Capitalism And Christianity - Part Two

By Dan

What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The system of capitalism finds its relationship with the Church in that it stems from a shared core principle concerning man's condition. Capitalism is based on the premise that Man is not basically good but quite the opposite. The so-called father of capitalism, Adam Smith, illustrates this in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations:

A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. ... [M]an has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages".

By adopting Smith’s prescription, the founding fathers aligned our economic system with reality through the assumption that man would be much more productive, innovative and industrious if doing so would be beneficial to himself. Thus was born what would become one of the freest and wealthiest societies ever enjoyed by Man.

The ideas that formed American capitalism however were not instituted in a vacuum, but in the bosom of a predominately Christian culture. In such a culture in which the individual held himself eternally liable before a Holy and Righteous God, he was more inclined to exercise self-governance and restraint according to an objective standard. These standards then guided his decisions, not only as they pertained to his own life and his interaction with resources, but also as they pertained to every sphere of his influence, including the selection of his leaders. This predominate mindset of the populace, which was subjugated to a higher order, made for fertile soil for capitalism's seed to be planted and flourish. However, as it turns out, equal opportunity and economic freedom naturally produce unequal ends. In a a society with a sense of moral bearings this is generally attributed to providence and so does not present a problem, but it is not suffered well in a society that is not only disparaging of honor, but that also is burdened by a perverse sense of entitlement, envy and covetousness ... and which has no suspicion of those seeking power through promises of a Utopian society.

Central to the health of capitalism is the Church's teaching on the truths regarding man's sinful condition. Never mind, for the moment, that this teaching is key to understanding the Gospel, and as such, key to the health of the Church and its Kingdom mandate, for I am attempting here to answer an economic question. The fact remains that the modern Western "Church" has become either unable or loath to make man’s depravity a focal part of her doctrine. This transformation of focus in central doctrines taught by the Church has had a destructive effect on capitalism for a couple of reasons.

First, capitalism is dependent on fidelity. As I pointed out earlier, capitalism produces a few fabulously-well-to-do individuals. But just as important is that it also produces comfortable masses with relatively modest excesses in resources. Fidelity allows for the masses to pool their resources to create an almost unfathomable concentration of wealth.  This wealth then plays an important role in the economy. For one, it doesn't lie dormant, hidden in post holes and mattresses, but rather it becomes productive through investment. Also, its productivity produces a return which not only fuels the economy but also helps to sustain people when they become too old to work. These principles can be seen in current 401-k retirement plans, though this principle was in place long before tax deferment laws were enacted.

It is these massive concentrations of wealth that has been responsible for many advancements through research that would have otherwise been unachievable due to insurmountable expenses. Such advancements include the development of drugs and medical procedures, the willing slave of affordable energy and advances in technologies, to name a few. But the same wealth also awakens the greed and envy resident in the heart of man. If there is no objective truth by which to judge all things, then we are left with a syllogism that looks kind of like this:

1. Men are good

2. I am man.

3. What I do is good.

With this view man can rationalize the greed in his own heart while, incidentally, retaining his right to judge greed in others. The system breaks down as the wealthy are judged as greedy simply because they were successful at accomplishing what those who judge them could not. In addition to this the wealthy begin to judge each other also. You have millionaire politicians judging millionaire businessmen, and millionaire businessmen judging millionaire politicians. In addition, you have millionaire Hollywood stars, who seem to somehow be above judgment, judging them all. All of this judgmentalism revolving around the greed of others while justifying the greed in one's own heart is not confronted from within with any sense of providence, honor, or a accurate understanding of the true condition of the heart of man; not to mention a sound understanding of the economic system in which it is all taking place.

In such a fidelity-starved environment the idea of pooling one's wealth becomes a fool's errand as increasing numbers feel justified in their own actions. Contracts are broken, loans are forsaken, capital is siphoned off by currency printing, onerous regulations, corruption, ponzi schemes, fraud, theft, bribes and so on. Worse, many who justify their own participation in these destructive actions have their own meager resources invested in the system their actions are playing a part to destroy. This is like a snake biting off its own tail for spite. Those with modest means will eventually have no option but to withdraw them, convert them to an historically stable currency such as scarce metals, then remove them from the economy by burying them, so to speak. This is one reason a rise in the price of gold can be a negative indicator of the health of an economy. As resources are withdrawn there is a corresponding reduction in new resources which results in a domino effect toward a reduced standard of living for the masses.

Second, capitalism is dependent on a productive society. Since man's banishment from Eden he has worked tirelessly to reenter. One way man goes about this is to make his way in life off the sweat of his neighbor's brow. The capitalistic system is a system that is dependent on the pooled resources gained by the sweat of one's own brow. The necessary relationship between work and provision has been thwarted in the past by the outright enslavement of man by his fellow man. Contrary to popular belief, this act hasn't ended, the methods have changed. Now rather than enslaving a few men and making an ugly spectacle, masses are partially enslaved for the benefit of a few through what has become euphemistically known as wealth redistribution.

Liberty and it's cousin capitalism are not hardy social or economic systems. They can exist only in environments in which the ideas on which they stand tenaciously cling to objective reality. Once man's true condition is rejected by the society at large, it no longer accepts reality but rather an alternate reality based more on how man thinks things ought to be than how they actually are. This then releases man to embrace the folly that some men can be trusted to siphon wealth from others and redistribute it more fairly, and all will be just fine with the idea as Utopia looms on the horizon. Suppressed and maligned become the healthy suspicions that once met those who promised such a Utopian society.^{1, 2, 3} Instead schemes are invented that are designed to exchange votes and campaign donations for largess. We saw a battle along these lines recently in Wisconsin as out of control state liabilities consisting of promised largess to government union members threatened the state’s fiscal health. However, as larger numbers of people become unproductive by living off the confiscated wealth of their neighbors, ever more amounts of siphoned resources are required. These resources are then withdrawn from productivity to non-productivity. This is like the snake eating the tail that it bit off assuming it will provide nourishment. It is counter to capitalism, it is counter to a Biblical view of the world, and in a more sane society it would be counter to common sense.

So, in conclusion, what has the Church to do with capitalism? In a word: “nothing”. In summing up the answer however we would do well to rearrange the question and ask, rather, "What has capitalism to do with the Church?” And like every other question that man asks along these lines, the answer is "everything". Many who worship at the altar of capitalism have not asked this question and their beloved system is crumbling as a result ... and they provide a thousand reasons why ... and it continues to crumble. Ditto for family, marriages, joy, happiness, and every other thing that man endeavors to do without God in his few short hours in this life.

 ________


¹ In Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say in the 1830's concerning concerning America's constitution:

The Constitution of the United States is like those exquisite productions of human industry which ensure wealth and renown to their inventors, but which are profitless in any other hands. This truth is exemplified by the condition of Mexico at the present time, The Mexicans were desirous of establishing a federal system, and they took the Federal Constitution of their neighbors, the Anglo-American, as their model, and copied it with considerable accuracy! But although they had borrowed the letter of the law, they were unable to create or to introduce the spirit and the sense which give it life. They were involved in ceaseless embarrassments between the mechanism of their double government; the sovereignty of the States and that of the Union perpetually exceeded their respective privileges, and entered into collision; and to the present day Mexico is alternately the victim of anarchy and the slave of military despotism. (page 189)

²John Adams: "Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."

³F. A Hayek in "The Road To Serfdom" (written during WWII) had an interesting comment in the introduction of his book on page 57 (in my copy) that I think applies here as well:

... [H]istory never quite repeats itself, and just because no development is inevitable, we can in measure learn from the past to avoid repetition of the same process. One need not be a prophet to be aware of impending dangers. 'And accidental combination of experience and interest will often reveal events to one man under aspects which few yet see. The following pages are the product of an experience as near as possible to twice living though the same period... While this is an experience one is not likely to gain in one country, it may in certain circumstances be acquired by living in turn for long periods in different countries. ...Thus, by moving from one country to another, one may sometimes twice watch similar phases of intellectual development. The senses have then become peculiarly acute. When one hears for a second time opinions expressed or measures advocated which one has first met twenty or twenty-five years ago they assume a new meaning as symptoms of a definite trend. It is necessary now to state the unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate we are in some danger of repeating... It is not to the Germany of Hitler; the Germany of the present war, that England and the United states bear yet any resemblance, But students of the currents of ideas can hardly fail to see that there is more than a superficial similarity between the trend of thought in Germany during and after the last war and the present current of ideas in the democracies.

Capitalism And Christianity - Part One

By Dan

What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The short answer is, "not much, really; at least not directly". You see, economics is, simply put, the allocation of scarce material resources. The Christian would do well to remember that Christianity not only thrives today in all sorts of harsh economic systems, but it has done so all through the changing systems throughout history. In fact, the argument could be made that it has thrived more hardily in oppressive systems, especially if we accept the fact that the church, in its purest form, is interested much more in men's eternal destinies than in any carnal-minded concepts such as the fair distributions of material resources.

The Christian therefore must beware of those who fix their eyes on worldly "material" as, not only  their source of joy and purpose but also a suitable solution for all that ails society. The very idea of the economic system of communism was born out of just such a perspective. The father of communism, Karl Marx, rejected God and became an atheist.  Then he set out to make things “fair” for those whom he saw as the down trodden masses.  But he could only see them in a strictly material sense.  Man's attempts to bring about the Utopian system he envisioned succeeded in bathing the 20th century in blood. Yet Utopia never arrived; only deeper levels of hell and fear for those under its oppressive fist ... oh, and lots of disparity in wealth distribution too.  In fact, history, as well as Jesus, tells us that wealth disparity is part and parcel to Man's existence. Man's attempts to "fix" that problem only end up changing who gets more than "their fair share".

From the Christian perspective -- that is, from the perspective that takes into account eternity -- it is the hopelessness during this life that causes the Church to thrive. In the free market system, you see, no matter what the material circumstances of one's birth, there is hope of improving those circumstances. This hope, which focuses primarily on material gains in this life, can present strong competition for our interests and affections and so be a formidable distraction from a future eternal hope after death. The irony should not be missed that the system dreamed up by Karl Marx, who proclaimed that religion was the opiate of the masses, caused those who discovered Jesus in the midst of his hell to thrive, albeit not materially.

Affluent free-market systems on the other hand provide a soft bed for the believer -- so soft, in fact, that there is no consequence for being a believer. Compromise becomes normal as worldly wealth finds itself in competition with our life in Christ. Our beliefs begin to die the death of a thousand compromises as our thinking increasingly conforms to this world. In the process we become increasingly less distinguishable from the world until one day we wake to find that our “Christian” bedfellows are not Christians at all but are wolves dressed in sheep’s’ clothing who have co-opted the Christian banner for anti-Christ causes based on social justice, which is just another way of saying "material justice".

Worse yet, affluence begins to inculcate the "religion" of Christianity with a confusion between material wealth and the abundant life in Christ. When terms like "thrive" are used in reference to the life in Christ lived out by those in poor oppressive systems, it doesn't make any sense to the affluent hearer because of this confusion. It is not mere coincidence then that the very term "abundant life" in John chapter 10 is found in the context of pointing out the existence of hireling shepherds -- shepherds who are there for the material outcome they gain and not for the eternal good of the sheep.

Keep these things in mind as we further examine, "capitalism and Christianity."

Inconceivable

The movie, Princess Bride, is just one of those guilty pleasures I have. You know the kind. You're not proud of it, but, well, you like it. It's not something magnificent or grand, but, well, you just like it. That movie is one of those things. There are so many "classic" lines (I'm using the term loosely) from that movie. There is the spot where Miracle Max tells them "He's only mostly dead." There is the clergyman expounding on the importance of "twue wove". There is the repeated Inigo Montoya line, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Vizzinni is the brains behind the kidnapping of the princess. As they proceed with their plan, things keep happening to which Vizzinni keeps saying, "Inconceivable!" After the fourth or fifth time, Montoya has a great line: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I like that line.

On the news the other day a local woman was taken into custody because, for the third time, she was accused of abusing a large number of cats. On the first occasion they took away over a 70 of them. The second time there were over 100 of them, including some in the freezer which she admitted to using in a stew. The living ones had to all be put to sleep due to their condition. This time it was 64 cats. They were sick, malnourished, lame, poorly kept, dying. And she went to jail. In an interview with a news outlet she gave her side of the story. "I wasn't abusing them; I just love my cats." The cab driver that picked her up twice a week for years agreed. She just loved her cats. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Me? I can only hope and pray that no one ever loves me so much that they starve me, refuse to care for my injuries, and eventually stick me in a stew. You see, to me, that's not "love".

Indeed, this seems to be a common problem. The abused spouse who assures her friends and the doctors who are treating her for her injuries, "He loves me; he just loses his temper sometimes." Or perhaps you've heard of the Stockholm Syndrome where hostages bond with their captors. Strange concepts of "love". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And if love was the only concept that was in trouble, it would be bad enough. But words are symbols of realities and when those words come to represent unrealities, they become problematic. When "love" can mean "torture and abuse", so far from what it really means, then the warm and friendly phrase, "I love you", can become worse than meaningless. It can become threatening. And love is not the only concept at risk here. There is "marriage", as anyone who has read my stuff knows is a prime issue for me. There is "sex". That might seem plain and simple. How can it go wrong? Well, it has. Our concepts there are so far from the original intentions that we might not even recognize them if we saw them. And speaking of sex, how many words in our vocabulary have been subjugated to some subversive new rude, crude, sexual content? It hardly seems like you can say a single sentence without someone catching some sexually deviant undertones in it. The other day I overheard a guy in a tire store. A woman came in and asked to get the tires rotated on her car. After she left I heard him say to his associate, "I'd like to rotate her tires." What does that even mean? Not sure, but we get the implications.

Our society has been playing fast and loose with the English language for a long time. In some ways, it almost defines the English language. (A little play on words there.) Add to that the complexity of the language as it is. As a silly example, a "hit" might mean someone got killed, the play was great, the bat collided with the ball in a satisfactory manner, or he sunk my battleship. Now add in evolutionary effects on the language and innuendo from stolen words and it just gets really, really difficult to communicate. Love? Marriage? Gay? Christian? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Sometimes I'm quite sure it doesn't.

A Little Leaven

I've been in First Corinthians and recently read the 5th chapter. What a chapter! You know the one. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife!" (1 Cor 5:1). Stunning immorality. And Paul gives a stunning response to it.

... I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor 5:3-5).

Wow! Delivered to Satan! There is only one other reference in Scripture to such a thing. That's pretty big.

Paul goes on in that chapter to talk about not associating with sexually immoral people (1 Cor 5:9-13). He is talking, he says, not about unbelievers, but self-identified believers. They are the ones with whom we are not to associate if they are sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, revilers, drunkards, or swindlers (1 Cor 5:11). Paul tells them "not to even eat with such a one". Tough stuff.

There are a few things of note here. The first is the language there in verse 3. "I have already pronounced judgment." Whoa, Paul! Can you do that? I mean, didn't Jesus say, "Judge not"? Well, apparently he can. Indeed, apparently he's asking us to do the same ... repeatedly. "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?" (1 Cor 5:12). So, whatever Jesus was warning against in Matthew 7, Paul is not doing here, nor would we be doing it if we did what he said to do. This judging is right and necessary.

Second, consider the point. Why is this important? Paul doesn't leave us to guess. "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" (1 Cor 5:6). This is the "center" of the text, the connecting line between the guy handed over to Satan and the so-called brother who you need to avoid. The reason is that ignoring this kind of sin in your midst will cause damage to you all. According to this text, "grace" is not a good thing when "grace" means "We are not going to confront those who are sinning". It is dangerous for the sinner. It is dangerous for the Church. It is important to deal with sin in the Body and to do it swiftly and decisively. If you can, obtaining repentance, of course, is the best thing. If not, excommunication is essential. Paul is not vague here. If we do not "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5:13), there will be trouble.

Third, what's the point? What outcome do we hope for? I mean, sure, we do this to protect the Body, but what else is in view here? What about the evil person who has been purged? Well, we can see a hint here (and even clearer elsewhere) that the intent, after preserving the Body, is "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5). The reason for this harsh judgment, then, is two-fold. First, the Body needs protection from the "leaven". Second, the individual sinner needs to be saved. These are the two goals of this kind of confrontation and action.

It leaves me with a question, of course. Why is this so rare today? You know, I was excommunicated once. The pastor whose church met in my house came to me and told me that Mrs. So-and-so didn't feel like I loved her because I didn't hug her enough. If I didn't repent and hug her more, I'd have to go. I didn't repent. I had to go. On the other hand, I've known church after church, large and small, who are fully aware of genuine sexual immorality and the like in their midst but do nothing about it. What's wrong with this picture? Why do churches today tolerate immorality in their midst? Do they think Paul was kidding? Are they fooled into thinking that they're immune from the whole "leaven the lump" problem? Or is it that they don't care enough about the repentance and restoration of their own people? In fact, do we individuals care enough about others in the Body to address these issues with them? Or are we content to embrace the leaven, have a nice meal, and avoid the conflict that just might save them? I don't really know the answer, but it seems to me that there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.

Paul on Apologetics

For those unclear, Apologetics is essentially the rational defense of the Christian faith. The word is derived from the Greek behind 1 Peter 3:15 which says we are to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." That word, "defense", is pros apologia and the apologia is the root of our word, "apology". And I favor (it should be obvious) being ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within me. That's good. But I'm wondering about today's Apologetics.

There is value in giving Christians reasons to believe. That is, having believed because God has opened our hearts, it can be helpful -- fortifying -- to be given reasons, arguments, evidence, points of fact that build up that faith and help hold it strong. But today's Apologetics seems largely to be aimed at the non-Christian, and much of what is being said out there suggests that if we don't have a strong (and often extra-biblical) argument for Christianity, we won't be able to reach people. I find myself wondering what Paul would think of that.

First we know that Paul holds that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Apparently faith is not premised on good arguments, but the Word. But Paul has a lot to say about the wisdom of the world in this context. He assures us that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Hmmm, not wisdom, but folly. He actually revels in the fact that "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards" (1 Cor 1:26), but, instead, "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:27). I don't know. It doesn't sound a lot like Paul is encouraging using the wisdom of our surroundings to convince unbelievers.

Paul gets more pointed in the next chapter of 1 Corinthians. "My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," Paul tells the Corinthians, "that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5). Instead, "we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13). Indeed, "we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God" (1 Cor 2:7). Now, in truth, that kind of thing is anathema in the arena in which Apologetics is used as a witnessing tool. Suggesting "secret wisdom" is not going to gain you points in a logical debate. But that's Paul's claim. And he tells why. First, "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit" (1 Co 2:10). It takes the Spirit to reveal the truth of the Gospel. And that would be fine, except for the second problem: "Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). It doesn't really sound at all like Paul believes that we can produce sufficient reasoning skills to argue people into the kingdom of God. It sounds, instead, as if Paul is saying that Natural Man cannot receive the truths of God. That requires a fundamental change, and that fundamental change ("the mind of Christ" -- 1 Cor 2:16) is not brought about by clever arguments or coherent reasoning.

One last thought from Paul on this:

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile" (1 Cor 3:19-20).

Say what you want, but I don't think Paul placed a premium on the world's extrabiblical reasoning to accomplish God's work. In fact, it doesn't look like God does, either.

Now, I know that God uses all sorts of means to accomplish His ends. I know that in some cases God has used cogent arguments to prick the hearts of individuals to open their eyes to the truth. I am not saying that we should abandon reason and jettison a rational defense of the faith. But it would seem from Scripture that receiving the truth about Christ, about salvation, about those things that make up the Gospel and Christianity is a matter of the Word from our end and the Spirit from God's end. We are not overcoming faulty thinking. We have to overcome the dead spirit of Natural Man. A clean argument won't do that. God appears to want prayer and the Word from us for that. We ought to give God what He wants.

Not Forgotten

Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth; break forth, O mountains, into singing! For the LORD has comforted His people and will have compassion on His afflicted. But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me." (Isa 49:13-14).

If we are honest we all go through times of depression and despair. We're always told "Sing for joy" and assured that God is on our side, that He's looking out for us, that everything will be okay. Well, everything is not okay sometimes. Sometimes they're tough. A loved one is sick or dying. We lose our jobs like everyone else. We may be struck with illness or pain that the doctor's can't solve. We can certainly suffer injustice. Sometimes we don't see a reason for singing for joy or comfort in the promise that the Lord will have compassion ... because it doesn't feel like it right now.

I suppose God knew that about us, because He has a reply to Zion from which we can benefit:

"Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands" (Isa 49:15-16).

Like always, God's people (like us) can forget God's compassion, can feel forsaken and forgotten by God. There is no doubt that we feel that way at times. And we may have good reasons, too. But God offers this assurance. In human terms, a mother cannot likely forget her child. More sure than a mother's love, however, God cannot forget you. "Behold," He says, "I have engraved you on the palms of My hands."

You know, that's better than a sticky note on the refrigerator or even a Sharpee on the back of your hand. All of that can be missed. But we whom God loves are engraved on Him -- right there on the palm of His hand. We cannot be forgotten. So when we feel forsaken and forgotten, remember. You are part of God's cheat notes, that which He refuses to forsake or forget. He will comfort His people and He will have compassion on His afflicted. No doubt. We might forget, but He won't. And that's good news.

While We're on the Subject

I seem, in reviewing the labels for my blog, to have a lot of entries on "same-sex marriage" and "homosexuality". It appears that there is a recurring theme here. And I wouldn't deny it. The subject is the current "battleground", so to speak, so I've been standing there. One of the recurring responses in that recurring theme is, well, love. "What's wrong with two people loving each other?" "Why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to marry?" That sort of thing. And I've tried to deal with the basic problem of using the term "marry" in that sentence if the "two people" in question are of the same gender. But this recurring theme of "love" has suddenly caused me to ask a question of my own.

Here's the deal. Marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman and up until extremely recently included the concepts of procreation, child-rearing, that sort of thing. Now, going with the question of love, I have to wonder about love. Is "love" the same as "lust"? I think we would all agree that they are not the same. You can love lots of people (and even things in our vernacular) without sexual desire, and it's good. Okay? We're in agreement thus far? Now the next question. Is "lust" equivalent to sexual intimacy? I would hope that the answer would be the same -- no! So if my sexual desires are neither "love" nor "sexual intimacy", where does that leave us? (Remember the original objections.)

A married Mormon blogger last week "came out" as a self-identified "homosexual". Yes, married. Yes, Mormon. And, oh, by the way, no intention of changing either. You see, this guy understands that "lust" is not the same as sexual intimacy. And love is not the same as lust. Therefore, this guy, with whatever faults and errors you wish to point out, still gets some fundamental truths correct. Love doesn't require lust, sexual intimacy doesn't require lust, and it is possible to be obedient to God's commands. So this guy admits same-sex desires which he has decided to set aside in favor of ... get this ... love and sexual intimacy with his wife.

I ask, then, those who argue that love is good and two people who love each other ought to be allowed to marry, what sex has to do with it? No, not sex, "sexual desire". What does lust have to do with it? Can a man with sexual desires for men love a woman? Isn't that answer obvious? And since sexual intimacy is not determined by my sexual desires, but by intimacy, why can't a person who experiences homosexual desires marry someone of the opposite gender, experience sexual intimacy, and live a happy life? Or is it true, in the end, that the only way we can live a happy life is to indulge our personal urges? If that is true, we've become a pitiful people, and questions about homosexuals or "marriage" are only the light that shines on the gangreneous rot in our society. If true happiness resides in indulging our own basest desires, there are a lot bigger questions we'll need to face than just the concept of marriage. And it won't be pretty ... for anyone.

Does God Do Bad Things?

If we are to conclude from Scripture that God is absolutely Sovereign, then we have to wonder about the bad things that happen. Based on the classic problem of evil, we are coming to a conclusion that seems to go against the argument. God is not unable or unwilling to prevent evil. Evil is His will. Wait! Does God do bad things?

There are two main concerns in this discussion. First, we need to agree that we will abide by whatever the Bible tells us on the topic. We must not allow ourselves to define God and His activities by our preferences, but by His own words. Second, we will need to understand the definition of "bad things". If by "bad things" we mean "evil" -- immoral behavior -- then we we will agree that God doesn't sin or coerce others to sin. We will (also based on the first premise) agree that "God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one (James 1:13). James assures us that sin is the product of our own desires (James 1:14). Let's be sure to keep that clear as we examine this question. So if by "bad things" we mean "Does God do or make other people do evil?", we will begin with a clear "No!" If by "bad things" we mean the unpleasant, the painful, things that we don't like or don't appreciate, then we'll have to see where Scripture lies with that.

What, then, do we know? Well, first, we know that God Himself says, "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:7). That's right. While we're busy defending God from these accusations that God allows "evil", God is telling us "I cause calamity" (translated "evil" in the King James). Apparently we're defending God in a place He doesn't want or need defense.

We know quite clearly from Scripture that suffering is God's will. Paul delights to tell the Philippians, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake" (Phil 1:29). Get that? It's a gift, a blessing, a grant from God to suffer for Christ's sake. Peter agrees. "Let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good" (1 Peter 4:19). People, even God's people, suffer according to God's will.

But what about moral evil? We are agreeing that God doesn't actually, directly cause it. Is it His will? Well, we know from the account of Joseph that the brothers caused his being sold into slavery for evil purposes, but God intended it for good (Gen 50:20). That can only mean that God intended the moral evil the brothers did to be used for God's good purposes. God intended the evil. Not caused. And we know that God predetermined that Judas Iscariot would betray Christ, even while holding him responsible for that sin (Luke 22:22). And we know that God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate to crucify the Son of God (Acts 4:27-28). So it appears to be unavoidable that God wills evil and uses it for His good purposes.

But how close does He get to moral evil? He doesn't coerce it. Moral evil is the result of human (or demonic) desire. We're clear on that. But does God influence it? Apparently He does. We read repeatedly in the book of Exodus that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh" (Exo 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8) and confirms it in Romans 9:17-18. We know that Sihon, the king of Heshbon, refused to allow Moses and the Israelites through his land because "the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate" (Deu 2:30). Apparently God works within people and they choose to sin. And we certainly know that "God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem" (Judges 9:23), an evil spirit to Saul (1 Sam 16:14), and that a lying spirit from God was put in the mouths of the false prophets of Ahab (1 Kings 22:23)^*.

Does God cause moral evil? He doesn't tempt. Nor does He make anyone do evil. But it cannot be said that He doesn't will it, and it is apparent in multiple examples from Scripture that He influences it. And He claims for Himself that He causes unpleasant events to occur in our lives. And He does so for our benefit.

Now, take some time with this. This is certainly not what you're likely to hear from the pulpit or understand from the common conversation among believers. But I'm not asking you to believe me because I say it, the pastors say it, or it feels right. I'm asking you to conclude what you will because the Scriptures say it. By all means, look for yourself. But be sure to allow God's Word to shape your understanding and reality rather than letting your understanding and perception of reality to shape God and His Word.

________
^* This story from 1 Kings 22 is very interesting. One thing that occurred to me while reading through it is that, even though God sent a lying spirit to the mouths of the prophets, it was their choice to act on it. Indeed, Jehoshaphat (the godly king of Judah) asked Ahab to inquire of the Lord regarding going to war. Four hundred prophets were trotted out and assured them, "Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king." Jehoshaphat did not respond, "Well, that's good enough for me." He knew something was wrong. "Is there not here another prophet of the Lord of whom we may inquire?" Apparently the "lying spirit" from God was not believable to those willing to listen. These prophets didn't lie because they had a lying spirit from God. They lied because they wanted to.

Fatal Sovereignty

Now, I've argued from Scripture for the Sovereignty of God as an absolute, not a limited sovereignty. I've shown biblical reasons why we ought to believe that God is Sovereign over nature, over human events, over everything. I've offered passages that demonstrate that God intervenes in human free will. The doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, as explained in Scripture, means that there is not one maverick molecule (to borrow a phrase from R.C. Sproul) that is outside of God's control and command.

The logical conclusion at this point is the concept known as fatalism. If God is in charge of anything, what difference do I make? What difference do my choices make? What difference does anything make? God will do what God will do. Why bother me about any of this? Fatalism.

Paul faced the same question:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom 9:19-21).

Paul had compiled the basic argument that God is in charge (Sovereign) and He chooses whom He will save and whom He will not. This response is the standard, expected one. And, admittedly, Paul's answer doesn't serve to clear things up. What do we learn? Well, Paul will not go back on his position. God, in Paul's analogy, is the Potter who gets to do whatever He wants with whatever He makes. Indeed, in Paul's analogy, the Potter makes "out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use." So Paul didn't back down. God does choose what will happen and to whom. He is Sovereign. We have no room to argue with God.

I'm not going to offer a better explanation than Paul did, but I do hope to shed a little light, a line of reasoning to help see how things work. I've already indicated that God is Sovereign in the absolute. The Bible indicates that nothing exists without God's constant work. In Acts 17:24-31, Paul told the Athenians that God made everything including Man, that He "determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place", and that "In him we live and move and have our being." Not much room for anything else there. God is absolutely Sovereign. Even evil requires His permission to occur and God uses it for His purposes. I also explained that two other necessary biblical positions must be kept in suspension here, not rejected. First, humans do have wills. We make choices for which we are held responsible. While holding in one hand the certainty that God is absolutely Sovereign, we must also hold in the other hand the equal certainty that we have free will and God holds us responsible for what we choose. The second consideration is that God does not create evil. Evil is something apart from God. When I say He "uses it for His purposes", we must not conclude He creates it. Keep all that in your mind as you consider the question, "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" We must affirm all of these while we answer the question of fatalism.

Given, then, that God is indeed Sovereign but Man has free will (not Free Will), how do we avoid concluding, "It doesn't matter what we do?" How do we avoid being absolved from guilt if God is Sovereign? Well, first, it is clear from all the examples I've seen and listed that, while God works in people to harden or soften hearts, to blind or allow hearts to see, to disincline or incline hearts, God never coerces people to choose something in particular. God does not force the will. He works in the heart. Thus, every action of human beings is "free will" because we actually choose. Our choices are not coerced. As such, God still finds fault because we still made the choices we make out of our own free will and are, therefore, culpable for them.

Consider, then, the alternative. If it is true that God is Sovereign and we still make choices, doesn't it stand to reason that God will use our choices for His purposes? Take, for instance, the choice of prayer. Prayer is our way of saying, "I trust you, God." We pray because we believe that God is Sovereign, that He can do something about those things that concern us. And Scripture indicates that God answers prayer, that God uses our prayers as a means to accomplish the things that He intends to accomplish. Thus, in prayer our free will works as a vehicle for God to do what God will do and we get to participate. And, of course, the Bible is full of examples of people who 1) trusted God and 2) acted, not with fatalism, but with purpose and prudence. A telling example would be in Nehemiah. Those working on rebuilding the walls learned that they were in danger of attack. So we read, "We prayed to our God and set a guard" (Neh 4:9). Was setting a guard a lack of faith? No, it was reasonable and wise. In Proverbs we read, "The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the LORD" (Prov 21:31). Fatalism would say, "If the victory belongs to the Lord, why make horses ready?" But in God's Sovereignty both are true. The battle belongs to the Lord and we are to take wise action to accomplish what God wants. Gideon did it by eliminating troops and then fighting with 300 men against a vast army (Judg 7). Jehoshaphat did it when he took his army up on the hill to watch God do the fighting (2 Chron 20). Jonathan did it when he and his armor bearer decided to take on an entire Philistine garrison on their own (1 Sam 14). (Seriously, that is an awesome story.) And while we are told "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord" (Prov 21:1), we are also commanded to pray for those in authority (1 Tim 2:1-2). Over and over and over again God's people both acknowledged God's absolute Sovereignty and their responsibility to act.

If God is indeed as Sovereign as Scripture says He is and we indeed still have free will, then it stands to reason that we will be held responsible for our choices even though God is Sovereign and it is natural to assume that we need to choose to do what God tells us to choose to do not because He is Sovereign, but because that's how God works. Can I offer to you the mechanism by which God controls all things? No. Can I explain how it is that free will can coexist with absolute Sovereignty? Not likely to your satisfaction. But keeping both of these in mind, it becomes clear that fatalism is not the proper response to Sovereignty. God does still find fault. Conversely, we do still have the opportunity to participate with God in His work by doing what He commands and instructs. Sovereignty and fatalism do not necessarily need to coexist. Not biblically.

Another Polygamy View

Apparently I'm not the only one that does not actually believe that the Bible condones polygamy (let alone endorse or encourage).

Analyzing a Logical Fallacy

You're familiar with the slippery slope argument, right? Here's how it goes. "If you let A happen, B will surely follow." It is typically referred to as a logical fallacy because, well, B might not happen. But in reality, it is only a logical fallacy if B does not happen. That is, if B actually does follow A, the argument was not faulty.

So then we read this article from The Australian about how polyamorists are trying to get in on the "gay marriage" bandwagon and get their own "marriage equity". The headline reads, "Same-sex marriage campaigners distance themselves from polyamorists' demands". "Gay marriage" advocates, you see, do not favor the marriage of multiple people, just their own marriage. But the opening paragraph of the story was really what stung the most.

The main lobby group promoting gay marriage yesterday distanced itself from polyamorists demanding to be included in the proposed reforms, saying marriage involving more than two people would undermine a traditional institution.

"Undermine a traditional institution"??? But ... isn't that the goal? Isn't that a given when the aim is to remove the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage and replace it with something other than "man and woman"? How is it different? And on what basis does "the main lobby group promoting gay marriage" argue against "marriage involving more than two people" if their basic argument is "marriage equity"? Oh, don't say it! "A traditional institution"??!!

How odd, then, to see those who would undermine the traditional institution of marriage opposing others who would seek "marriage equity" by being concerned about the traditional institution of marriage. The irony is really thick here.

The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy if it actually happens. It is actually happening.

Hidden Warning

So, I'm reading through Paul's Epistle to "all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (Rom 1:7) and, of course, loving every minute of it. Good stuff. Fantastic stuff. Doctrine and concepts not found -- at least not as clearly -- elsewhere. I really enjoy Romans. But, to be honest, chapter 16 is pretty much a bust. Oh, not complaining, mind you, but it is almost entirely "N/A" -- not applicable. It's personal stuff, commendations and greetings for fellow believers, thanks for others, that sort of thing. I mean, how many of you remember that Epaenetus was the very first convert in Asia? (And, frankly, what does that mean? After all Israel is in Asia. Wouldn't the disciples be "the very first converts in Asia"?) Okay, fine, whatever, but not particularly applicable. There are no commands to follow and not a lot in the realm of doctrine to pick out. That is ... if you're not careful. Because if you're not careful, you will miss this. Stuck in amongst "Greet one another with a holy kiss" and subsequent grace and greetings for all, Paul inserts this tidbit:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet (Rom 16:17-20).

Wow! Paul, what are you saying here? I mean, it's certainly not conducive to a friendly dialog with those who disagree, is it? It's not "humble" by any means. Are you sure about this?

Look at what it holds for a moment. Paul, first, places some high priority on "the doctrine that you have been taught". This is the same concept as the common concept of "orthodox Christianity" -- the historical, constant teachings of the Church. Paul here doesn't say, "Avoid thinking that you're right and they're wrong" or "Agree to disagree" or "Whatever you do, don't get arrogant thinking that 'the doctrine that you have been taught' is right and they're wrong." No such thing. He warns about those who "cause divisions and create obstacles" contrary to those things. Whatever you conclude with this, it is quite clear that 1) there really is value in "the doctrine that you have been taught" and 2) there really is something to be said for vigilance against those who would try to alter or block it.

Now, Paul doesn't necessarily say, "Do battle with them." No, he says, "Avoid them." Not the same thing. Why "avoid them"? Well, these persons, despite appearances, "do not serve our Lord Christ". They may appear to, trying to correct your thinking or stop you from "going down the wrong path". "Yes, yes, you've always been taught throughout all Church history that we are saved by grace apart from works, but that's just not right and it should be obvious." "Sure, Christianity has always been opposed to premarital sex, but that's no reason to assume that they were right. It has been a longstanding misunderstanding." "Well, sure, the Church has always maintained that women were not to be in authority over men in church leadership, but that was because of [and they'll insert a variety of reasons here], and no longer the case today." "Well, of course Christendom has always maintained that homosexual behavior was sin and marriage was the union of a man and a woman, but Christendom has also maintained other errors at various times and places, so there's no reason to think we haven't figured out what they never could on this topic."

Why do we avoid this? "Such persons do not serve our Lord Christ." If not serving Christ, what are they serving? According to Paul, they serve "their own appetites". And with a minimal amount of examination you can easily see that the arguments produced against "the doctrine that you have been taught" are almost entirely constructed first on "their own appetites". It's something they desire -- power, sex, money, personal choice -- and, therefore, something to attack.

Paul includes a specific warning here. The first reason to avoid them is that they don't serve Christ, but their own appetites. The second reason to avoid them is "by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." How very true! "You don't want to stand in God's way on this, do you?" "We're just seeking to be loving and accepting of all people." "Come on, we need to be seeker-sensitive, and your holding to those biblical doctrines turn off those outside the Church." "Surely it's obvious that the tide of public opinion is against your view and soon you'll be left behind." "We just want marriage equity. Surely you're in favor of fairness."

Paul, then, is warning his readers. Don't be naive. Don't be deceived. Avoid these people who don't serve Christ, but their own appetites. You can know who they are because they teach that which is opposed to orthdox Christianity, the longstanding concepts that Christians, led by the Holy Spirit throughout the history of Christendom, have always held. Cling to that unity, and avoid those others.

I guess perhaps I have some reevaluation to do. Are there people I need to be avoiding? I certainly know people who fall in this category of causing division and creating obstacles, of denying historical orthodoxy, of serving their appetites rather than Christ, of trying to deceive with smooth talk and flattery. Do we engage them or avoid them? I wonder how much of this is the question in Proverbs. Do we "answer not a fool according to his folly" (Prov 26:4) or do we "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov 26:5)? This will take some thinking and praying.

Examining Sovereignty and Free Will

No Christian can possibly claim that God does not intervene in the affairs of men. That is, we all know that God "has His hand" in stuff. We're all fairly comfortable, for instance, with the idea that God can directly affect inanimate objects, things without their own wills.

Here, let's try an example for illustration. You have an important job interview. You get ready and bound on out to your car to go to the interview and there you find that you have a flat tire. You miss the interview and don't get the job. It would be irrational for you to blame the tire. Tires do not go flat because they choose to. They are not responsible for their choices. They don't make choices. So a level-headed Christian might say, "Well, see? God must not have wanted me to have that job because He prevented me from going to that interview." All well and good.

But consider the other perspective. You have that same interview and you get out to your car and you find that you have a flat tire. Then you discover that the reason you have a flat tire is that someone slashed it. Okay, now we've moved from inanimate objects to human free will. This is the question of the day. We're pretty comfortable with the idea that God would intervene in cases of things that have no free will. The question, though, is does God intervene in human free will? Or is it "Human Free Will", an inviolable concept in which God will not intrude? He intrudes in things without free will. Will He do so in humans who have a will?

Consider, first, the proposition at hand. God is Sovereign. However, God will not intervene in matters of Human Free Will. Therefore, God is not Sovereign in matters of Human Free Will. If this is the truth, then there is one area of life in which God is not Sovereign, and if that is true, it cannot be said that He is Sovereign ... or that He can be trusted where Human Free Will is involved.

But that's just logic. What about Scripture? Remember, we want to examine the question from the explicit rather than the implicit. If the Bible states that x is true but can imply that x is not true, we will choose to conclude that x is true and our conclusions from the implication are faulty. So what does the Bible explicitly say on the subject? Does God intervene in matters of human free will?

Start, first, with the clear statement from Proverbs. "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will" (Prov 21:1). Consider that for a moment. I mean, it's quite clear, but it is also quite far-reaching. The question we are asking is the extent of God's Sovereignty. So Solomon addresses the highest human sovereign, the king. In Solomon's day, the king was the absolute sovereign of his realm. Solomon, then, is saying that the heart of the highest human sovereign is in God's hand to do with as He pleases. Or, to put it another way, Solomon (the current sovereign of Israel) was writing to his readers "My heart -- your sovereign -- is in God's hand." Arguing, then, from the greater to the lesser, it cannot be imagined that any heart is not in the hand of the Lord.

Scripture bears this out repeatedly. In Genesis 50, Joseph indicates that God intended the sin of Joseph's brothers (meaning that the sin of Joseph's brothers was part of God's intention) for good (Gen 50:20). Genesis 20:1-8 tells the story of when Abraham was frightened of losing his wife (the one God promised would bear his offspring), so he lied about her. Abimelech took her as his own, but God prevented him from sinning (Gen 20:6). In Exodus 3, God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh to set His people free. In those instructions, God tells Moses that the people will be leaving with plunder from Egypt (Exo 3:22). In Exodus 12 it happens as God said it would, and it tells why. "The LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have their request. Thus they plundered the Egyptians" (Exo 12:36). In the opening words of the book of Ezra we read that "In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia -- in order to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah -- the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout his kingdom ...", a proclamation that sent the Jews back to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple and the city. Who? "The LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus." And who chose to go back to Jerusalem? "Everyone whose spirit God had stirred to go up and rebuild the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:5). In Acts 16 we read of Lydia, the seller of purple, when she came to Christ. Luke says, "The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14).

There can be no doubt, taking Scripture in its explicit statements, that God does indeed intervene in human free will to accomplish what He plans to accomplish. There can be no doubt. To argue against it is to argue against the explicit teaching of Scripture. Now, let me be clear on two other key points. First, Scripture is equally clear that we make choices for which we are either blamed or rewarded. That is, human free will does exist to the extent that we have the ability to make choices for which we are held responsible. To deny that would be an equal denial of clear Scripture. And one other absolutely clear point is that God is not the cause of evil. That argument will try to be floated when the claim is made that God intervenes in human free will. It's not true.

These may be difficult concepts. They are indeed mysteries. But mysteries are not impossibilities. We are required to hold in one hand the absolute Sovereignty of God and in the other hand the existence of Man's free will while recognizing that sin is not God's doing. It's a difficult balancing act, but not contradictory and not impossible. Denying any component of that three-sided structure will put you in opposition of Scripture on one hand and in bad standing in other parts of life on the other. If we deny God's Sovereignty by asserting Human Free Will, God is no longer Sovereign. If we deny human free will in favor of God's Sovereignty, then Man is no longer culpable. And in no case can we make God the cause of evil. No, I'm not offering a clean explanation. I'm just asking you to maintain biblical equilibrium, because the easiest thing to do is to step off on the wrong side of this question, and that's a dangerous and painful place to be.

Divine Commentary

We are used to instant news and commentary. An event occurs and we get the basic facts likely followed by talking heads with deep insights who tell us what it all means.

There is an interesting thing going on in some of the passages of the New Testament where the authors are telling the events of the day. We are getting a commentary along with the basic facts. This commentary, however, is not from some mere talking heads. This commentary is by divine inspiration, quite a bit better than some opinion. Consider some examples:

Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled ... (Matt 1:22).

... that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled ... (Matt 2:15).

Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled ... (Matt 2:17).

... that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled ... (Matt 2:23).

Kind of an obvious theme, isn't it? But consider, for a moment, what we have without these. A woman gets pregnant out of wedlock. A family flees to Egypt to hide from an angry tyrant. Said tyrant kills all male children under the age of two years old. The family returns to live in Nazareth. While it is certainly a series of stories, it is not an apparent history of the hand of God. We know it is the history of the hand of God thanks to Matthew's ongoing commentary. What we have, then, in the Gospels and, indeed, throughout biblical history, is a running account of God's will being fulfilled. It was fulfilled when the promised Isaac was born to Sarah and it was fulfilled when Israel went into slavery in Egypt. It was fulfilled when Joseph was sold into slavery and it was fulfilled when he came out of prison to save Egypt and his own people. It was fulfilled when Israel took the Promised Land and it was fulfilled when they were all carted off into captivity. It was fulfilled when Christ was born of a virgin and when He was put to death for our sin. The Bible itself recognizes all that occurs in its own pages as the will of God amidst the free choices of the people involved. When Sihon, king of the Amorites, refused to let Israel pass through his land (Num 21), it was God's will (Deut 2:30). When Daniel got special permission not to defile himself with the food offered to idols, it was God's will (Dan 1:9). When Christ was put to death by Herod and Pilate and the Jews, it was God's will (Acts 4:27-28). Over and over and over again.

We, of course, don't get that option today. We don't get a divine commentary on our current events. Take, for instance, some of the huge headlines over the past hundred years or so:

"Japan Wars on U.S. and Britain; Makes Sudden Attack On Hawaii; Heavy Fighting At Sea Reported" - New York Times, Dec 8, 1941.

"1500 Dead in Hawaii; Congress Votes War" - New York World-Telegram, Dec 8, 1941.

"America Under Attack" - CNN, Sep 11, 2001.

"Day of Terror" - MSNBC, Sep 11, 2001.

"Catastrophic; Storm Surge Swamps 9th Ward, St. Bernard; Lakeview Levee Breach Threatens to Inundate City" - The Times-Picayune, Aug 25, 2005.

"Death, Destruction; Scores killed as Katrina pounds states along Gulf Coast" - Aug 30, 2005.

"Yes, yes, that biblical stuff gets God's commentary, so that's all well and good, but what about us? What about these things (and so much more)?" Good question. May I suggest, however, that we do indeed have a divine commentary?

[God] works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11).

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Rom 8:28).

And that's just a smattering, the briefest of divine commentary on the events I listed. It's also God's commentary on the events in your life. Did you lose a job? God works all things after the counsel of His will. Did you get a job? We know that God causes all things to work together for good. Is a loved one sick? God works all things after the counsel of His will. Are you in some trouble? God works all things after the counsel of His will.

Well, as it turns out, we do have some divine commentary on our past and current events. We can have a sense of what God is doing, even if we can't fill in all the connections or all the details. What we can be sure of is this:

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:38-39).

As long as I can keep that in mind, everything should be okay, regardless of how it looks. I guess the trick, then, will be to convince myself of the truth before the painful parts occur so that I will have that trained response built in when I need it. Something to work on.

Now Here's a Story

The headline reads "Black Earth pastor gets 2 years in prison in child abuse case". (For reference, Black Earth is the name of the town in Wisconsin in which the pastor served.)

Oh, that's bad! A pastor convicted of child abuse. Not good at all. But wait!

"Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said the sentence, in part, was intended ... to prevent Caminiti from once again teaching members of his church to spank their children with wooden objects to cure them of selfishness."

Oh, now, hold on! Is the "child abuse" of which he was convicted simply teaching (in the words of the article) "a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible"? Well, apparently!

Oh, that's bad! I mean, does anyone recall "the separation of Church and State", the First Amendment, the prohibition of limiting the free exercise of religion, you know, the Constitution? It's bad enough with the mayor of New York decides to control what the people of his city can eat, but now a judge can determine what a pastor can teach? Oh, that's not good at all. But wait!

"The children were beaten for, of all things, doing what children do, and that is crying."

Oh, hold it! That's not right! Come on, pastor, teaching your congregation to "discipline" children against crying? How does that make sense? Come on, man, think! We're supposed to train up our children, not beat them for crying! Not good. Not good at all! But wait!

"Sumi ordered that he not have any contact with the Aleitheia Bible Church and have no leadership role in any church."

Choke! What??!! The judge gets to determine what the local church can and cannot do in its leadership or whether or not any church can employ this man as a pastor because the judge is opposed to "a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible"???!!! So now he is barred from his church, barred from any church, and even barred "from having contact with members of his extended family." Not good! Not good at all! Really bad!

Well, folks, fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride. Mayor Bloomberg will determine what you can and cannot consume at your local theater. Judge Sumi will determine what you can and cannot teach at your local church. President Obama will determine what you can and cannot believe and practice in regards to contraception or abortion. Popular opinion has decided that you cannot mix religion with politics despite the fundamental contradiction that this causes (as if "religion" can be segmented in a person's life). And pretty soon public opinion will decide what you can and cannot believe in regards to moral values. There may not be some grand conspiracy at work here, but it sure looks like there is, and it isn't going to go well for freedom-loving people in general and Bible-loving Christians in particular.

God's Sovereignty

It's one of my favorite topics -- the Sovereignty of God. I am so enamored with it that I put the "S" in Sovereignty as a capital letter. That is, this "Sovereignty" so far outweighs any other "sovereignty" that it is in a class by itself.

Of course, anyone who reads the Bible knows that God is sovereign. I mean, it says it, right? It doesn't take a Bible scholar to read and understand, "[Jesus Christ] is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim 6:15), just as an example. The word is there. The concept is clear. It's a given that God is sovereign. But most people will only include the lowercase word. Why?

Well, we have this problem. It is what the skeptics deem the Achilles heel of Christianity. It's the problem of evil. (By "evil" we mean anything unpleasant, painful, or morally bad.) We have this crisis, you see. If there is evil in the world of any kind, then what does that tell us about God? Well, the skeptic would say (by an illogical leap) "There is no such being" (not realizing that such a leap gives them no basis on which to say there is anything evil in the world at all). But the thinking person would say, "Well, it leaves us with two possibilities. Either God is not sovereign, or God is not good." That can be formed in a couple of ways, of course. He's not omnipotent or not omni-benevolent. That sort of thing. But it's all the same in the end. Either God is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. In answer to this conundrum, the standard Christian response goes something like this: "God is doing the best He can." Seriously, that's the common response.

Here's the typical thinking. God is sovereign, not Sovereign. Christians will affirm God's sovereignty because it's in the book, but the position they often take is that God sovereignly limited His Sovereignty to allow for Man's Free Will and, as such, is now only functioning with limited sovereignty. And somehow that is the basis of comfort offered by a host of Christians to those who are suffering from evil in its various forms. "God is doing the best He can."

Strange. When I read my Bible, I don't see that at all. I can only guess that this conclusion that "God is doing the best He can" and the idea that God has limited His Sovereignty for Man's Free Will comes from a philosophical argument because it certainly isn't a biblical argument. Here's the biblical argument:

Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?" (Lam 3:37-38).

"I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2).

"I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:6-7).

"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father" (Matt 10:29).

Here, you want a jolt? If you're of the mind that God has surrendered some of His Sovereignty for Man's Free Will, consider this. We know that Jesus was crucified by the command of Pontius Pilate. Here's the question. Where did Pilate get the authority to kill the Son of God? According to Christ, "You would have no authority over Me at all unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). Now that's quite a statement, isn't it? Pilate was not operating at the behest of the Jews. He was not serving by the command of Caesar. Pilate ordered Christ to be crucified under the authority of God. That is, God issued the command, approved the order, said "Make it so."

The list is much, much bigger than this. Biblically, it is huge. All biblical indications are that God works all things according to the counsel of His will, and "all things" is not limited to "those things outside of Man's Free Will". Instead, "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Prov 16:9). God allows evil for His good purposes and intends it that way. Instead of sovereignty, the biblical indications are that God is Sovereign -- without exception.

Now, you'll have to decide if you're going to go with the biblical account or with some other version. And you'll certainly have to decide whether or not it is possible that a Sovereign God can still be good while allowing evil in its many forms to exist. But you'll be hard-pressed to decide that the Bible teaches limited sovereignty ... because I can't find it in there and I don't think you can either. Going with the explicit over the implicit, I don't think there is a biblical argument for limiting God's Sovereignty. So, here's where I end up. Given that God is defined as both Absolute Sovereign and the definition of Good, what can I conclude? I can only conclude that my comprehension of evil (in all its forms) is flawed. And if Romans 8:28 is accurate, it would seem that that would be the correct conclusion.

Definition of Marriage

According to Cornell University Law School, the definition of "marriage" in the United States Code is as follows: "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." This, as of May 31, 2012, was ruled "unconstitutional" by a federal court^*, but is still being reviewed and, as such, is still United States Code.

According to Mirriam-Webster, "marriage" means "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

MacMillan Dictionary says "a married person has a husband or wife."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "marriage" as "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife".

In 2008, the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) voted to retain the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In 2010, they voted to change the definition to be only "two people".

According to Dictionary.com, "marriage" is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Indeed, so clear and offensive is this definition that 65,000 people have signed a petition to change the definition ... because we all know how it currently is defined.

It's clear. Abundantly clear. Everyone knows it. We get it. Marriage has a definition. The aim is not "marriage equity", but to redefine what we call "marriage". And yet, when I say so, there's a fight. Why is that?

________
^* Please note: According to Fox News, "Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Boudin was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton." Those of you seeking to elect Mitt Romney with a view to judge appointments, please keep this in mind. These judges were, in the majority, appointed by those you would classify as "on our side".

Humility

There is a standard list of virtues that we commonly think of as "Christian virtues". It's pretty simple, you know? Like "love, joy, peace", the sort of things that the Bible lists, just to make it easy. One of the "big ones" in Christian virtue (if not human virtue) is humility. Paul told the Philippians:

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus ...(Phil 2:3-5).

Humility, then, was a basic component of the mind of Christ and, as such, ought to be for us as well. So ... what is humility? I don't think we have a good handle on it.

The dictionary isn't very helpful. One tells me that humility is "the quality or condition of being humble". Ummm, yeah, thanks. That helped. Typically we think of humility in the same language that we think of humiliation. To be humiliated is to lose pride, self-respect, dignity. Humble means "not proud or arrogant", "modest". We think of it as meaning a feeling of insignificance and, more likely, inferiority. Or, perhaps, if we're feeling magnanimous and hoping to think warmly about this clearly Christian virtue, we might say that it is "selflessness". Yeah, that's good.

Now, this is just me, mind you. I'm just talking here. But I think we're missing the point. I think we are, in all honesty, looking in the wrong direction. Indeed, I think that where we are looking is the fundamental premise of genuine biblical humility. What do I mean?

We have the prime example of the Christian virtue called "humility" (because obviously there are many definitions and understandings, and not all are virtuous) found in Christ Himself over there in Philippians 2. You know, that passage where we are to have the same mind that Christ had. But I stopped the quote before I got to the mind that Christ had. In His example we see that He was "in the form of God", but didn't consider that something He needed to cling to. Instead, He underwent the "kenosis", the covering of His glory as God in the form of a humble servant. So, I ask you. Did Christ become less than God? Hopefully you would answer without question, "No!" He did not become less. Thus, He was not less Himself than before He humbled Himself. He was not less self. He was not self-less. So what did He do? Jesus took His eyes off self and put them on us, on His Father, on "the joy set before Him", on anything but self. He saw the work He was doing on our behalf as valuable and us as valuable because of the work He was doing. He didn't minimize Himself; He maximized that which was outside of self. His eyes were outward, not inward.

"Selflessness" might be okay as a definition here, but in my mind it begins with the wrong term and, as such, is very likely to lead in the wrong definition. It begins with "self". It looks inward, says, "I am consciously going to set 'self' aside", and moves toward "others". And it is that initial inward look that I believe is not in view in the Christian virtue of humility. Instead it is, as I said, looking in the right direction. I believe that true, Christian humility is not less of self, but more of others. It is more of God, more of His Son, more of the Spirit. It is more of your spouse and your kids, your coworkers and your neighbors, your friends and even your enemies. "Self" doesn't actually factor into "humility". It isn't that we "stuff self". It's that we, so satisfied with who Christ is and His full indwelling of us, no longer need to pay attention to self. This kind of Christian humility considers others as more significant not because we are less significant, but because we're not part of this equation. This kind of humility considers the interests of others as important because others are important, not because I am not.

Now, as I said, that's just me talking. You may disagree. However, in my thinking, if humility is anything else, then when I practice it, be it selflessness, lack of pride, modesty, whatever you may choose, then I would have room to boast, having skillfully managed myself to accomplish this task. On the other hand, if I am right, then I have no room for pride in my humility because it is based on the sufficiency of Christ for all I am and need, and that's not my doing. So you can decide. But that's where I'll stand. For now.

Defining Marriage

As anyone with any sense and honesty will tell you, my position is and always has been that "marriage" has a definition -- in fact, a biblical definition -- that has been maintained throughout human history. That definition (and this is no moral judgment, just a fact) has never included the union of two people of the same gender. Never has. Neither in religious nor non-religious circles. In no society or culture forever. Until, of course, today. As such, marriage, I have always contended, is the union of a man and a woman and has never been anything else. There are marriage practices and there is marriage confusion (like the woman that "married" the Eiffel Tower), but the fundamental definition of marriage has always remained the same.

We no longer live in that world, in that stream of history, in that clear and obvious biblical connection. We've moved on. We're on the march. We've headed toward "marriage equity" by which we mean we are willing to wrench the definition away from all of human history to make it into something new ... and then call it "marriage" as if nothing happened. Because, you see, genuine "marriage equity" is achieved when you steal that which doesn't belong to you and remake it into your own image.

Rather than continue this battle, I'd like to try a different approach. Since the tide of public opinion is moving away from the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage, I'd like to find what it is moving toward. Apparently there is a fundamental difference between "civil unions" and "marriage". I don't know what it is. Apparently there is a difference between "a loving couple committed to one another for life" and "marriage". "Marriage" as we have always known it is on the decline. More and more are opting for "cohabitation" instead. It is quite common to hear the argument, "What difference does a piece of paper make?" Apparently, then, marriage is defined as "a piece of paper"? It seems to have some sort of legal component, although domestic partnership laws are rolling into place to close that gap as well. So someone, please, give me a definition of "marriage". Keep in mind that you can't use the Bible because that will be unacceptable. And keep in mind that your definition may be short-lived since apparently the definition is fluid in time and who knows what it will be tomorrow. But someone, anyone, can you give me a definition that will tell me the difference between "marriage" and "civil unions", "cohabitation", or "a loving couple committed to one another for life"?

Maybe, if we can nail down a meaning for this word, we can then dialog on a level playing field. Maybe.

Question of the Day

Okay, here it is. I get conflicting input. You help me decide.

There are some who comment here that you don't often get to see. Some you've seen a lot of until I cut them off. Some you've not seen at all. I filter the comments I receive. After all, my mother reads this blog, and I don't want to subject her or anyone else to some of the stuff that people feel free, in the anonymity of the Internet, to spew. And I care enough about you readers not to subject you to some of that stuff. On the other hand, I also filter some of those with opposing views because they are belligerent, argumentative, perhaps short-tempered, generally not respectful of other views or other people, that sort of thing. I know that the dialog won't go well. I know that there will be no point, no end, no resolution. So I don't start by letting those comments get posted.

So, my question to you, my readers, is this. Should I let them through and let you see their comments, or should I continue my filtering? Do you, for instance, want to see the stuff that Dan Trabue writes so very often in response to what I write, or do you prefer a peaceful reading atmosphere? I will say up front that, for a lot of that, I will retain my right, nay, my responsibility to filter. It's my blog; I can do that. But do you want me to let more through so you can see and interact with it or is it better without the argumentation? You let me know.

Culture

Anyone who knows me likely knows I like words. I like to use them, to play with them, to examine them, to find their origins. It's just interesting stuff to me. So the other day I looked up "culture". Here is what I found. The word, of course, has a few meanings, but the primary definition is "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action". That is what defines our culture here or anywhere else. It's the beliefs, values, inherited ideas, and knowledge that informs what we do as a society.

Fine. We get that. But I wanted to know more. Where does the word come from? Well, as it turns out, the word is rooted (wait for it ... that's a joke yet to happen) in the concept of "to cultivate" (I told you there was a joke there). You see that now, right? "Culture" ... "cultivate"? See it? Oh, wait, that connection, "cult", is a word in itself. Is that connected, too? As it turns out, there is a connection. The root is the Latin word, cultus, which means "to till", which includes "to cultivate". But, wait ... what is the connection to "cult"? Well, in its original usage, it meant the primitive rituals used connected to tilling the ground. Most literally, then, cultus meant "worship".

Bring that all back around, then. In every "culture" is the word "cult" meaning "worship". Having spun out the origins, I think you can trace it back to the concept as well. Our culture is defined by our shared "inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge" -- the things we worship. And that makes sense. We are what we worship. If we worship God, we reflect Him. If we worship anything else, we reflect that. If we claim to worship God and actually worship something else, our lives -- our "culture" -- will show it. And, indeed, although something like 95% of Americans claim to be "spiritual" and some 70% claim to even be "Christian", our culture reflects what we actually worship as a society ... and it's not God. It includes possessions, sex, money, power, the current standard of "beauty", and more than anything, self, but it is not God.

A few things to consider, then, on this Lord's Day. First, all culture is based on worship. No matter what anyone says, it cannot be avoided. Don't let them tell you otherwise. In the words of Bob Dylan, "You've got to serve somebody."

Next, if our lives reflect what we worship and our society is a reflection of what it worships, why would you expect our society to be better than what it is? It seems to me that it's just setting you up for disappointment to expect our society to be better than it is when it is not marked by a people that worship God.

Third, you need not be a part of your culture. You can create your own culture. You can make a family culture or a group culture or even a culture of one. (The second most common definition of "culture" is "the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent.) So, if you actually intend to worship God, you can make a localized culture that reflects the character of God.

And that leads to the final item of consideration. Now you need to ask yourself, does your life reflect Him? If not, what are you worshiping? What does your life say about your worship? Is your life the reflection you intend or hope for, or is there the need for a shift in your worship? Something to consider.

A Parallel

I've noticed a parallel problem in two topics often discussed in my circles, those of "gay marriage" and "abortion". The problem, of course, is terminology. But the root problem here is, well, at the root of both.

I have often and repeatedly been accused of being opposed to "gay marriage" because I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. Thus, "gay marriage" would be wrong because it is immoral. While this may indeed be the argument of some -- perhaps even many -- it is not my argument. My argument is not that "gay marriage" is sinful, but that it is nonexistent. The term "marriage" has a meaning and "same-sex" doesn't fit into that meaning, so "gay marriage" is an oxymoron where "homosexual" ("same-sex") and "marriage" cannot be stuck together in any meaningful fashion. The only way to make them stick together is to redefine "marriage" to mean something different than the longstanding, traditional definition recognized by the dictionary, the California Supreme Court, and any other rational, honest person looking at the term. Does this mean that I do not think that homosexual behavior is a sin? No, not at all. I am convinced by Scripture and evident reason that it is. However, coopting "marriage" to include "same-sex" is one issue, and the immorality of the act of sex between two people of the same gender is a different issue. Mixing them together gets to be problematic and communication ceases.

I have often and repeatedly been accused of being "anti-abortion" because I am opposed to aborting a child in the womb. This is another problematic idea. For instance, Mitt Romney has said that he is opposed to Roe v Wade and would like to remove it. "Yeah!" the anti-abortionists shout, "Mitt Romney is anti-abortion!" No, actually, he's not. "But, surely he's pro-life!" No, not at all. Romney would like to throw out Roe v Wade ... and then leave it up to the States as to whether or not to allow abortion. If he was pro-life, a State law allowing the murder of babies would be no more moral than a federal law allowing that same murder. You see, I'm not opposed to terminating pregnancies. I'm opposed to killing babies. Terminating pregnancies and killing babies are two separate issues. I'm pro-life. I consider human life valuable in its various stages and am opposed to arbitrarily killing humans. Since the baby in the womb is a human (as recognized by science and even the federal government), I'm opposed to aborting that baby for personal convenience (or inconvenience as the case may be). If you had a way to terminate that pregnancy without killing the baby, I'd have nothing to say. I might think that getting pregnant and not being responsible for your child is, well, irresponsible and, therefore, immoral, but not in the same sense that killing a baby is immoral.

In both cases, then, my position is lumped with others. I'm "anti-gay marriage" because I hate gays. I'm "anti-abortion" because I hate women's choice. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm pro-marriage and pro-life. But it seems as if neither of these positions are allowed into the discussion. I can either be "anti" (and, by extension, anti-gay and anti-woman -- a bigoted hater) or I can agree with the positions I stand against. Fouled, then, by the terminology, I can't get across "pro-marriage" without being heard as "anti-gay" or "pro-life" without being considered "anti-choice". The responses twist terminology using my words to mean something different and the dialog is ended. What we have here, then, is not only a failure to communicate, but a simple and continued echo of the Tower of Babel. You remember the Tower of Bable, right? You know, the confusion of languages? Yeah, that's what we're doing on an ongoing basis. We call it "speaking English". I call it more like "the suppression of truth".

Ownership

Do you want to know a ridiculous concept? It's called "ownership". Okay, it's not ridiculous in and of itself. But it certainly is in the way that we use it.

Think about it. What is the concept of abortion all about? It's all about "the woman's body". That is, a woman "owns" her body and has the right to do with it as she pleases. Ownership. But ... where did that idea come from? I mean, who says she owns her body? Oh, sure, no one else owns it, but who says she does? She didn't buy it or earn it. She didn't build it (even if she's a body-builder). It was given to her. More to the point, it was loaned to her. And yet we have the audacity to say, "It's my body; I'll do with it as I please."

Or how about the notion of time. "It's your time, now." When did you get ownership of time? How did you earn that? How much did it cost? No, we don't acquire time. It is given to us. And it can be taken away without redress or recompense. We don't own time. And yet, that's how we think of it. We are offended when someone interrupts our "me time". We hesitate to surrender our "free time" to do other things we might not want to do. We seem to think we own our time when quite clearly we do not. Indeed, if you are a believer, there is little as ludicrous as to think that we do. I mean, if God walked into your bedroom and asked you to give Him a day in His service, would you balk? "Oh, I don't know. It's my time, you know." No, of course not. And, yet, we treat time as if it is our own and protest when it is "stolen".

Indeed, we have this whole ownership concept going about just about everything. My car, my wife, my children, my job, my God. Yes, even God. It is just so easy to think about Him as "my God" in the very same sense that we think of "my pizza". We have a slice of pizza. We have our very own God. He ought, if He is to be a good God, to do what we please. If He doesn't, we are displeased.

Now, I know, there is a place for ownership. There are things we earn and pay for and acquire. But, really, at the end of the day, what do we have that wasn't, ultimately, given to us by God? And, in the final analysis, what is there in all the universe about which God does not say "Mine!" and is absolutely correct? Sure, we may own some things in some sense, but it is my serious suspicion that this sense of ownership is most often taken too far and gets us in more trouble than we need. I mean, think about it. How much better off would we be if we understood all of what we have to be gifts, stewardships, on loan from God, and not our divine rights? How would we better manage our bodies, our time, our belongings, our relationships and all that is around us if we thought of it all as belonging to God rather than to us? I think this way of thinking would correct a lot of my shortcomings. How about you?