Here's a word for you: Erosion. It's the gradual wearing away of something. We normally think of erosion in terms of water and soil or something like that. Typically, the term also requires that the material that is worn off the primary surface gets moved to another place. That, I think, is a fairly reasonable description of the English language.
Take, for instance, the word, "charity". In the King James Bible it is a word for love. But that has moved off from a general affection to mean the generous actions to aid the poor and sick. It has its roots in the word that means "caress" or "cherish", but, of course, we've managed to move it off to "do nice things ... regardless of motivation."
But, that's okay, right? Because we still have the word, "love". Or do we? Certainly "let's make love tonight" has little to do with the sentiment of warm affection we recognize as love and almost nothing at all to do with the description we have in 1 Corinthians 13. And while it's true that the phrase is a singular usage, it is still a fact that a large number of people see "love" and "sex" as intertwined and inexorably linked. This, of course, is problematic for me because, while I certainly love my wife, I also love pizza ... and my kids. So "love" gets a bit murky, doesn't it?
But lots of words are eroding in the English language. "Marriage" used to mean "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" (according to Mirriam-Webster). Dictionary.com agrees: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." However, the term doesn't mean that today. It means more like "any close or intimate association or union." Thus, "marriage" could refer to a male and female who pledge "'til whatever doth us part" or two guys who promise "we'll be close for awhile at least" or the blend of the lyrics of Ira Gershwin with the music of George Gershwin. In other words, we've discarded "opposite sex", "union", and any serious sense of commitment or family. So is there any wonder when the younger generations question the relevance of "marriage" anymore?
There was a time when a "computer" was the guy who did the math. It used to be that you started a fire with a faggot, but don't try suggesting it today. I remember when "gay" was "merry" or "cheerful", when "happy ending" referred to the pleasant outcome of a story, and "making love" meant performing those acts which engender warm feelings. "Queer" didn't used to be a label of pride, but a reference to an oddity. I remember when "bitch" referred to a female dog with puppies. "Awesome" once included a sense of dread -- a component of fear -- but now it's just totally awesome, dude. There is a vast difference between God as awesome and "we had an awesome vacation." "Really? What was so scary about it?" is not likely a question that would occur. Referring to a child as "precious" doesn't usually mean "valuable", but "cute". And when did "self-image" give way to "self-esteem"? I used to have intimate friends, but "intimate" now has unavoidable sexual connotations. So does "intercourse", although once it simply meant "communication or dealings between individuals or groups."
Sure, sure, the language is not a dead language. The meanings will migrate. Okay, fine. Still, why is it that they migrate away from their original content without leaving their original content? What word can I use today to designate what once was a "marriage"? I guess I can use "happy" instead of "gay", but why should I have to, and why did that word get stolen? And, seriously, why do so many words and phrases get coerced from their harmless, pleasant intent to a more sinister, sexual use? It used to be when the lady of the house had a grand affair, it was a wonderful party. Now it's a prelude to a nasty divorce. When did a baby's warm footwear become a reference to a woman's posterior?
Is it a conspiracy? Not human, I'd guess, if it is. It does seem suspicious, however, when so many words that once meant positive moral things have been subjugated to mean base things. It does raise questions when "bad" now means "good" and "wicked" is really cool. At some point, I fear, we'll end up, in the realm of describing moral things, at a loss for words.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Shave and a Haircut
26 "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. 27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD" (Lev 19:26-28).This text is a one of several that are a favorite among skeptics. "Don't hear you lousy Christians preaching on this very much, do we? And you call yourself followers of the Bible!" Well, since I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God and means what it says, I think it is wise to examine ... what it says. So, what have we here?
First, I'd like to avoid the standard pitfalls. One common response is, "Ignore it; it's Old Testament." In fact, many make that argument and then carry it over to "A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" and other biblical commands. They do the very thing the skeptic complains about and pick and choose what works and what doesn't. We don't want to pick and choose. The other problem occurs if we take this text and, just because we want to, say, "It's about making the Israelites separate" (or something like that). I believe that there are commands given to Israel for that purpose, but here's the problem in this context. If we say, "That's just for Israel", look at what else we're going to set aside.
"Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father" (Lev 19:3).And that's just a sampling. You see, if you say, "That hair cutting thing is just to make Israel separate", then you'll also need to say, "That 'honor your father and mother' thing and that whole prohibition against idolatry is just to make Israel separate. We can steal, oppress our neighbors, and do wrong to visitors because that was just to keep them separate, not Christians." It's the problem I have with those who say, "The prohibition against a man lying with a man as with a woman is a religious thing", because if you look at the context we'd also need to pile adultery, incest, and bestiality as perfectly acceptable behaviors as long as they weren't religious in nature. Doesn't work. Don't go there.
"Do not turn to idols" (Lev 19:4)
"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another" (Lev 19:11).
"You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him" (Lev 19:13).
"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong" (Lev 19:33).
So, avoiding those errors, where do we go? It is really verse 27 that catches all the attention. "Christians shouldn't be getting haircuts if they say they believe the Bible!" That's what it says, right? And, indeed, the (commendable) orthodox Jew has uncut locks of hair on the sides of his head and an uncut beard. I say "commendable" because of the attitude. "If that's what it says, that's what I'll do." Regardless of the text, that should be our attitude as well. But, does the text say that? Notice that it speaks of rounding off hair and marring the beard. That's not quite the same as cutting the sides of your hair or grooming a beard. These appear to be indications of something beyond a shave and a haircut. So, am I splitting hairs (a little humor there), or are there reasons to think that this may not be a de facto command not to shave the sides of your face?
As always, I recommend text and context. What do we learn from the context? Well, I put the immediate context in the quote above because, if you're paying attention, verse 27 is not a verse in a vacuum. It starts with a command ("You shall not...") and ends with a reason ("I am the Lord."). This structure of terminating in "I am the Lord" is repeated throughout the chapter. So we have Lev 19:2-3 tied together, verse 4 as a command, verses 5-10 tied together, and so forth. Each of these is completed in the statement, "I am the Lord." Thus, Lev 19:26-28 is a thought, a set of commands tied together by a central theme and punctuated with "I am the Lord." What is the central theme? It appears to be a central theme of false worship, including eating flesh with blood on it, fortune telling, and cutting or tattooing for the dead. In the midst of this is something about rounding hair and marring beards. These are all tied together. What ties them together? Most obvious is the reason to obey: "I am the Lord." But if these are all tied together and if you don't get mixed up by verse markings, you'll see a second item tying them all together: "for the dead".
"Wow, Stan," I can hear you saying, "that's really stretching it." Is it? Let's trace the idea of "for the dead". In Lev 21, God tells the priests, "No one shall make himself unclean for the dead." Among the ways listed in which the priests should not make themselves unclean for the dead is this: "They shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body" (Lev 21:5). Hmmm, the same things we see in Lev 19. Then again in Deuteronomy, the repeat of the Law, we read, "You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead" (Deut 14:1). I don't think it's a stretch. I think it's the intent. Indeed, the vow of the Nazirites, intended to separate these further, included the command not to cut their hair. If no one was allowed to cut their hair already, what was the point of the vow? No, I don't think that the most reasonable reading of Leviticus 19:27 in context is that God was commanding His people not to cut their hair. It just doesn't fit.
The complaint of the skeptic is that we don't follow the Bible even though we claim to follow the Bible. I would argue that too often they're right ... and that ought to stop. Too often we dismiss stuff that shouldn't be dismissed. It's in there. Let's conform our lives to God's Word rather than vice versa. On the other hand, tying ourselves to a text that doesn't say what they think it says and trying to conform to it makes little sense either. This text commands that we don't perform some religious practices that were intended to honor the dead. We shouldn't eat flesh with blood on it (like the Zabians who regarded it the food of the devils) or seek divinations or mar your hair or beard for the dead (as the Arabians, according to Herodotus, did to imitate Bacchus) or cut or mark your body for the dead (as the Scythians did). Far from dismissing this as "Old Testament" or "That was just for Israel", I would argue that we, too, should avoid all of this as a matter of obedience to God. I simply suggest that we submit to what God says rather than to what skeptics argue it says out of context and content.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Pejoratives
Pejoratives, those terms we use that might seem to be harmless, but really are not. You know these terms. They're terms intended to express disgust, to disparage, to belittle. They're often harmless in and of themselves, but in use and context, they're intended to undercut reasoned discussion by provoking an emotional response.
Take, for instance, "homophobic". Find a person who believes that it is not moral for two people of the same gender to engage in sexual relations, and he or she is not principled or morally indignant or "taking the high road". He or she is homophobic whether or not there is any distaste for the people or any phobia for the act. All the accuser has to do is place the label and the investigation into the morality of the act is eliminated.
One I hear too often is "hunch". I can express what I read in the Bible with clear presentation and obvious reasoning, but the best it can be is "a hunch". Do you know what a hunch is? It's a guess, a suspicion. It is a belief without a reason. A coach or a gambler will "play a hunch" when he acts without obvious reason and operates on intuition rather than evidence. Thus, in the example of my case, when I say, "The Bible clearly states that a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman", I'm operating on a whim, a guess, a suspicion, pure intuition. There is no reason, no evidence, no concrete for such a thing. That's the effect of the pejorative, "hunch". And the discussion is done. "You've got your hunch, and I've got my opinion."
Sometimes pejoratives are context-sensitive. You can be "fundamentally sound" but you'd better not be "a fundamentalist". You can seek to conserve our culture, but "conservative" is normally not a good thing. And I'm not at all sure that the people who classify someone as "right wing" believe that such a person can ever be right. It's okay to be spiritual, but not religious. It's acceptable to be principled, but not confident of your beliefs. In the right context, merely pointing out that a woman is blonde or a man is white can be intended as insults.
Pejoratives are effective tools for terminating discussion. Take Rick Perry's recent faux pas. He forgot a name of an organization. It's a mistake that any -- likely all -- human being can make. It's not a big deal. A brain freeze. A momentary lapse. No bearing whatsoever on one's ability to lead a country. Perry said at the moment, "Oops!" In normal use that would mean "a minor mistake." The media picked it up and made it "the oops heard 'round the world", and now "oops" became a pejorative that pundits say will end Perry's run for the presidency. His ideas? Irrelevant. His hopes and plans for the country? Doesn't matter. His "oops" became a term intended to disparage the man in order to terminate the discussion.
There is another term for this process of the use of pejoratives to end debate. It is called ad hominem, a logical fallacy. It invalidates the argument of those against whom it is used by disparaging the person. Unfortunately, too many people these days aren't aware of logic. It doesn't bode well for reasoning people.
Take, for instance, "homophobic". Find a person who believes that it is not moral for two people of the same gender to engage in sexual relations, and he or she is not principled or morally indignant or "taking the high road". He or she is homophobic whether or not there is any distaste for the people or any phobia for the act. All the accuser has to do is place the label and the investigation into the morality of the act is eliminated.
One I hear too often is "hunch". I can express what I read in the Bible with clear presentation and obvious reasoning, but the best it can be is "a hunch". Do you know what a hunch is? It's a guess, a suspicion. It is a belief without a reason. A coach or a gambler will "play a hunch" when he acts without obvious reason and operates on intuition rather than evidence. Thus, in the example of my case, when I say, "The Bible clearly states that a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman", I'm operating on a whim, a guess, a suspicion, pure intuition. There is no reason, no evidence, no concrete for such a thing. That's the effect of the pejorative, "hunch". And the discussion is done. "You've got your hunch, and I've got my opinion."
Sometimes pejoratives are context-sensitive. You can be "fundamentally sound" but you'd better not be "a fundamentalist". You can seek to conserve our culture, but "conservative" is normally not a good thing. And I'm not at all sure that the people who classify someone as "right wing" believe that such a person can ever be right. It's okay to be spiritual, but not religious. It's acceptable to be principled, but not confident of your beliefs. In the right context, merely pointing out that a woman is blonde or a man is white can be intended as insults.
Pejoratives are effective tools for terminating discussion. Take Rick Perry's recent faux pas. He forgot a name of an organization. It's a mistake that any -- likely all -- human being can make. It's not a big deal. A brain freeze. A momentary lapse. No bearing whatsoever on one's ability to lead a country. Perry said at the moment, "Oops!" In normal use that would mean "a minor mistake." The media picked it up and made it "the oops heard 'round the world", and now "oops" became a pejorative that pundits say will end Perry's run for the presidency. His ideas? Irrelevant. His hopes and plans for the country? Doesn't matter. His "oops" became a term intended to disparage the man in order to terminate the discussion.
There is another term for this process of the use of pejoratives to end debate. It is called ad hominem, a logical fallacy. It invalidates the argument of those against whom it is used by disparaging the person. Unfortunately, too many people these days aren't aware of logic. It doesn't bode well for reasoning people.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Lion of Judah
Hosea quoted God as saying, "For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, And like a young lion to the house of Judah. I, even I, will tear to pieces and go away, I will carry away, and there will be none to deliver" (Hos 5:14).
In Revelation, an elder calmed John by saying, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals" (Rev 5:5).
I liked this quote:
"Trying to defend God is like trying to defend a caged lion. He doesn't need your help. Just unlock the cage." (Source unknown)
The Lion has overcome ... and there will be none to deliver. Sometimes Christianity is not the tame, timid religion a lot of people seem to think it should be, eh?
In Revelation, an elder calmed John by saying, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals" (Rev 5:5).
I liked this quote:
"Trying to defend God is like trying to defend a caged lion. He doesn't need your help. Just unlock the cage." (Source unknown)
The Lion has overcome ... and there will be none to deliver. Sometimes Christianity is not the tame, timid religion a lot of people seem to think it should be, eh?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Mac Alert
For all you Mac users out there who are so confident that your computer is safe because only PC's get viruses, think again. Apparently, Sophos is reporting that a new virus is stalking about that can take over your computer.
Mac users for the longest time have been told that PC's are dangerous while Mac's are safe. PC's get virus's but Mac's don't. It was part of Apple's advertising scheme, as I recall. When I saw it back then I thought, "Well, yeah, that's because it's such a small target that no one is interested in investing the time in attacking it." Turns out that Apple has been so successful in marketing these computers that the market share has become targetable.
I'm not a Mac user. I have protection all over the place. And still I find I have to be vigilant. Guess what, Mac users? Your time is coming. It has, in fact, arrived. You might want to look into protecting your computer assets. Having someone else gain full control of your Mac is an unnerving idea to me. I just thought, as a public service, I'd let you know.
Mac users for the longest time have been told that PC's are dangerous while Mac's are safe. PC's get virus's but Mac's don't. It was part of Apple's advertising scheme, as I recall. When I saw it back then I thought, "Well, yeah, that's because it's such a small target that no one is interested in investing the time in attacking it." Turns out that Apple has been so successful in marketing these computers that the market share has become targetable.
I'm not a Mac user. I have protection all over the place. And still I find I have to be vigilant. Guess what, Mac users? Your time is coming. It has, in fact, arrived. You might want to look into protecting your computer assets. Having someone else gain full control of your Mac is an unnerving idea to me. I just thought, as a public service, I'd let you know.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Veterans Day, 2011
Many people confuse Memorial Day and Veterans Day. "Hey, aren't they the same thing?" No, not quite. Memorial Day commemorates America's fallen. It is a day of tribute to all who gave their lives for this country. Veterans Day isn't the same. It is intended to honor all who have served.
I remember talking with a World War II veteran years ago. He told me about his time in the South Pacific during the war. Truth be told, he didn't get shot at ... once. He worked on an island at a depot. He helped provide the needs of those in combat. You see, while we rightly honor those who place themselves directly in harm's way to defend our freedom, they don't do it alone. Someone has to feed them and supply them and give them the medical treatment they need and fix their weapons and even manage their paperwork. Behind each fighting man or woman is an entire army of people working to keep them functioning. It is, then, those who place themselves in harm's way as well as those who support those who do that are being honored.
Today we say "Thank you" to those who tend to families while soldiers, sailors, and airmen are away. Today we show our gratitude to those who answered the call to duty regardless of the roles they played. Well, it really is in the term, isn't it? Today we honor all who are serving or who have served their country. To all veterans, I say "Thank you for your service."
I remember talking with a World War II veteran years ago. He told me about his time in the South Pacific during the war. Truth be told, he didn't get shot at ... once. He worked on an island at a depot. He helped provide the needs of those in combat. You see, while we rightly honor those who place themselves directly in harm's way to defend our freedom, they don't do it alone. Someone has to feed them and supply them and give them the medical treatment they need and fix their weapons and even manage their paperwork. Behind each fighting man or woman is an entire army of people working to keep them functioning. It is, then, those who place themselves in harm's way as well as those who support those who do that are being honored.
Today we say "Thank you" to those who tend to families while soldiers, sailors, and airmen are away. Today we show our gratitude to those who answered the call to duty regardless of the roles they played. Well, it really is in the term, isn't it? Today we honor all who are serving or who have served their country. To all veterans, I say "Thank you for your service."
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Objective Truth
Yesterday I dealt with the concept of "objective good" ... which I said didn't exist. There is no moral good that is, in and of itself, good. Rather, good is determined to be good as it meets the standards that God makes. Good is defined by God. Well, that was yesterday.
Today I want to ask about objective truth. What is it? Does it exist? Can we know it?
First, what is it? According to multiple sources, objective truth is that which is true in and of itself. That is, it is not relative or subjective. It is true. It doesn't depend on you or I believing it. It is true. It isn't determined by circumstances or perspective. It is true. One site puts it this way: "The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false." That is "objective truth". But was is "objective"? The dictionary helpfully defines it (in our context) as "belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject." That is, it is that which exists independently of perception or individual conception, that which relates to actual phenomena rather than subjective thought or feeling. So there we have "objective truth". It is truth that is in and of itself intrinsically true outside of your concurrence or belief, truth that is true because it is part of reality.
So, does it exist? Is it real or a figment of my imagination? Well, in all honesty, the existence of objective truth cannot rationally be denied. Beyond that, we couldn't really function if it didn't exist. You assume that 2+2=4 every time, and if that was not objectively true, you'd never know what was in your bank account. You know that putting your hand on a hot stove will burn it and if you don't, well, I'm sorry about your hand, but the truth doesn't care. And, of course, we have the biblical claim from Christ, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6). If objective truth doesn't exist, Jesus was lying. So, while there certainly is such a thing as relative truth -- truth that depends on circumstances and perception -- there is and must be objective truth. It does indeed exist.
But the real question is, "Can we know it?" Well, the answer should be obvious. If "objective truth" is that which is true regardless of whether or not you believe it and you believe it, then you know objective truth. In fact, this would be the case whether or not you could prove it. If a 2-year-old stumbled upon the idea that 1+1=2, she wouldn't need careful theorems or logical chains to be correct. So where does this question go? I mean, is there really an objection to knowing objective truth? Of course, this claim comes up when it comes to spiritual matters. What can we know about God? Can we know objective truth about what God believes on a particular topic? You will hear this objection raised over and over. "That's just your opinion! You shouldn't claim to know what God thinks on that issue."
Is this correct? Are we doomed to mere opinions about what God thinks about this or that? Are we stuck with conjecture and personal interpretation, or can we know? Is this an objective truth that we can get our hands around?
First, let me give my top-level answer. No. We cannot know fully what God thinks about all things. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. When the Bible says He is "holy, holy, holy", it is saying that He is so far above us that we can't fully encompass the mind of God. Further, we know that natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), so there is a serious impediment there. "Oh, so we can't know any truth about God?" Again, no. Here's what we can know. We can know what He tells us we can know. We can know that "God loved the world in this way ..." (John 3:16) because He said so. We can know that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 18:32) because He said so. We know that God does not change (Mal 3:6), and therefore there are things that God hates (e.g., Prov 6:16-19) and likes (e.g., 2 Cor 9:7) because He laid them out for us. The agnostic would tell you, "If there is a God, we cannot know Him or know anything about Him." The skeptic will say, "We cannot know anything objectively about what God thinks." The Bible, on the other hand, explains with unavoidable clarity much of what God thinks on many issues. These are facts, objective truth, regardless of our apprehension of them or agreement with them.
The trick, then, is to be about the process of aligning our perceptions of God (subjective truth) with God's own revelation of Himself (objective truth). It is a major part of renewing the mind. It is not our aim to hold that all views about God are subjective and genuine humility is to make no claim about what God thinks. I mean, He took the time to have it written down and took the effort to protect it for us over all the centuries, so claiming we cannot know would seem more arrogant than claiming we can. And, given the biblical claims that sinful Man functions with mental futility, is lacking "ears", cannot understand the things of God, and is blinded by the god of this world, the existing confusion and the subsequent disagreement about what God thinks about these things are not valid reasons to argue that we cannot know the truth. It was Jesus who said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). It is the aim and responsibility of the born-again follower of Christ to hear the Holy Spirit's teaching and renew the mind to know the truth.
Today I want to ask about objective truth. What is it? Does it exist? Can we know it?
First, what is it? According to multiple sources, objective truth is that which is true in and of itself. That is, it is not relative or subjective. It is true. It doesn't depend on you or I believing it. It is true. It isn't determined by circumstances or perspective. It is true. One site puts it this way: "The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false." That is "objective truth". But was is "objective"? The dictionary helpfully defines it (in our context) as "belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject." That is, it is that which exists independently of perception or individual conception, that which relates to actual phenomena rather than subjective thought or feeling. So there we have "objective truth". It is truth that is in and of itself intrinsically true outside of your concurrence or belief, truth that is true because it is part of reality.
So, does it exist? Is it real or a figment of my imagination? Well, in all honesty, the existence of objective truth cannot rationally be denied. Beyond that, we couldn't really function if it didn't exist. You assume that 2+2=4 every time, and if that was not objectively true, you'd never know what was in your bank account. You know that putting your hand on a hot stove will burn it and if you don't, well, I'm sorry about your hand, but the truth doesn't care. And, of course, we have the biblical claim from Christ, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6). If objective truth doesn't exist, Jesus was lying. So, while there certainly is such a thing as relative truth -- truth that depends on circumstances and perception -- there is and must be objective truth. It does indeed exist.
But the real question is, "Can we know it?" Well, the answer should be obvious. If "objective truth" is that which is true regardless of whether or not you believe it and you believe it, then you know objective truth. In fact, this would be the case whether or not you could prove it. If a 2-year-old stumbled upon the idea that 1+1=2, she wouldn't need careful theorems or logical chains to be correct. So where does this question go? I mean, is there really an objection to knowing objective truth? Of course, this claim comes up when it comes to spiritual matters. What can we know about God? Can we know objective truth about what God believes on a particular topic? You will hear this objection raised over and over. "That's just your opinion! You shouldn't claim to know what God thinks on that issue."
Is this correct? Are we doomed to mere opinions about what God thinks about this or that? Are we stuck with conjecture and personal interpretation, or can we know? Is this an objective truth that we can get our hands around?
First, let me give my top-level answer. No. We cannot know fully what God thinks about all things. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. When the Bible says He is "holy, holy, holy", it is saying that He is so far above us that we can't fully encompass the mind of God. Further, we know that natural man cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), so there is a serious impediment there. "Oh, so we can't know any truth about God?" Again, no. Here's what we can know. We can know what He tells us we can know. We can know that "God loved the world in this way ..." (John 3:16) because He said so. We can know that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 18:32) because He said so. We know that God does not change (Mal 3:6), and therefore there are things that God hates (e.g., Prov 6:16-19) and likes (e.g., 2 Cor 9:7) because He laid them out for us. The agnostic would tell you, "If there is a God, we cannot know Him or know anything about Him." The skeptic will say, "We cannot know anything objectively about what God thinks." The Bible, on the other hand, explains with unavoidable clarity much of what God thinks on many issues. These are facts, objective truth, regardless of our apprehension of them or agreement with them.
The trick, then, is to be about the process of aligning our perceptions of God (subjective truth) with God's own revelation of Himself (objective truth). It is a major part of renewing the mind. It is not our aim to hold that all views about God are subjective and genuine humility is to make no claim about what God thinks. I mean, He took the time to have it written down and took the effort to protect it for us over all the centuries, so claiming we cannot know would seem more arrogant than claiming we can. And, given the biblical claims that sinful Man functions with mental futility, is lacking "ears", cannot understand the things of God, and is blinded by the god of this world, the existing confusion and the subsequent disagreement about what God thinks about these things are not valid reasons to argue that we cannot know the truth. It was Jesus who said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). It is the aim and responsibility of the born-again follower of Christ to hear the Holy Spirit's teaching and renew the mind to know the truth.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Objective Good
What is "objective good"? The term is meant to describe that which is, in and of itself, good. It is intended to stand in opposition to subjective good. This would be that which is good to me (or you, if you prefer). You can see this, right? I remember the story of two villages along the Amazon (which originally was a river in South America, not a book-selling website). A heavy rain came through, and the question was, "Is that good?" The village upriver was delighted. They needed the rain for their crops. The village downstream was devastated. The rain caused a flood that wiped out their fields. That's subjective good. So what would be classified as objectively good?
At first look, it might seem easy to do. Love is objectively good. Easy, see? Well, it's easy as long as you define it carefully. "I loved my wife so much that when I caught her cheating on me, I killed her and her lover." See? Love ... objectively good. Oh, wait. Although such a use of the term might be popular, I'd have a hard time calling it "love". Still, when properly used, I think most people would consider love objectively good. Or how about telling the truth? Objectively good, right? I suppose so, although I think some might wonder if that's the case if a citizen of Nazi Germany told the truth about the family down the street hiding Jews. It would seem, in fact, that the more you go down this line, the easier it is to make the whole thing murky, and those things that we would consider good in and of themselves die the death of a hundred qualifications.
I would like to suggest a different approach. I would like to suggest that our definition of "objective good" is flawed from the outset. If we could clean that up, I think "good" can get a little clearer. It doesn't take long to figure out that one of the better known characteristics of God is that God is good. The theme is repeated over and over in the Psalms (Psa 34:8; 100:5; 135:3; 145:9) and elsewhere (e.g., Jer 33:11; Nah 1:7). What does this mean? I remember a church awhile back that claimed that since 1 John 4:8 said "God is love", therefore "Love is god." This, of course, is manifest nonsense. I could rightly claim "My wife is human", but would be an idiot to conclude, therefore, that all humans were my wife. No, John was saying that love is defined by and contained in God. This is the same concept with good. Jesus said, "There is none good but God." That is, absolute good is defined by and contained in God. It's not that there is "good" out there and God conforms to it. Instead, it is the reverse. Good is only good because God says it is.
Here, let's try this from another direction. "Good" has several related definitions. It may mean "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious," or it may mean "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree," or it may mean "of high quality; excellent". "Good", then, whether in terms of moral excellence or quality of any type simply means that whatever it is meets or exceeds the standard. What standard? That's the question. A "good dog" is not the same a "good man". Different standards. And the only right standard we have for "good" in terms of morality or virtue is God's standard. Since He sets the standard, He defines "good".
Okay, one more direction to view this. Assume that there is "objective good", that which is, in and of itself, intrinsically good. This would require that God, in order to be "good", would need to conform to that external, objective standard. But if God needs to conform to something external to Himself, then God is not God because that "something external" is higher than He is.
I would contend, then, that nothing is "objectively good". Instead, "good" is always determined by a standard, and God sets that standard and, therefore, defines "good". We all know folks who read, for instance, the account of God commanding Israel to destroy the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 as not a literally factual account. The first reason offered for this is that it would make God "bad". That is, we all know that killing people is bad (I'm simplifying here) ("objective good", then, is in not killing people) and if God did it or ordered it He would be bad, so it could not have happened. Just an example. Not the primary point. The primary point is that if God defines good, then whatever God does is good and our own perceptions of what is good should conform to that rather than vice versa. If God declares something for Himself and we choose to defy that declaration because it doesn't conform to our concept of "objective good", it is neither God nor the declaration that is in error. I'll leave you to figure out where the error lies.
Isaiah has a warning for us. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20). Perhaps we ought to let God determine first what is good and evil and then conform our own views on the subject to His outlook.
At first look, it might seem easy to do. Love is objectively good. Easy, see? Well, it's easy as long as you define it carefully. "I loved my wife so much that when I caught her cheating on me, I killed her and her lover." See? Love ... objectively good. Oh, wait. Although such a use of the term might be popular, I'd have a hard time calling it "love". Still, when properly used, I think most people would consider love objectively good. Or how about telling the truth? Objectively good, right? I suppose so, although I think some might wonder if that's the case if a citizen of Nazi Germany told the truth about the family down the street hiding Jews. It would seem, in fact, that the more you go down this line, the easier it is to make the whole thing murky, and those things that we would consider good in and of themselves die the death of a hundred qualifications.
I would like to suggest a different approach. I would like to suggest that our definition of "objective good" is flawed from the outset. If we could clean that up, I think "good" can get a little clearer. It doesn't take long to figure out that one of the better known characteristics of God is that God is good. The theme is repeated over and over in the Psalms (Psa 34:8; 100:5; 135:3; 145:9) and elsewhere (e.g., Jer 33:11; Nah 1:7). What does this mean? I remember a church awhile back that claimed that since 1 John 4:8 said "God is love", therefore "Love is god." This, of course, is manifest nonsense. I could rightly claim "My wife is human", but would be an idiot to conclude, therefore, that all humans were my wife. No, John was saying that love is defined by and contained in God. This is the same concept with good. Jesus said, "There is none good but God." That is, absolute good is defined by and contained in God. It's not that there is "good" out there and God conforms to it. Instead, it is the reverse. Good is only good because God says it is.
Here, let's try this from another direction. "Good" has several related definitions. It may mean "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious," or it may mean "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree," or it may mean "of high quality; excellent". "Good", then, whether in terms of moral excellence or quality of any type simply means that whatever it is meets or exceeds the standard. What standard? That's the question. A "good dog" is not the same a "good man". Different standards. And the only right standard we have for "good" in terms of morality or virtue is God's standard. Since He sets the standard, He defines "good".
Okay, one more direction to view this. Assume that there is "objective good", that which is, in and of itself, intrinsically good. This would require that God, in order to be "good", would need to conform to that external, objective standard. But if God needs to conform to something external to Himself, then God is not God because that "something external" is higher than He is.
I would contend, then, that nothing is "objectively good". Instead, "good" is always determined by a standard, and God sets that standard and, therefore, defines "good". We all know folks who read, for instance, the account of God commanding Israel to destroy the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 as not a literally factual account. The first reason offered for this is that it would make God "bad". That is, we all know that killing people is bad (I'm simplifying here) ("objective good", then, is in not killing people) and if God did it or ordered it He would be bad, so it could not have happened. Just an example. Not the primary point. The primary point is that if God defines good, then whatever God does is good and our own perceptions of what is good should conform to that rather than vice versa. If God declares something for Himself and we choose to defy that declaration because it doesn't conform to our concept of "objective good", it is neither God nor the declaration that is in error. I'll leave you to figure out where the error lies.
Isaiah has a warning for us. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20). Perhaps we ought to let God determine first what is good and evil and then conform our own views on the subject to His outlook.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Biblical Elders
Have you ever read the biblical qualifications for church leadership? The list is not lightweight.
But I'm not writing this to complain about pastor's kids. I'm writing this about the listing of requirements. First, it should be noted that these lists are not intended as qualifications for Christians. Just like a "computer programmer" needs to have a special skill set that not everyone requires, "elders" need to have special qualifications. Still, these qualifications leave me with questions.
There are peripheral questions for me. How would you define "self-controlled"? Is a pastor who eats too much lacking in self-control? (It's an easy question since I know of so many overweight pastors.) How would you quantify "arrogant"? That's tougher, since simply holding a view of Scripture can be classified as "arrogant".
From there, it only gets tougher. What, for instance, are we to make of "the husband of one wife"? Some have argued that it is "one wife at a time" (as opposed to polygamy). That would qualify most anyone. But clearly the Bible is talking about managing households and such, so that seems unlikely. The more conservative side says it means "one wife ever". That would automatically exclude a divorced person from being in church leadership. But what if that divorce took place in his youth, before he knew Christ? Would this preclude him from serving in that capacity? And, of course, it would seem to clearly exclude single men from being church leaders. Aren't many youth pastors single? And if "the husband of one wife" is the standard, what about widowers? Or widowers that remarried? It all seems very convoluted. Now, I know that the original text can be read "one woman man", and that would seem to resolve a lot of these questions, but then we're back to the "How would you quantify 'arrogant'?" kind of question. Is he a one-woman kind of man?
What do we conclude about "his children are believers"? One view argues that all of the children of any given leader must be faithful believers in Christ. Another perspective holds that they need to be well-behaved. The term doesn't necessarily have to read "believers", but can be read as "faithful". So which is it? And how do you know? For instance, as a silly question, how many infants are "believers"? Wouldn't that disqualify any man with an infant? And, really, can a father -- any father -- be responsible to raise believers? That is, can a father make his children believers, or is that God's work in their hearts and their subsequent decision?
Imagine a pastor that had two sons. One was "the good son", going to church and leading Bible studies and doing all the good things expected of him and the other was "the renegade son", running off with wild women and mimicking the prodigal son in a marvelous way. As it turned out, decades later, the good son announced that he was an atheist and the renegade son became a pastor. So, here they are. Is the pastor-son now disqualified by the divorce he had in that wild time? Is the father of the two sons disqualified because of the renegade son who repented or is he disqualified by the good son, still well-behaved but just not a believer?
Tough questions. Sometimes I ask myself tough questions. Easy answers aren't always forthcoming. So here's the final question. Should we, then, just decide to ignore these qualifications like some seem to be doing these days?
1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil (1 Tim 3:1-7).I am not alone in my concern today that church leadership is not lining up very well with biblical requirements. As a prime example, just about everyone knows about the concept of the "PK" -- the pastor's kid. The children of the pastor in many churches will often be the most disruptive kids around because, as we all know, a pastor's job is tough and time consuming and he doesn't get much opportunity to deal with his kids. But there is no question that a leader in the church must "know how to manage his own household" specifically in terms of well-behaved children.
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you -- 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:5-9).
But I'm not writing this to complain about pastor's kids. I'm writing this about the listing of requirements. First, it should be noted that these lists are not intended as qualifications for Christians. Just like a "computer programmer" needs to have a special skill set that not everyone requires, "elders" need to have special qualifications. Still, these qualifications leave me with questions.
There are peripheral questions for me. How would you define "self-controlled"? Is a pastor who eats too much lacking in self-control? (It's an easy question since I know of so many overweight pastors.) How would you quantify "arrogant"? That's tougher, since simply holding a view of Scripture can be classified as "arrogant".
From there, it only gets tougher. What, for instance, are we to make of "the husband of one wife"? Some have argued that it is "one wife at a time" (as opposed to polygamy). That would qualify most anyone. But clearly the Bible is talking about managing households and such, so that seems unlikely. The more conservative side says it means "one wife ever". That would automatically exclude a divorced person from being in church leadership. But what if that divorce took place in his youth, before he knew Christ? Would this preclude him from serving in that capacity? And, of course, it would seem to clearly exclude single men from being church leaders. Aren't many youth pastors single? And if "the husband of one wife" is the standard, what about widowers? Or widowers that remarried? It all seems very convoluted. Now, I know that the original text can be read "one woman man", and that would seem to resolve a lot of these questions, but then we're back to the "How would you quantify 'arrogant'?" kind of question. Is he a one-woman kind of man?
What do we conclude about "his children are believers"? One view argues that all of the children of any given leader must be faithful believers in Christ. Another perspective holds that they need to be well-behaved. The term doesn't necessarily have to read "believers", but can be read as "faithful". So which is it? And how do you know? For instance, as a silly question, how many infants are "believers"? Wouldn't that disqualify any man with an infant? And, really, can a father -- any father -- be responsible to raise believers? That is, can a father make his children believers, or is that God's work in their hearts and their subsequent decision?
Imagine a pastor that had two sons. One was "the good son", going to church and leading Bible studies and doing all the good things expected of him and the other was "the renegade son", running off with wild women and mimicking the prodigal son in a marvelous way. As it turned out, decades later, the good son announced that he was an atheist and the renegade son became a pastor. So, here they are. Is the pastor-son now disqualified by the divorce he had in that wild time? Is the father of the two sons disqualified because of the renegade son who repented or is he disqualified by the good son, still well-behaved but just not a believer?
Tough questions. Sometimes I ask myself tough questions. Easy answers aren't always forthcoming. So here's the final question. Should we, then, just decide to ignore these qualifications like some seem to be doing these days?
Monday, November 07, 2011
Definition
The definitions of words is always a problem for me. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a male and a female (with more verbiage behind that) and now we've shifted it. Love meant devotion with attendant emotion and now it means sexual relations. Gay meant happy and now ... well, you see how this is going. As I've always seen, communication is tenuous at best, and the constantly shifting vagaries of language don't make that task any easier.
In the recent discussion over Paul's Moral Relativism, the notion of "opinions" was up for debate. What constitutes "opinion" versus "truth"? It has been suggested that the difference (in this dialog) is between the "essentials" and the "non-essentials". And that would seem to be pretty acceptable ... until you begin to ask the question about defining "essentials". Sigh. And now we're back to the shifting sands of definitions.
Awhile back I did a series on what I believed to be "the essentials". But, of course, the question is "To what are they essential?" I mean, we can all find our dictionaries and figure out what "essential" actually means. It refers to a basic ingredient, an integral part, something that is part of the essence of something, something without which that thing would not be what it is. So, when I did the series, I referenced things that were essential to Christianity, things that made Christianity what it is. Without those things that I listed, Christianity would not be what it is. "But," the argument would come, "are you saying that these things are essential to salvation?" And now you see the problem. Essential to what? In that series, I pointed out that the things that were essential to Christianity were not necessarily essential to salvation. That is, you didn't have to believe all those things to get saved. And that just seemed to make the waters murky.
Beyond salvation, my list was not acceptable as "essential to Christianity". And we're further into hazy definitions. What makes Christianity what it is? Some would have us believe that Christianity is essentially a moral and social enterprise to be good to people. On the other side of the road there are those who would have us believe that Christianity is, in its essence, being different than everyone else. You know, thou shalt not cuss and thou shalt not smoke and thou shalt not swim in mixed male-female company. (Seriously, I've seen this before.) There are those that would argue that Christianity is purely a single moment in time in which you "place your faith in Christ" -- end of story. No fruit, no action, no response. "What are you, a legalist?" (Seriously, I know some of these.) And while one might think that "the essentials" would be a simple matter, we're mired instead in a big mud hole like the blind horse from De Camptown Races.
After awhile you realize that, rather than clarifying definitions, clearing up questions, and dividing between "opinion" and "truth", we're not likely to get out of this endless loop anytime soon. So, is there an answer? Yes, indeed. There is truth. There is absolute truth. And I'll go farther and say that we can know absolute truth. What is lacking -- will never be -- is proof. Proof is evidence or argument that establishes something as fact. Since humans suffer from a queer sort of condition called "suppression of truth" and all need to undergo extensive treatment referred to as "renewing the mind", proof will not exist. When we can cleanly and quickly say quite simply, "I don't accept your argument or evidence", the notion of proof is eliminated. And considering that a large part of our world is blinded by the god of this world, I would think that this wouldn't be uncommon. But just because evidence and argument is ignored doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. You can know the truth. That's the Holy Spirit's job, isn't it?
In the recent discussion over Paul's Moral Relativism, the notion of "opinions" was up for debate. What constitutes "opinion" versus "truth"? It has been suggested that the difference (in this dialog) is between the "essentials" and the "non-essentials". And that would seem to be pretty acceptable ... until you begin to ask the question about defining "essentials". Sigh. And now we're back to the shifting sands of definitions.
Awhile back I did a series on what I believed to be "the essentials". But, of course, the question is "To what are they essential?" I mean, we can all find our dictionaries and figure out what "essential" actually means. It refers to a basic ingredient, an integral part, something that is part of the essence of something, something without which that thing would not be what it is. So, when I did the series, I referenced things that were essential to Christianity, things that made Christianity what it is. Without those things that I listed, Christianity would not be what it is. "But," the argument would come, "are you saying that these things are essential to salvation?" And now you see the problem. Essential to what? In that series, I pointed out that the things that were essential to Christianity were not necessarily essential to salvation. That is, you didn't have to believe all those things to get saved. And that just seemed to make the waters murky.
Beyond salvation, my list was not acceptable as "essential to Christianity". And we're further into hazy definitions. What makes Christianity what it is? Some would have us believe that Christianity is essentially a moral and social enterprise to be good to people. On the other side of the road there are those who would have us believe that Christianity is, in its essence, being different than everyone else. You know, thou shalt not cuss and thou shalt not smoke and thou shalt not swim in mixed male-female company. (Seriously, I've seen this before.) There are those that would argue that Christianity is purely a single moment in time in which you "place your faith in Christ" -- end of story. No fruit, no action, no response. "What are you, a legalist?" (Seriously, I know some of these.) And while one might think that "the essentials" would be a simple matter, we're mired instead in a big mud hole like the blind horse from De Camptown Races.
After awhile you realize that, rather than clarifying definitions, clearing up questions, and dividing between "opinion" and "truth", we're not likely to get out of this endless loop anytime soon. So, is there an answer? Yes, indeed. There is truth. There is absolute truth. And I'll go farther and say that we can know absolute truth. What is lacking -- will never be -- is proof. Proof is evidence or argument that establishes something as fact. Since humans suffer from a queer sort of condition called "suppression of truth" and all need to undergo extensive treatment referred to as "renewing the mind", proof will not exist. When we can cleanly and quickly say quite simply, "I don't accept your argument or evidence", the notion of proof is eliminated. And considering that a large part of our world is blinded by the god of this world, I would think that this wouldn't be uncommon. But just because evidence and argument is ignored doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. You can know the truth. That's the Holy Spirit's job, isn't it?
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Proverbs
Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs has written a good blog entry entitled Reading Proverbs Wisely vs Harmfully. The entry is a natural, since he recently published a book on Proverbs. Makes sense. Dan hits squarely on a concern I've had for a long time over how people read the book of Proverbs.
A proverb is a wise saying or precept. It is an adage, a statement of an general truth. It has the function of portraying a truism, something that is often true, but not necessarily always. Here, look at a couple of examples:
Look before you leap. ----- He who hesitates is lost.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. ----- Better safe than sorry.
The only thing constant is change. ----- The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder. ----- Out of sight, out of mind.
I'm sure you see the problem. These are truisms, all of them, but they contradict. Oh, so I suppose they are not true, right? No, that's not the case, either. They are true in their contexts and times. To take "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" as a promise or principle would require that every close relationship -- marriage, family, friend, whatever -- would need to make as a function of good relations separation an integral part. In fact, it would probably just be better if husbands and wives didn't live together. Imagine how fond of each other they'd become! And, of course, that's silly. (No, really, that's silly. I see you over there thinking that one over.)
Proverbs are neither promises nor statements of absolute truth. They are ... proverbs. Thus, when we get to Solomon's book of the same name, we need to remember that they are proverbs. Look at some of these examples.
"When a man's ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" (Prov 16:7). This appears to be a formula, a suitable test. Are your enemies not at peace with you? Must not be pleasing the Lord! Get that fixed. Of course, this is too easily dismantled when we look at the singular person about which it must be said that all His ways pleased the Lord -- Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but His enemies weren't at peace with Him. Must not have pleased the Lord! No, wrong conclusion. It's a proverb. It is generally true. It is often the case. It isn't an absolute truth. It isn't a promise from God.
This one is a real problem for some people. "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov 22:6). Clear as day! So, if, when he is old, he departs from it, you didn't do your job, parents. Can there be any question? And as if that's not painful enough, consider this. If you were supposed to train up your child to have faith in Christ and when he is old he does not, now where do you stand? You are responsible for his/her eternal damnation. And while I know that some would think I'm exaggerating for effect, I'm not. I know people who believe that. Some of them believe it and sternly look at those who failed, and others suffer from self-inflicted guilt because they believe it about themselves. But rather than messing around with questionable fathers to prove that this can't be the case, let's go to the absolutely perfect Father and see how He did. Adam sinned. Israel sinned. God's children haven't been very well behaved. Well, I suppose we know Who to blame, don't we? No, of course not. That was exaggeration for effect.
Then, of course, there is the classic (dare I say "proverbial"?) problem of Proverbs. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Prov 26:4-5). "Oh, come on, Solomon! What's up with that??!!" If we believe (as we do) that the Bible is God's Word without error or contradiction, then we have a problem here. Which is it? Answer a fool according to his folly or not? This problem goes away when we place the book of Proverbs in the category of proverbs. These are wise sayings about truth in context and time. Sometimes the context would require that you point out the folly of a fool for his own sake and sometimes it's best to ignore it.
Dan Phillips writes, "Proverbs is a book about skill for living in the fear of Yahweh." That's what it's about. It isn't about steps to take to make a happier life, the formula for making your enemies like you, or the 12 step program for raising good kids. These are proverbs with a focus on the fear of the Lord. If we can get that straight, we can avoid a lot of contradiction, misplaced hopes, and heart-rending disappointments. Instead, let's get to work on the fear of the Lord.
A proverb is a wise saying or precept. It is an adage, a statement of an general truth. It has the function of portraying a truism, something that is often true, but not necessarily always. Here, look at a couple of examples:
Look before you leap. ----- He who hesitates is lost.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. ----- Better safe than sorry.
The only thing constant is change. ----- The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder. ----- Out of sight, out of mind.
I'm sure you see the problem. These are truisms, all of them, but they contradict. Oh, so I suppose they are not true, right? No, that's not the case, either. They are true in their contexts and times. To take "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" as a promise or principle would require that every close relationship -- marriage, family, friend, whatever -- would need to make as a function of good relations separation an integral part. In fact, it would probably just be better if husbands and wives didn't live together. Imagine how fond of each other they'd become! And, of course, that's silly. (No, really, that's silly. I see you over there thinking that one over.)
Proverbs are neither promises nor statements of absolute truth. They are ... proverbs. Thus, when we get to Solomon's book of the same name, we need to remember that they are proverbs. Look at some of these examples.
"When a man's ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" (Prov 16:7). This appears to be a formula, a suitable test. Are your enemies not at peace with you? Must not be pleasing the Lord! Get that fixed. Of course, this is too easily dismantled when we look at the singular person about which it must be said that all His ways pleased the Lord -- Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but His enemies weren't at peace with Him. Must not have pleased the Lord! No, wrong conclusion. It's a proverb. It is generally true. It is often the case. It isn't an absolute truth. It isn't a promise from God.
This one is a real problem for some people. "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov 22:6). Clear as day! So, if, when he is old, he departs from it, you didn't do your job, parents. Can there be any question? And as if that's not painful enough, consider this. If you were supposed to train up your child to have faith in Christ and when he is old he does not, now where do you stand? You are responsible for his/her eternal damnation. And while I know that some would think I'm exaggerating for effect, I'm not. I know people who believe that. Some of them believe it and sternly look at those who failed, and others suffer from self-inflicted guilt because they believe it about themselves. But rather than messing around with questionable fathers to prove that this can't be the case, let's go to the absolutely perfect Father and see how He did. Adam sinned. Israel sinned. God's children haven't been very well behaved. Well, I suppose we know Who to blame, don't we? No, of course not. That was exaggeration for effect.
Then, of course, there is the classic (dare I say "proverbial"?) problem of Proverbs. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Prov 26:4-5). "Oh, come on, Solomon! What's up with that??!!" If we believe (as we do) that the Bible is God's Word without error or contradiction, then we have a problem here. Which is it? Answer a fool according to his folly or not? This problem goes away when we place the book of Proverbs in the category of proverbs. These are wise sayings about truth in context and time. Sometimes the context would require that you point out the folly of a fool for his own sake and sometimes it's best to ignore it.
Dan Phillips writes, "Proverbs is a book about skill for living in the fear of Yahweh." That's what it's about. It isn't about steps to take to make a happier life, the formula for making your enemies like you, or the 12 step program for raising good kids. These are proverbs with a focus on the fear of the Lord. If we can get that straight, we can avoid a lot of contradiction, misplaced hopes, and heart-rending disappointments. Instead, let's get to work on the fear of the Lord.
Saturday, November 05, 2011
The Well-Being Checklist
USA Today recently published their "well-being checklist" and identified what has been called "the happiest woman in America". Meet Mary Orenic. What is it that makes for the happiest women?
Well, the happiest women live in California, work full-time for an employer, make over $120,000 a year, are married with no children under 18 years old, do not have care-giving responsibilities, have strong family support and 1-5 hours of social interaction per day. They are happiest when they work as managers or executives, have a short commute to work, and eat 5 servings of fruits and 4 vegetables (minimum) per day. Cool!
Seriously?
There is more, and some of it is a no-brainer, but ... seriously? Have they lived in California? No, more to the point, does it really matter where a woman lives for her to be happy? Oh, sure, individuals, but I know of women who wouldn't dream of living in California. That would be miserable. Been there, done that, don't want to go back.
Indeed, many of these qualifications would eliminate the vast majority of women for all time. The stay-at-home mom is right out. She is not the executive, not making $120,000 a year, not working for an employer, buried under kids under 18, and often social-interaction deprived. Miserable!
Dennis Prager recently put out his Four Legacies of Feminism. It's a good read. According to Prager, these are four of the repercussions of feminism:
1. Women should have sex like men do -- freely, frequently, without commitment.
2. Women should develop their careers before marrying or having a family.
3. It is best if women work outside the home.
4. Men are demasculinized.
I think he's right. I think, on the other hand, that he has only scratched the surface. And the societal shift continues into all aspects of life and even into the church.
In the words of one of my favorite lesser-known biblical characters, "We do not well." (Go ahead, figure out who that was.)
Well, the happiest women live in California, work full-time for an employer, make over $120,000 a year, are married with no children under 18 years old, do not have care-giving responsibilities, have strong family support and 1-5 hours of social interaction per day. They are happiest when they work as managers or executives, have a short commute to work, and eat 5 servings of fruits and 4 vegetables (minimum) per day. Cool!
Seriously?
There is more, and some of it is a no-brainer, but ... seriously? Have they lived in California? No, more to the point, does it really matter where a woman lives for her to be happy? Oh, sure, individuals, but I know of women who wouldn't dream of living in California. That would be miserable. Been there, done that, don't want to go back.
Indeed, many of these qualifications would eliminate the vast majority of women for all time. The stay-at-home mom is right out. She is not the executive, not making $120,000 a year, not working for an employer, buried under kids under 18, and often social-interaction deprived. Miserable!
Dennis Prager recently put out his Four Legacies of Feminism. It's a good read. According to Prager, these are four of the repercussions of feminism:
1. Women should have sex like men do -- freely, frequently, without commitment.
2. Women should develop their careers before marrying or having a family.
3. It is best if women work outside the home.
4. Men are demasculinized.
I think he's right. I think, on the other hand, that he has only scratched the surface. And the societal shift continues into all aspects of life and even into the church.
In the words of one of my favorite lesser-known biblical characters, "We do not well." (Go ahead, figure out who that was.)
Friday, November 04, 2011
Biblical Manhood
We live in a time when manhood is on the wane. While radical feminists call for women to stand up and be heard, men are being told to sit down and shut up. Kick-started by this loud call, we find all sorts of encouragement to go down that path. We are told to "get in touch with your inner child" and "get in touch with your feminine side." Men are overbearing warriors and barbarians who need to be tamed if not eliminated. Egalitarianism is on the rise and society aims at less and less distinction between male and female. The Bible, on the other hand, isn't so vague. While men and women are, for instance, equally valued, the Bible offers a difference in roles. In fact, the original design was complementarian (1 Cor 11:8-9). Man was incomplete without Woman (Gen 2:18). The two make a whole.
The Bible has a lot to say about biblical manhood. Both male and female were made in the image of God (giving them equal value), but while males are said to be "the image and glory of God", women are "the glory of man" (1 Cor 11:7). (Hey, I didn't write it. Talk to Paul ... and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.) The Bible repeatedly gives the role of leadership to males over females (e.g., Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:12-15). (Again, if you disagree, your dispute isn't with me.)
Of course, the distortions of sin has its own effect. It's too easy to go down the wrong road, believing, for instance, that a "manly man" will be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. A very popular term today, for instance, is the "man cave" where somehow, in order to be manly, men have to have a place away from their wives and children in which to act "manly". This is typically, by extension, childish and overbearing behavior. I would submit that much of what we envision today as "manly" has nothing at all to do with biblical manhood.
You can find a lot of things about men and their responsibilities and commands in Scripture, but there is a single defining characteristic that gets repeated more than once:
Finding examples of men today who exhibit a biblical expression of manhood is harder and harder. I don't want to contribute to that problem. I want to be part of the solution. I want to live and image a godly model of what God had in mind for men when He made Adam and gave us His Son. I may not be able to change the world, but I don't want to be responsible for assisting it in its slide away from God's view of how we men ought to be.
__________
Recommended Resource for Further Reading: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
The Bible has a lot to say about biblical manhood. Both male and female were made in the image of God (giving them equal value), but while males are said to be "the image and glory of God", women are "the glory of man" (1 Cor 11:7). (Hey, I didn't write it. Talk to Paul ... and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.) The Bible repeatedly gives the role of leadership to males over females (e.g., Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:12-15). (Again, if you disagree, your dispute isn't with me.)
Of course, the distortions of sin has its own effect. It's too easy to go down the wrong road, believing, for instance, that a "manly man" will be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. A very popular term today, for instance, is the "man cave" where somehow, in order to be manly, men have to have a place away from their wives and children in which to act "manly". This is typically, by extension, childish and overbearing behavior. I would submit that much of what we envision today as "manly" has nothing at all to do with biblical manhood.
You can find a lot of things about men and their responsibilities and commands in Scripture, but there is a single defining characteristic that gets repeated more than once:
As David's time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, "I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man" (1 Kings 2:1-2).Strength. That's the defining characteristic of a biblical male. Not "warrior" or "sports-minded" or overbearing. Husbands, instead, are called to "live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). That's right. Fail to do that, guys, and you don't have to wonder why your prayer life isn't what it should be. Biblical strength, however, is much more difficult than the flexing weightlifters might express. It isn't an overbearing strength. Jesus painted a different picture.
Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong (1 Cor 16:13).
But Jesus called them to Himself, and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. "It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:25-28).Biblically, men are to be a picture of strength, genuine leaders. This strength and leadership, however, is to be expressed not in lording it over others, but in strength contained -- servant leadership. Jesus, God Incarnate, modeled it for us. When a whipping was necessary, He gave it (John 2:14-15). More often, however, He was the picture of meekness (Phil 2:5-8). Jesus gave Himself as our example, not "to be served, but to serve."
Finding examples of men today who exhibit a biblical expression of manhood is harder and harder. I don't want to contribute to that problem. I want to be part of the solution. I want to live and image a godly model of what God had in mind for men when He made Adam and gave us His Son. I may not be able to change the world, but I don't want to be responsible for assisting it in its slide away from God's view of how we men ought to be.
__________
Recommended Resource for Further Reading: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Thursday, November 03, 2011
When I Was a Child
When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things (1 Cor 13:11).I read this the other day and it struck me that I'd never thought about Paul's use of words here. "When I was a child," he begins, and then lists three categories of contrasting childhood and manhood -- speak, think, and reason. Why these three?
The first would appear to on the surface to be a contrast with the earlier statement: "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels ..." (1 Cor 13:1). I'm sure that's in there. But what does it mean to "speak as a child"? Well, I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean baby talk. It would be broader than that. "When I was a child, I expressed myself as a child." Children express themselves with immaturity. They use euphemisms, incorrect words, crude language for humor. Being undeveloped in their thinking, their expressions are undeveloped. Their communications are inaccurate and incomplete. A man, then, in Paul's metaphor would produce a more careful expression. He would avoid the crude, express the truth in a clear manner, work on communication that correctly and completely expresses what he intends to express.
The second is again a call back to an earlier reference. "If I ... know all mysteries and all knowledge ..." (1 Cor 13:2). The word here means to exercise the mind. It is the same term that Paul uses in Colossians when he says, "Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth" (Col 3:2). It includes understanding as well as affections. In these terms, then, how does a child think? A child thinks purely on the surface. There is no depth, no examination, no due diligence. Children don't typically think beyond the immediate. They don't analyze the practicality. They don't think things through. The "here and now", the concept of immediate gratification, the primary aim of self-satisfaction, these are primary components of childish thinking. By contrast, then, a "man" would have a different level of thinking. He would seek to know what lies beneath the surface. He would go deeper with his understanding. He would consider practical applications. He would think beyond the immediate, accept the principle of delayed gratification, and set aside self-gratification for the benefit of others.
The third, "reason as a child", doesn't have a "call back" from an earlier verse. Beyond that, it would appear to merely be a duplication. Isn't "thinking" the same as "reasoning"? Well, not quite. The Greek word here is logizomai. I'm sure you can see the connection to "logic". It's root is logos, which is the complete expression of thought. It means to reason or to take an inventory. So, how does a child reason? In their reasoning, children tend to be nonlinear. They don't think a concept through. Their conclusions are not guided by carefully thinking down a line of logic. They rarely deduce anything. They choose to do what they want to do not because it makes sense, but because they want to. Children tend to reason only to the next step, where adults can think beyond the next step to come to reasonable outcomes without actually taking intermediate steps. Their reasoning is more emotional and less rational. In contrast, then, an adult would reason in a more logical manner. He would examine ideas more carefully, think them through more fully, locate and eliminate errors before getting to the conclusions.
As it turns out, then, the three are distinct but not at all separate. Reasoning produces understanding. Understanding produces expression. Children do not reason carefully, coming to faulty thinking and understanding, resulting in improper or incomplete expression. And an adult is supposed to reason to a proper understanding that gets expressed in a clear manner.
There is a lot that goes into being a "child" as opposed to being a "man" (adult). In today's society, of course, we are encouraged to think less like adults and more like children. In American culture, the really wise ones are the kids. Then it's the women. Lowest on the chain of "wise" is the adult male. I would like to suggest that this is a childish expression brought about by childish understanding from childish reasoning. In a society that is personifying the Peter Pan Syndrome -- adults who never grow up -- the call for Christ's followers is to speak, think, and reason like an adult. We are called to be child-like in our faith without being childish in our thinking. It seems like a difficult line to walk. Fortunately, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Love and Marriage
"Love and marriage. Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage." Just ask the expert, Frank Sinatra. We know this, though, don't we? "First comes love; then comes marriage; then comes baby in a baby carriage!" I mean, it's as simple as that. The standard for all time, we believe, is that people marry for love. "Why are you two getting married?" must be followed with "Because we love each other" and, of course, "Duh!" What's the question?
Can I let you in on a little secret? If you are looking for a biblical worldview -- a view of the world and how it operates from a biblical perspective -- it ain't in there. Oh, we are to love our spouses. That is unavoidable ... and often one of our serious shortcomings. But that command is not offered as a motivation to marry, but a demand once married. Nowhere in the Bible does the idea that "we love each other" come into the biblical definition of marriage. That is, the world says to marry because you're in love, but the Bible says to love because you're married. Nowhere does the Bible connect "love" with "the reason we marry".
What is the biblical perspective? Well, let's start at the design phase. Did Adam love Eve? Nothing there about it. What do we know? We know that "It is not good for man to be alone" (Gen 2:18). Thus, biblical marriage includes the need for companionship. We know that God declared, "I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18). So we know that biblical marriage includes mutual assistance -- two people cooperating to manage the affairs of life. (We might take notice that God designed Eve to help Adam, but that would look too ... patriarchal for most.) So, marriage by God's design is for companionship and mutual assistance. So far I don't see anything that requires romance. What else? "God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth'" (Gen 1:28). That would be procreation. Obviously procreation is designed to require two -- male and female. Anything else? Yes, there is the definition of marriage offered by Adam in Genesis and reaffirmed by Christ in Matthew 19: "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). The union of two lives is the union of one flesh and the creation of a single entity, a family unit. This family unit is connected to parents (they don't cease to be the parents), but is distinct from them as its own entity.
Let's see now what we have. Biblically, marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of companionship, mutual assistance, and procreation, packaged as its own family unit. Looking ... looking ... nope! I don't see it. I don't see anywhere that Scripture says anything remotely like Sinatra's wisdom about love and marriage or the age old kids' poem about love preceding marriage. It's not there. Just ask any 4-year-old why people get married, and you'll know it's because they love each other. Unfortunately, most 4-year-olds don't have a biblical worldview.
So what? Am I opposed to loving someone that you marry? First of all, that would be silly since we are commanded to love the person we marry. The problem comes when we mix up cause and effect. If the love causes the marriage, then what do we conclude when we stop loving? Well, the national divorce rate is your answer. Do you know where the lowest divorce rates in the world occur? It's in the countries where marriages are arranged rather than felt. As these countries "come into the 21st century" and abandon this practice, their divorce rates rise. Doesn't that suggest a problem?
Consider it from this angle. Husbands are commanded to love their wives. Now, we all know that love is an emotion, right? So ... how is it possible to command an emotion? Is it remotely possible that we have this whole thing mixed up somehow? Is it possible that the "love" that we are commanded (over and over) to have is a choice that we make while the emotions that we associate with "love" are the result of those choices rather than the definition of the term? And if love is a choice we make and we are commanded to "love one another", is that really a good choice for the singular reason for getting married?
So, what's the bottom line here? I'm not opposed to marrying for love. We are certainly required to love the one we marry. However, if we mix up cause and effect and blind ourselves to God's plan for marriage, what we end up with is confusion and failure. You know ... you can't hit a target if you don't know what it is. If your target is simply to commit to someone towards whom you have a strong emotional bond and God's target is companionship and mutual assistance and procreation covered in a love that is commanded, it won't be long before there is a divergence. Marriage will be an emotional effect without definition and commitment will be based on emotional responses that are guaranteed to ebb and flow and we'll end up with something that looks a lot like what we have today rather than what God intended. Divorce, "same sex marriage", cohabitation, adultery, a completely skewed sense of marriage, rather than a lifelong commitment between a husband and wife who are devoted to each other and their children as they deal with life's situations. Now, that's all well and good if you're planning on sharing the world's view on the topic. But for those who want a biblical worldview, that will be a problem. Just something to think about.
Can I let you in on a little secret? If you are looking for a biblical worldview -- a view of the world and how it operates from a biblical perspective -- it ain't in there. Oh, we are to love our spouses. That is unavoidable ... and often one of our serious shortcomings. But that command is not offered as a motivation to marry, but a demand once married. Nowhere in the Bible does the idea that "we love each other" come into the biblical definition of marriage. That is, the world says to marry because you're in love, but the Bible says to love because you're married. Nowhere does the Bible connect "love" with "the reason we marry".
What is the biblical perspective? Well, let's start at the design phase. Did Adam love Eve? Nothing there about it. What do we know? We know that "It is not good for man to be alone" (Gen 2:18). Thus, biblical marriage includes the need for companionship. We know that God declared, "I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18). So we know that biblical marriage includes mutual assistance -- two people cooperating to manage the affairs of life. (We might take notice that God designed Eve to help Adam, but that would look too ... patriarchal for most.) So, marriage by God's design is for companionship and mutual assistance. So far I don't see anything that requires romance. What else? "God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth'" (Gen 1:28). That would be procreation. Obviously procreation is designed to require two -- male and female. Anything else? Yes, there is the definition of marriage offered by Adam in Genesis and reaffirmed by Christ in Matthew 19: "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). The union of two lives is the union of one flesh and the creation of a single entity, a family unit. This family unit is connected to parents (they don't cease to be the parents), but is distinct from them as its own entity.
Let's see now what we have. Biblically, marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of companionship, mutual assistance, and procreation, packaged as its own family unit. Looking ... looking ... nope! I don't see it. I don't see anywhere that Scripture says anything remotely like Sinatra's wisdom about love and marriage or the age old kids' poem about love preceding marriage. It's not there. Just ask any 4-year-old why people get married, and you'll know it's because they love each other. Unfortunately, most 4-year-olds don't have a biblical worldview.
So what? Am I opposed to loving someone that you marry? First of all, that would be silly since we are commanded to love the person we marry. The problem comes when we mix up cause and effect. If the love causes the marriage, then what do we conclude when we stop loving? Well, the national divorce rate is your answer. Do you know where the lowest divorce rates in the world occur? It's in the countries where marriages are arranged rather than felt. As these countries "come into the 21st century" and abandon this practice, their divorce rates rise. Doesn't that suggest a problem?
Consider it from this angle. Husbands are commanded to love their wives. Now, we all know that love is an emotion, right? So ... how is it possible to command an emotion? Is it remotely possible that we have this whole thing mixed up somehow? Is it possible that the "love" that we are commanded (over and over) to have is a choice that we make while the emotions that we associate with "love" are the result of those choices rather than the definition of the term? And if love is a choice we make and we are commanded to "love one another", is that really a good choice for the singular reason for getting married?
So, what's the bottom line here? I'm not opposed to marrying for love. We are certainly required to love the one we marry. However, if we mix up cause and effect and blind ourselves to God's plan for marriage, what we end up with is confusion and failure. You know ... you can't hit a target if you don't know what it is. If your target is simply to commit to someone towards whom you have a strong emotional bond and God's target is companionship and mutual assistance and procreation covered in a love that is commanded, it won't be long before there is a divergence. Marriage will be an emotional effect without definition and commitment will be based on emotional responses that are guaranteed to ebb and flow and we'll end up with something that looks a lot like what we have today rather than what God intended. Divorce, "same sex marriage", cohabitation, adultery, a completely skewed sense of marriage, rather than a lifelong commitment between a husband and wife who are devoted to each other and their children as they deal with life's situations. Now, that's all well and good if you're planning on sharing the world's view on the topic. But for those who want a biblical worldview, that will be a problem. Just something to think about.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Your Special Purpose
It seems to be a standard question for people. "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose in life?" Rick Warren wrote the popular book, The Purpose-Driven Life, because it is a principle concern for human beings. Of course, answering the question can be a little difficult sometimes, not because the answers are hard to find, but because there are so many. I am, for instance, a father, a son, a husband, and a brother. Each of these has its own implications for my purpose in life. And that's only scratching the surface. I am a father to my children as well as a spiritual father to others. I am a brother to my siblings as well as a brother in Christ. And the ripples just go on. So, it would seem, the quest for purpose has the potential to just go on and on without end.
It was with a little surprise, then, that I found a statement in Scripture about our purpose in life. It is, obviously, only a part of our purpose. Nonetheless, it is a purpose statement endorsed by God. That would put it higher than your or my opinion. It should also be enlightening. I mean, if God says that such and such is one of my purposes in life, that would make it a stand out. What is this unusual, God-given, biblical purpose?
"Oh, my, I'm sure you're mistaken," you well might assure me. "That seems a bit much." And I well might agree if it didn't appear elsewhere.
"Oh, come on, man! You're really losing it!" Perhaps, but Peter isn't the only one who said it.
The Bible is not silent when it comes to our purpose. We know that we aren't random, just people adrift in time. Instead, we know "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4). When the Pharisees "rejected God's purpose for themselves" (Luke 7:30), what purpose did they reject? To repent and be restored to a right relationship with God. Purpose. We know that "God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification" (1 Thess 4:7 -- see also 1 Tim 4:7). Purpose. It is quite clear that "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Purpose. "Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult, but give a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing" (1 Peter 3:9). Purpose. And one of God's purpose statements for His own is that we would be improved, purified, sanctified, and perfected through suffering. Peter says, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). Expect it. "Count it all joy." It's part of your purpose and for your benefit from a Father who loves you (Heb 12:4-11). Strengthen one another with these words.
It was with a little surprise, then, that I found a statement in Scripture about our purpose in life. It is, obviously, only a part of our purpose. Nonetheless, it is a purpose statement endorsed by God. That would put it higher than your or my opinion. It should also be enlightening. I mean, if God says that such and such is one of my purposes in life, that would make it a stand out. What is this unusual, God-given, biblical purpose?
This finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:19-21).Now, I know ... if you weren't paying attention and weren't expecting it, you may have missed it, even with my skillful use of bold print. So let's look at what Peter wrote. Something, he says, finds favor. What? God shows favor to those who bear up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. That's it. Okay. We get that. Fine. I mean, we likely don't like it and we'll certainly complain and probably sue someone over it, but ... okay, fine. But wait! He goes on to say that doing what is right, suffering for it, and patiently enduring that suffering is our purpose. When Peter writes, "You have been called for this purpose," the "this" in that sentence is that patient endurance of unjust suffering. That is God's purpose statement for Christians.
"Oh, my, I'm sure you're mistaken," you well might assure me. "That seems a bit much." And I well might agree if it didn't appear elsewhere.
Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God (1 Peter 4:1-2).In this passage, being followers of Christ, we are to arm ourselves with "the same purpose" -- suffering in the flesh. Again, God's purpose statement for Christians. But, wait! He actually explains a benefit. "He who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin." The suffering we endure improves us!
"Oh, come on, man! You're really losing it!" Perhaps, but Peter isn't the only one who said it.
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-4).James agrees. Paul agrees. Peter agrees. It appears we have a quorum. Suffering is one of the clearly stated purposes for Christians. And it is good for you.
But He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:9-10).
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also to suffer for His sake (Phil 1:29).
The Bible is not silent when it comes to our purpose. We know that we aren't random, just people adrift in time. Instead, we know "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4). When the Pharisees "rejected God's purpose for themselves" (Luke 7:30), what purpose did they reject? To repent and be restored to a right relationship with God. Purpose. We know that "God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification" (1 Thess 4:7 -- see also 1 Tim 4:7). Purpose. It is quite clear that "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Purpose. "Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult, but give a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing" (1 Peter 3:9). Purpose. And one of God's purpose statements for His own is that we would be improved, purified, sanctified, and perfected through suffering. Peter says, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). Expect it. "Count it all joy." It's part of your purpose and for your benefit from a Father who loves you (Heb 12:4-11). Strengthen one another with these words.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Paul's Moral Relativism
I love Romans 14, because if you hold your mouth just right and pick out just the right verses you can make it say the most amazing thing. Here, let's give it a look:
Is it? I suppose, if we weren't thinking and didn't mind labeling Paul as a lunatic that might work out. Of course, since it isn't internally consistent with the text nor consistent with the rest of Paul's writings nor consistent with the rest of Scripture, that might not be advisable.
First, the contradictions. In Romans alone Paul makes many commands, instructions on how believers are to live. If he meant "do what you are convinced is right", then he should have kept his mouth shut. I mean, what if I'm not convinced that every person should be subject to the governing authorities (Rom 13:1)? Isn't Paul being a bit judgmental telling me I should? And, look, that whole first chapter thing about suppressing the truth and futile thinking and becoming foolish and all ... come on, Paul, that's not "mutually upbuilding". And those are just a couple of examples. The book is full of judgment and conviction. All of Paul's epistles have this concept of declaring what is right in God's eyes and commanding the followers of Christ to do that. He leaves no sense of "Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind" or "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?" on those issues. And, of course, the rest of Scripture is the same. One key example: In what is considered the best known verse in the Bible, Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." "Well," you will say, "there it is, plain as day." Is it? Then why does He follow with instructions on taking the speck out of your brother's eye, the Golden Rule, the problem of the narrow gate versus the wide gate, and how to discern a false prophet ("wolf in sheep's clothing") from the real thing? All of that is judgment, isn't it? No, if the 14th chapter of Paul's letter to Rome was intended to tell us not to judge anyone for anything, it did so in stark contrast to everything else in Scripture including Paul's own words and Christ's teaching.
So, if this does not mean "Judge not that you be not judged" in the sense that I presented it above, what is it saying?
Let's start with verse 1. The quarrels and judgment addressed here is not over what God declares to be good or bad. It is over opinions. Paul gives a examples. "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables" (14:2). "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike" (14:5). Now, I would submit that you would be hard-pressed to find Scripture that says, "Thou shalt eat only vegetables." Indeed, being a vegetarian or a carnivore is not a matter of morality. It's ... opinion. Some people think that Good Friday (as an example) ought to be a special day set aside for special observation and others think that it's just another day. Look it up. What does the Bible say about it? I'll wait. What, you couldn't find anything? No. It's ... opinion. Paul was convinced that it wasn't sinful to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Bible doesn't say he was wrong. Thus, it's ... opinion. On matters of opinion, let's not be judgmental. Let's be peaceable. On these matters, keep your ideas to yourself. Is it a sin to send your kids out on Halloween dressed as princesses and pirates? The Bible doesn't say. Keep it to yourself. Let's not fight about it.
There is a second thought laid out in this passage which is quite often missed. A main point is not "Keep your ideas to yourself" as much as "Don't cause others to stumble because of your ideas." "Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother" (14:13). Don't let your freedom trip up a brother in Christ. Less about enlarging your freedoms, this passage, then, asks you to limit your freedoms for the sake of the weaker brother.
One other consideration, then. I pointed out that this passage is not commanding us to "live and let live" morally. That would violate all of Scripture. As such, it is not saying that we get to determine what is right and wrong in all things. The principle, typically derived largely from this passage, is called "Christian Liberty". This principle refers specifically to the areas in life in which God has chosen to be silent. The basic principle refers to those areas of life which are not explicitly commanded or clearly modeled from Scripture. When God chooses to be silent on something (like vegetarianism or honoring Good Friday, etc.), we ought to do the same. It becomes a matter of faith. Paul says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (14:23). Christian Liberty does not include those things that are in the Bible. So if you became fully convinced in your own mind that stealing from the local grocery store was acceptable if you were hungry (as an example), you would be doing so in direct violation of God's specific commands and this would not be covered under Paul's "opinions" category of Romans 14. This passage is not a statement of moral relativism. It is not permission for you to pick out your own version of morality. The text is in regards to opinions, matters that are not covered in Scripture. "But, abortion isn't covered in Scripture!" Well, if you can figure out how to terminate the life of a child without murdering (which is covered), you might have an argument. You don't.
It is true that there must be room for differences among people. It is true that there are those with stronger and weaker faith. It is true that we need to be careful in judgment. It is not true that the Bible endorses moral relativism or the misguided notion of "judge not at all". Don't let picking and choosing through Romans 14 lead you to that faulty conclusion. Now, if you wanted to conclude, "Well, maybe I need to keep my kids at home on Halloween because the neighbor believes it's evil and I don't want to cause her to stumble," you might be on to something there.
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions (14:1).There you go, just some of the choice tidbits from Romans 14. The message, of course, is abundantly clear. We are not to pass judgment. (I mean, seriously, how many times in that one chapter does he say that?) Instead, we are to try to welcome everyone regardless of their beliefs ("faith") and keep our own opinions to ourselves. You think it's wrong for that couple to have sex out of marriage? Well, you just keep that to yourself because they are "fully convinced" in their own minds and you have nothing to say about it. And that goes for a host of other "sins" you might want to toss out there. Just keep it to yourself. Live and let live. That's Paul's message in Romans 14. Right and wrong are determined by your own convictions, and no one should say otherwise.
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls (14:4).
Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (14:5).
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? (14:10)
Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer (14:13).
Let us pursue what makes for peace and are mutually upbuilding (14:19).
The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God (14:22).
Is it? I suppose, if we weren't thinking and didn't mind labeling Paul as a lunatic that might work out. Of course, since it isn't internally consistent with the text nor consistent with the rest of Paul's writings nor consistent with the rest of Scripture, that might not be advisable.
First, the contradictions. In Romans alone Paul makes many commands, instructions on how believers are to live. If he meant "do what you are convinced is right", then he should have kept his mouth shut. I mean, what if I'm not convinced that every person should be subject to the governing authorities (Rom 13:1)? Isn't Paul being a bit judgmental telling me I should? And, look, that whole first chapter thing about suppressing the truth and futile thinking and becoming foolish and all ... come on, Paul, that's not "mutually upbuilding". And those are just a couple of examples. The book is full of judgment and conviction. All of Paul's epistles have this concept of declaring what is right in God's eyes and commanding the followers of Christ to do that. He leaves no sense of "Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind" or "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?" on those issues. And, of course, the rest of Scripture is the same. One key example: In what is considered the best known verse in the Bible, Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." "Well," you will say, "there it is, plain as day." Is it? Then why does He follow with instructions on taking the speck out of your brother's eye, the Golden Rule, the problem of the narrow gate versus the wide gate, and how to discern a false prophet ("wolf in sheep's clothing") from the real thing? All of that is judgment, isn't it? No, if the 14th chapter of Paul's letter to Rome was intended to tell us not to judge anyone for anything, it did so in stark contrast to everything else in Scripture including Paul's own words and Christ's teaching.
So, if this does not mean "Judge not that you be not judged" in the sense that I presented it above, what is it saying?
Let's start with verse 1. The quarrels and judgment addressed here is not over what God declares to be good or bad. It is over opinions. Paul gives a examples. "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables" (14:2). "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike" (14:5). Now, I would submit that you would be hard-pressed to find Scripture that says, "Thou shalt eat only vegetables." Indeed, being a vegetarian or a carnivore is not a matter of morality. It's ... opinion. Some people think that Good Friday (as an example) ought to be a special day set aside for special observation and others think that it's just another day. Look it up. What does the Bible say about it? I'll wait. What, you couldn't find anything? No. It's ... opinion. Paul was convinced that it wasn't sinful to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Bible doesn't say he was wrong. Thus, it's ... opinion. On matters of opinion, let's not be judgmental. Let's be peaceable. On these matters, keep your ideas to yourself. Is it a sin to send your kids out on Halloween dressed as princesses and pirates? The Bible doesn't say. Keep it to yourself. Let's not fight about it.
There is a second thought laid out in this passage which is quite often missed. A main point is not "Keep your ideas to yourself" as much as "Don't cause others to stumble because of your ideas." "Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother" (14:13). Don't let your freedom trip up a brother in Christ. Less about enlarging your freedoms, this passage, then, asks you to limit your freedoms for the sake of the weaker brother.
One other consideration, then. I pointed out that this passage is not commanding us to "live and let live" morally. That would violate all of Scripture. As such, it is not saying that we get to determine what is right and wrong in all things. The principle, typically derived largely from this passage, is called "Christian Liberty". This principle refers specifically to the areas in life in which God has chosen to be silent. The basic principle refers to those areas of life which are not explicitly commanded or clearly modeled from Scripture. When God chooses to be silent on something (like vegetarianism or honoring Good Friday, etc.), we ought to do the same. It becomes a matter of faith. Paul says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (14:23). Christian Liberty does not include those things that are in the Bible. So if you became fully convinced in your own mind that stealing from the local grocery store was acceptable if you were hungry (as an example), you would be doing so in direct violation of God's specific commands and this would not be covered under Paul's "opinions" category of Romans 14. This passage is not a statement of moral relativism. It is not permission for you to pick out your own version of morality. The text is in regards to opinions, matters that are not covered in Scripture. "But, abortion isn't covered in Scripture!" Well, if you can figure out how to terminate the life of a child without murdering (which is covered), you might have an argument. You don't.
It is true that there must be room for differences among people. It is true that there are those with stronger and weaker faith. It is true that we need to be careful in judgment. It is not true that the Bible endorses moral relativism or the misguided notion of "judge not at all". Don't let picking and choosing through Romans 14 lead you to that faulty conclusion. Now, if you wanted to conclude, "Well, maybe I need to keep my kids at home on Halloween because the neighbor believes it's evil and I don't want to cause her to stumble," you might be on to something there.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
One Praying Man
Now Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the settlers of Gilead, said to Ahab, "As the LORD, the God of Israel lives, before whom I stand, surely there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word" (1 Kings 17:1).So begins a fun and fascinating story of one of Scriptures "All Time Greats" in the area of prophets. So important was this prophet, Elijah, that he is listed with Moses at the top. It was Moses and Elijah who appeared with Jesus in the Transfiguration. Oddly enough, Elijah seems to play a small role in the Old Testament. So what made Elijah stand out?
In the event explained above, there are details missing in the account. One of those is the fact that Elijah, unlike so many other prophets, didn't get a word from God that said something like "Go and tell Ahab ..." From all accounts, this was Elijah coming in here without divine direction. It was "by my word."
The result of this bold move was a drought in Israel that lasted three and a half years. The drought brought about a famine. The famine brought retribution to God's people. Jezebel, Ahab's wife, set out to kill as many of God's prophets as she could. When Elijah prepared to go back to see Ahab after 3 1/2 years, Obadiah warned him not to go. He was quite sure that merely telling Ahab that Elijah was coming would get him executed.
The end of the episode is a fun story. Elijah challenges Ahab's 450 prophets of Baal, the Lord of Rain and Lightning, to a duel. "You guys ask Baal to give you fire and I'll ask God. Whoever answers wins!" These guys did all they could to get a response from their false god. And, let's face it, Elijah didn't help. They're out there dancing around and shouting and cutting themselves and Elijah offers, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened" (1 Kings 18:27). Yeah, no help at all. As the time came for the evening sacrifice, Elijah took his place in front of the people. He made a simple altar with 12 stones, dug a moat around it, put the wood on it, put the cut-up ox on top, and then had the people pour water on it (in the middle of the worst drought they'd seen) until everything was soaked. His "fancy" method of getting a response was this:
"O LORD , the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that Thou, O LORD, art God, and that Thou hast turned their heart back again." " (1 Kings 18:36-37).The immediate result to this simple prayer was fire from heaven so intense that it devoured everything at the altar ... including the altar. Baal's 450 prophets died that day because the people got the message, and the drought ended.
Elijah was a stand out. He never actually died. Instead, he ascended into heaven directly on a chariot sent from God. His return to announce the coming of the Messiah was prophesied and fulfilled in John the Baptist. And, as I said before, he made a return visit at Jesus's Transfiguration along with Moses. An important prophet.
I mentioned that a couple of details were missing from the account. One was the fact that he acted without direct instruction from God in telling Ahab that the drought was coming. The other is given in James.
The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the sky poured rain, and the earth produced its fruit (James 5:16-18).Did you catch that? What made Elijah one of the top prophets of all time was not his speaking ability or his willing spirit or his calling from God or his excellent nature. What made Elijah a standout among prophets was that "he prayed earnestly." He prayed to stop the rain and it stopped. He prayed to start the rain and it rained. He prayed to save the life of the child of the woman with whom he was staying during the drought and the child came back to life. One praying man.
Do you ever think that you don't make much of a difference? Do you ever wonder what you can do to bring about change? Do you wonder what you can do for God and for His people? One praying man can bring about unbelievable miracles for the cause of God. One praying man can make all the difference.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
On the news the other night they interviewed an unemployed woman occupying San Francisco. She was part of the "Occupy Wall Street" protest, the one taking place in San Francisco. "How long will you stay here?" the interviewer asked. "I'll stay as long as it takes," she answered seriously. And, like an idiot, I shouted at the screen, "As long as it takes to do what?" You see, if there is no target, you can't hit it. And the vague "as long as it takes" means, if she is true to her word, that she'll have to take up permanent residence because no one has said what "it" is.
The movement that started in New York has gone national and now international. Modeled after the recent coups in Tunisia and Egypt (hopefully not Libya), they seek to ... no, wait, that's not clear. But they are protesting. They want something to change. It has something to do with the 99% and the fact that the richest Americans (1%) have something like 90% of America's wealth (although I'm pretty sure that the international protests aren't about rich Americans). So ... they want to overthrow rich people? According to their "official website", they are protesting "the corporate forces of the world".
Okay, that's vague enough, I suppose. No, too vague. So I searched and I searched and I finally came across a "Proposed List of Demands". (Note: "This is not an official list of demands." There are a lot of proposed lists with apparently no official list available.) Let's see. Raise minimum wage to $20/hour. Guarantee living wage income regardless of employment. Free college education. Look, I'm not making this stuff up. I'm simply transcribing it from their list. Start a one trillion dollar (that's trillion with a "t", as in "almost double the current debt") spending effort on infrastructure. Oh, good, they don't stop there. Spend another trillion on "ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants" (while bringing "the fossil fuel economy to an end"). Open the borders. Outlaw credit reporting. Void all debts.
Well thought out. Good job. Quite impossible, catastrophic, and insane, but, hey, at least now I know how long that poor woman will be living in a tent in San Francisco's Justin Herman Plaza. Forever.
But their Facebook page is much more reasonable. Top on the list is to revoke corporate personhood. Um ... what? Raise taxes on the top 2%. (Doesn't that cut into the 99%?) Abolish capitalism. Seriously, that's #3 on their list. The bottom is to close half of America's military bases. That should be easy because they demand we get out of the Middle East. And while we're abolishing capitalism, let's go to a "resource based economy". Yeah, I had to look that one up. Apparently it's a system in which all goods and services are available without debt or money or credits or barter. Oh, okay, got it. It's communism, where everything is owned communally and shared equally. Got it.
Well, that certainly helps that poor woman in the plaza. I'm sure America is looking forward to a radical shift from capitalism to communism. I'm not at all sure what "End corporate welfare" or "Revoke corporate personhood" even means, but those would be the least of our worries. And, of course, The constant demand for Universal Healthcare is right around the corner, isn't it? I mean, it is on their list. Don't we have it yet? Oh, wait, that will happen when all doctors decide to work for whatever they can get from the government. But that should be fine because really what needs to happen is for the government to impose salary caps on everyone. And that shouldn't be a problem because, after all, we've already started with the elimination of capitalism.
Funny thing. That whole "communism" thing, which, to be honest, sounds really good, has been tried. It doesn't work. It doesn't work in the worst possible way. But, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Are we next?
The movement that started in New York has gone national and now international. Modeled after the recent coups in Tunisia and Egypt (hopefully not Libya), they seek to ... no, wait, that's not clear. But they are protesting. They want something to change. It has something to do with the 99% and the fact that the richest Americans (1%) have something like 90% of America's wealth (although I'm pretty sure that the international protests aren't about rich Americans). So ... they want to overthrow rich people? According to their "official website", they are protesting "the corporate forces of the world".
Okay, that's vague enough, I suppose. No, too vague. So I searched and I searched and I finally came across a "Proposed List of Demands". (Note: "This is not an official list of demands." There are a lot of proposed lists with apparently no official list available.) Let's see. Raise minimum wage to $20/hour. Guarantee living wage income regardless of employment. Free college education. Look, I'm not making this stuff up. I'm simply transcribing it from their list. Start a one trillion dollar (that's trillion with a "t", as in "almost double the current debt") spending effort on infrastructure. Oh, good, they don't stop there. Spend another trillion on "ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants" (while bringing "the fossil fuel economy to an end"). Open the borders. Outlaw credit reporting. Void all debts.
Well thought out. Good job. Quite impossible, catastrophic, and insane, but, hey, at least now I know how long that poor woman will be living in a tent in San Francisco's Justin Herman Plaza. Forever.
But their Facebook page is much more reasonable. Top on the list is to revoke corporate personhood. Um ... what? Raise taxes on the top 2%. (Doesn't that cut into the 99%?) Abolish capitalism. Seriously, that's #3 on their list. The bottom is to close half of America's military bases. That should be easy because they demand we get out of the Middle East. And while we're abolishing capitalism, let's go to a "resource based economy". Yeah, I had to look that one up. Apparently it's a system in which all goods and services are available without debt or money or credits or barter. Oh, okay, got it. It's communism, where everything is owned communally and shared equally. Got it.
Well, that certainly helps that poor woman in the plaza. I'm sure America is looking forward to a radical shift from capitalism to communism. I'm not at all sure what "End corporate welfare" or "Revoke corporate personhood" even means, but those would be the least of our worries. And, of course, The constant demand for Universal Healthcare is right around the corner, isn't it? I mean, it is on their list. Don't we have it yet? Oh, wait, that will happen when all doctors decide to work for whatever they can get from the government. But that should be fine because really what needs to happen is for the government to impose salary caps on everyone. And that shouldn't be a problem because, after all, we've already started with the elimination of capitalism.
Funny thing. That whole "communism" thing, which, to be honest, sounds really good, has been tried. It doesn't work. It doesn't work in the worst possible way. But, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Are we next?
Friday, October 28, 2011
Harm and Morals
In the news recently is a whole new HPV question. You remember the HPV thing, right? Rick Perry is in trouble because in Texas he mandated that all girls get the HPV vaccine. There was a campaign in the last couple of years to push this. Girls ought to all be vaccinated for the HPV virus to prevent potential cervical cancer. Now they're finding more. It is now linked to throat cancer and even to heart disease. Wait. That's not all. It is also linked to throat cancer and heart disease in men. One study indicates that men with HPV are more than twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke. So the question is being raised. Should we vaccinate males, too?
Of course, there are a variety of reasons why it's even a question. First, there is the cost. Is it enough of a risk to pay for all those vaccinations? And then there's the question of the public. Do we really want to mandate that everyone get this vaccine? And then there is the question from the conservatives. You see, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease. So there are some on the right side of the political aisle that aren't interested in forcing their children to get an immunization when moral values would prevent it.
I'm interested in these newest findings. According to the government, "At least half of all sexually active men and women get genital HPV at some time in their lives." Currently they estimate that 20 million Americans between ages 15 and 49 have HPV. I'm interested because I'm wondering how this works out in the "do no harm" morality crowd. You know them. They are the ones that argue that morality is determined by that which causes harm. Now, most today would say that, for the most part, sex causes no harm whatsoever. "It's all in good, harmless fun. Oh, sure, you might want to avoid 'unsafe sex'. That would be a bad thing. But, hey, that whole 'no sex until you marry' and 'only sex within a marriage' thing is so outdated and, frankly, rididulous," from the "do no harm" perspective. And science is now telling us that, you know, that whole "free love" thing, well, turns out that we're not only putting women at risk for cervical cancer, but we're putting "half of all sexually active men and women" at risk for throat cancer and heart disease. Cancer and heart disease. You know, the Big Two -- two of the top killers in modern times.
As it turns out, then, our ever-so-popular idea of "free love" (meaning, actually, sex with whomever and as many as you want -- no relation to "love") has been doing harm all this time. We just never got the connection. Turns out that young men who guard their way and young women who remain pure for marriage and couples who remain faithful -- you know, like the Creator commands -- would drastically decrease their risk for various cancers and heart disease. In other words, although our culture and science hadn't seen it yet, this moral "virtue" of "free love" actually has been doing harm. Serious harm, as it turns out.
Of course, my pointing this out won't likely make a ripple in this thinking. "Well, okay, so that appears to have a serious potential for harm, but that doesn't mean it should affect our morals, does it?" Nor will it go beyond that. "Well, maybe we didn't see that coming, but we're certain that nothing else we affirm as harmless or possibly even good even though God says otherwise is actually harmful. We're on top of this stuff. We know it." It will continue to be regarded as foolish to assume that just because the Creator of the human being says this or that is bad doesn't mean that it actually is bad. "You religious folk should stop painting God as some cosmic killjoy." And we'll wonder why our pain increases the more we flaunt God's instructions. And, oh, by the way, preventing pregnancy or STDs or inoculating for HPV doesn't actually serve to alleviate the problems our sin causes. No, those things are just the surface issues. It turns out that we are often extremely blind to the harm our sin causes. You know, like those "blinded by the god of this world", inflicted with futile minds, professing to be wise but actually being fools, that kind of thing.
Of course, there are a variety of reasons why it's even a question. First, there is the cost. Is it enough of a risk to pay for all those vaccinations? And then there's the question of the public. Do we really want to mandate that everyone get this vaccine? And then there is the question from the conservatives. You see, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease. So there are some on the right side of the political aisle that aren't interested in forcing their children to get an immunization when moral values would prevent it.
I'm interested in these newest findings. According to the government, "At least half of all sexually active men and women get genital HPV at some time in their lives." Currently they estimate that 20 million Americans between ages 15 and 49 have HPV. I'm interested because I'm wondering how this works out in the "do no harm" morality crowd. You know them. They are the ones that argue that morality is determined by that which causes harm. Now, most today would say that, for the most part, sex causes no harm whatsoever. "It's all in good, harmless fun. Oh, sure, you might want to avoid 'unsafe sex'. That would be a bad thing. But, hey, that whole 'no sex until you marry' and 'only sex within a marriage' thing is so outdated and, frankly, rididulous," from the "do no harm" perspective. And science is now telling us that, you know, that whole "free love" thing, well, turns out that we're not only putting women at risk for cervical cancer, but we're putting "half of all sexually active men and women" at risk for throat cancer and heart disease. Cancer and heart disease. You know, the Big Two -- two of the top killers in modern times.
As it turns out, then, our ever-so-popular idea of "free love" (meaning, actually, sex with whomever and as many as you want -- no relation to "love") has been doing harm all this time. We just never got the connection. Turns out that young men who guard their way and young women who remain pure for marriage and couples who remain faithful -- you know, like the Creator commands -- would drastically decrease their risk for various cancers and heart disease. In other words, although our culture and science hadn't seen it yet, this moral "virtue" of "free love" actually has been doing harm. Serious harm, as it turns out.
Of course, my pointing this out won't likely make a ripple in this thinking. "Well, okay, so that appears to have a serious potential for harm, but that doesn't mean it should affect our morals, does it?" Nor will it go beyond that. "Well, maybe we didn't see that coming, but we're certain that nothing else we affirm as harmless or possibly even good even though God says otherwise is actually harmful. We're on top of this stuff. We know it." It will continue to be regarded as foolish to assume that just because the Creator of the human being says this or that is bad doesn't mean that it actually is bad. "You religious folk should stop painting God as some cosmic killjoy." And we'll wonder why our pain increases the more we flaunt God's instructions. And, oh, by the way, preventing pregnancy or STDs or inoculating for HPV doesn't actually serve to alleviate the problems our sin causes. No, those things are just the surface issues. It turns out that we are often extremely blind to the harm our sin causes. You know, like those "blinded by the god of this world", inflicted with futile minds, professing to be wise but actually being fools, that kind of thing.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Sheep and the Goats
Matthew 25 is, technically, a long parable. Okay, it is a series of parables, but they're connected. It begins with "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ..." and goes on to talk all about the coming kingdom. There is the story of the ten virgins. Jesus tells us His intent: "Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour" (Matt 25:13). There is the story of the slaves and the talents. (Remember, "talents" refers to pieces of silver, not natural abilities.) Jesus concludes, "For to everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away" (Mat 25:29). And then we get to the parable of the sheep and the goats in verses 31-46. In this story (parable?), He judges "the nations", separating them "as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats". He uses His own criteria to separate the two -- whether or not they fed Him and gave him drink and were hospitable to Him and clothed Him and tended Him when He was sick or in prison. Both sides, the sheep and the goats, want to know when they did (or didn't do) these things. Jesus says, "To the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me" (Matt 25:40). The sheep, then, are welcomed into the kingdom, and the goats are banished to eternal fire.
What is the point of this parable? I remember Keith Green's song about it. His view is "The only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this Scripture, is what they did, and didn't do!!" That, of course, is the simplest reading of this passage. At the final judgment, Jesus will examine what you and I did or didn't do. Based on whether or not we took care of people will determine your eternal destiny. End of story.
So ... why do I take up this passage? Pretty clear, isn't it? Why ask why? Well, if this was Jesus's message, we have a problem. If this is what Jesus was teaching, then we have a direct contradiction to the rest of the Scriptures that indicate that we are saved by faith, not by works. We would need to either toss out or at least thoroughly reexamine the rest of the New Testament. Well, Paul would definitely have to go. I mean, he was relentless in contradicting this concept that we are saved by what we do or don't do. But the rest is in question as well. Time to toss Christianity. There is nothing really distinctive about it. Thank you very much. That's why I take up this passage. What does it mean if not that plain reading?
First, let's note that He is not speaking in a vacuum. He is speaking to His disciples. This isn't a general message to everyone. And He has spoken before of sheep. What was it He said before about sheep and shepherds? In John 10 He uses the imagery of the shepherd and the sheep. He is the good shepherd. And in this passage, who are the sheep? He tells the skeptics, "You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:26-28). Thus, the sheep are His own. Those not His own are, according to this passage, unbelievers. If this parallel holds, then, the sheep in the Matthew passage are believers and the goats are not.
Is that it? Is there any reason to think this might be the case? Yes, of course there is. Jesus speaks here of separating "sheep and goats". He speaks elsewhere of separating things as well. What is separated there? He speaks of separating "the tares and the wheat" (Matt 13:24-30) and the good fish from the bad (Matt 13:47-50). In these cases, these things looked a lot alike and needed to have the good and bad separated. But, as in the case of the tares and the wheat, they were not the same thing, and it wasn't what they did that determined what they were, but the opposite.
Another hint is in who Jesus is talking about caring for. While we tend to think of Jesus talking here about all the needy people in the world (because we've been conditioned to think that all religion is about the Universal Brotherhood of Man and the Universal Fatherhood of God -- not quite accurate), Jesus is not being that general. He references a specific set of people: "these brothers of Mine." Who did Jesus view as His brothers? "Whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother" (Matt 12:50). Thus, Jesus's concern in Matt 25 is not taking care of the needy in general, but tending to His people.
Is it possible, given these points, to conclude that Jesus was teaching something that didn't contradict the rest of the New Testament? I think so. He told His disciples, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Jesus's disciples love Jesus's disciples. James told us that our behavior will reflect our faith (James 2:14-26). Given all this, this parable of the sheep and the goats would be better understood as a warning to people who believe they are believers, but whose lives don't reflect it. If you think you are a follower of Christ ("sheep"), but you don't care for Christ's followers ("these brothers of Mine"), you are in danger of being found out as a goat, a non-follower of Christ. Those who belong to Christ obey Him and love the brethren. Those who do not do not. Just a heads up.
What is the point of this parable? I remember Keith Green's song about it. His view is "The only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this Scripture, is what they did, and didn't do!!" That, of course, is the simplest reading of this passage. At the final judgment, Jesus will examine what you and I did or didn't do. Based on whether or not we took care of people will determine your eternal destiny. End of story.
So ... why do I take up this passage? Pretty clear, isn't it? Why ask why? Well, if this was Jesus's message, we have a problem. If this is what Jesus was teaching, then we have a direct contradiction to the rest of the Scriptures that indicate that we are saved by faith, not by works. We would need to either toss out or at least thoroughly reexamine the rest of the New Testament. Well, Paul would definitely have to go. I mean, he was relentless in contradicting this concept that we are saved by what we do or don't do. But the rest is in question as well. Time to toss Christianity. There is nothing really distinctive about it. Thank you very much. That's why I take up this passage. What does it mean if not that plain reading?
First, let's note that He is not speaking in a vacuum. He is speaking to His disciples. This isn't a general message to everyone. And He has spoken before of sheep. What was it He said before about sheep and shepherds? In John 10 He uses the imagery of the shepherd and the sheep. He is the good shepherd. And in this passage, who are the sheep? He tells the skeptics, "You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:26-28). Thus, the sheep are His own. Those not His own are, according to this passage, unbelievers. If this parallel holds, then, the sheep in the Matthew passage are believers and the goats are not.
Is that it? Is there any reason to think this might be the case? Yes, of course there is. Jesus speaks here of separating "sheep and goats". He speaks elsewhere of separating things as well. What is separated there? He speaks of separating "the tares and the wheat" (Matt 13:24-30) and the good fish from the bad (Matt 13:47-50). In these cases, these things looked a lot alike and needed to have the good and bad separated. But, as in the case of the tares and the wheat, they were not the same thing, and it wasn't what they did that determined what they were, but the opposite.
Another hint is in who Jesus is talking about caring for. While we tend to think of Jesus talking here about all the needy people in the world (because we've been conditioned to think that all religion is about the Universal Brotherhood of Man and the Universal Fatherhood of God -- not quite accurate), Jesus is not being that general. He references a specific set of people: "these brothers of Mine." Who did Jesus view as His brothers? "Whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother" (Matt 12:50). Thus, Jesus's concern in Matt 25 is not taking care of the needy in general, but tending to His people.
Is it possible, given these points, to conclude that Jesus was teaching something that didn't contradict the rest of the New Testament? I think so. He told His disciples, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Jesus's disciples love Jesus's disciples. James told us that our behavior will reflect our faith (James 2:14-26). Given all this, this parable of the sheep and the goats would be better understood as a warning to people who believe they are believers, but whose lives don't reflect it. If you think you are a follower of Christ ("sheep"), but you don't care for Christ's followers ("these brothers of Mine"), you are in danger of being found out as a goat, a non-follower of Christ. Those who belong to Christ obey Him and love the brethren. Those who do not do not. Just a heads up.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Relative Humility
We live in a world where relativism is rampant. Well, largely moral relativism. There aren't really too many that believe that all truth is relative. The claim itself is nonsensical. And there are no relativists in engineering, aeronautics, the banking industry, and so on. You don't evaluate the fact that a bus is heading for you based on whether or not it is true for you. At least, not for long.
No, the real relativism today is moral relativism. It is the belief that what is right or wrong for you may or may not be right or wrong for me. You claim that sex outside marriage is a sin and I don't see it that way. It's fine for you, just not for me. It is premised on the idea that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Culture and circumstances and societal mores and pragmatic considerations all work into this fluid moral structure, ultimately deciphered by your personal perspective. And it's a good thing. It promotes tolerance, diversity, respect, humility.
That final aspect is found in this quote:
Or so it would seem. But that only works if the premise is right. If the premise that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong is correct, then frankly you can pretty well choose whatever you wish for your own personal standard and no one else would have the right to say otherwise. Oh, you might have to deal with societal pressures and laws and the like, but if they disagree with you, they're wrong because there is no standard. Pretty arrogant of them, isn't it? On the other hand, if the premise is wrong, then the whole "humility" factor is lost.
As it happens, it is precisely this condition that is in mind for Christians. We believe that there is a God. This God has created all that exists and, as such, has absolute authority over it. As such, He can rightly make demands and His creation must follow those commands or be in violation of His authority. That is, His authority is the absolute standard against which we must compare ourselves. Violating that authority isn't humble; it's arrogant. "I will be like the Most High."
So who, really, is the humble one? Is it the one who says, "Live and let live; I don't have the right to tell others what is right and wrong"? Or is it the one who submits to the commands of God? Is it the one who says, "Sure, God says we must do this or that, but I will not submit nor will I suggest others do", or the one who calls on everyone to do what the Prime Authority commands? I would suggest that moral relativism is not the humble position it claims to be. It takes a pretty big ego to defy God and encourage others to do the same. And agreeing with God isn't arrogant. It's just reasonable.
No, the real relativism today is moral relativism. It is the belief that what is right or wrong for you may or may not be right or wrong for me. You claim that sex outside marriage is a sin and I don't see it that way. It's fine for you, just not for me. It is premised on the idea that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Culture and circumstances and societal mores and pragmatic considerations all work into this fluid moral structure, ultimately deciphered by your personal perspective. And it's a good thing. It promotes tolerance, diversity, respect, humility.
That final aspect is found in this quote:
I see postmodern thought as a kind of moral humility, a humility that prevents us from assuming that the world divides neatly into 'us' and 'them' or that 'others' are simply evil while 'we,' by mere opposition, are assured to be in the right.Humble, see? It doesn't assume that "I'm right!" Instead, it is based on that meek position that says, "Who am I to claim that someone else's opinion is wrong?" Now that's humility.
Or so it would seem. But that only works if the premise is right. If the premise that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong is correct, then frankly you can pretty well choose whatever you wish for your own personal standard and no one else would have the right to say otherwise. Oh, you might have to deal with societal pressures and laws and the like, but if they disagree with you, they're wrong because there is no standard. Pretty arrogant of them, isn't it? On the other hand, if the premise is wrong, then the whole "humility" factor is lost.
As it happens, it is precisely this condition that is in mind for Christians. We believe that there is a God. This God has created all that exists and, as such, has absolute authority over it. As such, He can rightly make demands and His creation must follow those commands or be in violation of His authority. That is, His authority is the absolute standard against which we must compare ourselves. Violating that authority isn't humble; it's arrogant. "I will be like the Most High."
So who, really, is the humble one? Is it the one who says, "Live and let live; I don't have the right to tell others what is right and wrong"? Or is it the one who submits to the commands of God? Is it the one who says, "Sure, God says we must do this or that, but I will not submit nor will I suggest others do", or the one who calls on everyone to do what the Prime Authority commands? I would suggest that moral relativism is not the humble position it claims to be. It takes a pretty big ego to defy God and encourage others to do the same. And agreeing with God isn't arrogant. It's just reasonable.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Problem of Apologetics
I know some Christians who believe that our primary focus in sharing the Gospel with unbelievers ought to be Apologetics. You know ... that's the field of defending Christianity with logical and evidential support. I want to point out as I have many times in the past that such an endeavor is a good thing. The Bible calls for it. We are to be ready to give an answer, to contend for the faith. We are to be renewed in our minds. Good stuff, all. But when this exercise moves to the front of the line, eclipsing all other approaches, I think it becomes problematic.
My first reason for thinking this is that the Bible doesn't seem to support it. I mean, sure, there are lots of texts where people reasoned, but the Bible doesn't put claim that there is power in reasoning. The Bible puts power in the Word of God. Many in Apologetics aim specifically at defending the faith without using the Bible. That might be of some use, but when we set aside what God says is a powerful tool -- "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) -- in favor of human reasoning, well, it seems like we're willingly disarming ourselves, not to mention violating Scripture. Paul said, "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).
The other reason that this approach is problematic is that it is premised on a false assumption. Here's the notion: If I give a coherent, logical presentation of the truth complete with suitable evidence and rational dialog, people will listen and be convinced. It sounds reasonable. It ignores reality. You see, it assumes the unbiased thinking processes of those who listen, and no such process exists in Natural Man.
The idea is that thinking is some kind of empirical approach. Give the proper information and the mind will see the light. The Bible doesn't see it that way. According to Scripture humans have a natural tendency to suppress the truth in favor of their own unrighteousness and ungodliness (Rom 1:18). Paul indicates that the outcome of this fact is "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom 1:21). The problem, you see, is that humans are not typically thinking through things to arrive at unbiased results. They are thinking of the results. And, given that humans are hostile to God (Rom 8:7), arriving at the position that God is right and we need to repent is not an acceptable outcome.
Look at a biblical example of this kind of thinking. In Matt 21:23-27, the chief priests took Jesus to task. "By what authority are you doing these things?" Jesus responded with a counter question. "You answer my question, and I'll answer yours." His question was about the source of the baptism of John. Was it from God or man? Note the thinking process of these leaders. "'If we say, "From heaven," He will say to us, "Why then did you not believe him?" But if we say, "From man," we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.' So they answered Jesus, 'We do not know'" (Matt 21:25-27). Carefully reasoned, skillfully considered, and a completely nonsensical answer. Considering the question was not at the top of their agenda. Considering the outcome was.
The approach of Apologetics is good and even commanded. However, when it becomes the primary focus, the main message, the aim of the one sharing the Gospel, it is with a false impression. It forgets that the hearers are not only unbelievers, but they are moral agents. They are going to include their own morality in the deliberation. (We all do.) It is not simply the examination of facts and arguments. It is the presentation of facts and arguments to people who are blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), unable to understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), with futile minds set on the flesh (Eph 4:17; Col 1:21), minds set only on the earthly (Phil 3:19). In fact, given the biblical description of the thinking processes of Natural Man, the task is impossible. The answer is not found in a clear and cogent defense of the Gospel, but in the power of the Word of God and in the work of the Holy Spirit. That's the answer to the problem, not a better line of logic. Apologetics? Good. The Word of God? Better. The Holy Spirit at work? The ultimate answer. Let's not get that confused.
My first reason for thinking this is that the Bible doesn't seem to support it. I mean, sure, there are lots of texts where people reasoned, but the Bible doesn't put claim that there is power in reasoning. The Bible puts power in the Word of God. Many in Apologetics aim specifically at defending the faith without using the Bible. That might be of some use, but when we set aside what God says is a powerful tool -- "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) -- in favor of human reasoning, well, it seems like we're willingly disarming ourselves, not to mention violating Scripture. Paul said, "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).
The other reason that this approach is problematic is that it is premised on a false assumption. Here's the notion: If I give a coherent, logical presentation of the truth complete with suitable evidence and rational dialog, people will listen and be convinced. It sounds reasonable. It ignores reality. You see, it assumes the unbiased thinking processes of those who listen, and no such process exists in Natural Man.
The idea is that thinking is some kind of empirical approach. Give the proper information and the mind will see the light. The Bible doesn't see it that way. According to Scripture humans have a natural tendency to suppress the truth in favor of their own unrighteousness and ungodliness (Rom 1:18). Paul indicates that the outcome of this fact is "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom 1:21). The problem, you see, is that humans are not typically thinking through things to arrive at unbiased results. They are thinking of the results. And, given that humans are hostile to God (Rom 8:7), arriving at the position that God is right and we need to repent is not an acceptable outcome.
Look at a biblical example of this kind of thinking. In Matt 21:23-27, the chief priests took Jesus to task. "By what authority are you doing these things?" Jesus responded with a counter question. "You answer my question, and I'll answer yours." His question was about the source of the baptism of John. Was it from God or man? Note the thinking process of these leaders. "'If we say, "From heaven," He will say to us, "Why then did you not believe him?" But if we say, "From man," we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.' So they answered Jesus, 'We do not know'" (Matt 21:25-27). Carefully reasoned, skillfully considered, and a completely nonsensical answer. Considering the question was not at the top of their agenda. Considering the outcome was.
The approach of Apologetics is good and even commanded. However, when it becomes the primary focus, the main message, the aim of the one sharing the Gospel, it is with a false impression. It forgets that the hearers are not only unbelievers, but they are moral agents. They are going to include their own morality in the deliberation. (We all do.) It is not simply the examination of facts and arguments. It is the presentation of facts and arguments to people who are blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), unable to understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), with futile minds set on the flesh (Eph 4:17; Col 1:21), minds set only on the earthly (Phil 3:19). In fact, given the biblical description of the thinking processes of Natural Man, the task is impossible. The answer is not found in a clear and cogent defense of the Gospel, but in the power of the Word of God and in the work of the Holy Spirit. That's the answer to the problem, not a better line of logic. Apologetics? Good. The Word of God? Better. The Holy Spirit at work? The ultimate answer. Let's not get that confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)