These Witnesses

My son is getting married today. I'll be attending his wedding. A joyous occasion. She's a lovely person and will be a fine addition to our family. He will learn wonderful things from the experience like commitment, stability, responsibility, and on and on. A wonderful day.

It hit me the other day that I won't actually be attending his wedding. That's a common phrase and a common perception, but there is a fundamental difference between, say, attending a ballgame and being present at a wedding. What is it that the one doing the ceremony typically says? "We are gathered here before God and these witnesses ..." When it comes to a wedding, we are not merely observers; we are witnesses. This isn't a simple ceremony; it's a covenant-making event. These aren't two people who are going to be living together; they are becoming one. And they're doing so in front of God and these witnesses. What's the aim here? Why are we not simply observers? We are witnesses. What does that mean?

First, it means that we are affirming this wedding. When the traditional question is asked, "Does anyone present know of any reason why these two should not be joined?", our silence is confirmation that they are to be wed. We are not only observing; we are confirming this union. This is one of the underlying points in the story of Jesus at the wedding at Cana. His presence was an affirmation of marriage in general and the specific union of the two in particular. So is ours.

It also means that we are the enforcers, so to speak. When questions regarding this marriage arise, we are the ones who should be asked, "Did they commit to each other?" If there are problems between them, we are the ones who ought to hold them accountable to their vows. We affirmed their marriage. Now we need to support it, defend it, cement it.

I know. I'm making much more of it than almost anyone else would. I think, however, that it's not to the credit of so many witnesses to so many weddings that divorce rates are so high. If witnesses offered genuine reasons why they should not be wed when such reasons existed, some bad marriages would never have happened. And if we, as those who confirmed the wedding, supported that marriage, perhaps some bad marriages could be salvaged. We aren't, after all, mere observers. This isn't a ballgame. It's a mystery, when two become one and a new family is formed and we are there to be a part of it. We should do what we can to support such a mystery.

Congratulations to my son and his new wife.

With All Your Mind

When Jesus was asked about the Great Commandment, we all know His response: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). How often do we analyze His response? Generally, I think, we say, "Yeah, we get it, love God." Or, perhaps, we'll take it a step further and say, "Alright, the command is to love God with your whole being." And that would be accurate as far as it goes. But Jesus was specific. What did He mean?

First, obviously Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament when God made the command (Deut 6:5). So it wasn't just that Jesus was being specific. So was God. Still, I don't think the list of elements with which we ought to love God were included frivolously. I think there was a point. What point?

There are several human components included. There is the heart, the soul, the mind, and the strength. They are distinct, but certainly not separate. Why do I say that? Well, in Gen 6:5 we read that "the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". Now, normally we don't think of "heart" in terms of "thought". That would be the mind. Jesus said, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts" (Matt 5:19). Hebrews says "The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12). Thus, the heart has both thoughts and intentions. There is an overlap of heart and mind. And that's just one. We know that "strength" references the body, but there are also "powerful thoughts" and "powerful feelings", so it would be too limiting to think of it only as physical.

The soul is its own conundrum. It is often viewed as the life force, but it isn't merely that or wholly that. Job said, "My soul is weary of my life" (Job 10:1). If "soul" is merely "life force", then Job was saying "My life is weary of my life." Makes no sense. In James 3:15, the word psuchikos, Greek for "soul", is translated as "sensual" in the King James and "unspiritual" in the ESV. The soul, then, is indeed the "life force", but it is more. It is the mind, the will, the emotions. (And, oh, look, we've just made another overlay, where "soul" includes "mind" and "mind" is listed as a distinct component in the command.) The soul is the connection between physical and metaphysical, between a purely material world and that which is beyond material. The soul hungers and thirsts, praises and hopes, is bitter or rejoices.

And what, pray tell, is "the heart"? It's obviously not the organ that pumps blood. Biblically, the heart is considered the center of the human being. It is the source of emotions (See the connection to the soul?) and it has thoughts (See the connection to the mind?). In Ezek 11:19-20, God promises to give His people a "new heart". This new heart is required so that they would be able to "walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them." The biblical heart is that "inside self", our deepest thoughts and emotions, what we really are. It is the source of our moral choices, desires, affections.

Now, keeping in mind that all these things seem to overlap and interlace, what is God saying in this command? We are to love God. Good! We're all clear on that. We are to love Him with all of who we are. That would include our feelings, absolutely, but also our thoughts, morals, desires -- all of it. We are to love Him with our souls, that connection between the physical and the spiritual, our minds, wills, and emotions, our very life force. We are to love Him with every bit of strength we have, whether it is physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual.

I skipped over mind, but only momentarily. There are some who would like to suggest that "Love the Lord your God with all your mind" means "We love God by thinking right." That's not sufficient in the context of the command. It would seem, instead, that if we are to love God with all our heart and all our soul and all our strength, then we are to be using all our thoughts to accomplish this. It is not merely holding to truth. I said "merely" because it does indeed include truth. But it is actively thinking about ways in which we can love Him more. It is thinking about ways that would fan my passion for Him. It would include considering application of strength and effort and emotion and choices to love Him more. Yes, it is about truth, but it is more than that. It is a mind focused on loving Him.

David wrote, "My heart became hot within me. As I mused, the fire burned" (Psa 39:3). "As I mused." As I thought, my heart became hot. We do, unfortunately, often neglect the mind in our loving God. Others tend to miss the mark by trying to make it all about thinking. We are to love the Lord with all of our being, each component adding depth and richness and layers to that love so that all that we are is involved in this flame of passion and this fundamental focus on our precious God. That one passion ought to fill our entire being. Our failure to do that one single thing ought to press us to do better. Our highest treasure shouldn't be what God gives, but God Himself. That's our command. That's our joy.

Propaganda

In a Facebook "battle" recently someone posted an incendiary picture of President Obama talking to some school kids. The caption has him saying, "See, that's where you're wrong. It's everyone's lunch money." So it began. One side shouted its "hallelujahs" and "Thou sayest truly!" and the other complained about the lies and propaganda. That was the word that was used -- "propaganda". Now, I know that people I know were involved in that kerfuffle and I know that some of them might end up reading this, so I want to drop the topic and pick up the principle. Those of you who might be reading this and were involved in the dialog ... relax. It's not about you. It simply illustrates the point.

What is propaganda? According to the dictionary, propaganda is essentially "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." Included in the idea is the concept that these ideas or rumors may be biased and may be presented in such a way that it would be misleading. Note that both of these are "maybes". If the aim is to help or harm a person, group, movement, etc., it will likely be biased (towards that aim), but not all propaganda is misleading. ("Bias" does not require "misleading".) (And there is almost no such thing as "unbiased".) The purpose of propaganda is to influence the thinking of the recipient of this message. While we tend to think of propaganda as "evil" in some sense, the definition would include advertising, as an example, where they hope to sell you something that you might like. "Dirty, rotten propaganda!" No, not so much.

In the example from Facebook, the battle began with ... propaganda. Obviously it was intended as humorous -- no one was claiming that the president ever said any such thing -- but with a message. The message was that the president would like to spread the wealth. The unspoken word passed around in that message was "socialism" (although genuine socialism is an economic or political concept where the collective or the government owns and administers the means of production and the distribution of wealth ... which hasn't yet been suggested as far as I know). Propaganda. The idea was to get the reader to respond negatively to the suggestion that we should not have private property, that there should be no differentiation in the "haves" and "have nots", that wealth should be distributed evenly to all. Propaganda.

In the Facebook example, the counter responses (which included the complaint that it was propaganda) were, as it happens, propaganda. Ideas like "It's bad that 1% of the population has 90% of the wealth." (A moral conclusion intended to make you think a certain way.) I liked this one: "You know who else was a big socialist? Jesus Christ." Now, this one leans more into the common perception of "propaganda" because it is, well, not true. Socialism enforces the redistribution of wealth. Jesus told His followers to voluntarily give. Not at all the same thing. But bandy about the "Jesus Christ" name and it might give you some traction. Propaganda.

We're into the run-for-the-presidency season. Expect propaganda. Expect it from all sides. Everyone, from the toothpaste seller to the guy running for President will want you to think that what they're selling is what you want. Well, in politics it seems it is, more often, telling you that you don't want what the other guy is selling. (In our upcoming vote for a new mayor, we did our research and decided that Fellow A would be wrong for Phoenix. Now Fellow A is running ads not to tell us why he would be right for Phoenix, but why Fellow B is "wrong for Phoenix" -- the line in the ad. So, apparently no one is right for Phoenix?) You will be deluged with messages that want to tell you how to think. Don't give that up. Do your own research. Don't surrender to the soundbites. Do your own thinking. You will, after all, be responsible for your own choices. And when you hear "your side" say something, remember that it is just as much propaganda as when "those other guys" say something. It's the nature of the beast.

The Golden Rule

We all know this one. Even the world knows this one. "Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you." Easy. We get it. And, as is often the case, we missed it.

Jesus didn't express the negative. We will generally quote it right -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" -- but we still tend to think of it in the negative. "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" Jesus spoke in the positive. The things you like done to you are the things you should do to others. In fact, when you think about this, it can get really, really big.

Try an example. "You know, when I'm in financial trouble, I'd really like it if someone would help me out." This doesn't start with "them". It starts with "as you would have them do unto you." What would I like done to me? Now, look around. Does someone need that from me? And the reason this gets so big is because it is so overwhelming. This Golden Rule can, in fact, become too big to handle.

Which brings me to my next point. We missed it ... again. Jesus didn't give this statement in a vacuum. The verse, in fact, begins with a "therefore". "Therefore whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them" (Matt 7:12). He predicates this concept on what went before. So ... what went before?

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?" (Matt 7:7-11).

Did you know that? This famous "Ask and it will be given to you ..." passage is the premise of the Golden Rule. How does that make sense? Well, if I'm going to be expected to do for others what I would like them to do for me, taxing my own limited resources of energy, money, emotions, time, etc., it will require an act of God, truth be told. For me to obey this command, I will need direct intervention from God to supply what is needed through me for those who I am treating in the way I would like to be treated. And now that makes some sense.

I'd like to point out that it also reads backwards. We often yank "ask" and "knock" and "seek" out of context and just see it as a warm promise from God that if we pursue it, He'll give it to us. Prosperity folks see this as a divine promise to get what you want from God. First, notice it doesn't say that. Ask and you will receive. It doesn't say what. None of the statements do. But my main point is that there is a purpose to all this effort of asking, knocking, and seeking. The end product about which we are to be doing all this is to fulfill the Golden Rule. God knows how to give us good things so that we can do to others what we would like them to do to us. It's not a "for me" thing; it's about "them".

So, ask, knock, seek! Do it! You have the promise that our good Father will give us good gifts. Those good gifts are for giving to others. It's a win-win! But let's not miss that it is to do good rather than to merely avoid treating others in ways we wouldn't want to be treated, and the things we are asking for are to assist us in doing the good works He has designed for us. Let's not lose sight of that.

Acceptable Sins

We all know the evils that people do. There are murderers and rapists. There are those who injure children and those who torture puppies. There are those who rob banks and deal in drugs. We all know of these bad things. It's awful. It seems that we have, on the other hand, a range of "acceptable sins", things that, well, if you're going to get technical, are sins, but, look, everyone does them and, really, they're not that bad, are they?

The first one that comes to mind for me is unforgiveness. I mean, if someone does you wrong -- serious wrong -- who would blame you for holding a grudge? Indeed, in some of these cases, if you forgave, people would think you were really odd. No, no, morality does not require that you forgive in all cases. But then you read Jesus's words when He said, "If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt 6:15) and you might want to reconsider that position. Jesus doesn't seem to consider it an "acceptable sin". In the story of the two sinning servants in Matthew 18, one servant owed his master 10,000 talents and the other servant owed the first servant 100 denarii. Now, 100 denarii is not pocket change. A denarius was a day's wage. Think about how much you make in 100 days of work. A standard work week is 5 days, so that would be 20 weeks. This guy owed 20 weeks of pay to his fellow servant. On the other hand, the first owed his master, according to this converter, 88,831,168,831,169 denarii. Well, you do the math. However, the first servant got his debt forgiven. That left the second servant. The first owed nothing and the second owed 100 days' pay. So, in view of our "comparative sinning" perspective, which was the worst offender? As it turns out, in Jesus's story the worst offender was the guy who failed to forgive. His failure to forgive his coworker in light of the amount forgiven him cost him everything. Everything. Maybe we ought to reconsider the "acceptable sin" of unforgiveness.

You know, of course, that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Just going to the standard Ten Commandments, we'll find this kind of thinking is fairly standard. Idolatry? Not so bad. Making carved idols? Really bad. Taking God's name in vain? Pretty normal. Keeping the Sabbath (in any sense)? Really outdated. Honor your mother and father? Downright foolish. Murder, adultery, stealing, yeah, those are all really bad. Oh, well, murder isn't so bad if you're talking about hating someone (Matt 5:21-22) and adultery is actually standardized in the media (and the way some women dress to go to church, for that matter) if you're going to reference looking with lust (Matt 5:28), and, hey, everyone steals when it comes to things like income tax or the employer's time, so those aren't all bad. When it comes to "bearing false witness", that depends on the magnitude of the "false witness". Telling someone a lie to make them feel better is actually commendable! And then there's covetousness. Isn't that actually the backbone of Capitalism?

You know, when it comes right down to it, we have a lot more "acceptable sins" than unacceptable ones. Is there any wonder that we balk at God's divine justice and complain when He displays wrath rather than the mercy and grace we clearly deserve? I mean, we aren't really doing much that bad, are we?

You know, maybe we ought to reconsider our underlying premise of "acceptable sins" in its entirety.

What is a Christian?

I've already established that I do not believe Mormonism to be a cult in the normal sense of the word. I think I've also made it clear that I don't classify Mormonism as Christian, either. That doesn't mean that I think they're dirty rotten folk who ought to be spurned. Not at all. They're generally pretty well-behaved people with high moral standards. But I've known atheists with high moral standards who would also not classify themselves as Christians. And it's not that they're simply mistaken. I think lots of genuine Christians are mistaken. It's that they're mistaken on fundamental issues that define Christianity.

What, then, is a Christian? Mormons would like to tell you that it's in your behavior. You know, Jesus said, "You will recognize them by their fruits." And if that is Christian, then (many) Mormons are indeed Christians. But, if that is "Christian", then so is any moral person who is a Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, or even atheist. Since essentially all religions preach morality, then anyone who follows any religion, by this definition, is a Christian. And that, my friends, makes no sense.

Jesus made a different distinction. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:17-18). "Christian", by this definition, is someone who believes in "the only Son of God". Of course, that immediately becomes hazy because any informed atheist will admit that Jesus existed. Does that mean that they "believe in" Him? No one would say so. Apparently, then, it's not as simple as that, either. (Before we look further, remember that neither is it more complex than that. We just need clarification.)

The Gospel that is Christianity can be found in Ephesians 2. Here we see the problem and the answer. Humans are "dead in sins" (problem) (Eph 2:1-3). The answer is found in a God "rich in mercy" (Eph 2:4-7). Redemption from our sin condition is found by God's grace in the belief (faith) that Christ alone can rescue us from our condition (Eph 2:8-9). It's not works (Eph 2:9). It produces works (Eph 2:10), but that's not the means of salvation. That would be "Christianity" in its simplest form.

There is, of course, an underlying necessity here. The characters of this religion must be the same. Placing my faith in Jesus, my neighbor's Mexican gardener, wouldn't qualify. "What??!! I trust Jesus for my salvation! How can that be a problem?!" It has to be the Jesus who is, in Jesus's words, "the only Son of God". And, of course, it has to be the God whose Son He is. Other gods have other sons. Those don't count any more than the neighbor's gardener does. (No insult intended to the neighbor's gardener. He may produce a lovely lawn, just not salvation.)

As it turns out, then, the "God" that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worships is not the same God whose Son we are to trust. Theirs is one of many while the God of Christianity is singular -- the one and only (Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 45:5-6, 18; Mark 12:32; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5). Jesus is the only Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) while their "God" has many sons. While Christianity has a God who is three-in-one (too many references to list), they have many gods of many worlds, with the "God" of our world being only one of a multitude.

The Christian God is one and only. The Mormon God is not. The Christian Christ is the only begotten Son of God, a member of the Godhead. The Mormon Christ is not. Christian salvation is by faith in Christ apart from works. Mormon salvation is not. (On their website they claim, "This part of our existence is a time of learning in which we can prove ourselves, choose to come unto Christ, and prepare to be worthy of eternal life." The fundamental issue for biblical Christianity is that we cannot "prove ourselves" or "prepare to be worthy of eternal life".) Just operating on low-level, essential Christianity without any high theological discussion, it cannot be said that the LDS religion meets the criteria of essential Christianity.

One other point I'd like to make on the topic. This is another one of those questions about the efficacy of the Holy Spirit. Christ promised His Spirit would lead His people into all truth. Orthodox Christianity has claimed that the Holy Spirit has done just that. Mormons hold that "The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior's mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles." They argue, "As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text." They make it clear that "Individuals cannot be saved in their sins; they cannot receive unconditional salvation simply by declaring a belief in Christ with the understanding that they will inevitably commit sins throughout the rest of their lives." In other words, they deny in the fundamentals the historic view of the Church and Scripture, arguing instead that some 1800 years after Christ, Joseph Smith got it all straightened out. As I've made clear, this is a serious problem.

Are Mormons moral people? Largely, sure. That's not the question. Is Mitt Romney a good candidate for President? That's a question you'll have to answer for yourself. But don't do so based on whether or not he is a Christian. We don't have a "Christian requirement" for the office. (I'd suggest that many men voted into the office have not been Christians -- even some you like.) You need to decide what your values are when you vote for whomever you vote, and whether or not Mormons are Christians is likely not to be one of them. Nor am I suggesting that Mormons are to be vilified. They're as wrong as any other religion and need Christ like everyone else -- the real Christ. Please note, as well, that Mormons believe the same thing about Christians who are not Mormons. If you're one of those, you're wrong and need to change your beliefs. That goes two ways.

Other sources:
Mormonism 101
"Mormons Aren't Christians" Is Not an Epithet
LDS Test

Jesus on the Poor

There is a component of Christendom (that's my wide-range term) that argues that the "social gospel" is our primary task. The social gospel is good news to society: "God doesn't want you to be poor. We're going to work to make your lives better." That's narrow, of course. It would include the sick and the rest of the downtrodden, but that's the idea. It was, we are told, Jesus's main message. So I thought I'd take a look at exactly what Jesus did say about the poor.

He said the poor were blessed (Luke 6:20) which, if you take it at face value, would suggest that moving someone from "poor" to "not poor" would be a theft of a blessing. But He clarified in Matt 5:3 when He said that the "poor in spirit" are blessed, so that's a little different.

He told John the Baptist that "the poor have good news preached to them" (Matt 11:5). (See also Luke 4:18.)

The rich young ruler failed because Jesus told him to "sell what you possess and give it to the poor" (Matt 19:21).

When the disciples protested because a woman poored expensive ointment on Jesus's feet -- "This ointment might have been sold ... and given to the poor" -- He said it was a beautiful thing she had done because "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me" (Matt 26:11).

Jesus said that salvation had come to Zacchaeus's house when he gave half of his goods to the poor (Luke 19:8-9).

That's pretty much a comprehensive list of Jesus's statements on the poor, at least according to the concordance. And I think it largely sums up what Jesus wanted to get across. Let's see if we can consolidate it. First and foremost, above any care and feeding, the poor (like everyone else) need the Gospel. Not some social gospel. They need the good news about Christ, salvation from sin. I'm afraid that for many that gets ignored in their attempts to "advocate for the poor." Note, by the way, that this is highlighted in the event with Mary pouring ointment on Jesus's feet. Caring for the poor is important, but "the poor you will always have with you." More important is Christ.

Beyond that, what does Jesus indicate about caring for the poor? Jesus wants people who are His followers to give, to give generously, to give liberally. Followers of Christ ought to be noted for their generosity and charity in caring for people in need. We ought to feed the hungry and care for the sick. We ought to "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" (Luke 14:13) where we can minister to their needs. And while most of the charitable organizations these days are para-church organizations, I would have to say that a large number of the followers of Christ are not meeting this command from Christ.

Having said that, what I do not see is a "social gospel" concept. I don't see a command to advocate for the poor, to protest the conditions of people with less than others, to demand higher taxes or call on the government to handle these problems. Mind you, I'm not saying that we shouldn't advocate for people in need. I'm simply saying that, despite what I've heard from so many sources, I don't see any such command in Scripture, especially from the lips of Jesus. I don't see anywhere that Jesus stood against the government of the day to see that needy people were cared for. I don't see where He called on rich people to surrender their wealth to care for the poor. I see lots of commands to His followers to do that, but not to the public in general.

Look, let's face it, American Christians, we are not caring for "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" as we are commanded. We're falling down on that score, and we should correct it. No excuses. If you classify yourself as a Christian, a follower of Christ, it ought to be part of your godly practice to care for people in need. Jesus commanded it. We ought to do it. I'm not denying it and I'm encouraging it. I just don't see where Jesus was "the advocate for the poor", where our calling is to force corporations or private parties to give to the needy. I don't see a biblical command to stand against unbelievers for the poor and hungry, insisting that they are required to do what Jesus told us to do. We are the social gospel. We are to be the ones helping people in need. Requiring it of people who by nature despise God and reject Christ doesn't make much sense. And while it would be of benefit to them to help people in need, demanding it of others because we are commanded to do it isn't what Christ had in mind. Obeying was what Christ had in mind.

The Testimony of Church History

I stated recently that it is beyond my comprehension how it is that people can claim that the Church got it wrong all this time and now, here at the end of the 20th or into the 21st century, we finally figured it out. These things aren't matters of archaeology or the like. "We always figured that Mt. Sinai was here, but modern archaeology indicates that it's likely over there." No, not that kind of stuff. I'm talking about doctrine, important matters, issues of the faith. If it turned out, for instance, that Friday was not the day that Christ was crucified, it wouldn't have any major impact on Christianity. If, on the other hand, the Church has always believed that homosexual behavior is a sin in God's eyes and, lo and behold, we find out today that this just isn't the case, well now, that would have major implications.

The claim I've made is the claim Christ made. "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). Of course I don't think (nor does anyone I've ever heard or read) this means that the Holy Spirit will reveal all possible knowledge. (Someone complained "They didn't use modern medical practices" suggesting that this was "truth" that the Holy Spirit failed to impart.) I'm basing my view on the claim that the Holy Spirit would lead His people into true doctrine, the truth regarding the counsel of God. The position I've taken is that if it took 2,000 years for the Holy Spirit to get across the truth that ____ (where the blank may be that homosexual behavior is perfectly acceptable to God under certain circumstances or that the Bible was never intended to be understood at face value or that churches aren't supposed to be anything at all like they are today or that the Trinity is a false concept created by Constantine or whatever other conspiracy concept might be floating around) is the case, then the Holy Spirit is a poor communicator and a general failure in His role as truth teller.

The argument I've gotten on this is standard. "How can you say that? The Church has always made mistakes/always had disagreements. What makes this any different?" This misses the point in two areas. First, the claim of Christ is not that the Church would be infallible. This is obvious, as most of the New Testament is written to counter errors popping up in the Church. Jesus and the Apostles all warned of weeds in the wheat, false teachers, and divisions in the Church. That they would exist was a given. So to tell me "The Church has always made mistakes" doesn't counter the claim that the Holy Spirit would lead His people into all truth.

The other area of problem here is a misunderstanding of my claim. I am not arguing that the Church has always been right. What I am arguing is that the Holy Spirit has always imparted the truth. In the days of Elijah, God told the prophet that He had retained a remnant (1 Kings 19:18). It was a small number; 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal. This is my understanding. From Christ through today there has always been genuine Christianity with orthodox doctrine. Sometimes it was obvious; sometimes it was not. But it always has been ... if we are to believe Jesus's claim that the Spirit would lead His people into all truth. If I cannot trace my beliefs back through Church history, I would argue that my beliefs are suspect. I don't base this on my skills of interpretation or wise thinking, but on the reliability of the Holy Spirit.

The objection that there has always been disagreement in the Church doesn't help here. I understand (I disagree, but I understand) when people say, "Well, they couldn't come to an agreement on Predestination in the past, so why should I now?" But note that a position on the topic has been held from the beginning. This is not the same thing as saying that the idea is new or the Church was always wrong. Interestingly, the things that are most hotly contested today are not issues of dissent in Church history. No one questioned from the beginning of the Church (and before) that marriage was the union of a man and a woman, but today there are those who have figured out that the Church has always been wrong on that score and really it's just a mutual commitment for love. (Funny ... I don't even see the demand of "love" in biblical marriages. I see it as commanded of Christian husbands, but not as the main point of marriage.) The Church has always held that homosexual behavior is a sin, without any disagreement, but today we're assured that the Church has always been wrong on this issue. The Church has universally held to the inerrancy of Scripture from its earliest days, but today wiser heads have prevailed. These have never been questions in Church history or, if they have, were settled long ago, but some today are arguing (without saying it and even denying they're arguing it) that the Holy Spirit has failed to bring out the truth until now.

Yes, the Church has made mistakes. No doubt. Yes, there have been disagreements and divisions. Without question. Indeed, these things were promised in Scripture. And they happened. But if genuine Christianity cannot be traced from its beginning to today or if, in fact, it has taken the Spirit of God 2,000 some odd years to get across simple truths like these, we will need to question the efficacy and reliability of the Spirit, the Bible, and of Christ who made the claim. As for me, I will continue to question anyone who claims to come up with a new doctrine or hold to some vast conspiracy theory regarding the Church. If God is not big enough to superintend His Word or His Body, He's not a big enough God to worship.

More Gems from Lamentations

³¹ For the Lord will not cast off forever, ³² but, though He cause grief, He will have compassion according to the abundance of His steadfast love; ³³ for He does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. ³⁴ To crush underfoot all the prisoners of the earth, ³⁵ to deny a man justice in the presence of the Most High, ³⁶ to subvert a man in his lawsuit, the Lord does not approve. ³⁷ Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? ³⁸ Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? ³⁹ Why should any living mortal, or any man, offer complaint in view of his sins? ⁴⁰ Let us test and examine our ways, and return to the LORD! (Lam 3:31-40)

Chapter 3 has some really good stuff in it. I already mentioned the wonderful reality that "The Lord is my portion", a fully sufficient answer to whatever hardship you may be encountering. But these other components stood out to me as well.

I had a conversation recently with someone who assured me that God only had one will. His will was only for good. I was listening to a debate the other day and heard someone claim that it is not God's will that bad things happen. A very common claim. Not supportable, at least from Jeremiah's perspective. Note his position here. God "does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men." Does that mean that God does not afflict or grieve people? Clearly not, since the entire book is Jeremiah's lament over the affliction and grief that God has caused in His judgment of Judah. God does afflict and grieve the children of men. He just doesn't enjoy it. (Two wills.) Instead, Jeremiah is quite certain that "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?" Do you know that? Or are you going to claim that only good comes from the mouth of the Most High and the bad comes from someone or somewhere else? God repeatedly makes this claim about Himself. Keep in mind that idolatry is worshiping a replacement for the real God. If the real God claims to produce both pleasant and unpleasant, good and bad, light and darkness, well-being and calamity, and you claim it's not so, that would be a replacement for the real God. Just a warning there.

What is Jeremiah's answer to this? I mean, if it is true that God afflicts people and it is true that God Himself claims to produce both good and bad, is that fair? Is that just? Jeremiah has an answer. "Why should any living mortal, or any man, offer complaint in view of his sins?" In other words, "Are you sure you want to go there?" We tend to forget what we deserve. We tend to take grace for granted. Jeremiah is reminding us. Even as saved individuals, God would be fully justified in pouring out all sorts of temporal hardships on sinners such as us. We've earned it. And it's important to keep in mind. He who is forgiven much loves much. If we deserve God's favor, it isn't grace.

Jeremiah, then, has an application to this little sermon. Given the steadfast love of God, His disappointment in having to inflict people with difficulties, His willingness to do so, and our own sinfulness, He has a response. Let's not complain about hardships. "Let us test and examine our ways, and return to the LORD!"

Thank You, Lord, when You discipline and correct us. Thank You for the undeserved favor You've already shown us in giving us Your Son. Thank You for your mercy when we deserve justice. Teach us to watch our ways and to turn always to You.

Courageous -- Not a Review

As I mentioned, my wife and I went to see the movie, Courageous. The movie spawned all sorts of thoughts. This, then, is oriented around the movie, but it isn't a review. Well, perhaps a little.

The movie had a lot to commend it, and, as I said, I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet seen it. If you're a Christian and a male (either a father or a potential father), I highly recommend it.

The movie is about four police officers and their families who are courageous as officers but resolve to be more courageous as fathers. The movie has its action sequences as all cop films have without the gratuitous blood-letting or foul language that no cop film requires. It is well acted and well filmed and worth the visit. I don't want to give away anything for those of you who haven't seen it, so that's about all you're going to get of the details from me.

What else did I like about the movie? Well, the first thing I'll say is that it had one of the clearest presentations of the Gospel that you'll find in any theater. It wasn't muffled or mushy. It wasn't "seeker-friendly" or coddling. It was correct. And it was necessary. As in the previous movie, Fireproof, the movie carried a message. I appreciated the fact that it wasn't "soft". It called on unbelievers to believe, but it carried a powerful message for believers. In other words, it wasn't happy with "easy believism". "Just believe and life will be good!" Nope, not here. It is a vehicle for a powerful call to godliness. I appreciated the fact that this carried a timely and necessary call for God's men to be godly men. In the popular feminized Christianity of the day, men are often left without any solid call. This was aimed directly at God's men. We need it. One other undercurrent throughout the movie that I really liked was the reminder of the Providence of God. We miss often the concept of Providence. Do you see the root word? "Provide." That is, God as Provider gives us what we need all the time. Maybe that's pleasant. Maybe it's not. Maybe we think we accomplished it. Maybe it's plain we didn't. But God is always Sovereign and always provides what we need. I caught that in this movie.

I did encounter some concerns in the movie. There was a nagging question of whether or not it was a morality play or a Gospel presentation. If you, like me, took it as a call for Christian men to live up to God's call for fathers, it wasn't a problem. If you took it without that filter, it seemed like another call for people to be nice. Here, let me put it this way. Is Christianity about being a good father (or whatever) or knowing Christ? It would be easy in this movie to get that confused. I'm left with a conundrum. The movie calls Christian men to be godly. The movie also shares the Gospel. It's easy to confuse the message. Is Christianity about the Gospel (saved by faith apart from works) and being a moral person? Is Christianity just another moral call? It could come across that way. On the other hand, Scripture repeatedly calls believers to godliness. Is it right to leave that out? I'm not entirely sure.

One of the problems I had with this film is an unfortunate necessity in the medium. I mean, if the movie was made like real life, who would watch it? No, it has to work this way. All films do. You see things going well. There is a crisis. The character(s) work through and things turn out okay. That's how a movie works. That's not how life works. In real life, a guy may lose his job and remain unemployed a long time. A woman could contract cancer and die from it. Real Christians pray and feel like God is not listening sometimes because the answer they get is silence. This is real life. It doesn't make for watchable movies. This concept, however, tends to lead us into a problem in our thinking. When you see a movie like this or hear in wonderful testimony how so-and-so prayed and God answered miraculously, you think "Isn't God wonderful?!" Yes, He is, but He doesn't always do that. And He's still wonderful. You can almost get the impression that God is our butler, a really handy Guy to have around to fix things when there's trouble. A personal servant who makes our lives better. If He doesn't, either we're not good enough (too sinful, lacking faith, something) or He has failed to meet His obligations. It's an easy step from a movie like this to a thought like that. But, as long as you're aware of it, you can avoid it.

There are those complaining about these things that I've mentioned, but with more vigor than I'm offering. I simply put them out there for your consideration. Do they properly divide between Gospel and morality? Do they rightly represent life and Christianity? Could they cause people to be confused? All these are things to think about. My bottom line is Paul's bottom line: "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice" (Phil 1:18). Go see the movie. Keep in mind the reservations. Don't conclude (as too many foolishly do today) that movies are real life. Don't get confused into thinking that Christianity is some morality religion. Don't think that God is your private helper, your personal "fix it" Guy. Pay attention to the truth, especially to the call for God's men to be God's men. It's a good movie and worth the effort. Go see it.

The Cult of Mormonism

"Is Mormonism a cult?" That question is being bandied about in the media and on the Internet. "Do you [Evangelicals] believe that Mormonism is a cult?" And you have to read that with the shock and outrage that they bring to the question. As if, "How dare you consider it a cult??!!"

What is a cult? If, by "cult", you mean "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies" (the standard English definition), then, yes, it is. So is every religion. Since all religions contain their own particular system of religious worship, all religions are cults. But I'm fairly certain that this isn't the (offensive) definition about which the question is being asked. So to what form of "cult" are they referring?

One more likely definition would be "a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents." We often think of cults as some sort of mind control, some sort of brain washing where the followers simply follow like automatons. Is Mormonism that kind of a cult? I don't see it. People come and go from the religion all they want. It doesn't seem to be any more of some "devious psychological techniques" than any other false religion. Often we think of a "cult" as "a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual." Nope. Can't see that in the Mormon religion. So is Mormonism a cult? With the exception of the standard definition which would include all religious beliefs, I can't see how Mormonism could be classified as a "cult".

One other definition for the word is found in academic religious studies. They place "cult" under the term "new religious movements". Now that would be the case for Mormonism. While they like to claim that they are "Christian", it is not possible to maintain that claim in any way, shape, or form.

Mormonism rejects the singular mainstay of Judaism and Christianity carried from the beginning: monotheism. They are polytheists and claim, in fact, that we, too, can become gods.

Mormons reject the Christ of the Bible, represented as "the only begotten of the Father", the singular Son of God. The Bible presents Him as the second part of the Trinity, a part of the Godhead. They consider Him an offspring of God, a literal son, in fact, brother of Lucifer. Not the same Christ.

Mormonism rejects "saved by faith apart from works" in favor of "saved by works". That is, direct contradiction. We are saved by faith to start with, but ultimate salvation is attained by working for it. Ultimate salvation, by the way, is godhood for those who attain it.

Mormons reject the authority of Scripture. They venerate the Bible to some extent, but hold a two-fold position that says that our Bibles were contaminated and are, therefore, unreliable, and that the Book of Mormon is pure and, therefore, the best source of truth.

Is Mormonism a cult? Not in the common usage. It is a religion, so it would be a cult in that use of the term, and it is "new religion", so it would be a cult in that use of the term. But I wouldn't classify it as a cult in any of our normal understanding of the term. Neither could I classify it as Christianity. Not in any standard understanding of that term. It is not merely a "different" form of Christian theology, but a complete rejection of anything that makes Christianity what it is.

Greed is Bad

In view of the other post today regarding the nonsense of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, I would like to state that I do not think that greed is good. Pointing out the nonsense of Jim Wallis's "It's a Christian duty" and this "Give me what I want because you've got more than I do" movement should not be construed in any way to absolve people whom Scripture clearly indicates are a dangerous and sinful group -- the greedy and the wealthy. Remember -- and this would seem to apply to some on both sides -- "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

Just in case it wasn't clear.

Occupy Wall Street

Small businesses make up 99.7% of all employer companies, but employ less than half of all private sector employees. Of the non-farm sector in 2007, small businesses employed 60 million people and corporations employed 61 million. Small businesses pay 44% of the total U.S. private payroll. Of course, the goal of most small businesses is to grow into large businesses.

Now Jim Wallis has made it a matter of Christian necessity. If you aren't standing with these "Occupy Wall Street" people, you're standing against Jesus. (I'm really amused when he suggests that you send the protesters a pizza, like some of these pizza companies aren't among the "big corporations" that are being protested.) This, you see, is because the number one priority of Christianity is to eliminate poverty. (Unfortunately, I missed that commission in Scripture.)

As it turns out, those other guys -- you know, the ones that employ more than half of all private sector employees, pay more than 50% of private sector payrolls, and are the aim of most small businesses -- have become the enemy. Corporations are "them". They're the ones to overthrow, to tax, to throw out on their ear. We will protest them loudly on the computers they made for us, express our complaints via the smartphones they've built for us, take time off from working for them to raise our voices while we wear the clothes they made for us and take pictures of the event with the cameras they produced for us. Down with corporations!

And somewhere in the back of my head is this small voice saying something about biting hands that feed and that kind of nonsense ...

But, really, that's not what this is about. It's not about eliminating corporations. Okay, to a small number who aren't thinking about it, perhaps, but not to most. No, the complaint we see is against "corporate greed" and the number we see is "99%". The protest is that there is a group of people -- 1% of the population -- who are richer than all the rest of us. One percent of the population is rich, and the rest of us are poor. Thus, the demand is that the 1% surrender their status as rich and give it to the rest of us, the poor.

The other night on the news I heard a talking head say, "The Tea Party has accused the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement of being anti-capitalism." I thought that was a stretch. (He didn't cite any references.) (And I don't cite the media member I quoted because I can't exactly recall which one it was.) Then I thought about it more. According to Dictionary.com, capitalism is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." The demand from this group is that the government put an end ... to capitalism. Wealth must not be left to private individuals or corporations. It must be distributed.

One of the repeated messages regarding this "Occupy Wall Street" movement that I have heard from multiple sources ranging from news outlets to David Letterman is that what they want isn't at all clear. As you see the outrage and read the banners and follow the "movement", keep that in mind. They don't know where they're going. "What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!!" Do they want the dismantling of corporations? Let's hope they're not that foolish. The impact on life and the economy -- ours and the world -- would be devastating. Do they want the government to mandate the redistribution of wealth? Let's hope not. We don't really want to switch from a free enterprise nation to a communist nation. Do they really believe that 99% of America is "the poor"? I'm afraid that's often the case -- a group of people too ungrateful to recognize what they have and too blind to see the vast difference between a poor American and a poor African (as an example). But, then, ingratitude is a standard problem among humans, isn't it? Since ingratitude is so heartily condemned in Scripture, I would have to disagree with Mr. Wallis. Standing with the ungrateful to oppose those who have more than we do simply on the basis that they have more than we do is not a Christian act. It's not even American.

The Lord is my portion

I already did A Lesson from Lamentations. Welcome to the sequel.

The first two chapters of the Lamentations of Jeremiah are primarily in the third person. Jeremiah is looking at the destruction of his beloved Judah and weeping for their suffering. His lamentation is over their destruction. The third chapter is a shift of gears. Here it becomes personal. Here Jeremiah talks about his own pain. And he isn't shy about naming the source. As a sample:

I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of His wrath; He has driven and brought me into darkness without any light; surely against me He turns His hand again and again the whole day long (Lam 3:1-3).

According to Jeremiah, God Himself has turned on him. According to this prophet of God, it is God's wrath that he is enduring. There is no hint of a sense of injustice. Still, Jeremiah thinks it's not only a judgment against his people, but against him.

As we read on, he fleshes out the pain he's in. He summarizes down around verse 17:

My soul is bereft of peace; I have forgotten what happiness is; so I say, "My endurance has perished; so has my hope from the LORD" (Lam 3:17-18).

How many of us would want to correct Jeremiah? "Jerry, Jerry, come on. Surely God didn't do this to you. Surely you can't mean that God has removed your peace. Come on, Jeremiah. You can't mean that your hope is gone. Where else do we get hope but from the Lord?" That's what we'd like to say. We would, of course, be saying it in clear contradiction to his own words. And we would be premature. Jeremiah, you see, isn't finished.

But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in Him." The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul who seeks Him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD (Lam 3:21-26).

Ah! There, see? There is more to the story. I'm fascinated at the comfort Jeremiah finds in the midst of his very real suffering. It is not that there is hope that things will get better. He has already denied that. It is not that things aren't as bad as he thinks they are. Indeed, they are absolutely that bad. It's not that God will rescue him from his troubles. He has no reason to believe that. Jeremiah's hope doesn't come from the chance of something better. Jeremiah's hope comes purely and simply from God. "The Lord is my portion," he says. That's it. That's all.

We could learn from this. We could benefit from the recognition that "The Lord is my portion." When we face hardships and trials, we often look for the light at the end of the tunnel. Jeremiah found the light in the darkest moment simply in the presence of God. Paul put it this way: "I count everything as loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil 3:8). That's Paul's secret. That's Jeremiah's secret. The real value in life is knowing Christ. All that other stuff -- comfort, wealth, health, family, friends, self-confidence, all that other stuff -- can go out the window. We can be without any hope of regaining any of it and still have hope, still have peace, as long as we realize, "The Lord is my portion." Nothing else matters.

Responding to Pain

My wife and I saw the new movie, Courageous, this weekend. Good movie. I recommend it. I highly recommend it to any dads or dads-to-be (at any time in the future). This is not a post about the movie. It is a post spurred by the movie.

In the movie (no spoilers here, so relax), there were various crises that various characters faced. Since the movie was made by Christians with Christian overtones, several of these events spawned crises of faith. You know how it goes. Bad things happen in life and we -- believers -- ask God, "Why?" We want to know where God is when unpleasant events occur. We're hurting physically or emotionally or spiritually and we often don't cry out to God for help, but for an explanation. And I'm not suggesting this is wrong. I'm just asking if it's rational.

Here's the thing. I'm speaking here only of Christians, believers, people who know that "God works all things together for good." I'm talking about those who have heard that we ought to "count it all joy when you encounter various trials, knowing this, that the testing of your faith produces patience." I'm referring only to those who know we have a sovereign God who works all things after the counsel of His will. Everyone else ... you're on your own. But for those of us who know all this, how does that standard response of "Why, God??!!" make sense? Oh, it makes sense from an emotional perspective. I get that. As I said, it's standard. But it doesn't seem reasonable in light of the truth that we have. When bad things happen to God's people, we have the absolute assurance that it will work for good. Not only do we know that it will work for God's ultimate good (for which we should rejoice), but we know that it will serve to move us toward perfection (James 1:2-4). This is good. So how does it make sense to have a crisis of faith over these events?

Now, don't get me wrong. I've had them. You will, or likely will. Nor do I think it's wrong to do so. The Psalms are full of people crying out in just that way. "Where are you, God?! I'm in pain!" I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't happen. In fact, it is when we ask these hard questions in these hard events that we seem to come to the most sure answers -- "evidence from a hostile witness", so to speak. So I'm not trying to be cold-hearted or judgmental. Here's all I'm asking. Do you ever get to the place that you thank God for these things? Mind you, I'm not talking about thanking God in spite of these things. A parent who, say, loses a child might, after the grief, get to the place where he or she thanks God for the time they did have with their precious child. That's fine and good, but it's not what I'm talking about. If we understand that these painful experiences are actually provided by a good and loving God for our best interests -- for good -- wouldn't it make sense that, after the pain has subsided perhaps, we would thank God for the good that He provided ... for that pain that He gave to improve our lives?

A Lesson from Lamentations

So, I got a little tired of the easy, sweet meat of the epistles of Paul and thought I'd switch over to some of the more difficult stuff. So here I am, reading in, of all things, Jeremiah's Lamentations. Go figure. But, no, wait, it has some really good things in it.

The book is all about ... get this ... Jeremiah lamenting. (Yeah, like who'd have guessed, right?) He is lamenting over the destruction of Judah, of Jerusalem, of his own people. Now, keep in mind, Jeremiah had spent his life warning that this was coming. It wasn't a surprise to him. Still, there it was, just as he had said it would be. And he was upset. I mean, sure, God did it (Jeremiah has no question about that) and it was, in that sense, a good thing. Still, it hurt to see. We suffer from that ourselves at times, I'm quite sure. We are glad that God does what He does, but sometimes it hurts to watch.

Down in the middle of the second chapter, Jeremiah tells of one of the things that caused Judah to fail. "Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading" (Lam 2:14). Now, when we think of false prophets, we think of the latter idea. They give false and misleading oracles. They tell them things that they want to hear, but aren't actually true. We don't often think of the other aspect: "They have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes."

You see, Jeremiah understood that calling out sin was for their benefit. Despite all you hear today about being judgmental and intrusive and overly moral and too narrow-minded, Jeremiah disagreed. He said that the problem was not that these false prophets were judgmental or intolerant. Their problem -- the reason they did such grave damage to Judah -- was that they failed to point out iniquity. He said that pointing out sin had the potential of restoring Judah's fortunes.

I think there's a message here for us. Sure, we need to share the gospel and we need to focus on glorifying God and all that. But if we love our country, if we care about the people around us, it would seem from this text that we ought to expose iniquity where we see it. If we would like to see our nation and our neighbors restored, Jeremiah seems to be saying that we can assist that process by calling out sin when we see it. Now, I know ... that isn't exactly on the list of things for most people who want to help our country. When Christians stand back and say, "We want to be inclusive, not judgmental," they are siding with Jeremiah's false prophets, not with God. But, then, God's ways are not our ways, are they?

Exceedingly Abundantly

¹⁴ For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, ¹⁵ from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, ¹⁶ that according to the riches of his glory He may grant you to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in your inner being, ¹⁷ so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith -- that you, being rooted and grounded in love, ¹⁸ may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, ¹⁹ and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. ²⁰ Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, ²¹ to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen (Eph 3:14-21).

Sure, that's a long section, but it's Sunday and it's worth it. It's a prayer from Paul for the Ephesian Christians, indeed, for "all the saints". He prays for God to strengthen them and to root and ground them in love. It's all very good. But when he gets to a description of the love of God in which he wants them grounded, it gets ... large.

He prays that they would have "strength to comprehend" this love. What? What's to comprehend? We know love, right? Well, apparently not this love. It is wide and tall and deep and long. It is, according to Paul, a love that "surpasses knowledge". Did you get that? Because it sounds a bit crazy. Paul wants the saints "to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge." Sorry, Paul? That sounds contradictory. What he says is that we should know by experience the love of Christ that we can never comprehend.

I get the image of a guy in a rowboat on Lake Superior. Water as far as the eye can see. He is deeply thirsty, so he dips his cup into the water and takes a drink. Ah! That's good. He slips out of the boat and paddles about for a few moments to cool off. Ah! Refreshing. Now, does this guy comprehend Lake Superior at this point? No, not at all! But he has experienced it. He knows it better than I do, who has only seen it (once ... as a child). Kind of like that.

Still, I want to keep in mind that the love of Christ, as much as we think we get it, surpasses knowledge. This love requires supernatural strength to grasp. This love requires divine power to experience it. And while I have suggested a human way of understanding the phrase, "to know that which surpasses knowledge", it is still too large to really get your mind around. This is why Paul's prayer ends up with an exclamation of the glory of God. Getting the love of Christ is, frankly, far beyond our capabilities. It is not, however, beyond God's capabilities. And here Paul runs into real problems of expression. The only way that we would be able to know that which surpasses knowledge is by the work of God who "is able to do exceedingly abundantly beyond all that we ask or think." It's a huge expression -- "exceedingly abundantly beyond." It isn't short. It isn't simple. It's really, really big. It's more than you could ever ask of God. Indeed, it's beyond more than you could even imagine. Bigger than even that. What God is capable of is really big -- even beyond Paul's abilities to express it.

Now here's the kicker. This power, this extreme ability of God, this thing that enables us to know that which cannot be known and to experience the love of Christ, is "at work within us". Did you get that? It's not available. It's not out there, waiting to be tapped. It's not simply God's capabilities. It is within us. It's already at work within us.

Indeed, "to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen."

The Passing of an iGenius

We noted with sadness and much ado this week the passing of Steve Jobs, the iGenius. Founder of Apple, he leaves behind a wife, a son and two daughters, and a third daughter from another relationship. Steve left us with the Mac and the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad. While Microsoft ruled the commercial computer world, Apple ruled the fun computer world and even forced Microsoft to make changes to keep up. Steve Jobs had his effect. He gave us new ways to listen to music everywhere we went and new ways to use the phone. He achieved the ultimate portable computer in the iPads. Rooted in Buddhism, he tried to live a good life and give people the benefit of his genius. He epitomized capitalism while indulging in generosity and compassion. Steve was a nice guy.

Some may argue that Steve left us a generation of addicts, people who can't seem to function without the "smartphone", who need the "next latest thing", slaves to the machines he created. Even if you aren't a user of his devices, you are likely influenced by them. His technology assisted in the "social networking" of today which is, by definition, a process removed from actual personal interaction. Where we once could escape the noise of the phones and the computers and the Internet by leaving the house, his technology made it possible to be plugged in all the time with no apparent possibility of relief. Some might argue that it's not all good stuff. Ironically, the lunatic Westboro Baptist Church -- you know, those nuts that protest funerals for our fallen military members as divine justice, that kind of thing -- have announced via Twitter that they will be protesting Jobs's funeral because he "gave God no glory & taught sin." It was posted via an iPhone.

Apple said in their statement on his death "The world is immeasurably better because of Steve." I have to admit I'm not clear on what that means. Is it immeasurable because it's too big? In what way? Or maybe it's too complex. But what does that mean? Or you could say that something is "immeasurable" if it's too small to measure. What exactly does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. It means that the value system that we embrace as a nation and that Steve fed in us is a convoluted value system that makes technology a great thing and minimizes those values that Christians are supposed to share. Frankly, it's no reflection on Steve. He simply had his finger on the pulse of America and knew what we'd want. Now he's looking at a different value system. I'm praying for his family.

Shaping the World

A worldview is the view you have of the world. "Thanks, Stan. I needed that." No, I'm being simplistic. A worldview is how you answer the major questions. Why are we here? What is truth? What does the future look like? How then are we to live? The really big questions. Your worldview answers these questions and, in terms, shapes your life. So what shapes a worldview?

The standard worldview is shaped by the world around you. It is the collection of experiences, emotions, relationships, education, and so on that make up your life. For most people, that is the limit of the available sources. For the majority, things like science, research, studies, and especially experience are the primary sources of reliable information. For a large number this information is analyzed by their emotional response and used to determine what is or isn't true. Interestingly, this final step varies widely. One person will analyze the available news and research and conclude that things are fairly normal and another will see conspiracies and other mysteries lurking around every corner. This is largely because the conclusions -- the truth claims -- are drawn from their feelings, and feelings are subjective enough to not require all the facts in order to arrive at some outlandish outcome. Others are more logical, analyzing the available data and determining what is or is not true based on their thoughts on the data. In all cases, however, sources are prioritized and then determine truth claims. Science very often trumps experience. Experience usually rules over conjecture. And in this structure science and experience become the "gods of this world", so to speak, arbitrating truth in all cases. The trick in this worldview is trying to align all the available information to a coherent pattern. Thus, when the Bible talks about "creation" and science claims "evolution", this worldview demands that the biblical account be shifted somehow. If it isn't dismissed outright, it is assigned to legend or myth or some other less-than-factual realm. When the Bible claims that "There is none who does good; no, not one" and experience says there are lots of good people out there, the biblical account is either dismissed or downplayed because science and experience outweigh other truth claims in this worldview.

A far more rare worldview is a biblical one. In this one the Bible shapes all other truth claims. The Bible says, for instance, that God created the universe, so this worldview says "That's true" and concludes that scientific inquiry that denies this is not true. In this worldview the biblical account of marriage (the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of cooperation and procreation) is the definition of marriage and other views are not accurate representations of marriage. When Jesus speaks of an eternal torment for sinners, a person with a biblical worldview doesn't wonder "Is there an afterlife?" or "Is there an actual Hell?" The answer is a given. The trick of this worldview is to try to align science and experience (and the rest) with what the Bible says. Thus, when experience tells you there are lots of good people and the Bible says "There is none good; no, not one", you're going to have to reexamine your understanding of "good", not explain how the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Strategies for marriage, child-rearing, work ethics, and even how to get along with your neighbors are defined in this worldview by what the Bible says, not by "what works" or "what feels right" or "what the studies say".

Clearly the second view is much rarer than the standard worldview. You don't score points with the standard worldview people by ignoring their standard sources of truth. You don't come across as intelligent by defining what they accept as definitive as misleading and wrong-headed. You're not likely to be the favorite invitee to the party. But, as Paul said, "The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:18-20). No, a biblical worldview won't assist you in arriving at the "popular" or "fun" or "mainline" position. Conversely, attempting to claim a "biblical worldview" while redefining Scripture in terms of the world's standards works out to be simply a contradiction in terms. So, your call. I'll leave you to decide which is your preferable worldview. Just keep in mind that your worldview shapes your life. Be not deceived.

The Value of Good Works

I've now indicated that the primary point of Christianity is not good works, but salvation. The aim is not being good enough to get to heaven (a possibility that Christianity denies at the outset), but to be "born of God", to have a relationship with the living God that we do not have at the start. I've further indicated that good works then function as an indicator. Good works in Christianity are the unavoidable result of a restored relationship, the natural outworking of the presence of God in the believer. And, there, in just a couple of sentences, I've summed up two days of posts.

There remains a question, I think. If Christianity is not about being good, but about being saved, then why do Christians care about the morality of the society in which they live? If we hold that we cannot earn God's favor, why would it matter if our world is a moral place? If we argue that all have sinned and deserve punishment from God that can only be avoided by faith in Christ, why do we make so much noise about all the misbehaving in the world? I mean, look, if we were wildly successful and passed laws to ban abortion and made it a universal rule that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and we could outlaw divorce and, oh, I don't know, you can make a list of the behaviors Christians are so concerned about ... if we could get all that straightened out so we had a more moral society, what would we accomplish? Since good works do not achieve salvation and morality does not earn God's favor, this new, moral majority would not be saved by this condition. So why do we care about voting against pro-abortion candidates and passing laws protecting marriage and all that? Of what value are good works to the general, unbelieving public?

First, keep in mind that "good" is a relative term. The biblical definition is that which is done by God and for the glory of God. The biblical definition, therefore, denies the ability of any Natural Man to do good. Thus, Jesus said, "There is none good but God" and Paul said, "There is none who does good; no, not one." The "good works" about which I speak are simply the alignment of our actions to what God has said we are supposed to do (or not do).

With that premise, there are still reasons for encouraging biblical morality in our world. First, to do what God commands because God commands it is, intrinsically, the right and proper thing to do. It is best. It is wise. It is good.

Second, God, as Manufacturer of humans, knows best how the human works. As such, His commands are not intended as some sort of killjoy technique, but an optimizer. If you want the best "performance" out of life, you will need to follow the "Manufacturer's" instructions.

Third, God will punish people in kind with their level of evil. All sin is evil. All sinners will be punished. The level of that punishment will vary depending on the depth of their depravity. As in our own legal system, all violators are punished, but the extent of that punishment is a response to how bad the criminal behavior is. Minimizing bad behavior in the unsaved will result in less torment.

For God's creation to do what God has commanded is the right thing to do. It makes sense. It is beneficial. Further, it is the best thing for happiness, for relationships, for self-fulfillment, for all aspects of life. Doing what is right is just a good thing to do. And, of course, even if a person rejects Christ to the very end, the final judgment will be far worse for those who indulge in more evil than those who avoid it.

Doing good doesn't earn salvation. We don't get to heaven by being moral, by some cosmic balance sheet where we're more "good" than "bad". There is no grading on a curve. Being good doesn't earn God's favor. There are, however, many benefits from a morality based on God's instructions and serious costs in violating that morality. Anyone with a heart, therefore, would want to encourage a godly moral structure for society rather than letting our world slip into its natural evil. It just makes sense.

Is This Thing On?

Yesterday I claimed that the point of Christianity is not to make bad people into good people -- not a moral code -- but to make dead people into living people. The point of Christianity is to restore a relationship between God and His creatures. It is not to make good people, but to save us from our own evil and the bad things that result from it.

"So," someone might well say, "why all this morality stuff? If the point is not to make bad people into good people, why do Christians care so much about good and bad?" Good question. The claim of Eph 2:8-9 is "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." See? Not works. So what do works have to do with it? This, I suppose, is where people get easily muddled. "Doesn't Christianity include good works?" Yes. "But didn't you just say that's not the point?" Yes. "So good works are a part of Christianity?" Yes. "Oh, so it is like every other religion!" No.

Martin Luther said that we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. The verse that follows the two I quoted above says this: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). So there is a fundamental difference in the good works of other religions and the good works of Christianity. In all other religions, you do good to avoid bad consequences. In Christianity you do good as a result of the restored relationship with God. Here, look at what Paul writes in Ephesians 4. First, keep in mind what he has said up to this point. He has said that as believers we have all the heavenly blessings already (Eph 1:3-14). He has said that we were dead in sin but are now made alive in Christ (Eph 2:1-10). He has said that originally only Jews were allowed this connection to God, but now the rest of us have this wonderful opportunity (Eph 2:11-22). He has said that we can actually experience the love of God that exceeds our capability to know (Eph 3:14-21). This is all really, really big stuff. He concludes, from this rational basis,

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-3).

Now, there is no doubt that humility, gentleness, patience, love, unity, and peace are all Christian virtues. And, in fact, the rest of the letter goes on to explain all sorts of explicit behaviors that we should practice -- good works. But look at the reason. "Therefore" is the word he uses. "Therefore": for this cause, for this reason. Because of all that he has said about our calling, "walk in a manner worthy." We are not called to earn our calling. We are called to respond to it. We are not called to be good to acquire something. We are called to be good because of what we have been given. Religion operates on a basis of earning God's favor. Christian virtue is based on the premise of thanking God for the favor He has given us that we don't didn't earn.

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul puts it this way.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13).

In this scenario, we are to "work out" our salvation. "See? Works!" Well, it isn't achieving salvation, but working it. However, note the reason ("for"). "It is God who works in you." That's a radical difference. We do good works as Christians not because we need to earn God's favor or achieve salvation, but because God is working in us to desire to do good and to have the power to do good. Now that is not the standard religious perspective.

You've heard the standard comedian who tells a joke and it falls flat. He taps the microphone and says, "Is this thing on?" Is it working? Is everything okay? Because, you see, if the microphone is working, he failed to be funny. Works operate in that manner in the Christian life. Is this thing working? Jesus called it "fruit" (John 15:1-2). James referred to works as the proof of living faith (James 2:17). John wrote that the one born of God was incapable of making a practice of sinning (1 John 3:9). Note cause and effect. Cause: Born of God. Effect: An aversion to sinning. Not vice versa. Works are a part of Christianity, functioning as a helpful indication of whether or not a person has actually been restored to a relationship with God. He who is forgiven much loves much. Good works are the natural response of a grateful heart, the unavoidable outworking of the presence of God in a believer's life. So, you might want to test yourself.

Missing the Point

It's largely our own fault, really. I mean, look at us. We cry out against evils like abortion and sex outside of marriage and on and on, so it's an easy mistake to make. On the other hand, we have the assistance of the natural inclinations of the vast majority of people. The function of religion in almost all religions is to make people be good. Okay, "make" may be the wrong word. "Help." Is that better? Religion in the minds of the vast majority is aimed at making bad people into good people. You want to have a better world. You want people to get along. You turn to religion to help with all that good stuff. And, look, everyone knows you don't get something for nothing. If you want to go to heaven, you're going to have to be good. At least, better than the average rapist or serial killer. And while "good" may vary widely, it's pretty much the standard we all know we have to meet. Thus, religion.

Of course, in response to this, Christians have said for years, "It's not a religion; it's a relationship." And I understand the response (although, um, Christians who say this, it is a religion. Look the word up.). There is a fundamental difference between other religions and Christianity. Missing this fundamental differences means that we have missed the point.

Religion is defined as "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." That's fine, as far as it goes. Religions are aimed at helping people be good. That's fine as far as that goes. Christianity isn't about helping people be good. This, of course, can be confusing. Don't we cry out against evil? Don't we encourage people to be good? And, of course, the answer to both rhetorical questions is "Yes!" So, what's the difference?

The difference, as it happens, is quite large. Saying that Christianity is about helping people be good is like saying that the purpose of automobiles is to burn gasoline. It's just not the point. The point is that we are at odds with God and need to have that problem fixed. "Wait, I'm not at odds with God," some would quickly respond. "I think He's okay." Well, that may be, but I'd suggest that there is more hostility for the real God than you may realize. For instance, the demand of this God is "I will be regarded as holy", and our first act upon interacting with this God is to lower that to a human equivalent. This God commands absolute obedience and we respond with personal preference. "Yeah, if it suits me, I might go along with it. If not, don't count on it." This kind of thing cannot be considered "I think He's okay." It's considered combat. No, having a functioning relationship with God is not natural for humans. We prefer to be our own commanders. The outcome of this combat, according to the Bible, is not "bad things", but death. The Bible attributes death itself to sin -- our refusal to submit to God. Of course, we think first of physical death (and if you're reading this you're not dead), so the first problem is not physical, but spiritual death. That is the problem. That's what we are aiming at overcoming. That's the purpose of Christianity.

Religions are in the business of making bad people into good people. In Christianity, the point is making spiritually dead people into spiritually live people. Religions are about being good enough to get to heaven. Christianity argues that you can't be and need a solution which is found only in Christ. Good works are fine and, with a relationship with God, a natural outcome, like burning gasoline to get from Point A to Point B. But the point is not being good; the point is being alive. The point is being reconciled to God. All that "being good" stuff is good and all, but when you have a functioning relationship with the living God, that's a given, not an aim. And trying to make the world into a nicer place is fine and all that, but a nicer place ends up pointless without that first issue of reconciling with God. That is the point of Christianity.

Generations

We just celebrated my granddaughter's 3rd birthday. This post is not about her. It's just that she got me to thinking. How different will be her world from mine?

We grew up trained to respect our elders. I wasn't allowed to refer to adults by their first names, but by "Mr." and "Mrs." followed by their last names. It's a habit I haven't been quite able to break even now that I'm old. Kids are no longer taught this value.

Mine was probably the last generation taught to respect authority. Sadly, my generation is likely responsible for the end of that era with our "question authority" mantra. The version of "question authority" that I was allowed was with respect rather than defiance. One wise person told me, "If parents don't make their kids obey, someone else will." It could be a lost job for defiance or time in jail for disrespecting authority, or a number of other unpleasant possibilities, but our children are not benefited by our abrogating our responsibility to teach them respect for authority.

My generation grew up with corporal punishment. Later generations had "time outs". When tempted to do something wrong, we would say, "No way! My mom would kill me!" They would say, "Oh, no, I might have to sit down for awhile and think about it." It just doesn't work the same.

It seems like each generation gets knowledge earlier and maturity later. My parents loaded me with sufficient responsibility so that when I was 17 I shared the driving of the family RV on a cross-country trip. Estimates now are that kids today don't reach adulthood until their late 20's to early 30's.

Earlier generations were taught another form of personal responsibility. We understood that sex outside of marriage carried certain risks. Get a girl pregnant, and the only option is to marry her. You "did the right thing". That was the phrase. And, of course, if you had no interest in marrying her, you didn't engage in that activity. Those who did were not considered "cool". They were the bad kids. Not anymore. Sexual restraint, waiting for marriage, delayed gratification, these things are no longer of any value.

When we were younger, there we didn't know many kids from "broken homes" -- divorced parents. If we did, it was a sad thing. Teenage pregnancy was rare and far from acceptable. Families covered that embarrassment up. We had TV, of course, but our primary play was outdoors. We had games, of course, but the best ones were the ones we made up together with our neighborhood friends. Our social interaction was face to face.

These are just a few of the differences. There are many more. Most are not improvements. I pray for my granddaughter. It's a different world in which she is growing up. I can only trust in the Judge of all the earth to do what's right. But, hey, she is such a little cutie.

Big Buts

An English word we use regularly and without much thought is the word "but". It is a conjunction or preposition used to indicate something contrasting or contrary to what has already been said. "I wanted white walls, but they painted them red." The white and red are contrasted. We use the word commonly and, as such it is used quite often in Scripture. One of the uses you'll find with some frequency is the contrast between what we see and God. The phrase is "but God". And it is everywhere.

Asaph wrote, "My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever" (Psa 73:26). There are solemn warnings, like when Paul warns the Thessalonians, "God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives His Holy Spirit to you" (1 Thess 4:7-8). There are a bit scary ones, like Jesus's words to the Pharisees when He said, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15). You'll find encouraging ones like "Not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:26-27) and Joseph's powerful, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). We like happy ones like, "Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him" (Phil 2:27) and triumphant ones like "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are His'" (2 Tim 2:17-19).

There are all sorts of "buts" in Scripture in regards to God, contrasting who He is with who we are and what He does with what we see. They encourage and warn us. There are, however, a couple of really big ones.

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person -- though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die -- but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:7-8).

¹ And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ² in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- ³ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. ⁴ But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, ⁵ even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- ⁶ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, ⁷ so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:1-7).

In the first, the contrast is between the normal possibility of whom a righteous person might die for and who Christ died for. A righteous person might die for a good person, but God shows His love when Christ died for sinners. That's a really big contrast.

The other is huge. Paul spends several verses explaining our natural condition. We were dead in sin, walking according to Satan, carrying out our own desires, by nature children of wrath. This is not a small problem. It is really big. So when we come to verse 4, that is a gigantic "but". In massive contrast to our own condition ("but"), God made us alive together with Christ. Huge! Dead people made alive! Mercy for those pursuing their own pleasures. Love for those who were angry with God. Beyond that, He "raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" as a display of His grace which is immeasurable, offered in kindness.

The word is a small one and often goes mostly unnoticed, but sometimes there are some really, really big "buts" in Scripture which can provide us with reason to glorify God. These are some really great "buts".

A Lesson from the Cat

My cat died the other day and it was sad. She had been with us for 17 years. Old for a cat. Their average lifespan is 14 years. And it was sad. But I said that twice. Why was it sad? I mean, it wasn't sad like the death of a family member would be ... not for me. She was a cat. And no matter what you might hear from PETA or the like, cats are not people, too. She never said a kind word to me, never thanked me for the special food, never gave me a hug. She was a cat. So why was it sad?

I started to think about that. Our cat was ... eccentric. In her lifetime she probably went outside of her own volition a dozen times. She was scared of the outdoors. Once she stalked a lizard on the back patio through the window. She lost sight of it as it went under the window and she was all a-quiver, ready to pounce. Suddenly the lizard poked its face in the window and my cat was gone. All legs and tail and skittering across the floor she vanished because the lizard, a tenth her size, had looked at her. I'm pretty sure that if you looked in the dictionary under "scaredy cat", you'd find her picture. That terror had its plus side. For instance, we knew in advance when a storm was coming because she would slink away into a back room somewhere before we actually heard any rain or thunder. She knew it was coming and she would hide. She was our early alert system. The same was true when someone came to the door. Before the knock or doorbell she'd be running for the closet. "Oh," we'd say, "we must have visitors."

We didn't love that cat because she was perfect. It wasn't her excellence that endeared her to us. Frankly, life will likely be a little easier without her around. No special travel arrangements. No care and feeding. No cleaning of cat litter. You know, all those things have gone away. No, it wasn't that she was a breeze to care for or a delight to have in the house, although we didn't mind caring for her and we were happy to have her with us. No, what really made her special was her differences, her idiosyncrasies. It was her imperfections that made her special.

I'm not actually writing this about my cat. I'm writing this about you. We tend to think that the nearer we get to perfection, the better we are. That may be in appearance or in abilities or in hobbies or in all sorts of other parts of life. It's not true. It is, in more cases than you can imagine, our differences and idiosyncrasies that make us special. It's not when we're most alike that makes us special. It's the differences. That, I suppose, is what made it sad to lose that cat. She was very special because she was very different. You, too, are special in those little differences you have. Those imperfections make you someone unique. It would be sad to lose you.