe, just maybe, this was a warning rather than instructions. Yes, that was it. And I congratulated myself for avoiding another communication mistake. But then I noticed the smaller print under the "Wet Paint" text. It read, "Painted with pride by the Maintenance Department." Interesting. You see, normally we use paint to paint walls, but apparently the maintenance department had used a different product -- pride. I was mulling over the possibilities -- "Maybe 'pride' is a brand name for paint or maybe it was a new product similar to 'whitewash' with which to cover walls" -- when it struck me that these walls ... were white. I was horrified. These walls had been painted with white pride! How evil! And, of course, I had lapsed once again into a communication breakdown.

Despite my amusing (to me) excursions into uses and abuses of the language, we do it all the time and it's generally more serious than that. Take words like "rich" and "poor". Normally those would reference people with a lot of money and people without (respectively), but today if you use the terms they reference "people with more money than I have but wish I had" and "people who make so much more than the average person on the planet but not enough to buy basic subsistence items like a TV for every room and two cars instead of one". (I can't tell you how many "poor" people I've seen with cell phones and cable TV, so apparently those aren't some of the limiting factors of the term.)

If you are in favor of enforcing immigration laws, that translates to "racist". Of course, "racist" carries its own misguided weight. You see, only white people can be racist according to too many people who hate white people. It's like "sexist", the term applied (typically to men only) to those who are often accused of being sexist because they believe there are significant differences between men and women. I am a person who believes in and tries to live my life by biblical principles. That translates to "fundamentalist" which further translates to "dangerous religious nut job". Charity is defined now as "higher taxes". A patriot is someone who cherishes his own vision for America to the exclusion of other competing dreams for America. Or how about the term "morality"? This word has shifted from "what we think is right and wrong" to "a religious construct that has no genuine undergirdings and generally means that all behavior is okay as long as I approve of it". And so it goes.

Other terms take on their own significance. "Diversity" which simply means "variety" now means "variety in cultures, races, and genders" and beyond that has gathered its own value. It is assumed that "diversity" is automatically good and its opposite, uniformity or similarity, is a bad thing. Please, whatever you do, don't think that through.

Other terms have lost their significance. "Marriage" used to be the fundamental structure of society, the relationship in which a man and a woman joined to become a family, to reproduce, to link with other families, to tend to the family, and to shape society around this structure. Now it's "two people -- gender is irrelevant -- who 'love each other', at least for the moment, so they want to make some sort of more outspoken bond together which may or may not last and may or may not produce children." "Sexual relations" used to be the uniting of that man and that woman, a special process reserved for that relationship. People who engaged in sexual relations outside of that relationship were outside of "moral". Sex, you see, had meaning and value. Today it is a recreational event with or without emotional attachment and marriage has nothing to do with it. It's all about doing what feels good to me, you see.

We often think we're being wise by abusing the language. The "racist" who is "racist" only because he thinks that countries have the right and responsibility to control their borders is shut down easily by casting aspersions on his character without evaluating his arguments. The Christian who holds to biblical principles can be ignored as a "fundamentalist" without even thinking about whether or not she is right. We can be judgmental and intolerant of people we deem judgmental and intolerant and feel good about ourselves as being enlightened and inclusive. It all works toward removing clear thinking and toward emotionalism that allows us to live our lives by how we feel rather than thinking things through. And it's not a healthy way to go, either physically, socially, mentally, or spiritually. I would have included "morally", but we've already eliminated that meaning, right?

Postscript: For a fun and enlightening excursion into today's language, you might try visiting Dan's New World Order American Dictionary, a work in progress but a fun read.

Bibliolatry

It's a real word, apparently. You can look it up online. Wikipedia has a generic definition -- "the worship of a particular book". The Free Dictionary defines it simply as "excessive adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible." Of course, "excessive" is not defined in this context, so it's not a helpful definition. The word is built on two other words: Bible and Idolatry. The accusation seems to be that people who believe that the Bible is inerrant are Bible worshipers. That's probably not an accurate understanding of the accusation, but that's the intent of the word. The idea is that we shouldn't hold the Bible in that high of regard. It's imperfect. Deal with it!

Interestingly, the accusation usually comes from Christendom rather than the anti-Christian world. Christians historically have indeed been "people of the Word". The claim of the Reformation was sola scriptura -- the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. The truth, in fact, is that for most of Church history the Bible has been held as inerrant and infallible. (Why they use both terms is beyond me. I mean, if it's inerrant, it must be infallible, mustn't it? But, hey, no one asked me.) The split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers was not about inerrancy, but about the Bible being the sole authority. (Roman Catholics also see the Church and Tradition as two other sources.) It wasn't until the 19th century that the question was even raised. And yet, in the last 200 years, "wise" scholars have determined that Church history has been wrong and the Church, united on this point, has been wrong and we are much smarter now to realize that it just can't be.

So what is the accusation of "bibliolatry" all about? Well, if you believe that the Bible is actually inerrant, you're placing too much trust on an unreliable book. In the '70's, Fuller Seminary (among others) shifted from "inerrant" to "infallible". (Something can be infallible in its claims while having errors in its content.) "You see," they assured us, "we believe that the Bible contains God's Word, but it is not actually God's Word and, as such, may have errors. It's just true in principle, not particulars." So here we are -- those of us who still believe that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant -- no longer on the inside looking out. No, we're a dwindling minority. And the quickest way to shut us up is not via argument, but by ridicule. Thus the term, "bibliolatry". "You crazies ... you worship the Bible. Not us! We worship God!" But ... is it accurate? Is the accusation fair? Are we bibliolaters, even if that's hard to say?

I don't get the accusation. Oh, I suppose that there actually are folks who worship their bibles. Take, for instance, the Muslims who are offended if you sully their book. The book itself is sacred to them. Christians don't see it that way. I suppose there might be a few, but they're outliers. No, the Christian pejoratively referred to as "fundamentalist" (because that rotten Christian adheres to fundamental, biblical principles and rejects secularism) doesn't actually worship the book. So what exactly is the idea of "fundamentalist", of "inerrancy"? Well, the claim is that God breathed the Bible using human hands to write it. It filtered through their language and personalities, but God superintended the Bible to say what He intended it to say. Therefore, the Bible is God's Word written by humans. The claim, then, is not that the Bible is inerrant, but that God is inerrant. The claim is that an inerrant, infallible God saw to it that we had written down for our benefit what He intended us to know.

So my question is the counter. Is it the claim of these Christians who level the accusation of "bibliolatry" that God cannot or would not do such a thing? Is it their assertion that God was either incapable or unwilling to provide such a written record for us? And what was the failure mechanism? Did God just not conceive of the idea? Or did He fail to keep it in some satisfactory condition while Man degraded it? Did human Free Will override God's ability to maintain a reliable book? It seems to me the problem is not a problem of worshiping a book, but the apparent certainty of a God too small to bother with such a book. This God says, "Sorry, kids ... you're on your own. Good luck with that." And this is a much more educated, superior position to take than the foolish fellow who naively believes that God cares enough to see to such a writing and make sure it gets into our hands in a reliable fashion. Yeah, that's lame-brained. No, no, God has no such intent or capability.

And Paul's words echo in the background ... "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ..."

Janet Napolitano

She was the governor of Arizona before President Obama pressed her into service as the head of Homeland Security. Last week Senator McCain asked his ex-governor about her opposition to the Arizona law-enforcement bill, SB1070. Had she read it? Well, no, not actually, but it was a bad idea. What about it exactly was a bad idea since she didn't actually know what was in it and since most Americans favored it? Well, it's just a bad idea.

For as long as I lived in Arizona with Napolitano as governor, the news reported repeatedly her disgust with the federal government for not enforcing immigration law. She complained continuously that they needed to act. So last week she informed us that ICE is not required to process people arrested by local police. What? Apparently she was only upset about the federal government not doing their job as long as she wasn't part of it. I mean, one could make the argument that she was only complaining about the federal government while she was in Arizona as a ploy to avoid having to do anything about it herself. One could make that argument. It doesn't bode well for her that she seems to have carried the "do nothing about it -- it's someone else's problem" attitude with her.

The good news, of course, is that Janet Napolitano is on the job. As head of Homeland Security, she is now stepping up to the plate. She has assured us that she will be keeping the pressure on BP until this invasion of oil has been turned back. Not to worry, America. Janet Napolitano is on the job!

Or, to put it another way, it's government as usual ...

Commencement

Last week Estrella Mountain Community College had their spring commencement ceremony. Included on the list of graduates was a fellow by the name of Zachary Chia. Zachary was born in Arizona, but moved to Singapore as an infant. A few years back he returned to Arizona with his family. To go to school he had to be tested to find out his education level. Turns out ... he didn't need to go to high school because he had surpassed all state requirements. So on May 14, 2010, Zachary Chia graduated from Estrella Mountain Community College ... at the age of 15.

According to the story, Zachary says that the reason for his advanced position isn't intelligence, but a "totally different standard" in Singapore. During his college education here he carried at least 18 credits a semester and spent 8-10 hours a day studying. No, not intelligence, simply hard work and conforming to standards set by the schools he went to and by his parents. Some three years before the standard American student expects to graduate from high school, Zachary Chia graduated from college with a 3.9 GPA and Associate degrees in both Arts and Business. He plans to go next to ASU with a major in Business Management of Tourism.

According to wikipedia, Singapore spends almost 20% of their total budget or 3% of their GDP on education. The U.S. spends nearly 5% of GDP on education. Yet Singapore ranks #1 in international educational scores with the U.S. a distant 24. According to the Cato Institute, "Compared with that of the rest of the world, American governments' investment in education is lavish indeed. Although precise comparisons are difficult, because of differences in demographics and the varying ways countries organize their educational systems, figures published yearly by the United Nations reveal that the United States spends more on education as a percentage of its gross national product ... than do most of the countries whose students outperform U.S. students on standardized tests ..."

Wait! That can't be right. We here in Arizona were just subjected to months of commercials warning us that if we didn't increase the sales taxes we pay, education would stumble and fall for lack of funds. Everyone knows that the more money we put into education, the better the result. Oddly, that Cato report actually says, "Researchers have not been able to prove the common assumption that the richer schools are, the better taught are their students." Instead, "historical trends fly in the face of the spending-equals-learning thesis."

Now, I know ... schools need funds. No doubt. And I agree that teachers are underpaid. No doubt. I'm not suggesting we decrease funding to education. Here's what I'm saying: It's not the money that makes for a good education. What, then, is it? I suspect the answer is complex. Some of it is found in teachers. Just last week the Texas Board of Education revamped their textbooks (which, apparently, affects textbooks throughout the country) to what the news is reporting as "more politically conservative". So, tell me, why does the word "politically" have anything to do with education? Are teachers pushing political agendas? And then there is the newly popular "Outcome-based Education" system (OBE). This new approach to education discards traditional education that leans on teaching facts and prefers the "constructivist" approach -- the idea that students develop their own knowledge through experience. "So, look," some teachers will tell you, "we're not teaching the kids facts anymore. No, no, we want them to discover their own knowledge." Umm ... what?!

Frankly, while I have no doubt that money is a part of the educational dilemma and I'm quite certain that teachers are part of the problem, I believe that the biggest culprit lies elsewhere. Zachary hit on it, if only a glancing blow, when he said that Singapore had a "totally different standard". One of the differences in standards is educational, to be sure, but another is at home. You see, Singapore doesn't suffer from the modern western malady of "my kid can do no wrong". Remember Michael Fay? Okay, maybe not the name, but he's the kid who, at 18, was caned in Singapore for theft and vandalism. It would never have been allowed in the U.S., but neither the government nor the parents in Singapore put up with that kind of stuff. How would a teacher manage to teach 30 students? Well, first, they'd have to be well-behaved kids, and that is outside of the teachers' control. Between the training parents need to give their kids on how to behave in public and the discipline parents are to impart for kids to do their school work, I am pretty sure that the largest gap in our educational system is the one at home.

Education is important, to be sure. Too many Christian parents have made the mistake of thinking that a real biblical education takes place once a week on Sundays for their children and their duties to "train up a child in the way he should go" are discharged. By the same token, too many American parents think that it is the school system's job to teach their kids. It's not. It's their job to provide the opportunity. If parents were more involved in their children's lives and more involved in their children's education, I suspect there would be fewer amazing stories like Zachary Chia and fewer odd phrases like "more politically conservative textbooks" and a level of education in America that hasn't been seen for at least a half century.

At What Price?

Do a little research on the effects of television and you'll find some frightening facts. Television -- the medium without considering the content -- is harmful to children. Studies suggest that children who watch too much TV in the first few years of life have a much higher risk of ADHD by the age of 7. The flickering images, the noise, the 2-dimensional aspect, the singular focus, all this can damage their developing brains. It's bad for kids. Of course, beyond that, it's considered a major contributor to childhood obesity where kids who used to play outside are now becoming couch potatoes. And all of that isn't even considering the content of the shows which are clearly aimed at messages that are counter to Christian values. But it's a funny thing. On multiple occasions I've explained this to young parents urging them to avoid doing that damage to their children. Do you know the universal response? "That would mean we couldn't watch our shows." Yeah, it does. Is that too much to ask? In every case in which I've been involved, the answer is "Yes, that's too much."

Look around the Internet and you can find all kinds of wackos out there who will tell you crazy stuff. It's fun and entertaining if you're not foolish enough to believe it. So when I saw an article by a website called (this should be a clue) hushmoney.org about how Lyndon Johnson (yes, the one that became president) installed the 501(c)(3) concept to silence churches, I had to laugh. You know the 501(c)(3) concept, right? It allows a church to avoid paying income tax. Nice. But come on, Hushmoney.org! Can you say "paranoid"?

And then I came across another "unreliable" website -- irs.gov. According to the IRS, "In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban."

Wait ... the IRS concurs that one of the conditions under which churches can be considered tax exempt is that they refrain from engaging in politics. The latest amendment specifically forbids them from speaking against any candidates. Now, let's put this in the clearest terms. The U.S. Government is paying churches to keep silent. Hmmm ... sounds like hush money. You know what they say. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

So here's what I'm wondering. Why is it that churches in general are willing to maintain a tax exempt status at the price of their freedom of speech? What pastor would agree to this? (At the back of my mind I'm wondering, "Is this one of the reasons that a pro-abortion (I don't use the term lightly) presidential candidate can get such support from Christians?") The question becomes "At what price are you willing to sell the rest of your freedom of speech? How much will it cost to silence the Gospel?"

I have to wonder sometimes about us humans. We know that cigarettes are bad but we aren't willing to stop them. We know that alcohol is a problem but we're not willing to do anything about it. We know that television harms our children but we aren't willing to act on it. We know that the government is paying our churches to be silent but we're not willing to get out from under that control. Why is it that we seem to consistently pay too much for "freedoms" that do so much damage? When do we say, "No, that's too much to pay"? At what price do we surrender personal pleasures and corporate comfort for what is right? The frightening thing to me is that we haven't yet found an answer to that question.

Not Fit

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live." "Not fit to live." It's intended to be a shocking phrase. It's not simply, "You deserve to die", but "there is nothing in you that deserves to live." It's a comment on the totality of the person making them unfit for existence.

William Boen was a Quaker born in 1735. In his own words, he wrote about a time when, as a boy, he could be killed by Native Americans. And, in contemplating that possibility, he says, "It was showed me, and I saw plain enough, that I was not fit to die." We get "not fit to live". It's a sad condition. But "not fit to die" ... now that's a scary place to be.

Jesus said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt 10:28). Under what conditions would God threaten to "destroy both soul and body in hell"? Well, we're all under a sin condition, of course, but it isn't a matter of "fit to live". The Bible plainly teaches that we are declared righteous on the basis of grace through faith, not by works.

Jesus said to "fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell". It is that fear that begins the question, "Am I fit to die?" But that fear has consequences ... or, perhaps better said, results. We all know that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov 9:10), but did you know there are other benefits (as if "wisdom" wasn't enough)? We also read that "The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil" (Prov 8:13), that "The fear of the LORD prolongs life" (Prov 10:27), and that "The reward for humility and fear of the LORD is riches and honor and life" (Prov 22:4).

Maybe you feel you're "fit to live", but are you "fit to die"? Do you have a healthy fear of the Lord? Biblically it's not optional. Nor is it trivial. It's the start of everything good. And, properly applied, it solves the entire problem of both "not fit to live" and "not fit to die". Today would be a good day to settle that question.

Cutting Edge

This week the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of the United States, broke new ground. They "consecrated" the first openly lesbian bishop. Now, keep in mind, this is the same body that broke ground in 2003 by installing "the first openly gay bishop in the history of Christendom" in the person of Gene Robinson. That's right. The Episcopal Church is on the cutting edge of Christendom. By "cutting edge", of course, I mean the knife that forms the schism. In 2003 their decision to elevate Robinson to the office led to a split in the Episcopal Church that hasn't been healed.

But it's not just the Episcopals at work here. Coincidentally, Monday, the 17th of May, witnessed also the ordination of Italy's very first female priest. Now, sure, it was done by a group known as "the Old Catholic Church, a group which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1870's", but now Italy has its own woman priest. Of course, in non-Roman Catholic circles women have been ordained for some time. The Salvation Army has ordained both men and women since their inception in 1865. The United Methodist Church ordained their first woman pastor in 1880 while they were still the Methodist Protestant Church.

But it's not in only in the arena of homosexuals or matters of gender. The church has tried to be "cutting edge" often. The Emergent Church movement tried to incorporate post-modernism (a worldview that, at its core, denies the existence of absolute truth) into its structure. I hear that movement is waning. There have always been off-shoots where groups protest this or that and decide to rewrite their bibles to support their position. You know, like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Started by a guy named Charles Russell in 1872, he didn't like concepts like eternal hell, the Trinity, or the Deity of Christ, so he redefined biblical references to eliminate the concepts. Voilà! A new, cutting edge group with new revelation that throws out all of Church history and standard biblical understanding. Of course, Russell wasn't alone. There are myriads of folks like him. The most obvious would be Joseph Smith who managed to find the North American connection with special revelation from a special angel with special insight into the fact that the Bible is not reliable ... but the stuff he found is. Cutting edge.

Traditionally the Church has been built on the Apostles, the Scriptures, and tradition. The Roman Catholic Church elevated tradition to Tradition, a third part of their doctrinal source, but rationally, biblically, and historically tradition has always been a primary consideration. Yes, biblically. Paul told the Thessalonians, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15). Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth, which would logically suggest that true disciples have always maintained the thread of genuine truth since the arrival of the Spirit. Tradition is important. So do we really want the Church to be cutting edge? Do we really believe that the Church has always been wrong in "this" area or "that" doctrine and we, the wise and precocious people that we are, have suddenly come up with the truth? Are we really that arrogant?

Sure, there has been error in the Church. Sure, along with the history of truth there has been a history of heresy. Sure, we need to be keenly aware that false doctrines will pop up all the time ... even false doctrines that have already been put in their place. And, indeed, there are matters of "trappings", form and style, that are open to "cutting edge" because they aren't prescribed by Scripture. It is possible to hang on to tradition for the sake of tradition rather than because it's right. I know all that. But when the Church of the 19th century decides that it's much brighter than the last 1800 years of Christendom and women should be ordained or when the Church of the 21st century suddenly realizes that the sin of homosexual behavior condemned by Christendom and before is actually perfectly fine, I am concerned that the edge being cut is too far. Are they cutting off the limb on which they are sitting? Is it a good idea? I don't think so.

Such Language!

It's really funny how often times what you say is not what I hear (or, of course, vice versa). It seems rather common to pick up an entirely different dialog from the actual words being said.

You know how it works. A kind husband takes his wife out for dinner. He is looking over the menu, aware of the current economy, and says, "Man, prices just keep going up, don't they?" What she hears is, "Man, you sure are expensive. You never seem to stop costing me money." Now, he (likely) never intended such a thing (because, remember, I started with "a kind husband"), but what she hears may not be what he intends.

It's not always that way. Sometimes what you hear may be exactly what was intended. On the news the other day Lakers fans were protesting the Lakers and Phil Jackson (the coach). Jackson had said, "If I heard right, the American people are for strong immigration laws, if I’m not mistaken." The protester I heard interviewed said, "We want Phil Jackson to say that he is against Arizona's immigration law." Simple, straightforward, and not what I heard at all. What I heard was, "We do not want public figures to express opinions opposed to ours. We want Phil Jackson to have the opinion that we allow and not something different. By no means should he be allowed to express a different point of view."

Or how about the message I saw on the side of a building the other day? It was a spray-painted (and ghastly) cartoon of a person yelling for help. "Help us! Our civil rights are being raped!" It was a protest to the Arizona immigration enforcement law. How ironic that the protester had no qualms about defiling the business owner's civil rights by painting this message on the side of the building. "My perception of my civil rights are important," this protester told me. "Yours are not! All that is important is that I get what I want!"

Often language is used intentionally to present a different conversation than the surface one. "McCollum urges support for anti-abortion bill at St. Lucie event," the headline reads. It seems that Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, running for governor in Florida, urged Republicans to lobby the present governor "on behalf of legislation this week that requires women seeking abortions to pay for an ultrasound and hear a doctor describe the fetus." So, while the message was that Bill was hoping that legislation would pass that required doctors to more clearly explain the fetus to the mother, it was "anti-abortion". There's a loaded term. Of course, there is another, more loaded term. Amanda Marcotte writes for RH Reality Check (where "RH" stands for "reproductive health"), "Anti-choicers were very close to killing health care reform entirely over abortion." What is intended in these terms? It's very clear. Let's kill the argument before the arguments begin. "Oh," we'll say, "you're anti-abortion or, worse, anti-choice!" Of course, it simply isn't true. It's that old "poisoning the well" fallacy. "If you are not in favor of women being allowed to kill their babies in the womb, you are 'anti-' something -- either abortion or choice." Not really. We're pro-life. We believe that these babies have the same right to live that the "pro-choicers" claim for their mothers. In fact, if medical science could come up with a method of terminating a pregnancy without terminating the life of the child, we'd have nothing more to say about it. It's not that there is something special about pregnancy that we want to defend. It's something about life. It's about not aborting life. It's about not allowing that child choices. But the language terminates that discussion ... intentionally. So the news item about Bill McCollum was intended to paint Bill McCollum in a negative light.

We do it all the time. We filter what we hear based on what we expect. If we anticipate something nice, we might read into an apparently unkind statement something nice. If we want to make a point, we might purposely use language to make people hear more than our arguments. "Not only are they mistaken ... they're evil." It's the job of advertisers everywhere; use language that will make them want the product preferably without even knowing why. So Impalas and Mustangs are still marketed as sporty and quick because, hey, "impala" and "mustang" conjures up images of cool and quick! The company named Suave wants to convey that their entire line is "smoothly agreeable and courteous" just by the name. And so it goes.

Look, I'm not saying don't do it. Hey, I'd be quite surprised if I don't do it myself. It's often not even conscious. I read a piece the other day titled, "Joe Legal vs Jose Illegal" which, I noted, automatically assumed that the illegal was Hispanic ... without even trying. I'm quite sure that the graffiti criminal I mentioned above wasn't thinking at all about the civil rights he was violating when he attacked the wall. We all do it. I'm just trying to make you aware. People do it. Be aware of it. You do it. Be aware of it. And sometimes -- too often in my opinion -- there is a failure of communication where there just shouldn't have been. Be aware of it. Just keep your eyes open to your own communication and to others. Communication, you see, is tenuous at best.

Fly in the Ointment

Do you know where that phrase came from? Solomon wrote it. "Dead flies make a perfumer's oil stink, so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor" (Ecc 10:1). Solomon was talking about how a little bit of nonsense can corrupt a good thing ("fly in the ointment"), but the conclusion is interesting: "A little foolishness is weightier than wisdom." Now, of course, he wasn't saying that foolishness actually was better than wisdom. He was saying how easy it is for a little foolishness to drown out genuine wisdom.

Wisdom is sometimes elusive. It's so easy, it seems, to appear wise without actually being wise. Who hasn't heard the awe-inspiring wisdom of the ages when the Buddhist Master says, "It is like the sound of one hand clapping." Wow! Now that is deep ... so deep I can't even fathom it. Wait a minute! "Clapping" is defined as "Striking the palms of the hands together." By definition one hand cannot clap with one hand any more than a square can be round or 2 + 2 can be a banana. We have definitions and wisdom must work within those definitions, making sense of them, not discarding them. Yet we will too often hear someone say something that seems so wise and makes no sense. How about this one? "We should want to do what is right without caring about what we get in return." Someone somewhere told us that line, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker as if it's "wise". Why? What makes doing what is right "more noble" if you do it out of duty rather than pleasure? What kind of stinking thinking is that? But the weight of such foolishness often seems to drown out wisdom.

Over at The Bumbling Genius, Danny recently gave a really good post on what he called "poisoning the well". "Poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy in which you supply unfavorable information about another person in order to preempt any logical discussion of the ideas. You might hear, for instance, "You know, the only reason there are religions is to control people." The next time the listener talks to a religious person, they will be analyzing the religious claims for proof that it's about control (and likely finding it). Or how about this very popular one: "Those who disagree with global warming are fools." Now, if you try to present the reasons for why you disagree with global warming, you can only be doing so because you're a fool and your reasons are irrelevant. That's how it works. Danny's idea, however, was slightly different. He was explaining how we Christian parents so often fail our children by shielding them from error. His idea was to walk them through error so that, when they see it, they'll know it. It is "poisoning the well" in the sense that the first time his children hear this or that heresy it will be from him and with genuine answers supplied. So it was more like purifying the well, I suppose.

In the course of the dialog after that post, a wise fellow popped in with pearls of wisdom. "I raised my son not to be a Christian." Now that is wise, isn't it? Sure, sure, you who are convinced of religion want to raise your kids in religion, but wouldn't it be better all around if you raised them without bias and let them come to it on their own? I mean, if it's true, they'll still come to it, won't they? Oh, so wise! Not! We're dealing here with nonsense again and accepting it as somehow "wise". You see, if you raise your children "without bias", you have supplied a bias. In fact, no matter what you do with your children, you will bias them. It's the nature of the relationship. Our friendly neighborhood walking contradiction there at Danny's blog was quite proud that he raised his son not to be a Christian without even recognizing that this was intended to bias him away from Christianity. This is not "no bias". You'll find the same kind of arguments coming from skeptics in terms of science. "Science approaches the world without biases." Nonsense. We cannot function without presuppositions. Bias is "the inclination of the mind towards a particular direction" and without inclination, nothing moves.

So where does this nonsense presenting itself as wisdom come from? Is our friendly neighborhood commenter at Danny's blog unique? Not at all. Solomon said it. Foolishness can appear weightier than wisdom. Arguing against it is sometimes pointless. In the Proverbs Solomon wrote, "The foolishness of man ruins his way, and his heart rages against the LORD" (Prov 19:3). Yeah, we see that. In fact, sin rots the brain. At least, that's what Paul claims (here and elsewhere):

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures" (Rom 1:21-23).

Be careful of what you find "wise". It's easy to hear something that sounds wise and is, in fact, utter nonsense. Since each of us is tainted by sin, it is very likely that each of us has some ... stinkin' thinkin' ... you know, a fly in the ointment.

The Greatest in the Kingdom

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to Him a child, He put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea (Matt 18:1-6).

Most of us are aware of this passage. Most of us think it's ... cool. You know ... Jesus loves the little children ... that sort of thing. Everyone likes that.

But ... did you hear what Jesus said? "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Now, think about it. And be honest. How often do we cause one of these little ones to sin? I'm afraid it's much more common than we care to think about.

What do we, as loving parents, model for our children? Do we model godliness or do we present to them sinful lives as "good"? Or what do we defend as parents? It's one thing, you see, to err and another thing entirely to defend that error. No parent is perfect. We all make mistakes. But do we defend them? It's one thing when we do the wrong thing and then apologize, for instance, but when we don't identify the wrong we do as wrong, we tell our kids, "What I did was right." And that is an excellent way to cause them to sin.

I know of people who identify themselves as Christians who live sexual immorality in front of their kids as if it's just fine. I know youth pastors who go along with the kids in their care when they push against their parents' authority as if it's just fine. I know Christians who casually and coolly live sinful lives in front of their children as if it's just fine. And I have to check myself because that statement from Christ is no small thing: "It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Am I guilty of that? I sure don't want to be.

We all interact with children to some degree or another. Some of us do so intensely because, you know, they live in our houses or they are our primary ministry or some such. The other extreme are those who simply see them in passing. Are you aware of what you are saying to these kids in your choices and behavior? I'm not talking about the mistakes we all make and recognize as mistakes. Those are easier to work on. I mean, we're all in agreement there. I'm talking about the things that we approve and defend. "So I lost my temper and yelled at him. He deserved it. That ought to teach him." Teach him what? That anger is perfectly okay? "It's okay to play video poker in front of my kids because I'm not doing any serious gambling." Is it? "I should be allowed to live my life the way I want." Should you? "It's not their business if I have a little too much to drink on a Saturday night to relax. I'm not breaking any laws. Who is it hurting?" Really? "I just want them to be comfortable around me, so I let them do things when they're with me that their parents won't. It's not hurting anything." Is that true? I don't know about you, but I want to be a Christian who is a follower of Christ (duh!). I think perhaps I should really consider what Jesus said about my effect on children. What about you?