Any Bible-believing Christian knows that we face constant challenges to basic subjects these days. Two big ones are truth and morality.
On our side, Jesus told us, "I am ... the Truth ..." (John 14:6) and that the Holy Spirit would "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Truth matters. But Pilate epitomized the other view with his sarcastic, "What is truth?" (John 18:38) Does truth exist? Or is it, as so many want to claim, simply a matter of opinion?
On our side, we argue that there is actual morality, not mere opinion. We base it in God as Creator and Lawgiver. As such, He has the authority (and responsibility) to tell us what is good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and these are applied to all people. The other side argues that ... well, now, wait ... they argue in two directions. On one hand they argue that morality is simply the norms of the society in which you live. If marrying 5 women is moral in your society, it's moral. If not, then it's not. Morality is relative. On the other hand they argue that the God of the Bible has failed to satisfy their moral demands of eliminating evil, so He does not exist. They do this without a basis for the demands or for the definition of "evil". That is, they hold both that moral is what you make it and moral is real. It may or may not be moral today to marry a fence, but it is certainly immoral to torture and kill an innocent child ... unless, of course, a woman chooses to do so. Well, you get the idea. All very confusing.
The differences in both "truth" and "morality" here are the differences between "objective" and "subjective". "Objective" refers to things that are real apart from your feelings, opinions, or preferences. It refers, essentially, to an object. "Subjective" speaks of feelings, tasts, or opinions. It is predicated on the subject doing the examination rather than the object being examined. There are, for instance, some outlandish folks who argue that nothing is real and everything is in your mind. As such, there are no objective truths--no objects. Everything is based on your perceptions, feelings, or thoughts--subjective.
The question, then, is not whether or not there is truth or morality. Of course these things exist. The question is whether there is objective truth and objective morality. Are there things that are true regardless of how you feel about them? Are there things that are right or wrong regardless of your opinions? Do these things actually exist?
Christians, of course, must argue for the positive. If God, then, yes, there is reality and morality outside of my own perceptions. God made objects and they exist. God made natural laws and they exist regardless of my opinions. Reality is actual, not simply my opinions. The trick in this case, then, is to align your perceptions with the truth rather than the reverse ... like so many do today.
When the argument sides with the subjective, you must keep in mind that the outcome is there is no truth or morality. Well, not that is applicable to everyone. If truth is subjective and morality relative, then no one has the right to claim that you're wrong in your truth claims or evil in your moral code. Indeed, the atheist argument that God is a perpetrator of evil falls apart since evil no longer has an objective definition. And questions like "Can an atheist be moral?" become pointless because "moral" has no basis.
Why it is that those who hold to subjective truth and moral relativity continue to argue about truth and morality is beyond me. They do so without foundation. As for you, just make sure you're not one doing that argument. It really is the perfect example of a slippery slope.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
Inspired by God
Perhaps one of the most hotly contested Scriptures today is in Paul's second letter to Timothy.
Already my skeptical readers are shaking their heads or even pounding their keyboards to assure me this is not the case. But let's look at the text.
First, it refers to "all Scripture". As I demonstrated earlier, Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and Paul refers to Luke's Gospel as Scripture, so this cannot be simply construed as "Old Testament" as many would try to suggest. The only reason the canon of Scripture was not determined until the 4th century was not that they didn't see it as Scripture, but because of a guy named Marcion who offered his own version that they had to refute. The Muratorian Canon, for instance, was compiled by 170 AD and contained none of the books we don't have and all but 3 of the books we do. Scripture was clear from the beginning.
The really difficult term there is "inspired". "Yeah," the skeptic will say, "we get 'inspired'. Lots of writers are inspired." And the whole sense of the term is deflated to mean little more than "really cool". Is that the sense of the wording? Well, the ESV uses the phrase "breathed out by God" and Young's Literal Translation uses "God-breathed". Why the difference? How is "breathed out by God" different from "inspired by God"? Well, "inspired" means most literally "inhaled". The opposite, "expired", would mean "exhaled". But, as in "expired", we understand "inspired" to mean something different now. Now it means "aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something" ... or "really cool". But the word (and it is one word) used in the text of the verse is θεόπνευστος--theopneustos. Interesting, isn't it? It is not "inspired by God" (as we would understand it today). It is one word. That's θεός--theos--and πνέω--pneō--from which we get our words "theology" from the first and "pneumatic" or "pneumonia" or the like from the second. It is a single word that means "God-exhaled". In light of our modern "inspired writing", there is a sharp contrast between "inspired by God" and "God-breathed". If I had a warm view of God, it might inspire me to write warm things about God, warm things that may or may not be true. But "breathed out by God" or "God-breathed" eliminates that notion. Nor is such an idea a mere wordplay. It's what's in the text.
Now, you may wish to disagree that the Bible is God's Word. You would do so against the plain meaning of the text as well as the historic view of the Church. You may wish to deny that words exhaled by God will be infallible or inerrant. I find it interesting that scholars almost unanimously agree that Jesus viewed the Scriptures as God's infallible Word, but so many today who claim to approach Scripture from Jesus's perspective do so while denying the infallibility of the Word. So you may wish to set aside the Bible (while, beyond my comprehension, you try to affirm a "high respect for the Bible"), but you do so against the plain text and the clear understanding of Christ. At that point, you're on your own. For those of you who wonder, it's clear. Wonder no longer.[1]
________
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)It is a claim to divine inspiration ("No, it's not," the skeptic--Christian or not--will tell you) of Scripture ("No, it's not," said skeptic will repeat), placing the Bible in the category of "God's Word" ("No, it doesn't," our friendly skeptic will strongly affirm ... without proof or evidence, of course). That is, the text is a clear statement that the Bible is God's Word.
Already my skeptical readers are shaking their heads or even pounding their keyboards to assure me this is not the case. But let's look at the text.
First, it refers to "all Scripture". As I demonstrated earlier, Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and Paul refers to Luke's Gospel as Scripture, so this cannot be simply construed as "Old Testament" as many would try to suggest. The only reason the canon of Scripture was not determined until the 4th century was not that they didn't see it as Scripture, but because of a guy named Marcion who offered his own version that they had to refute. The Muratorian Canon, for instance, was compiled by 170 AD and contained none of the books we don't have and all but 3 of the books we do. Scripture was clear from the beginning.
The really difficult term there is "inspired". "Yeah," the skeptic will say, "we get 'inspired'. Lots of writers are inspired." And the whole sense of the term is deflated to mean little more than "really cool". Is that the sense of the wording? Well, the ESV uses the phrase "breathed out by God" and Young's Literal Translation uses "God-breathed". Why the difference? How is "breathed out by God" different from "inspired by God"? Well, "inspired" means most literally "inhaled". The opposite, "expired", would mean "exhaled". But, as in "expired", we understand "inspired" to mean something different now. Now it means "aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something" ... or "really cool". But the word (and it is one word) used in the text of the verse is θεόπνευστος--theopneustos. Interesting, isn't it? It is not "inspired by God" (as we would understand it today). It is one word. That's θεός--theos--and πνέω--pneō--from which we get our words "theology" from the first and "pneumatic" or "pneumonia" or the like from the second. It is a single word that means "God-exhaled". In light of our modern "inspired writing", there is a sharp contrast between "inspired by God" and "God-breathed". If I had a warm view of God, it might inspire me to write warm things about God, warm things that may or may not be true. But "breathed out by God" or "God-breathed" eliminates that notion. Nor is such an idea a mere wordplay. It's what's in the text.
Now, you may wish to disagree that the Bible is God's Word. You would do so against the plain meaning of the text as well as the historic view of the Church. You may wish to deny that words exhaled by God will be infallible or inerrant. I find it interesting that scholars almost unanimously agree that Jesus viewed the Scriptures as God's infallible Word, but so many today who claim to approach Scripture from Jesus's perspective do so while denying the infallibility of the Word. So you may wish to set aside the Bible (while, beyond my comprehension, you try to affirm a "high respect for the Bible"), but you do so against the plain text and the clear understanding of Christ. At that point, you're on your own. For those of you who wonder, it's clear. Wonder no longer.[1]
________
[1] For the skeptic who assures us that "Sure, it's 'God-breathed', but your opinion isn't," let's keep in mind that Jesus promised an answer, a solution (John 16:13). We do not evaluate the Word in a vacuum, dependent solely on our fallible, sinful understanding. We do so under divine guidance by the One who breathed it. Sure, we will still come to disagreements, but they are far and away the exception rather than the rule, and Christians taught by the Spirit of Truth, God's Spirit, are in much more agreement than disagreement. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
By Him For Him
Jean Lloyd, PhD, is a teacher and a happily married mother of two young children. She wrote an article for The Witherspoon Institute about gender identity. No, not quite what you think. Dr. Lloyd wrote of her own struggles as a 15-year-old girl in 1985 and compared what would have happened if it had been 2015. Back then, the option would have been for every friend, parent, and therapist to argue, cajol, even force her out of her confusion. Today it is illegal in some states to do that. In todays' world, she argues, the one option she would not have had was to not be gay. Very interesting article, especially coming from someone who has been there.
She concludes with a little about how she ended up following God instead of embracing the lesbian life.
The issue is not "me", my desires, my preferences, my leanings. It isn't, as has become the case for so many these days, my orgasm. It is God. God knows your identity. He knows it better than you do. He wrote His image on you. The gender assigned by God at birth was no accident of birth or some sort of child abuse[1]. It's about God.
And it's about what's best for you. She fully recognized the truth that God designed her sexuality and "set boundaries upon it for my good." The "I feel this way so I should be allowed to indulge my feelings" line of argumentation makes no sense. We tell angry people who feel like killing to control their feelings and we tell sad people who feel like suicide to control their feelings, but when it comes to sexual desires, we tell them to go with their feelings? God limits sexual freedom for your good. That applies, by the way, to whatever sexual proclivity you might have.
I wish more people would understand what Dr. Lloyd figured out. It's about God and what He thinks is best for you. He is God; you are not. Work from there. But, I'm pretty sure that's the case beyond simple sexuality. I'm sure it's the case in all facets of our lives. And I'm pretty sure that we all have work to do on that line of thinking.
________
She concludes with a little about how she ended up following God instead of embracing the lesbian life.
I began to trust the One who knew the truth of my identity more than I did, who wrote His image into my being and body as female, and who designed sexuality and set boundaries upon it for my good.Wow! She gets it. She understands. She understands better than a lot of the rest of us do.
The issue is not "me", my desires, my preferences, my leanings. It isn't, as has become the case for so many these days, my orgasm. It is God. God knows your identity. He knows it better than you do. He wrote His image on you. The gender assigned by God at birth was no accident of birth or some sort of child abuse[1]. It's about God.
And it's about what's best for you. She fully recognized the truth that God designed her sexuality and "set boundaries upon it for my good." The "I feel this way so I should be allowed to indulge my feelings" line of argumentation makes no sense. We tell angry people who feel like killing to control their feelings and we tell sad people who feel like suicide to control their feelings, but when it comes to sexual desires, we tell them to go with their feelings? God limits sexual freedom for your good. That applies, by the way, to whatever sexual proclivity you might have.
I wish more people would understand what Dr. Lloyd figured out. It's about God and what He thinks is best for you. He is God; you are not. Work from there. But, I'm pretty sure that's the case beyond simple sexuality. I'm sure it's the case in all facets of our lives. And I'm pretty sure that we all have work to do on that line of thinking.
________
[1] There is actually a website (to which I won't link) dedicated to "stop gendering children." As if you're doing them a favor. "Saying a child or adult with a penis’ sex is male is inherently transphobic and unnecessary," they say. "There is no reason to refer to genitals or sex as 'male' or 'female'." You understand, I hope, dear reader, that the clinical definition of "sex" as distinct from "gender" is specifically the reproductive anatomy. That is, a human with a penis is defined as the male sex, regardless of whether or not you want to do a "gender dance" where gender is fluid. This, in fact, is why transsexual operations attempt to change the reproductive anatomy to align with the "felt gender". If it wasn't the definition, it wouldn't matter, would it?
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Red-Letter Christians
You've heard of these, right? It's a reference to those handy Bibles where they put Jesus's words in red. It's not as if the red letters are inspired, you know. For instance, some Bible scholars are unclear in John 3 where Jesus's words leave off and the words of John (the writer) begin. You see, Greek didn't employ the helpful quotation marks we have today, so did Jesus say the world-famous "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) or did Jesus end with verse 15 and John expanded from verses 16 on? Which illustrates the difficulty with red-letter thinking. You see, the red letters are not more inspired than any other, but the feel of it is "These are the actual words of Jesus so they're much more important than the rest." So if Jesus did not say John 3:16-21 as the red-letter Bibles indicate but John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, added them as explanation, then they are just as true as if Jesus had said them. Red letters, then, can become a problem.
Truthfully, then, there is no real problem with the red-letter Bibles ... as long as you believe that the Bible is the God-breathed word of God. In this case, all of Scripture is, in a sense, the words of Jesus. And the red just highlights what He physically said at the time. Fine. No problem. So I'm okay with all that.
The problem occurs when you find those (and there are not just a few) who say, "I try to follow the words of Jesus." These would be the "red-letter Christians" to which I allude. No, it's not about red ink. It's the notion that "What Jesus said was right but everything else is, well, questionable." Okay, they'll fill in "questionable" with some other adjective. Maybe they're "figurative" or maybe they "contain the truth". Certainly the Bible is not inerrant. In no way can we take the Old Testament historical narratives, for instance, as historical narratives. That just won't work. Because, you see, they aren't "the words of Jesus". So what these folk do is 1) superimpose their notion of what Jesus was like over the Bible and then 2) reinterpret the Bible to match their notion of what Jesus was like. If they see Jesus as, essentially, a modern day '60's hippy--"Love and peace, man"--then any biblical reference to violence or the like are right out. And, oh, by the way, the God of the Old Testament brings about a lot of violence. So does the God of Revelations. Jesus wasn't an angry man, so biblical references to the wrath of God don't quite work for them. To many of these types Jesus never condemned sin, so biblical condemnation of sin is in question and certainly anyone else's attempt to do so is in error. No, the rule of this Jesus is "Neither do I condemn you" and be very, very careful to end your sentence right there.
You see, when they call into question the bulk of the Bible because it may or may not align with their version of Jesus, they have a real problem. If the Bible as a whole cannot be fully trustworthy, why would the red letters be trustworthy? Trying to sound wise and holy, they undercut their own basis for belief. "Sure, the red letters can be trusted; you just have to be careful about the black ones." No, of course, no one ever says that. But that's the sense of it. "The Bible is all about Jesus" sounds so Christian and it is, in fact, true, but when they take that to mean "My understanding of who Jesus was determines what is or is not true in the Bible" becomes a real problem.
Bottom line, of course, there is a fundamental problem with this brand of red-letter Christians. If they are interpreting the Bible through the lens of Christ, and that Christ is primarily derived from the Bible, then the Bible must be first a reliable book. On the other hand, if the Bible as written is not a fully reliable book, then their lens through which they interpret the Bible is a Christ of their own making. And the real question then is if that Christ can save. Or is it not the Christ of the Bible who has the power to save? Paul warns of "another gospel". I am concerned for some of "another Christ". I'm concerned that it could be "an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14) who, in truth, is blinding their eyes (2 Cor 4:4).
Truthfully, then, there is no real problem with the red-letter Bibles ... as long as you believe that the Bible is the God-breathed word of God. In this case, all of Scripture is, in a sense, the words of Jesus. And the red just highlights what He physically said at the time. Fine. No problem. So I'm okay with all that.
The problem occurs when you find those (and there are not just a few) who say, "I try to follow the words of Jesus." These would be the "red-letter Christians" to which I allude. No, it's not about red ink. It's the notion that "What Jesus said was right but everything else is, well, questionable." Okay, they'll fill in "questionable" with some other adjective. Maybe they're "figurative" or maybe they "contain the truth". Certainly the Bible is not inerrant. In no way can we take the Old Testament historical narratives, for instance, as historical narratives. That just won't work. Because, you see, they aren't "the words of Jesus". So what these folk do is 1) superimpose their notion of what Jesus was like over the Bible and then 2) reinterpret the Bible to match their notion of what Jesus was like. If they see Jesus as, essentially, a modern day '60's hippy--"Love and peace, man"--then any biblical reference to violence or the like are right out. And, oh, by the way, the God of the Old Testament brings about a lot of violence. So does the God of Revelations. Jesus wasn't an angry man, so biblical references to the wrath of God don't quite work for them. To many of these types Jesus never condemned sin, so biblical condemnation of sin is in question and certainly anyone else's attempt to do so is in error. No, the rule of this Jesus is "Neither do I condemn you" and be very, very careful to end your sentence right there.
You see, when they call into question the bulk of the Bible because it may or may not align with their version of Jesus, they have a real problem. If the Bible as a whole cannot be fully trustworthy, why would the red letters be trustworthy? Trying to sound wise and holy, they undercut their own basis for belief. "Sure, the red letters can be trusted; you just have to be careful about the black ones." No, of course, no one ever says that. But that's the sense of it. "The Bible is all about Jesus" sounds so Christian and it is, in fact, true, but when they take that to mean "My understanding of who Jesus was determines what is or is not true in the Bible" becomes a real problem.
Bottom line, of course, there is a fundamental problem with this brand of red-letter Christians. If they are interpreting the Bible through the lens of Christ, and that Christ is primarily derived from the Bible, then the Bible must be first a reliable book. On the other hand, if the Bible as written is not a fully reliable book, then their lens through which they interpret the Bible is a Christ of their own making. And the real question then is if that Christ can save. Or is it not the Christ of the Bible who has the power to save? Paul warns of "another gospel". I am concerned for some of "another Christ". I'm concerned that it could be "an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14) who, in truth, is blinding their eyes (2 Cor 4:4).
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Going All Bibley on You
There is, I believe, a current, ongoing assault on the Bible in our world today. It comes from all sides. Atheists and skeptics love to wrangle over it, popping up in Christian places complaining that we just have a man-made book with no real value and telling us what it teaches and how it's wrong (which, of course, makes no sense if it's a man-made book with no real value). (I mean, if it's man-made and pointless, don't try to tell me what it means.) You have to expect that out of the skeptic. But it also comes from those "within", folks identifying themselves as "believers". It comes from the Pentecostal types who claim the Bible is fully true, but perhaps not entirely sufficient, so they're getting helpful insights outside of the Bible straight from God and you had better not question the Lord's anointed. It comes from the extreme liberal wing that holds to "Christian" like a vegetarian crab sandwich. I mean, they say they're Christian and then deny everything Christian. No, Christ isn't the only way. No, we are not saved by grace. No, Jesus was not God. And on and on until whatever it is they end up with--and specifically it is not biblical--is nothing really related to "Christian".
There is another source of this assault. It's somewhat slippery, too. These types claim a great respect for the Bible. They assure you it is the Word of God. Well, mostly. Some will shift off to "contains the Word of God" instead because clearly some of the Bible isn't ... well ... true. But generally. However, most of this particular breed will verbalize that the Bible is true and is the Word of God. That is, until you actually try to refer to the Bible as the Word of God. Or, at least, in a place that disagrees with their view. Then you're in trouble. Oh, and never suggest the Bible is inerrant. That's just crazy. But what they like to tell you is, "You're conflating your opinion into God's Word!" How? "Well, you said that Jesus is the only way and that's just one view of what it means." Or, "You're homophobic and claim the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin but we know better today." In other words, when you offer a clear presentation of biblical texts interpreted as it is and in the longstanding, historical orthodox way, if it disagrees with them it is "conflating opinion".
Now, this sounds very ... holy. Certainly people have and do conflate their own opinions as the Word of God and they're wrong. But in every case I can find you simply have to use Scripture to demonstrate that this opinion isn't biblical. But what they're pointing to is anything that disagrees with ... their opinion. Clear texts cannot mean what they say if they violate these folks' opinions.
What most people don't see is that this isn't an attempt to uphold the sanctity of the Bible. It is simply an end of anything usable in Scripture. If plain readings of explicit texts and historic orthodoxy are unreliable, then what do we have? If you want to call it "the Word of God", it doesn't help if your "Word of God" is unknowable and uncertain. If all understanding of Scripture must be viewed as opinion, there is no authority in Scripture. But if all understanding of Scripture is opinion, why do they argue about my understanding so much? Hmmm, methinks they doth protest too much ... or something like that.
It sounds intelligent and holy. "Don't conflate your opinion into God's Word." But when it is used to say, "All understanding of Scripture is opinion"--and, make no mistake, when you boil it down that is the intent--then it is nothing less than an assault on the integrity and authority of Scripture. Just like the skeptics or the liberals. Perhaps worse because it almost sounds like a call for a greater respect for the Bible. Which it isn't. Deflating God's Word to mere opinion is not a defense of the Bible. Don't make me go all Bibley on you.
Clarification
You have to know that this whole thing strikes a nasty chord in the "Don't conflate your opinion" group. Why? Because, obviously all Bible interpretation is opinion. "So," they will object loudly, "we do hold the Bible in high regard as the Word of God. It's Man's interpretation that we question." And, again, it sounds holy. At least, "holier than thou." Because, you see, while affirming on one hand a high regard for the Word of God, they have completely undercut any ability to have the Word of God. Do you see that? If all interpretation is opinion and all opinion is fallible, it is impossible to have a reliable Word of God. Oh, sure, not because of the Word of God, but because of the interpreter of the Word. The result is the same. The final product you have in your hands is unknowable and uncertain. It's the same position the agnostic often takes. "Sure, there may be a God, but if there is He is unknowable, at least to any certainty." Even so the Bible. It may be the Word of God, but since all interpretation is human opinion and all human interpretation is fallible, all interpretation is fallible and the Word of God is useless, in the final analysis, in the correcting of human opinion. Like the Gnostic heresy, the argument has the appearance of wisdom but is of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23).
There is another source of this assault. It's somewhat slippery, too. These types claim a great respect for the Bible. They assure you it is the Word of God. Well, mostly. Some will shift off to "contains the Word of God" instead because clearly some of the Bible isn't ... well ... true. But generally. However, most of this particular breed will verbalize that the Bible is true and is the Word of God. That is, until you actually try to refer to the Bible as the Word of God. Or, at least, in a place that disagrees with their view. Then you're in trouble. Oh, and never suggest the Bible is inerrant. That's just crazy. But what they like to tell you is, "You're conflating your opinion into God's Word!" How? "Well, you said that Jesus is the only way and that's just one view of what it means." Or, "You're homophobic and claim the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin but we know better today." In other words, when you offer a clear presentation of biblical texts interpreted as it is and in the longstanding, historical orthodox way, if it disagrees with them it is "conflating opinion".
Now, this sounds very ... holy. Certainly people have and do conflate their own opinions as the Word of God and they're wrong. But in every case I can find you simply have to use Scripture to demonstrate that this opinion isn't biblical. But what they're pointing to is anything that disagrees with ... their opinion. Clear texts cannot mean what they say if they violate these folks' opinions.
What most people don't see is that this isn't an attempt to uphold the sanctity of the Bible. It is simply an end of anything usable in Scripture. If plain readings of explicit texts and historic orthodoxy are unreliable, then what do we have? If you want to call it "the Word of God", it doesn't help if your "Word of God" is unknowable and uncertain. If all understanding of Scripture must be viewed as opinion, there is no authority in Scripture. But if all understanding of Scripture is opinion, why do they argue about my understanding so much? Hmmm, methinks they doth protest too much ... or something like that.
It sounds intelligent and holy. "Don't conflate your opinion into God's Word." But when it is used to say, "All understanding of Scripture is opinion"--and, make no mistake, when you boil it down that is the intent--then it is nothing less than an assault on the integrity and authority of Scripture. Just like the skeptics or the liberals. Perhaps worse because it almost sounds like a call for a greater respect for the Bible. Which it isn't. Deflating God's Word to mere opinion is not a defense of the Bible. Don't make me go all Bibley on you.
Clarification
You have to know that this whole thing strikes a nasty chord in the "Don't conflate your opinion" group. Why? Because, obviously all Bible interpretation is opinion. "So," they will object loudly, "we do hold the Bible in high regard as the Word of God. It's Man's interpretation that we question." And, again, it sounds holy. At least, "holier than thou." Because, you see, while affirming on one hand a high regard for the Word of God, they have completely undercut any ability to have the Word of God. Do you see that? If all interpretation is opinion and all opinion is fallible, it is impossible to have a reliable Word of God. Oh, sure, not because of the Word of God, but because of the interpreter of the Word. The result is the same. The final product you have in your hands is unknowable and uncertain. It's the same position the agnostic often takes. "Sure, there may be a God, but if there is He is unknowable, at least to any certainty." Even so the Bible. It may be the Word of God, but since all interpretation is human opinion and all human interpretation is fallible, all interpretation is fallible and the Word of God is useless, in the final analysis, in the correcting of human opinion. Like the Gnostic heresy, the argument has the appearance of wisdom but is of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23).
Monday, February 16, 2015
The Cosmic Housekeeper
So, I'm sitting in the adult Bible class at church on Sunday and we're going through John 9. It's the story of the man born blind. You remember the story.
I know, I know, this is certainly a popular view among Christians today. Some of you are likely nodding your heads. "He's right." Me? I'm baffled. No, I'm stunned. Who is this God? He appears to be stuck with a rotten apple of a creation and is forced to constantly bob and weave and parry to fix problems caused by sin and, well, if possible, make use out of one or the other of these bad things that happen. Mostly, "stuff happens", you see. So God, like a big housekeeper, goes around picking up after our mess and, when He can work it in, puts it to good use. I have to repeat ... who is this God?
The God I know claims, "I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." (Isa 45:6-7) So while we bustle about trying to absolve God for this poor man's blindness from birth, God says, "I cause calamity." The disciples understood, if imperfectly, that God could justly have this man born blind as a consequence of sin. Further, Jesus clearly indicated that the man was born blind "so that the works of God might be displayed in him." Now, did God use natural means to have him born blind? Maybe. Sure. No problem. But without a doubt it was God's plan in advance intended to display His works for His glory. Why do I say that? Because Jesus said it.
I know, I know. "Seems so mean of God to make this poor man blind." And, "Very petty for a big God to make a poor child blind just to show off." I get it. But these are all responses of the creature against the Creator: "The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Rom 9:20). Paul thought not. But Paul was wrong because it is extremely common today in Christian circles. God is obligated to be nice to His creation because His creation is of ultimate value. It's a lie. It's a result of idolatry, of worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. And I find myself guilty of it, too, every time I hear myself say, "I deserve better!"
And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9:2-3)There were, of course, discussions about this that or the other in the story. But the teacher, at some point, came to this question. "Why was this man born blind?" Of course, the class gave the ... you know ... biblical answer--"so that the works of God might be displayed in him." "But," the teacher parried, "do you actually believe that, without any reason of sin in either him or his parents, God just chose to pick on this guy so He could do a miracle?" I was baffled by the question. Was he serious? "No," he went on to assure us. "This was just a product of biology, a product of a sin-tainted world where a gene went wrong or a chromosome was off and the man was born blind. God decided to use that to demonstrate His glory, but He didn't cause it or plan it."
I know, I know, this is certainly a popular view among Christians today. Some of you are likely nodding your heads. "He's right." Me? I'm baffled. No, I'm stunned. Who is this God? He appears to be stuck with a rotten apple of a creation and is forced to constantly bob and weave and parry to fix problems caused by sin and, well, if possible, make use out of one or the other of these bad things that happen. Mostly, "stuff happens", you see. So God, like a big housekeeper, goes around picking up after our mess and, when He can work it in, puts it to good use. I have to repeat ... who is this God?
The God I know claims, "I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." (Isa 45:6-7) So while we bustle about trying to absolve God for this poor man's blindness from birth, God says, "I cause calamity." The disciples understood, if imperfectly, that God could justly have this man born blind as a consequence of sin. Further, Jesus clearly indicated that the man was born blind "so that the works of God might be displayed in him." Now, did God use natural means to have him born blind? Maybe. Sure. No problem. But without a doubt it was God's plan in advance intended to display His works for His glory. Why do I say that? Because Jesus said it.
I know, I know. "Seems so mean of God to make this poor man blind." And, "Very petty for a big God to make a poor child blind just to show off." I get it. But these are all responses of the creature against the Creator: "The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Rom 9:20). Paul thought not. But Paul was wrong because it is extremely common today in Christian circles. God is obligated to be nice to His creation because His creation is of ultimate value. It's a lie. It's a result of idolatry, of worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. And I find myself guilty of it, too, every time I hear myself say, "I deserve better!"
Sunday, February 15, 2015
The Judge of All the Earth
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Gen 18:25)It was Abraham talking with God when God informed him He planned to punish Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin. Abraham was dickering with God. He was concerned that God would kill the righteous with the wicked. And he essentially obtained an agreement from God that if a 10 righteous were found in those cities, He would spare them. Spoiler alert. They weren't. He didn't.
The question of God's justice is, I think, more important than we realize. Sure, we get that God is just. Fine. But, to be honest, we're not real fond of His justice. His grace, yes. His mercy, yes. His justice? Not so much. I mean, "If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" (Psa 130:3) Oh, no, it's not His justice we really like. Because, let's face it, if justice were all there was, we'd all be in deep trouble.
So, sure, we like His justice, just not toward us. On the other hand, we do like the aspect of His justice that demands that those who do well are rewarded for it. And we are thoroughly blessed that His justice was fully met in Christ's sacrifice on our behalf (Rom 3:24-27). Blessed indeed.
But there is another aspect of God's justice that is essential. We recognize this aspect even in human terms when we say to an offending party, "You'll get yours!" You see, without divine justice, morality would have no weight.
Have you ever seen where laws were passed that were not enforced? It is a travesty. It has no real purpose. Rules without consequences--either positive or negative--are useless. In order for objective morality to have any basis, it is absolutely necessary that there is justice. And if we don't see it in this life (and we don't), we must believe that there will really be justice at some point. It is Immanuel Kant's Moral Argument for God.
(1) Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(2) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(3) God exists.
Now, to be sure, an argument that something is true because the alternative is horrendous is not a real argument, and this is, in fact, Kant's argument. The fact remains that if God is not just, moral behavior is not rational. Thus, God's justice is not only a positive affirmation when it rewards those who do good and a negative warning against doing bad, but it is also an essential basis for all moral behavior.
God's justice is important. Perhaps more important than you realized. Oh, and Abraham's question was the ultimate rhetorical question. Of course He will do what is right which, by the way, is the definition of justice.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Be My Valentine
It's Valentine's Day, a day for love. That's the tradition, at least. I wonder if we have a clue what that means. Sorry ... idle meanderings.
Everyone knows the sequence. You meet someone. You grow to like someone. Someday you like them so much you love them. We have that sort of hierarchy in our heads: "Acquainted" -> "Like" -> "Love". Each one is progressively higher. If you like someone, you are already acquainted with them. If you love someone, you already like them. We might hear the exchange between people, "Sure, you like me, but do you love me?" You have the mechanism of "meet", but then chemistry comes into play and you find you connect with that person until more chemistry comes into play and you are now in love. Oh, sure, "love at first sight" may jump right over "like", but you get the idea.
I would like to suggest this isn't entirely accurate even though it is fully accepted.
The Bible lists "love" not as an emotion, but as a command. Don't misunderstand. Every choice you make carries emotional response. You are, for instance, commanded to forgive those who ask. Clearly letting go of an offense will offer an internal emotional response. You feel differently. But the command to forgive is not a command to feel differently; it is a command to forgive. By the same token, we are commanded to love. Love God. Love your neighbor. Husbands, love your wives. God commanded Israel to love "the stranger who sojourns with you." (Lev 19:34) Now, it is not remotely reasonable to think that God was commanding His people to feel a particular way. No one commands their feelings. Your emotions are a response, not a choice. So it is true that the feelings we currently associate with the word "love" are the likely response to the choice God commands to love one another, but the actual love is not an emotion. It is a way of viewing the one loved. It is a seeking for the best for the other, a trust placed in the other, a self-denial in favor of the other. These things can occur without chemistry. They happen by choice.
Today's "love", if it's not sex in the mind of so many, is at least chemistry. We don't know how it happens. We can't really even quantify what it is. It's just a warm feeling, a flood of affection, something not entirely clear. Today's more skeptical scientists have even speculated that it is just that, a biochemical response in the brain. Nothing real. Nothing concrete. Brain chemistry and nothing more. That's not the biblical version.
Two considerations then.
First, when a Christian commits to a spouse, it is "till death do us part". This makes no sense in the modern version of love since everyone knows this emotion ebbs and flows. Some have even altered the vow to say, "till love do us part", as if that makes more sense. But we Christians are operating on a different basis. Biblical love--you know, the one we are commanded to have toward others--is a choice. As such, you can choose to love your wife or your husband till death. Feelings are irrelevant to the question. Conversely, if you do choose to love your spouse regardless of feelings, it is inevitable that the feelings associated with "love" in society today will follow. Christians, honor your vows.
Second, I know of no command in Scripture where we are told to "like". Now, think about "like" for a moment. Why do you like the foods you like? Why do you like the people you like? Why do you like the hobbies or pasttimes you like? Oh, I'm sure you can give some answers, but when you boil it down, I think you'll find that it's little more than ... chemistry. You have a little different structure than the one next to you, so you will have different likes than the one next to you. Simple as that. So, if "love" is a command, a choice you make, and "like" is chemistry, which is more remarkable? To me, I love my wife. I do it regardless of the feelings of the moment. Warm or not, full of affection or not, I love my wife. The warmth and affection are never far away because I love my wife, but my love for my wife is not predicated on those emotions. Thus, to me it is amazing how much I like my wife. I can't tell you why. Oh, I can list things I like, but I can't tell you why I like them. Nor can I offer a suitable explanation of why I like her so much. I just ... do.
It's Valentine's Day. They tell me it is a day started by the Church to celebrate Saint Valentine (turns out there were three of them), some claim in an effort to counter a pagan erotic festival, Lupercalia. How it became a celebration of love and marriage is unclear. But we know it's not limited to lovers. Every school-age child brings valentines to school to give to classmates without regard to love. All that is needed is affection. All that is expected is that you like each other. Love is commanded. It is excellent, a reflection of part of God's nature. Today, while you celebrate that command, why not revel in those you like as well? That is much more of a mystery. By all means love. But why not tell someone you like them today, too?
Everyone knows the sequence. You meet someone. You grow to like someone. Someday you like them so much you love them. We have that sort of hierarchy in our heads: "Acquainted" -> "Like" -> "Love". Each one is progressively higher. If you like someone, you are already acquainted with them. If you love someone, you already like them. We might hear the exchange between people, "Sure, you like me, but do you love me?" You have the mechanism of "meet", but then chemistry comes into play and you find you connect with that person until more chemistry comes into play and you are now in love. Oh, sure, "love at first sight" may jump right over "like", but you get the idea.
I would like to suggest this isn't entirely accurate even though it is fully accepted.
The Bible lists "love" not as an emotion, but as a command. Don't misunderstand. Every choice you make carries emotional response. You are, for instance, commanded to forgive those who ask. Clearly letting go of an offense will offer an internal emotional response. You feel differently. But the command to forgive is not a command to feel differently; it is a command to forgive. By the same token, we are commanded to love. Love God. Love your neighbor. Husbands, love your wives. God commanded Israel to love "the stranger who sojourns with you." (Lev 19:34) Now, it is not remotely reasonable to think that God was commanding His people to feel a particular way. No one commands their feelings. Your emotions are a response, not a choice. So it is true that the feelings we currently associate with the word "love" are the likely response to the choice God commands to love one another, but the actual love is not an emotion. It is a way of viewing the one loved. It is a seeking for the best for the other, a trust placed in the other, a self-denial in favor of the other. These things can occur without chemistry. They happen by choice.
Today's "love", if it's not sex in the mind of so many, is at least chemistry. We don't know how it happens. We can't really even quantify what it is. It's just a warm feeling, a flood of affection, something not entirely clear. Today's more skeptical scientists have even speculated that it is just that, a biochemical response in the brain. Nothing real. Nothing concrete. Brain chemistry and nothing more. That's not the biblical version.
Two considerations then.
First, when a Christian commits to a spouse, it is "till death do us part". This makes no sense in the modern version of love since everyone knows this emotion ebbs and flows. Some have even altered the vow to say, "till love do us part", as if that makes more sense. But we Christians are operating on a different basis. Biblical love--you know, the one we are commanded to have toward others--is a choice. As such, you can choose to love your wife or your husband till death. Feelings are irrelevant to the question. Conversely, if you do choose to love your spouse regardless of feelings, it is inevitable that the feelings associated with "love" in society today will follow. Christians, honor your vows.
Second, I know of no command in Scripture where we are told to "like". Now, think about "like" for a moment. Why do you like the foods you like? Why do you like the people you like? Why do you like the hobbies or pasttimes you like? Oh, I'm sure you can give some answers, but when you boil it down, I think you'll find that it's little more than ... chemistry. You have a little different structure than the one next to you, so you will have different likes than the one next to you. Simple as that. So, if "love" is a command, a choice you make, and "like" is chemistry, which is more remarkable? To me, I love my wife. I do it regardless of the feelings of the moment. Warm or not, full of affection or not, I love my wife. The warmth and affection are never far away because I love my wife, but my love for my wife is not predicated on those emotions. Thus, to me it is amazing how much I like my wife. I can't tell you why. Oh, I can list things I like, but I can't tell you why I like them. Nor can I offer a suitable explanation of why I like her so much. I just ... do.
It's Valentine's Day. They tell me it is a day started by the Church to celebrate Saint Valentine (turns out there were three of them), some claim in an effort to counter a pagan erotic festival, Lupercalia. How it became a celebration of love and marriage is unclear. But we know it's not limited to lovers. Every school-age child brings valentines to school to give to classmates without regard to love. All that is needed is affection. All that is expected is that you like each other. Love is commanded. It is excellent, a reflection of part of God's nature. Today, while you celebrate that command, why not revel in those you like as well? That is much more of a mystery. By all means love. But why not tell someone you like them today, too?
Friday, February 13, 2015
Mac and Tosh
In my younger years we had (unedited) Warner Brothers cartoons with characters like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig ... you know, classics. Two of the lesser known were actually two of my favorites. They were originally in a 1947 cartoon short entitled The Goofy Gophers. People confuse them with Disney's Chip and Dale, but these are not those two. They tell me their names were Mac and Tosh. Fine. The thing that marked these two was their extreme politeness with each other. They laughed at each other's jokes, complimented and complemented each other, worked together perfectly, and deferred to each other to the point of danger. (As the enemy is charging and they seek shelter, "You go first." "No, you first." "Oh, no, I insist." "I simply couldn't." That sort of thing.) You don't actually find that sort of thing in most cartoons ... or other entertainment for that matter. Or even life.
Odd thing. This notion of considering the other person to the extreme is actually something that seems to show up in Scripture. We find it in Paul's description of the attitude required in marital sexual relations. "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Cor 7:3-4) We are commanded "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (Phil 2:3) These in stark opposition to the standard "looking out for number one" attitude of most of our world.
Romans 14 concerns what we call "Christian Liberty". With an opening command "not to quarrel over opinions" (Rom 14:1), the discussion regards things not commanded and, therefore, basically a matter of opinion or personal conviction. For our world, the response is, "Yeah, live and let live. You should let me do what I want!" That is not the idea in Romans 14. The approach there is "decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." (Rom 14:13) The approach there is "let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (Rom 14:19) That is, in matters of opinion, not only should we not be hastening to condemn others, but we should be limiting ourselves.
This is something of a reverse war. Instead of "I think the KJV is the only way to go and you are all pagans for denying it!" followed by "Only a fool would argue 'If it's good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me'!", you might see, "I think that the KJV is the best, but I couldn't imagine imposing that on you." with the response, "Oh, no, I prefer more modern translations, but if it is more edifying to you to read the KJV, I'll read that with you."
It works in lots of places. "I believe that the best church music is the old church music, but if you are best able to glorify God with newer instruments and tunes, who am I to say no?" "Oh, my, if my drums and musical style offend your more traditional worship style, I can't imagine using them to hinder your worship." A host of things. When I was growing up there were some who were offended by playing cards, dice, or even going to movies and others who were not. Today we would include vegetarianism and the like. I even know those today who believe it's a great sin to swim in "mixed company"--men and women together. Matters of opinion over which we could compete to favor others over ourselves.
Mac and Tosh had an interesting approach. On matters of opinion and preference, "you first" is the first response. A genuine preferring of the other over self was the rule. It does not work in matters of clarity. "Well, the Bible clearly says that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I wouldn't want to offend you over that." No, that won't work. "I know that Jesus said He was the only way, but if that kind of exclusiveness is a problem for you, we can just assume that all roads lead to God." That isn't going to fly. But I think it would be amazing if, in matters of preference or opinion not clearly described in Scripture, we could wage reverse war, so to speak, seeking to "outdo one another in showing honor" (Rom 12:10). Seems somewhat "Bibley" to me. Of course, the trick is finding out what Scripture really says. Maybe being biblical is just too much work? That can't be good.
Odd thing. This notion of considering the other person to the extreme is actually something that seems to show up in Scripture. We find it in Paul's description of the attitude required in marital sexual relations. "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Cor 7:3-4) We are commanded "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (Phil 2:3) These in stark opposition to the standard "looking out for number one" attitude of most of our world.
Romans 14 concerns what we call "Christian Liberty". With an opening command "not to quarrel over opinions" (Rom 14:1), the discussion regards things not commanded and, therefore, basically a matter of opinion or personal conviction. For our world, the response is, "Yeah, live and let live. You should let me do what I want!" That is not the idea in Romans 14. The approach there is "decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." (Rom 14:13) The approach there is "let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (Rom 14:19) That is, in matters of opinion, not only should we not be hastening to condemn others, but we should be limiting ourselves.
This is something of a reverse war. Instead of "I think the KJV is the only way to go and you are all pagans for denying it!" followed by "Only a fool would argue 'If it's good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me'!", you might see, "I think that the KJV is the best, but I couldn't imagine imposing that on you." with the response, "Oh, no, I prefer more modern translations, but if it is more edifying to you to read the KJV, I'll read that with you."
It works in lots of places. "I believe that the best church music is the old church music, but if you are best able to glorify God with newer instruments and tunes, who am I to say no?" "Oh, my, if my drums and musical style offend your more traditional worship style, I can't imagine using them to hinder your worship." A host of things. When I was growing up there were some who were offended by playing cards, dice, or even going to movies and others who were not. Today we would include vegetarianism and the like. I even know those today who believe it's a great sin to swim in "mixed company"--men and women together. Matters of opinion over which we could compete to favor others over ourselves.
Mac and Tosh had an interesting approach. On matters of opinion and preference, "you first" is the first response. A genuine preferring of the other over self was the rule. It does not work in matters of clarity. "Well, the Bible clearly says that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I wouldn't want to offend you over that." No, that won't work. "I know that Jesus said He was the only way, but if that kind of exclusiveness is a problem for you, we can just assume that all roads lead to God." That isn't going to fly. But I think it would be amazing if, in matters of preference or opinion not clearly described in Scripture, we could wage reverse war, so to speak, seeking to "outdo one another in showing honor" (Rom 12:10). Seems somewhat "Bibley" to me. Of course, the trick is finding out what Scripture really says. Maybe being biblical is just too much work? That can't be good.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
The Answer is Blowing in the Wind
The president asked Congress for authorization to go to war with ISIS. Or ISIL. Depends on who is saying it. "Boots on the ground" is the term you'll hear. Apparently he's asking for a three-year war. And he intends to cross national boundaries to do it.
What, I wonder, is the target? I mean, you're going to hand weapons to soldiers and tell them to shoot ... what? The experts are saying that ISIS is everywhere. We even have them in the United States. So, who are they shooting? It's interesting that it's a war with a schedule. "Yeah, three years ought to do it." The target must be pretty clearly defined for that kind of timetable accuracy.
I'm being somewhat flippant, I know, but I'm not sure what we're doing. I haven't been for some time. Sending troops to fight ISIS is like putting a ring around the BP oil spill. Sure, you may contain the oil, but you haven't touched the source. And if you don't shut off the source of the spill, containment is pointless and will fail. Like a band aid on a flesh-eating virus.
The problem is not armament and ammunition. The problem is ideology. But the president hasn't seemed to notice. It is "terrorists" without apparent ideology. Like incoherent criminals, killing people without purpose. So if they're not "Islamic terrorists"--just "terrorists"--then there is no ideology behind it and guns ought to solve that problem. Anyone can tell you this isn't the case ... except maybe the president.
Do I think we need troops in the Middle East to combat the ISIS threat? Can't really say. Maybe we have an ideology spill that needs to be contained. But how do we stop the ideology leak? It appears to be pouring out of the Middle East (despite the president's claim that only 0.1% buy that kind of thinking). And if it's everywhere, exactly how does sending troops to the Middle East contain everywhere?
We've waged a "war on drugs" that aimed to catch drug dealers. It hasn't particularly worked because the dealers are supplying customers. As long as there are customers, there will be dealers. We've waged a "war on terror", as if that makes any sense at all. I mean, I have trouble identifying just what a "terrorist" is when I hear the terrifying things they tell me on the evening news. Aren't they terrorists, too? And the goal is to ... what ... shoot the terrorists? So we've contained drugs to some small degree and we've contained terrorists to some small degree, but these are wars without termination because they aren't fighting the problem. So is the solution to the ISIS problem to send troops to shoot people who think like that? Seems like an odd and useless (at best) approach. But, hey, I'm not in the government making these calls. Maybe they know something about thought control and "boots on the ground" that I don't. So if you don't mind, I think I'll put my trust Somewhere Else.
Update
The president has announced that he does not intend to put "boots on the ground". This doesn't change my point. It does bring into question exactly how the president plans to contain the ideology spill without any real containment methods, but apparently he is not planning to do it with troops.
What, I wonder, is the target? I mean, you're going to hand weapons to soldiers and tell them to shoot ... what? The experts are saying that ISIS is everywhere. We even have them in the United States. So, who are they shooting? It's interesting that it's a war with a schedule. "Yeah, three years ought to do it." The target must be pretty clearly defined for that kind of timetable accuracy.
I'm being somewhat flippant, I know, but I'm not sure what we're doing. I haven't been for some time. Sending troops to fight ISIS is like putting a ring around the BP oil spill. Sure, you may contain the oil, but you haven't touched the source. And if you don't shut off the source of the spill, containment is pointless and will fail. Like a band aid on a flesh-eating virus.
The problem is not armament and ammunition. The problem is ideology. But the president hasn't seemed to notice. It is "terrorists" without apparent ideology. Like incoherent criminals, killing people without purpose. So if they're not "Islamic terrorists"--just "terrorists"--then there is no ideology behind it and guns ought to solve that problem. Anyone can tell you this isn't the case ... except maybe the president.
Do I think we need troops in the Middle East to combat the ISIS threat? Can't really say. Maybe we have an ideology spill that needs to be contained. But how do we stop the ideology leak? It appears to be pouring out of the Middle East (despite the president's claim that only 0.1% buy that kind of thinking). And if it's everywhere, exactly how does sending troops to the Middle East contain everywhere?
We've waged a "war on drugs" that aimed to catch drug dealers. It hasn't particularly worked because the dealers are supplying customers. As long as there are customers, there will be dealers. We've waged a "war on terror", as if that makes any sense at all. I mean, I have trouble identifying just what a "terrorist" is when I hear the terrifying things they tell me on the evening news. Aren't they terrorists, too? And the goal is to ... what ... shoot the terrorists? So we've contained drugs to some small degree and we've contained terrorists to some small degree, but these are wars without termination because they aren't fighting the problem. So is the solution to the ISIS problem to send troops to shoot people who think like that? Seems like an odd and useless (at best) approach. But, hey, I'm not in the government making these calls. Maybe they know something about thought control and "boots on the ground" that I don't. So if you don't mind, I think I'll put my trust Somewhere Else.
Update
The president has announced that he does not intend to put "boots on the ground". This doesn't change my point. It does bring into question exactly how the president plans to contain the ideology spill without any real containment methods, but apparently he is not planning to do it with troops.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Did God Know?
In the whole discussion of God and the existence of evil, there is this constant intent to rescue God from the skeptic who seems to be bent on assigning evil to God. We can't have that. We'll argue it out of existence. I've come across a question, though, that might give you something to think about.
We read in Genesis "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) and, ultimately, "behold, it was very good." (Gen 1:31) In the third chapter of Genesis, then, we are introduced to the serpent who "was more crafty than any other beast." (Gen 3:1) Well, you know the story. He tempts Eve. Eve succumbs and gives of the fruit to Adam. God is not pleased. Oh, wait. What fruit? Well, it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9), the tree that God put in the garden and the fruit that God forbade Adam to eat (Gen 2:17).
Okay, so Adam and Eve are now sinners because they choose to violate God's direct command not to eat of the fruit of the tree that He put in the garden. So far, so good. Here's the question. Did God know they would do that before they did?
You see, if God knew, then God planned for it. No, He didn't make them choose to eat the fruit. Nothing would suggest that in the slightest. But if He knew they would and there was no demand that He put that tree in the garden (and there was no such demand because He is the ultimate authority), it would seem to be inescapable that, regardless of your conclusions as to why or how, God planned the sequence that occurred. "Here's the tree; don't eat of it." They did. There are consequences. That is, evil occurred at the hands of the creation, but with the prior knowledge and, therefore, allowance (for whatever purposes He might have) of the evil that occurred. He didn't cause it, but it was part of His design.
We all agree that God is not the cause of sin. No question (James 1:13-14). But then we use terms like "author of sin" and I'm not sure what is meant. If you believe in the Omniscience of God, you're going to have to think through how it is that God would know what Adam would do with the fruit if God put it there and why, knowing that, He would do it. Of course, if you don't believe in the Omniscience of God, but prefer the "guess" of God like some today ("God knows every possibility but can only guess as to what will actually happen.), then you're home free. Oh, a different God than what the Bible portrays, but yours is home free. ("I didn't know that would happen. I couldn't do anything to stop it. I'll have to figure out how to clean up this mess somehow.") For the rest, however, is it possible that God knew, allowed it anyway, and did so with His good purposes in mind? If so, that is an answer to the objection of "capricious evil". Doesn't exist. Evil has a purpose (and is, therefore, not capricious). Don't know for sure what it is, but God does and, as such, it must be a good one. Or maybe you have another answer?
We read in Genesis "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) and, ultimately, "behold, it was very good." (Gen 1:31) In the third chapter of Genesis, then, we are introduced to the serpent who "was more crafty than any other beast." (Gen 3:1) Well, you know the story. He tempts Eve. Eve succumbs and gives of the fruit to Adam. God is not pleased. Oh, wait. What fruit? Well, it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9), the tree that God put in the garden and the fruit that God forbade Adam to eat (Gen 2:17).
Okay, so Adam and Eve are now sinners because they choose to violate God's direct command not to eat of the fruit of the tree that He put in the garden. So far, so good. Here's the question. Did God know they would do that before they did?
You see, if God knew, then God planned for it. No, He didn't make them choose to eat the fruit. Nothing would suggest that in the slightest. But if He knew they would and there was no demand that He put that tree in the garden (and there was no such demand because He is the ultimate authority), it would seem to be inescapable that, regardless of your conclusions as to why or how, God planned the sequence that occurred. "Here's the tree; don't eat of it." They did. There are consequences. That is, evil occurred at the hands of the creation, but with the prior knowledge and, therefore, allowance (for whatever purposes He might have) of the evil that occurred. He didn't cause it, but it was part of His design.
We all agree that God is not the cause of sin. No question (James 1:13-14). But then we use terms like "author of sin" and I'm not sure what is meant. If you believe in the Omniscience of God, you're going to have to think through how it is that God would know what Adam would do with the fruit if God put it there and why, knowing that, He would do it. Of course, if you don't believe in the Omniscience of God, but prefer the "guess" of God like some today ("God knows every possibility but can only guess as to what will actually happen.), then you're home free. Oh, a different God than what the Bible portrays, but yours is home free. ("I didn't know that would happen. I couldn't do anything to stop it. I'll have to figure out how to clean up this mess somehow.") For the rest, however, is it possible that God knew, allowed it anyway, and did so with His good purposes in mind? If so, that is an answer to the objection of "capricious evil". Doesn't exist. Evil has a purpose (and is, therefore, not capricious). Don't know for sure what it is, but God does and, as such, it must be a good one. Or maybe you have another answer?
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Origins
We can debate the origins of the universe till the cows come home (and where did they come from before they came home?). I have a suspicion that we have a bigger problem. Sure, we can't agree on the origins of the universe, but I am convinced that an inordinate number of people today can't figure out where lots of ordinary things come from, and that can be seriously detrimental.
I'm dismayed at the failure of too many people today to grasp the origins of simple things like food. When an Internet personage showed a photo of herself standing next to a buck she shot, the Internet was outraged. "Why don't you go buy your meat in a store where no animals are killed?" was actually among the comments. The dispute over "processed foods" (as if there are foods that aren't actually processed in some sense) versus "GMOs" (genetically modified organisms, as if something we are eating has never had any modifications at all) versus "organic foods" (without any really clear definition) and "health foods" (with even less definition) indicates that we don't know where that stuff is coming from and all we really want is for you to label it so we will feel better about it.
I'm quite sure that the vast majority of people today do not grasp basic economics. That paper that you use to pay for your Starbucks has almost no value. Even less the bits of data you use to transfer funds from your bank to the website to buy the book you want. Even less the air you use to purchase on credit the things you can't afford. That's worth only potential. No, paper is only valued insofar as it represents shared value of something else. Work you did, goods you sold, valuable metals (like gold), something of genuine value. The paper in your wallet is only valuable as far as it represents something real. Oh, and that "real" keeps changing. A dollar in 1950 would buy what $9.95 would in 2015 money. Inflation, you know. Yet, the government keeps printing money (or just transfers "it"--is if "it" was something real--electronically) and the national debt keeps rising and demands for increased minimum wages never cease. A popular bookstore in San Francisco is closing its doors in March because San Franciscans voted to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour as if the money is just sitting in a pile somewhere and any business that needs it can go draw from it to pay their employees ... and any that doesn't is a dirty, rotten, miserly company. Over and over on the topic of economics people seem to fail to grasp that economics is the management of limited resources. It is a balance of income and outflow and takes all sorts of variations and vagaries into account. Separated from those limited resources by paper money, electronic transfers, and credit cards, they think it just exists and anyone who wants it should be able to have it.
The question of origins isn't limited to a confused society. I also find it in Christian circles. Where does doctrine come from? (I hear people calling themselves Christians arguing that "We need to change our beliefs" as if truth is something on which we can vote.) Where do traditions come from? (Protestants like to dismiss tradition as if it's a Catholic evil, but Paul encouraged it (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6).) We all know that Christianity is a religion of morals, right? I mean, aren't all religions about morality? I actually find Christians holding to this idea. In nearly violent response, I'll also find other Christians who say, "No! There is nothing about morality in Christianity! We are free from the law!" Both sides are missing it. Christianity begins with the Gospel. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9). That means we need saving, first, and, second, that we can't do it ourselves (the bad news). But Christ died on our behalf and rose again and faith in Him can save because of His grace. Let's see ... so far ... nope, nothing about "be good". But, Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Cause and effect. "You love Me" produces "you will keep My commandments." Necessarily. John wrote that he who is born of God cannot sin continually "because the seed of God abides in him" (1 John 3:9). "Cannot". So the ethic of salvation is grace through faith and the ethic of Christian living is a grateful heart necessarily producing obedience. But too many Christians don't get that. So they're either working to be a good Christian or refusing to work at all in order to be a good Christian. Both fail to see origins.
It's everywhere. We don't know where it came from and, thus, what it means or how it works. Ignorance or apathy, it isn't good. The problems this failure causes are manifold. And going down these trails without origins only leads to more ignorance and apathy. It can't be a good thing.
I'm dismayed at the failure of too many people today to grasp the origins of simple things like food. When an Internet personage showed a photo of herself standing next to a buck she shot, the Internet was outraged. "Why don't you go buy your meat in a store where no animals are killed?" was actually among the comments. The dispute over "processed foods" (as if there are foods that aren't actually processed in some sense) versus "GMOs" (genetically modified organisms, as if something we are eating has never had any modifications at all) versus "organic foods" (without any really clear definition) and "health foods" (with even less definition) indicates that we don't know where that stuff is coming from and all we really want is for you to label it so we will feel better about it.
I'm quite sure that the vast majority of people today do not grasp basic economics. That paper that you use to pay for your Starbucks has almost no value. Even less the bits of data you use to transfer funds from your bank to the website to buy the book you want. Even less the air you use to purchase on credit the things you can't afford. That's worth only potential. No, paper is only valued insofar as it represents shared value of something else. Work you did, goods you sold, valuable metals (like gold), something of genuine value. The paper in your wallet is only valuable as far as it represents something real. Oh, and that "real" keeps changing. A dollar in 1950 would buy what $9.95 would in 2015 money. Inflation, you know. Yet, the government keeps printing money (or just transfers "it"--is if "it" was something real--electronically) and the national debt keeps rising and demands for increased minimum wages never cease. A popular bookstore in San Francisco is closing its doors in March because San Franciscans voted to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour as if the money is just sitting in a pile somewhere and any business that needs it can go draw from it to pay their employees ... and any that doesn't is a dirty, rotten, miserly company. Over and over on the topic of economics people seem to fail to grasp that economics is the management of limited resources. It is a balance of income and outflow and takes all sorts of variations and vagaries into account. Separated from those limited resources by paper money, electronic transfers, and credit cards, they think it just exists and anyone who wants it should be able to have it.
The question of origins isn't limited to a confused society. I also find it in Christian circles. Where does doctrine come from? (I hear people calling themselves Christians arguing that "We need to change our beliefs" as if truth is something on which we can vote.) Where do traditions come from? (Protestants like to dismiss tradition as if it's a Catholic evil, but Paul encouraged it (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6).) We all know that Christianity is a religion of morals, right? I mean, aren't all religions about morality? I actually find Christians holding to this idea. In nearly violent response, I'll also find other Christians who say, "No! There is nothing about morality in Christianity! We are free from the law!" Both sides are missing it. Christianity begins with the Gospel. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9). That means we need saving, first, and, second, that we can't do it ourselves (the bad news). But Christ died on our behalf and rose again and faith in Him can save because of His grace. Let's see ... so far ... nope, nothing about "be good". But, Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Cause and effect. "You love Me" produces "you will keep My commandments." Necessarily. John wrote that he who is born of God cannot sin continually "because the seed of God abides in him" (1 John 3:9). "Cannot". So the ethic of salvation is grace through faith and the ethic of Christian living is a grateful heart necessarily producing obedience. But too many Christians don't get that. So they're either working to be a good Christian or refusing to work at all in order to be a good Christian. Both fail to see origins.
It's everywhere. We don't know where it came from and, thus, what it means or how it works. Ignorance or apathy, it isn't good. The problems this failure causes are manifold. And going down these trails without origins only leads to more ignorance and apathy. It can't be a good thing.
Monday, February 09, 2015
Extremists
The President started a conflagration over his comparison of Christianity with Islam or, to be more precise, comparing the Crusades with ISIS. (Is that finally an admission that ISIS is Islamic? Naw.) But he still defends Islam. In an interview with CNN, President Obama suggested that less than 1% of Muslims agree with Islamic terrorists.
That, in fact, is the real difficulty in the argument. Here, let's see if I can reword the president to help you see the problem.
The truth is that when you compare the "instruction manual" for each religion--the Bible for Christianity or the Quran for Islam--you find two different religions going on. In the case of Christianity, the fundamental commands are "repent" and "love God" and "love your neighbor" (Of these last two Jesus said, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:40).) On the notion of using any sort of violence to promote the religion, everything in Scripture screams against it. We arrive by faith, not by coercion. We are called to turn the other cheek, to love sacrificially, to love our enemies. Nothing in fundamental Christianity allows for terrorism or violence in the furtherance of the Gospel. Contrast that with Islam. The commands are repeated to kill, to shun, to defeat infidels. Pleasantries like "Strike off their heads" and "strike off the very tips of their fingers" are included. They are commanded to "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" and to "make war on unbelievers."
So, we have two religions and two sets of adherents of these religions. In Christendom, you have those who offer violence in the name of Christ, but they do so against the biblical teachings. In Islam, you have those who offer violence in the name of Allah, and they do so in accordance with the Quran. In Christendom, you have those who seek first to love in the name of Christ, and they do so in accordance with biblical teachings. In Islam you have those who seek peace with others, but they do so in violation of the teachings of the Quran. In summary, then, both religions have their violent followers. In Christianity they violate Christ's teachings and in Islam they agree with Mohammed.
If "Muslim extremist" means "those who carefully follow the Quran and kill infidels", then "Christian extremist" refers to "those who follow the Bible and love God and their neighbors." Somehow these two do not seem to be the same thing.
Postscript
I need to clarify this. Here are two other angles from which to see my point.
Fundamentalists
In Christendom, there are the "liberals", people who have taken the Bible and altered orthodoxy in order to align it with modern views. Thus, clear texts like "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) or "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3) do not mean what they clearly say ... as they have always been understood. These have "helpfully" redefined Scripture to mean something new.
In Islam there are those (and I've known some) who have taken the Quran and altered its meaning. Clear texts have become mystical, allegorical, myth, but certainly not literal. "Yes," they tell me, "it says to cut off the head of the infidel, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to do that." These are the "liberals" of the Islamic world.
Both religions have them. Both have "fundamentalists" who say, "Oh, no, we're sticking with the original texts and their original meanings and we're not going to allow anyone to redefine the faith for us."
For Islam, those fundamentalists will kill infidels. For Christianity those fundamentalists will turn the other cheek. Really not the same thing.
Reformation
By "reformation" I mean returning to the original. For Islam that would be the 7th century. For Christianity that would be the first couple of centuries of the modern era. The president said that some 0.1% of Muslims (and I seriously question that number) want to return Islam to a "medieval interpretation of Islam"--it's origins. In the Reformation (and in many current circles of Christianity), the aim was to return Christianity to its origins--the first couple of centuries.
What was original Christianity like? They shared all things in common. They were marked by their detractors as people who loved one another. They were pacifists, almost to the extreme. When Roman emperors declared that those who didn't bow to the emperor as God would be executed, they volunteered for execution.
What was original Islam like? Mohammed was a warrior (among other things). His followers carried on his legacy, expanding Islam by force of arms. The Crusades were not an incursion, but an effort to stop Islamic incursion.
The president pointed to the Crusades and the Inquisition and Christians today point with him at an evil, not a good. Islamic jihadists point to the death and destruction of their past and to that of today's warriors and applaud it. Not the same thing. A number of Christians today long to turn Christianity back to its original form. Millions (and the number is growing) of Muslims today want to return Islam back to its original form. Those two forms are diametrically opposed. The only comparison that can be made is not in their similarity, but in their vast differences.
"You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam, and they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world,” said Obama.It's a difficult argument to make if you ask me. I would suggest that studies say something quite different. It would seem that those who live under an Islamic government are much more likely to agree with Islamic rule, and genuine Islamic rule calls for violence against infidels. That's why CNN could film people cheering for the 9/11 attack. It wasn't a minority. It was a crowd.
That, in fact, is the real difficulty in the argument. Here, let's see if I can reword the president to help you see the problem.
"You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Christian communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced an interpretation of Christianity that goes back to its origins, and they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world.”Do you see it now?
The truth is that when you compare the "instruction manual" for each religion--the Bible for Christianity or the Quran for Islam--you find two different religions going on. In the case of Christianity, the fundamental commands are "repent" and "love God" and "love your neighbor" (Of these last two Jesus said, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:40).) On the notion of using any sort of violence to promote the religion, everything in Scripture screams against it. We arrive by faith, not by coercion. We are called to turn the other cheek, to love sacrificially, to love our enemies. Nothing in fundamental Christianity allows for terrorism or violence in the furtherance of the Gospel. Contrast that with Islam. The commands are repeated to kill, to shun, to defeat infidels. Pleasantries like "Strike off their heads" and "strike off the very tips of their fingers" are included. They are commanded to "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" and to "make war on unbelievers."
So, we have two religions and two sets of adherents of these religions. In Christendom, you have those who offer violence in the name of Christ, but they do so against the biblical teachings. In Islam, you have those who offer violence in the name of Allah, and they do so in accordance with the Quran. In Christendom, you have those who seek first to love in the name of Christ, and they do so in accordance with biblical teachings. In Islam you have those who seek peace with others, but they do so in violation of the teachings of the Quran. In summary, then, both religions have their violent followers. In Christianity they violate Christ's teachings and in Islam they agree with Mohammed.
If "Muslim extremist" means "those who carefully follow the Quran and kill infidels", then "Christian extremist" refers to "those who follow the Bible and love God and their neighbors." Somehow these two do not seem to be the same thing.
Postscript
I need to clarify this. Here are two other angles from which to see my point.
Fundamentalists
In Christendom, there are the "liberals", people who have taken the Bible and altered orthodoxy in order to align it with modern views. Thus, clear texts like "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) or "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:3) do not mean what they clearly say ... as they have always been understood. These have "helpfully" redefined Scripture to mean something new.
In Islam there are those (and I've known some) who have taken the Quran and altered its meaning. Clear texts have become mystical, allegorical, myth, but certainly not literal. "Yes," they tell me, "it says to cut off the head of the infidel, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to do that." These are the "liberals" of the Islamic world.
Both religions have them. Both have "fundamentalists" who say, "Oh, no, we're sticking with the original texts and their original meanings and we're not going to allow anyone to redefine the faith for us."
For Islam, those fundamentalists will kill infidels. For Christianity those fundamentalists will turn the other cheek. Really not the same thing.
Reformation
By "reformation" I mean returning to the original. For Islam that would be the 7th century. For Christianity that would be the first couple of centuries of the modern era. The president said that some 0.1% of Muslims (and I seriously question that number) want to return Islam to a "medieval interpretation of Islam"--it's origins. In the Reformation (and in many current circles of Christianity), the aim was to return Christianity to its origins--the first couple of centuries.
What was original Christianity like? They shared all things in common. They were marked by their detractors as people who loved one another. They were pacifists, almost to the extreme. When Roman emperors declared that those who didn't bow to the emperor as God would be executed, they volunteered for execution.
What was original Islam like? Mohammed was a warrior (among other things). His followers carried on his legacy, expanding Islam by force of arms. The Crusades were not an incursion, but an effort to stop Islamic incursion.
The president pointed to the Crusades and the Inquisition and Christians today point with him at an evil, not a good. Islamic jihadists point to the death and destruction of their past and to that of today's warriors and applaud it. Not the same thing. A number of Christians today long to turn Christianity back to its original form. Millions (and the number is growing) of Muslims today want to return Islam back to its original form. Those two forms are diametrically opposed. The only comparison that can be made is not in their similarity, but in their vast differences.
Sunday, February 08, 2015
Fear
I suspect that every one of us has something we fear. At least one. For children it's easy things like "the dark" or "that thing under the bed" or something like that. As we age, we become more sophisticated. Mostly it's the unknown. The more you know, the more sophisticated your fears become. We understand "the dark" and we know there is no "thing under the bed", but marriage or money or position or prestige or pain or employment or ... these things--these unknowns--can be really scary. I read genuine Christians who tell me "I'll never get married" because they see all the hardships and heartaches that occur these days from marital difficulties and divorce. I hear genuine believers who tell me, "I'm afraid of the future because I don't know if I can prepare for it" in things like economic security or retirement. We, even Christians, all have fears.
Interesting, then, that the Bible says over and over "fear not". Further, almost every "fear not" verse you can find is predicated on "I will help them"--God's work. Over and over we read that we have no need to fear because God is on our side, God is at work, God will take care of us. This thinking is epitomized in Paul's "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." (Phil 4:6) Nice to know.
Equally interesting is this one verse that says to "fear not" and to fear. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28) That is, what's going on in this world isn't anything to fear. On the other hand, that is not to say that there is nothing to fear. Fear God. Indeed, that command/warning is another repeated theme in Scripture. God is someone to fear. In a positive sense, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." (Prov 9:10) In a negative sense, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:18) (That's a bad thing.) James writes, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!" (James 2:19) That is, humans (believers and unbelievers) have no problem with God--"no fear"--but demons are smart enough to be afraid of Him.
In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when Lucy heard of Aslan, she asked if He was safe. Mrs. Beaver replied, "Safe? Oh, no. But He is good." That's the God we serve. The right response of sinful Man to a Holy God is fear. Anything less isn't sane. Not mind-numbing fear. Not crippling fear. But to fail to recognize that "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31) is not safe or wise. God is someone indeed to fear.
We all have things we fear. I would suspect that the vast majority of them don't actually deserve the fear we give them. Strange, then, that the One who rightly deserves our fear seems to get so little of it. Something to work on, I think.
Interesting, then, that the Bible says over and over "fear not". Further, almost every "fear not" verse you can find is predicated on "I will help them"--God's work. Over and over we read that we have no need to fear because God is on our side, God is at work, God will take care of us. This thinking is epitomized in Paul's "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." (Phil 4:6) Nice to know.
Equally interesting is this one verse that says to "fear not" and to fear. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28) That is, what's going on in this world isn't anything to fear. On the other hand, that is not to say that there is nothing to fear. Fear God. Indeed, that command/warning is another repeated theme in Scripture. God is someone to fear. In a positive sense, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." (Prov 9:10) In a negative sense, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:18) (That's a bad thing.) James writes, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!" (James 2:19) That is, humans (believers and unbelievers) have no problem with God--"no fear"--but demons are smart enough to be afraid of Him.
In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when Lucy heard of Aslan, she asked if He was safe. Mrs. Beaver replied, "Safe? Oh, no. But He is good." That's the God we serve. The right response of sinful Man to a Holy God is fear. Anything less isn't sane. Not mind-numbing fear. Not crippling fear. But to fail to recognize that "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31) is not safe or wise. God is someone indeed to fear.
We all have things we fear. I would suspect that the vast majority of them don't actually deserve the fear we give them. Strange, then, that the One who rightly deserves our fear seems to get so little of it. Something to work on, I think.
Saturday, February 07, 2015
As Predicted
You can't make this stuff up. Filed under the 'told you so heading, a woman in Houston married herself.
I've complained (often) in the past that the definition of marriage being imposed on us by the 2.5% and the courts has no substance. This redefining of marriage is removing a definition. Here, look in any dictionary for a definition. Regardless of which one you take, there is a common core--union. Whether it is interpersonal relationships or some sort of melding of, say, technology and art, for instance, it is a union. But as this woman illustrates, our version today is without definition.
It would appear that I have been wrong all along. I've claimed consistently that it is a redefinition of marriage to include "gay marriage". It is not. It is an undefinition. It is a removal of definition. So when they ask, "What difference will it make if we allow gay marriage?" I will point to that. It isn't inclusion. It is dissolution. Marriage itself is being dissolved. And I find no one offering any rationale to suggest that marrying herself or marrying your pet or marrying three other people should not be included since we appear to no longer have a definition of the term. Oh, the humanity! Who will stand up for the rights of those who wish to marry their fence?? Whatever "marry" might mean.
I've complained (often) in the past that the definition of marriage being imposed on us by the 2.5% and the courts has no substance. This redefining of marriage is removing a definition. Here, look in any dictionary for a definition. Regardless of which one you take, there is a common core--union. Whether it is interpersonal relationships or some sort of melding of, say, technology and art, for instance, it is a union. But as this woman illustrates, our version today is without definition.
It would appear that I have been wrong all along. I've claimed consistently that it is a redefinition of marriage to include "gay marriage". It is not. It is an undefinition. It is a removal of definition. So when they ask, "What difference will it make if we allow gay marriage?" I will point to that. It isn't inclusion. It is dissolution. Marriage itself is being dissolved. And I find no one offering any rationale to suggest that marrying herself or marrying your pet or marrying three other people should not be included since we appear to no longer have a definition of the term. Oh, the humanity! Who will stand up for the rights of those who wish to marry their fence?? Whatever "marry" might mean.
Friday, February 06, 2015
Love Is
Last year Psychology Today published an article entitled 7 Reasons Most People Are Afraid of Love. (Interesting ... is it true that "most people are afraid to love", or are they intending to say "For those who are afraid to love, here are the 7 common reasons"?) The truth everyone knows that "love hurts". I mean, didn't Nazareth tell us so? (The band, not the place.) How many songs have been written about how tough it is to love and lose? And we have to be constantly reminded, "It's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all." All very noble sounding. Because, as everyone knows, love hurts.
I wonder if our modern concept of "love" has caused more harm than good. We've come to believe that "romance" = love. We're quite sure that love is that warm feeling, that ache in the pit of your stomach, that goo-goo eyes thing going on between ... well, we're not sure about that anymore. Two people of the opposite sex? Same sex? More than two? Hey, maybe it's that woman and her 12 cats. She loves them, doesn't she? Who knows? But we know what it is. Of one thing we are quite certain. There is only one "right person" for any one of us. That's why the 5th Dimension could sing "I'll never get married" because, after all, his one true love was marrying someone else. And we weep for them.
Except ... no one seems to ask if it's true.
According to that Psychology Today article, there are lots of reason we're afraid to love. There is the vulnerability of love. There are the past hurts of love. There is the threat of pain that joy brings. There is the fear of unrequited love. There is the fear of disconnection from family or friends. There is (inexplicably) the fear of having too much. It's interesting to me that all the fears listed are predicated on ... me. What will I feel? How will I hurt? What will I lose? What will it cost me? Is that love?
Well, it's surely love today. But the biblical version includes such things as "does not pursue its own things," "believes all things," and "bears all things." (1 Cor 13:4-8). In fact, in that description, I can't find a single reference to "what I get out of it." That seems quite in contradiction to our modern version of love. All about "how I feel" and "what I get", that version seems to be "what I have to contribute" and "what you gain."
I think that, perhaps, our present version of love has created a monster never intended or required by the biblical version. The Puritans, for instance, "married for love", not because they were "in love", but because they could love. The question was "Are you mature enough to give of yourself to another person?" That version of love was a sacrificial attempt to obtain what was in the best interests of the other person. Oddly enough, that doesn't require warm feelings or the loss of appetite. Giving to another for that other, not for what you will gain, can't be nearly as painful as our current version. A marriage predicated on "I will give of myself to get what is best for you" can achieve a "100%" status rather than the hopeful "50-50" version we desire today. A marriage where both spouses do this, then, achieve a "200%" marriage, so to speak, where both give their all for each other regardless of the return.
Personally, I would hope that God doesn't suffer from our version of love. If He only loved those from whom He could get a satisfactory return, we'd be in real trouble. But He doesn't. And we can only be relieved and overjoyed at that. But us? We seem to think that love is some sort of unknown chemistry from which all important decisions--who to care about, who to marry, with whom to have children, even who to discard--are made. Based almost exclusively on "if it feels good, do it", we Christians go through life seeking to "feel affectionately toward our neighbors as we feel affectionately toward ourselves" and to "feel warmly toward God" as if these were the intent.
I suspect we've slipped a cog here and don't recognize it. Sure, warm feelings will likely result from pouring yourself into the best interests of another, but is that the definition of love? Or have we succumbed to a watered down version that only vaguely connects to the one God intended but is guaranteed to cause you great pain in life? If so, is that really God's intent or is it possible that an enemy of God is behind this?
I wonder if our modern concept of "love" has caused more harm than good. We've come to believe that "romance" = love. We're quite sure that love is that warm feeling, that ache in the pit of your stomach, that goo-goo eyes thing going on between ... well, we're not sure about that anymore. Two people of the opposite sex? Same sex? More than two? Hey, maybe it's that woman and her 12 cats. She loves them, doesn't she? Who knows? But we know what it is. Of one thing we are quite certain. There is only one "right person" for any one of us. That's why the 5th Dimension could sing "I'll never get married" because, after all, his one true love was marrying someone else. And we weep for them.
Except ... no one seems to ask if it's true.
According to that Psychology Today article, there are lots of reason we're afraid to love. There is the vulnerability of love. There are the past hurts of love. There is the threat of pain that joy brings. There is the fear of unrequited love. There is the fear of disconnection from family or friends. There is (inexplicably) the fear of having too much. It's interesting to me that all the fears listed are predicated on ... me. What will I feel? How will I hurt? What will I lose? What will it cost me? Is that love?
Well, it's surely love today. But the biblical version includes such things as "does not pursue its own things," "believes all things," and "bears all things." (1 Cor 13:4-8). In fact, in that description, I can't find a single reference to "what I get out of it." That seems quite in contradiction to our modern version of love. All about "how I feel" and "what I get", that version seems to be "what I have to contribute" and "what you gain."
I think that, perhaps, our present version of love has created a monster never intended or required by the biblical version. The Puritans, for instance, "married for love", not because they were "in love", but because they could love. The question was "Are you mature enough to give of yourself to another person?" That version of love was a sacrificial attempt to obtain what was in the best interests of the other person. Oddly enough, that doesn't require warm feelings or the loss of appetite. Giving to another for that other, not for what you will gain, can't be nearly as painful as our current version. A marriage predicated on "I will give of myself to get what is best for you" can achieve a "100%" status rather than the hopeful "50-50" version we desire today. A marriage where both spouses do this, then, achieve a "200%" marriage, so to speak, where both give their all for each other regardless of the return.
Personally, I would hope that God doesn't suffer from our version of love. If He only loved those from whom He could get a satisfactory return, we'd be in real trouble. But He doesn't. And we can only be relieved and overjoyed at that. But us? We seem to think that love is some sort of unknown chemistry from which all important decisions--who to care about, who to marry, with whom to have children, even who to discard--are made. Based almost exclusively on "if it feels good, do it", we Christians go through life seeking to "feel affectionately toward our neighbors as we feel affectionately toward ourselves" and to "feel warmly toward God" as if these were the intent.
I suspect we've slipped a cog here and don't recognize it. Sure, warm feelings will likely result from pouring yourself into the best interests of another, but is that the definition of love? Or have we succumbed to a watered down version that only vaguely connects to the one God intended but is guaranteed to cause you great pain in life? If so, is that really God's intent or is it possible that an enemy of God is behind this?
Thursday, February 05, 2015
The Religion Du Jour
The movie Ironclad (2011) stars James Purefoy as a Knight Templar who sets out with a small band of men to defend a castle against an invasion after the signing of the Magna Carta (1215). Now, the Knights Templar were a kind of hybrid between priest and soldier, technically called "the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon" (thus, Templar Knights), who took vows of poverty, chastity, piety, and obedience while fighting for Christ (at least in theory). So we have this Knight Templar who, at the castle he is defending, meets the wife of the lord of the castle, a pretty young thing married by convenience without love. And there is, behind the gruesome physical conflict, an equally gruesome spiritual one. Will he stay true to his vows, or will he succumb to the pretty young thing who wants him?
Of course, at the peak of the physical conflict the young wife decides to urge this soldier of Christ to sleep with her because, as all Hollywood knows, that's what young women do. They seduce men every chance they get. She doesn't argue, however, against his apathy toward her. No, he's not apathetic. She argues against his faith. She asks why he allows his vows to outweigh his desires.
And there, folks, you have it. This (fictional) character (a clear product of Hollywood in this day and age) has stated the primary religion in America (and beyond) today. I mean, sure, there are important things in life. Marriage, causes, God ... there are important things. But nothing--not spouse or family or country or God should come in the way of your desires. That's the religion of the day.
Kind of like what Peter said.
Of course, at the peak of the physical conflict the young wife decides to urge this soldier of Christ to sleep with her because, as all Hollywood knows, that's what young women do. They seduce men every chance they get. She doesn't argue, however, against his apathy toward her. No, he's not apathetic. She argues against his faith. She asks why he allows his vows to outweigh his desires.
And there, folks, you have it. This (fictional) character (a clear product of Hollywood in this day and age) has stated the primary religion in America (and beyond) today. I mean, sure, there are important things in life. Marriage, causes, God ... there are important things. But nothing--not spouse or family or country or God should come in the way of your desires. That's the religion of the day.
Kind of like what Peter said.
The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:9-10)That's our world, our religion du jour. Indulging the flesh in its corrupt desires and despising authority. If only it didn't also describe a large portion of people who call themselves Christians but indulge corrupt desires and despise the authority of the Word and the church.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
Scripture
Now this is interesting. I have been repeatedly assured that the Bible is not as reliable as I seem to think, that all references in the New Testament to "Scriptures" are to the Old Testament (bringing into question whether or not they believed the New Testament was actually "Scripture"), and the Bible makes no claim to being God's Word. All of this is intended to assure us that we do not have a reliable source document for the Christian faith, thank you very much.
As it turns out, this isn't actually accurate.
First, we know that Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (2 Tim 3:16) So, "Scripture" is "inspired by God"--literally "God-breathed". Then we have this interesting text in one of Peter's epistles where he groups Paul's writings with "the rest of Scripture" (2 Peter 3:14-16). So, we do have precedent where a New Testament writer refers to another New Testament writing as "Scripture". And, remember, "All Scripture is inspired by God."
Then there's this, that "interesting" thing I referenced at the beginning. In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy that elders are worthy of double honor. He tells why.
Okay, so we know that "All Scripture is inspired by God", and no one disputes that the Old Testament we use today was referenced by New Testament characters (including Jesus) as "Scripture". But we also have two references here to New Testament writings as "Scripture", included, then, as "God-breathed".
Don't think you're doing us any favors by trying to undercut the Bible as the God-breathed truth from God.
As it turns out, this isn't actually accurate.
First, we know that Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (2 Tim 3:16) So, "Scripture" is "inspired by God"--literally "God-breathed". Then we have this interesting text in one of Peter's epistles where he groups Paul's writings with "the rest of Scripture" (2 Peter 3:14-16). So, we do have precedent where a New Testament writer refers to another New Testament writing as "Scripture". And, remember, "All Scripture is inspired by God."
Then there's this, that "interesting" thing I referenced at the beginning. In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy that elders are worthy of double honor. He tells why.
For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." (1 Tim 5:18)We know that first quote comes from the Old Testament because it's in all capital letters. Okay, not really. That's just a New American Standard method of pointing out Old Testament references. It comes directly from Deuteronomy 25:4, word for word. Fine. We get that the Old Testament was "Scripture" in the New Testament times. No problem. But what about that second reference? Look all you want. It's not in the Old Testament. Do you know where we find it?
"Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. (Luke 10:7)Wait, that's New Testament. It is Jesus talking. Now, remember, Luke was Paul's traveling companion. So Paul is referring to Luke here as "Scripture".
Okay, so we know that "All Scripture is inspired by God", and no one disputes that the Old Testament we use today was referenced by New Testament characters (including Jesus) as "Scripture". But we also have two references here to New Testament writings as "Scripture", included, then, as "God-breathed".
Don't think you're doing us any favors by trying to undercut the Bible as the God-breathed truth from God.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Liar Liar
Have you ever seen the movie, Liar Liar? Jim Carrey plays a lawyer without apparent scruples who finds himself the victim of his son's birthday wish that he couldn't lie for 24 hours. What follows is funny and, behind it, thought provoking.
Have you ever considered what your life would be like if you could not lie? I don't mean what many might mean. There are those (no small number, I think) that believe that "not lying" means "always saying everything". If you withhold information that no one requested, that's a lie. If you don't tell your spouse about a childhood friend, you're a liar. I'm not talking about that kind of honesty. I'm simply talking about no longer being deceptive. You wouldn't embellish stories to make yourself look better or someone else worse. You wouldn't make up excuses that aren't true because the true reason you're not going to that family gathering is you can't stand Aunt Mavis. You wouldn't lie to your customers about the quality of the product or to your boss about the hours you've worked. You wouldn't pass the blame for things you were responsible for. Instead of "No, honey, those pants don't make your butt look big," you'd tell the truth. (I'm leaving that open for you to come up with a possible truthful answer without requiring that you upset your wife.) Of real importance, you wouldn't lie to yourself. Are you fudging your diet because you're actually too hungry not to, or is it because of something else? Are you complimenting your spouse because you really believe it is due, or are you doing it to get something in return (or avoid something in return)? When you think down this path, there seems to be no limits to the lies we tell or, at least, for our opportunities to do so.
We are commanded to "put away falsehood" and "speak the truth with his neighbor" (Eph 4:25). We are told to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Indeed, this is part of our process of growing up into Christ (Eph 4:15-16). I'm not suggesting "brutal honesty", as if that's a virtue. But if we're supposed to put away falsehood and speak the truth, we should do it. We should do it regularly. We should do it in love. Even to ourselves.
Have you ever considered what your life would be like if you could not lie? I don't mean what many might mean. There are those (no small number, I think) that believe that "not lying" means "always saying everything". If you withhold information that no one requested, that's a lie. If you don't tell your spouse about a childhood friend, you're a liar. I'm not talking about that kind of honesty. I'm simply talking about no longer being deceptive. You wouldn't embellish stories to make yourself look better or someone else worse. You wouldn't make up excuses that aren't true because the true reason you're not going to that family gathering is you can't stand Aunt Mavis. You wouldn't lie to your customers about the quality of the product or to your boss about the hours you've worked. You wouldn't pass the blame for things you were responsible for. Instead of "No, honey, those pants don't make your butt look big," you'd tell the truth. (I'm leaving that open for you to come up with a possible truthful answer without requiring that you upset your wife.) Of real importance, you wouldn't lie to yourself. Are you fudging your diet because you're actually too hungry not to, or is it because of something else? Are you complimenting your spouse because you really believe it is due, or are you doing it to get something in return (or avoid something in return)? When you think down this path, there seems to be no limits to the lies we tell or, at least, for our opportunities to do so.
We are commanded to "put away falsehood" and "speak the truth with his neighbor" (Eph 4:25). We are told to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Indeed, this is part of our process of growing up into Christ (Eph 4:15-16). I'm not suggesting "brutal honesty", as if that's a virtue. But if we're supposed to put away falsehood and speak the truth, we should do it. We should do it regularly. We should do it in love. Even to ourselves.
Monday, February 02, 2015
Not Enough
You don't have to be particularly brilliant to recognize that there are troubles in our world. There are Muslim extremists (who, apparently, Muslim moderates and our president don't seem to acknowledge) and terrorists of various stripes. There are economic woes and educational worries. There are political messes and religious confusions. There is crime in the streets from both criminals and those who are supposed to deter them. There is moral decay either recognized by or coming from the church. Either President Bush and the conservatives or President Obama and the liberals are the cause of gross errors that are tearing this country down. Every good thing we have, it seems, is tainted with a problem. The Internet is good, but carries a boatload of threats for invasion of privacy and identity theft. It's nice to have credit cards for emergencies, but these are sinking people in debt and false charges. As one author put it, "Everything has a worm in it."
What is the solution? What I find almost amusing is that anyone would try to offer a single answer to that question. As if, given the magnitude of the problem, "All we need is this to fix it." Not gonna happen.
What solutions are we offered? Well, there is the political solution. Vote for the right guy (or girl, depending on your bent) and all our problems are solved. Okay, maybe not one person. The right party? Yes, we know, the party (whichever one you care to mention) is fractured. So the "right thinkers". But in America, Congress can barely function even with a majority of "right thinkers" (assuming, for the sake of discussion, our most recent election achieved such an anomaly). And the president, whoever he/she may be, can only accomplish so much given the checks and balances of the Executive and Legislative branches. No, I'm afraid even the right president won't get it done.
There is the economic solution. For some that means disassembling the nation's Free Enterprise system to steal from the rich and give to the poor, chopping down the "1%" as if that's the problem. You know, if you just strip off all the wealth in this land and give it to that poor mother of 4 trying to earn a living at McDonalds, everything would be fine. For others it's shoring up Capitalism and defending the very rich, as if that fixes something. For some it was "Occupy Wall Street" without, as it turned out, much in the way of plans or demands, but just being really, really angry about, you know, everything. I don't think we're finding solutions in economics.
There are even those who suggest a solution in giving national rule to the Church. As if that makes sense. Which "Church"? The Catholic Church? The "Liberal Christians"? Oh, I know, how about the Joel Osteens of the world? Surely they can get our "best country now". As sure as I am that the Bible is right and God's principles are correct, I don't actually see a solution to today's problems in giving control to the Church.
There are a growing number of people who are quite sure the answer is in education. A lot of homeschool advocates might suggest that teaching your own kids, getting them out of the public (or private) school system is the answer. Teach them the proper worldview and you've got the solution in your own home. Really? How many kids, trained diligently by loving parents, have discarded their avidly-held Christian worldview when they left home? How many can I count who were acting as careful Christians in their youth only to end up militant atheists in their later years?
Now, mind you, I favor voting for the right people. I am in favor of economic sanity. I even prefer biblical rules as the law of the land over making them up as we go. And I'm certainly in favor of parents bringing up their children in the way they should go. Not a question. But I wish to go on record as saying, "These are not the answer."
All of these solutions address problems, but they address them like a bandaid addresses an infected wound. It covers it, perhaps, maybe even aids in some ways, but doesn't solve the problem. The problem in our world today is the problem the world has always faced: "the creation was subjected to futility" (Rom 8:20). The problem is "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21) Until your solution fixes that problem your solution is only a bandaid on a flesh-eating virus. The solution is Christ and Christ alone. We can offer and preach and encourage toward Christ, but none of our political or economic or educational solutions are enough to solve the problem of sin. I would urge you not to forget it and lose sight that we are sent as ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20), not lobbyists for a better way. By all means encourage improvements, but understand they aren't solutions. That rests in God's hands alone.
What is the solution? What I find almost amusing is that anyone would try to offer a single answer to that question. As if, given the magnitude of the problem, "All we need is this to fix it." Not gonna happen.
What solutions are we offered? Well, there is the political solution. Vote for the right guy (or girl, depending on your bent) and all our problems are solved. Okay, maybe not one person. The right party? Yes, we know, the party (whichever one you care to mention) is fractured. So the "right thinkers". But in America, Congress can barely function even with a majority of "right thinkers" (assuming, for the sake of discussion, our most recent election achieved such an anomaly). And the president, whoever he/she may be, can only accomplish so much given the checks and balances of the Executive and Legislative branches. No, I'm afraid even the right president won't get it done.
There is the economic solution. For some that means disassembling the nation's Free Enterprise system to steal from the rich and give to the poor, chopping down the "1%" as if that's the problem. You know, if you just strip off all the wealth in this land and give it to that poor mother of 4 trying to earn a living at McDonalds, everything would be fine. For others it's shoring up Capitalism and defending the very rich, as if that fixes something. For some it was "Occupy Wall Street" without, as it turned out, much in the way of plans or demands, but just being really, really angry about, you know, everything. I don't think we're finding solutions in economics.
There are even those who suggest a solution in giving national rule to the Church. As if that makes sense. Which "Church"? The Catholic Church? The "Liberal Christians"? Oh, I know, how about the Joel Osteens of the world? Surely they can get our "best country now". As sure as I am that the Bible is right and God's principles are correct, I don't actually see a solution to today's problems in giving control to the Church.
There are a growing number of people who are quite sure the answer is in education. A lot of homeschool advocates might suggest that teaching your own kids, getting them out of the public (or private) school system is the answer. Teach them the proper worldview and you've got the solution in your own home. Really? How many kids, trained diligently by loving parents, have discarded their avidly-held Christian worldview when they left home? How many can I count who were acting as careful Christians in their youth only to end up militant atheists in their later years?
Now, mind you, I favor voting for the right people. I am in favor of economic sanity. I even prefer biblical rules as the law of the land over making them up as we go. And I'm certainly in favor of parents bringing up their children in the way they should go. Not a question. But I wish to go on record as saying, "These are not the answer."
All of these solutions address problems, but they address them like a bandaid addresses an infected wound. It covers it, perhaps, maybe even aids in some ways, but doesn't solve the problem. The problem in our world today is the problem the world has always faced: "the creation was subjected to futility" (Rom 8:20). The problem is "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Gen 8:21) Until your solution fixes that problem your solution is only a bandaid on a flesh-eating virus. The solution is Christ and Christ alone. We can offer and preach and encourage toward Christ, but none of our political or economic or educational solutions are enough to solve the problem of sin. I would urge you not to forget it and lose sight that we are sent as ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20), not lobbyists for a better way. By all means encourage improvements, but understand they aren't solutions. That rests in God's hands alone.
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Psalm 69
I've been spending a lot of time in the Psalms lately. I came across this one. Let's look at Psalm 69.
Have you ever felt this way?
One of the things that makes it interesting is that David spews venom at his adversaries. It's not likely the kind of prayer you'll find coming from the pulpit during the Sunday prayer time.
David expresses a fascinating concern in the midst of this psalm:
One of the most interesting parts of this psalm, like so many others like it, is the end. There is moaning and groaning about his condition. There is venom toward his enemies. There is repentance for sin. But no matter what David goes through, here is where he always seems to wind up:
Have you ever felt this way?
Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me. I am weary with my crying out; my throat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God (Psa. 69:1-3).I think all of us have experienced the sense of being up to our necks in trouble. I also think all of us have experienced the feeling that God isn't listening. This is David's feeling at the time. Read the Psalm; it's interesting.
One of the things that makes it interesting is that David spews venom at his adversaries. It's not likely the kind of prayer you'll find coming from the pulpit during the Sunday prayer time.
Let their own table before them become a snare; and when they are at peace, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually. Pour out Your indignation upon them, and let Your burning anger overtake them. May their camp be a desolation; let no one dwell in their tents (Psa. 69:22-25).Aw, David, where's the love? Where's the compassion? I mean, do you really want to ask God to make it so not one of them lives? Well, David felt that way and he told God about it. It's called an "imprecatory prayer" and you'll almost never find it in "good Christian" circles. It is a cry for God's justice. The problem, of course, is that most of us wouldn't be able to stand in the face of God's justice. That's not why we don't hear it anymore. We don't hear it because it's not nice, and Christians, like God, are supposed to be nice. I, of course, don't believe that, but most people do. I find it fascinating that God decided that this should be kept as inspired Scripture. So while it needs to be used with caution, I would caution others not to rule it out entirely.
David expresses a fascinating concern in the midst of this psalm:
Let not those who hope in You be put to shame through me, O Lord GOD of hosts; let not those who seek You be brought to dishonor through me, O God of Israel (Psa. 69:6).There are many times (more and more, it seems) that I wish people would think of this before they speak on behalf of God or His people. "Don't let me bring dishonor on those who trust in You, O God." We do it so often. We speak without thinking. We act without thinking. We cut people off on the road and leave them with a Jesus sticker to see as the last reminder of who we are. When we suffer, we suffer too often as if God has failed or cannot be trusted. I don't know about you, but I need to concern myself far more often than I do with this: "Let not those who seek You be brought to dishonor through me, O God."
One of the most interesting parts of this psalm, like so many others like it, is the end. There is moaning and groaning about his condition. There is venom toward his enemies. There is repentance for sin. But no matter what David goes through, here is where he always seems to wind up:
I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This will please the LORD more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs. When the humble see it they will be glad; you who seek God, let your hearts revive. For the LORD hears the needy and does not despise His own people who are prisoners. Let heaven and earth praise Him, the seas and everything that moves in them (Psa. 69:30-34).No matter what you're feeling, you can express it to God. No matter what you're enduring, you can talk to God about it. No matter what you're suffering, you can bring it to Him. One thing, in the midst of the feelings and sufferings, to remember is this: God will always do what's best. He will always do what's right. He will always be glorified, which cannot be anything but the right and the best. Express yourself to God by all means, but always remember to praise Him. It's a good place to end up.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Just Wonderin'
Anyone who has ever commented on my blog knows that I "screen calls". I moderate who gets to comment and who doesn't. I'd say more than 95% get through. Agree or disagree; I'm not too picky. I delete some because they are advertisements rather than comments. I delete some because they are abusive rather than friendly. I only block one person entirely. But I do moderate comments. If it was an advertisement, I don't say anything, but if it was abusive I'll send them a private email saying, "I'm sorry. I can't post your comment. I can't allow that on my blog. If you'd like to do it without the abuse, you're welcome to comment." With the exception of the ads, I let people know why they aren't making it to "print" so to speak. What's interesting to me is the numbers of these people that keep coming back. Some will continue their invectives (and remain blocked). Others will continue to disagree agreeably. But I've laid out my argument(s) and I've given my reasons and I've offered my Scriptural backing and invariably they'll come back and tell me I'm wrong.
What do you suppose that is all about? I've explained, for instance, that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential element of Christianity, a non-negotiable item. I've offered vast quantities of Scripture on the subject. And still I get people trotting through explaining to me repeatedly that no such doctrine exists and I'm foolish for believing it. I can't imagine the aim. "If it doesn't exist, Christianity is finished and the Bible is a lie," I say, and they assure me it doesn't exist. Is that helping me in some way? I go to great lengths to discuss the Sovereignty of God including the importance of the doctrine to me. Still I get people who are eager to assure me that God is not Sovereign. To me, "The Sovereignty of God is the answer to all the most difficult questions of human suffering." They would like me to give up a satisfying answer to human suffering. Is this supposed to be beneficial to me in some way? I've been more than straightforward on my view of marriage, what it is, and especially what it's not (see "same-sex marriage"). I still have people who are pleased to come by and tell me I need to alter my view. I need to eliminate any biblical understanding, any concrete definition, any core purpose, any genuine use for marriage and just ... get along. How is this to my benefit?
I'm wondering what they're thinking. Do they think that if they harass me enough with lies about what I believe and disclaimers about the veracity of Scripture and the absolute certainty that certitude is wrong that I'll wake up--Bing! Light bulb comes on!--and say, "Oh, my yes! I've always been wrong. All of Church history has been wrong. The Bible is wrong. Orthodoxy is wrong. Christianity is wrong. And you're right, my friend. Thanks for clearing away all of that. As well as my hope. And any reason to trust ... God or anyone else." Is that their aim? I would think not, but I can't figure out what it would be. "You need to be more tolerant" makes no sense to me when they work so hard to be intolerant of the beliefs I hold with which they disagree. "You need to stop being a hater" doesn't even work in my head when I can't see that I'm hating.
It's not like it's retaliation. I don't go to their websites or blogs and argue repeatedly that they're wrong and need to straighten up and fly right. If I did, I'd do it with Scripture and logic, but I don't think they want to hear either, at least not from me, so I don't do it. So it's not like they're "returning the favor." I don't favor them with my company.
Why is it, then? I understand the ones who disagree agreeably and we have a pleasant disagreement. There's dialog there. But why is it that antagonists who I've had to keep from commenting due to their abusiveness make it a practice to return (often repeatedly) to argue against things which, if they're right, would make my life miserable? Is there some reasonable reason for this? I'm just wondering.
What do you suppose that is all about? I've explained, for instance, that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential element of Christianity, a non-negotiable item. I've offered vast quantities of Scripture on the subject. And still I get people trotting through explaining to me repeatedly that no such doctrine exists and I'm foolish for believing it. I can't imagine the aim. "If it doesn't exist, Christianity is finished and the Bible is a lie," I say, and they assure me it doesn't exist. Is that helping me in some way? I go to great lengths to discuss the Sovereignty of God including the importance of the doctrine to me. Still I get people who are eager to assure me that God is not Sovereign. To me, "The Sovereignty of God is the answer to all the most difficult questions of human suffering." They would like me to give up a satisfying answer to human suffering. Is this supposed to be beneficial to me in some way? I've been more than straightforward on my view of marriage, what it is, and especially what it's not (see "same-sex marriage"). I still have people who are pleased to come by and tell me I need to alter my view. I need to eliminate any biblical understanding, any concrete definition, any core purpose, any genuine use for marriage and just ... get along. How is this to my benefit?
I'm wondering what they're thinking. Do they think that if they harass me enough with lies about what I believe and disclaimers about the veracity of Scripture and the absolute certainty that certitude is wrong that I'll wake up--Bing! Light bulb comes on!--and say, "Oh, my yes! I've always been wrong. All of Church history has been wrong. The Bible is wrong. Orthodoxy is wrong. Christianity is wrong. And you're right, my friend. Thanks for clearing away all of that. As well as my hope. And any reason to trust ... God or anyone else." Is that their aim? I would think not, but I can't figure out what it would be. "You need to be more tolerant" makes no sense to me when they work so hard to be intolerant of the beliefs I hold with which they disagree. "You need to stop being a hater" doesn't even work in my head when I can't see that I'm hating.
It's not like it's retaliation. I don't go to their websites or blogs and argue repeatedly that they're wrong and need to straighten up and fly right. If I did, I'd do it with Scripture and logic, but I don't think they want to hear either, at least not from me, so I don't do it. So it's not like they're "returning the favor." I don't favor them with my company.
Why is it, then? I understand the ones who disagree agreeably and we have a pleasant disagreement. There's dialog there. But why is it that antagonists who I've had to keep from commenting due to their abusiveness make it a practice to return (often repeatedly) to argue against things which, if they're right, would make my life miserable? Is there some reasonable reason for this? I'm just wondering.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Submit
I need to preface this by saying that I didn't plan this. I'm reading Ephesians. It just came up. I'm sorry.
It's an evil word. "Submit." No one in American culture wants to hear it. We submit to no one. You know, "Don't tread on me." So ingrained is this independent spirit that when the Bible calls up the word, Christians choke on it.
Consider, for a moment, the practical possibilities of this position. Does it make sense? The military has a chain of command because they do not want each soldier evaluating the situation and determining what course of action to take. They need a coordinator, a person in charge who will determine that this is the best course of action and you will carry it out without question. Of course, marriage is not the military, but in what world does a two-headed beast make an efficient decision system? "Well," they tell me, "she's better at keeping the books so she does that and I'm better at fixing things around the house so I do that and we work that way." Fine. Until she wants to tell you how to fix the house or you have ideas that differ from hers on keeping the books. If we're talking about two coequal heads, who decides when the two disagree? If we're talking about two genuinely coequal heads, that situation arrives by definition at an impasse. You see, that version of "mutual submission" doesn't make sense. But I'm just talking practicality here. What is really important is what does God's Word say?
Paul doesn't simply say, "Wives submit to your husbands." He explains. He nuances. He fills out the notion. He says they should submit "as to the Lord." He draws a simple parallel. "As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Who in their right mind would suggest that this is a "mutual submission" of the kind so often touted? In what sense does the Christ who said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18) submit in some mutual fashion to the church? In the same way that the church submits to Christ, wives, submit to your husbands. That way. And, please note. It says "in everything." Which would exclude ... nothing. Even in keeping the books. Or whatever other fashion you wish to think of it.
Given the unequivocal textual parallel, "as the church submits to Christ", if you're one of those who still stand on some "mutual submission" where husband and wife are coequals in authority, I have to be concerned that you and I are not viewing the same Christ. The Christ I know is not under that sort of "mutual submission" to the church. If He is, it's not the Christ I know.
"But," you tell me, "it says that we should be 'submitting to one another.' What about that?" And I would concur with you. There is a sense of mutual submission clearly presented here. Paul goes on to tell husbands--command husbands--to love their wives. Oh, not simply love them (have warm feelings for them, be nice guys, look out for their comfort ... today's pulpy love), but to love them "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." This is no small love, guys. This is sacrificial, even suicidal love. It doesn't matter if she loves you back. It doesn't matter if she is a good or bad wife. It doesn't matter how she treats you. Christ gave Himself up for a Bride that denied she even knew Him. When the chips were down, they were out of there. And He loved her enough to die for her. Do you know what that is? That's submission. Oh, not submission of authority. It's submission of self. Much harder. Much bigger. Much more important than mere authority.
I think it is abundantly clear from both a practical view and from the text that it is not possible to align "we both submit to each other's authority" as the meaning behind this text. I think it cannot be avoided that wives are commanded to submit in everything to the authority of their husbands. And it is equally clear that husbands are required to submit their pride, their selfishness, their self-interest, their own well-being in order to love their wives. And then we circle around to the first thought--"submit". It's not a pleasant thought, at least not to sinful humans. It's not something we like. I doubt the first response is to embrace this notion with joy. But neither is it something we can avoid. If we love Christ (who, by the way, is the point of both of these forms of submission), submitting is something that every Christian wife and every Christian husband must do. And, since it is commanded, I would have to guess it would be a good thing. So, what are you going to do?
It's an evil word. "Submit." No one in American culture wants to hear it. We submit to no one. You know, "Don't tread on me." So ingrained is this independent spirit that when the Bible calls up the word, Christians choke on it.
21... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Eph 5:21-33).You probably skimmed that paragraph. You know what it says. Historically, the standard understanding of the passage has been simple. Wives submit to husbands; husbands love wives. No problem; no question. Today, it's "No way." Today they assure me, "It's a product of a patriarchal society and no longer the culture today." I'm not talking skeptics here; I'm talking Christians. I'm talking about Bible-believing Christians. "Yes, I believe the Bible and want to follow everything it says" followed by "but not this one." The standard reason? "It says 'submit to one another.'" So they prefer "mutual submission" by which they mean a 50-50 marriage where both husband and wife submit to each other and each has equal authority and responsibility. Now, finding that in Scripture might be difficult, but that's the position.
Consider, for a moment, the practical possibilities of this position. Does it make sense? The military has a chain of command because they do not want each soldier evaluating the situation and determining what course of action to take. They need a coordinator, a person in charge who will determine that this is the best course of action and you will carry it out without question. Of course, marriage is not the military, but in what world does a two-headed beast make an efficient decision system? "Well," they tell me, "she's better at keeping the books so she does that and I'm better at fixing things around the house so I do that and we work that way." Fine. Until she wants to tell you how to fix the house or you have ideas that differ from hers on keeping the books. If we're talking about two coequal heads, who decides when the two disagree? If we're talking about two genuinely coequal heads, that situation arrives by definition at an impasse. You see, that version of "mutual submission" doesn't make sense. But I'm just talking practicality here. What is really important is what does God's Word say?
Paul doesn't simply say, "Wives submit to your husbands." He explains. He nuances. He fills out the notion. He says they should submit "as to the Lord." He draws a simple parallel. "As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Who in their right mind would suggest that this is a "mutual submission" of the kind so often touted? In what sense does the Christ who said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18) submit in some mutual fashion to the church? In the same way that the church submits to Christ, wives, submit to your husbands. That way. And, please note. It says "in everything." Which would exclude ... nothing. Even in keeping the books. Or whatever other fashion you wish to think of it.
Given the unequivocal textual parallel, "as the church submits to Christ", if you're one of those who still stand on some "mutual submission" where husband and wife are coequals in authority, I have to be concerned that you and I are not viewing the same Christ. The Christ I know is not under that sort of "mutual submission" to the church. If He is, it's not the Christ I know.
"But," you tell me, "it says that we should be 'submitting to one another.' What about that?" And I would concur with you. There is a sense of mutual submission clearly presented here. Paul goes on to tell husbands--command husbands--to love their wives. Oh, not simply love them (have warm feelings for them, be nice guys, look out for their comfort ... today's pulpy love), but to love them "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." This is no small love, guys. This is sacrificial, even suicidal love. It doesn't matter if she loves you back. It doesn't matter if she is a good or bad wife. It doesn't matter how she treats you. Christ gave Himself up for a Bride that denied she even knew Him. When the chips were down, they were out of there. And He loved her enough to die for her. Do you know what that is? That's submission. Oh, not submission of authority. It's submission of self. Much harder. Much bigger. Much more important than mere authority.
I think it is abundantly clear from both a practical view and from the text that it is not possible to align "we both submit to each other's authority" as the meaning behind this text. I think it cannot be avoided that wives are commanded to submit in everything to the authority of their husbands. And it is equally clear that husbands are required to submit their pride, their selfishness, their self-interest, their own well-being in order to love their wives. And then we circle around to the first thought--"submit". It's not a pleasant thought, at least not to sinful humans. It's not something we like. I doubt the first response is to embrace this notion with joy. But neither is it something we can avoid. If we love Christ (who, by the way, is the point of both of these forms of submission), submitting is something that every Christian wife and every Christian husband must do. And, since it is commanded, I would have to guess it would be a good thing. So, what are you going to do?
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Gifted
There is a disagreement in the body of Christ. Hard to believe, isn't it? But, seriously, there are some who say, "The Bible is quite clear that we provide our own faith in Christ" while others say, "The Bible is quite clear that faith is a gift from God." So, which is it?
One of the ever-popular texts that the "faith is a gift" crowd go to is in Paul's epistle to the church at Ephesus.
Now, in the interest of being up front and open, I need to tell you that I am one of the "faith is a gift" crowd. Having said that, I need to tell you that this argument makes no sense to me. First, the original language isn't clear. The Greek for "that" is neuter but the word for "faith" is feminine. This violates general Greek grammar rules. I mean, it might be so, but the Greek doesn't call for it. Factor in the "it" ("it is the gift of God"), and it turns out that Greek will allow "it" to refer to faith ... or grace ... or saved. Great! No help at all. Personally, I think it refers to all of it: "saved by grace through faith." I mean, we know "saved" is a gift and we know as well by definition that "grace" is a gift. But I don't think that it's a reference to any of the individual terms. I think it refers to the process. That we are saved by grace through faith is a gift. Not the components, the process. So while I wouldn't agree with the "we supply faith" crowd here, neither would I side with the "faith is a gift" folk.
Where would I go to conclude that faith is a gift? Oh, lots of places. We know, for instance, that "God has allotted to each a measure of faith." (Rom 12:3) I don't think that means "each and every person", but "each of you to whom I'm writing." Regardless, it is allotted. Jesus said quite clearly speaking of belief, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) No grant, no faith. Paul told the Philippians, "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Phil 1:29) Belief (and suffering) are granted. (Note, by the way, that repentance is also granted, not mustered. See 2 Tim 2:25.)
"Is that all you got, Stan?" No, not really. Peter writes to "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1). In his sermon in Acts 3 Peter said we were saved by faith, "the faith which comes through Him." (Acts 3:16). Hey, I bet this one is one you haven't seen before, even when you were looking at it. Paul said of Abraham, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:3) Did you see it? It says "It was counted to him as righteousness." What was counted (reckoned, imputed, credited) as righteousness? His belief. Belief was credited to him. He didn't supply it; it was imputed. And having it imputed, it was counted as righteousness.
Those are just some of the explicit texts. I'm stuck with them. Rationally, of course, I'm stuck further. If I provide faith, the final component of this "by grace through faith" mix that saves me, how is that not valuable, merited, something to boast about? Others don't provide it. I did. Isn't that something special about me? But, look these kinds of things are speculations. Since I see repeated texts that specify that faith is a gift from God, I have to conclude that faith is a gift from God. I don't necessarily go to the classic "saved by grace through faith" position in Ephesians. I suppose if you want to you can. You won't be alone. But I still have to conclude that anyone who comes to Christ in faith was given that faith with which to come.
One of the ever-popular texts that the "faith is a gift" crowd go to is in Paul's epistle to the church at Ephesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8-9)Did you see it? "...that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ..." What not of yourselves? What is the gift of God? "Well," the faith-as-a-gift crowd like to assure us, it is clearly faith. It could be "grace" or it could be "saved" or it could be "faith", but since "faith" is the last thing listed, clearly this is a sure statement that faith is not of yourselves, but is a gift of God. Next!
Now, in the interest of being up front and open, I need to tell you that I am one of the "faith is a gift" crowd. Having said that, I need to tell you that this argument makes no sense to me. First, the original language isn't clear. The Greek for "that" is neuter but the word for "faith" is feminine. This violates general Greek grammar rules. I mean, it might be so, but the Greek doesn't call for it. Factor in the "it" ("it is the gift of God"), and it turns out that Greek will allow "it" to refer to faith ... or grace ... or saved. Great! No help at all. Personally, I think it refers to all of it: "saved by grace through faith." I mean, we know "saved" is a gift and we know as well by definition that "grace" is a gift. But I don't think that it's a reference to any of the individual terms. I think it refers to the process. That we are saved by grace through faith is a gift. Not the components, the process. So while I wouldn't agree with the "we supply faith" crowd here, neither would I side with the "faith is a gift" folk.
Where would I go to conclude that faith is a gift? Oh, lots of places. We know, for instance, that "God has allotted to each a measure of faith." (Rom 12:3) I don't think that means "each and every person", but "each of you to whom I'm writing." Regardless, it is allotted. Jesus said quite clearly speaking of belief, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65) No grant, no faith. Paul told the Philippians, "To you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Phil 1:29) Belief (and suffering) are granted. (Note, by the way, that repentance is also granted, not mustered. See 2 Tim 2:25.)
"Is that all you got, Stan?" No, not really. Peter writes to "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1). In his sermon in Acts 3 Peter said we were saved by faith, "the faith which comes through Him." (Acts 3:16). Hey, I bet this one is one you haven't seen before, even when you were looking at it. Paul said of Abraham, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:3) Did you see it? It says "It was counted to him as righteousness." What was counted (reckoned, imputed, credited) as righteousness? His belief. Belief was credited to him. He didn't supply it; it was imputed. And having it imputed, it was counted as righteousness.
Those are just some of the explicit texts. I'm stuck with them. Rationally, of course, I'm stuck further. If I provide faith, the final component of this "by grace through faith" mix that saves me, how is that not valuable, merited, something to boast about? Others don't provide it. I did. Isn't that something special about me? But, look these kinds of things are speculations. Since I see repeated texts that specify that faith is a gift from God, I have to conclude that faith is a gift from God. I don't necessarily go to the classic "saved by grace through faith" position in Ephesians. I suppose if you want to you can. You won't be alone. But I still have to conclude that anyone who comes to Christ in faith was given that faith with which to come.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
And You Thought I Was Being Over-dramatic
This out of California.
Okay, the summary, then. If you want to serve as a judge in California, you are not allowed to be associated with any group that California deems "discriminatory". Currently the sole exception to that ban is religious groups. However, the rationale for this position is "The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and the California Supreme Court struck down Prop 8." Thus, it would be foolish to expect anything but the deletion of that last exception as "anomalous and inconsistent." And, having gone thus far with what I can't see can be avoided to the next step, how long until "Are you now or have you ever been associated with Christianity?" becomes a question you'll have to face to get or keep a job? If being connected to the Boy Scouts of America makes you unreliable, how would being connected to a church or a Christian organization make you less unreliable? Why would a connection to any organization deemed by the State as "discriminatory" not get you banned? How long until your livelihood depends on the generosity of the gay-rights groups?
Pastor Louie Giglio was kept from the President's inauguration for his position on homosexual sin. Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, lost his job because of his position on homosexual sin. Kelvin Cochran, Fire Chief of Atlanta, was fired for his position on homosexual sin. Jesus said the world would hate us as it hated Him, and Paul assured us, "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) Am I really reaching here? Or is it the logical next step?
...the California Supreme Court voted last week to prohibit state judges from belonging to nonprofit youth organizations that practice discrimination."Yeah, so?" you ask. The story is focuses on Julia Kelety, a Superior Court judge. She has begun disconnecting from her commitments to the Boy Scouts of America because it bans homosexual adults from leadership roles and, thus, is classified as one of the "nonprofit youth organizations that practice discrimination." Originally California included an exemption for judges taking part in nonprofit youth organizations (such as the Boy Scouts), but the court decided this exception was "anomalous and inconsistent" with the court's decisions to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and strike down Prop 8. Despite hundreds of protests ("The proposal creates an unconstitutional test for public office," one wrote), the California Supreme Court opted to delete that exception to their rule.
Okay, the summary, then. If you want to serve as a judge in California, you are not allowed to be associated with any group that California deems "discriminatory". Currently the sole exception to that ban is religious groups. However, the rationale for this position is "The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and the California Supreme Court struck down Prop 8." Thus, it would be foolish to expect anything but the deletion of that last exception as "anomalous and inconsistent." And, having gone thus far with what I can't see can be avoided to the next step, how long until "Are you now or have you ever been associated with Christianity?" becomes a question you'll have to face to get or keep a job? If being connected to the Boy Scouts of America makes you unreliable, how would being connected to a church or a Christian organization make you less unreliable? Why would a connection to any organization deemed by the State as "discriminatory" not get you banned? How long until your livelihood depends on the generosity of the gay-rights groups?
Pastor Louie Giglio was kept from the President's inauguration for his position on homosexual sin. Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, lost his job because of his position on homosexual sin. Kelvin Cochran, Fire Chief of Atlanta, was fired for his position on homosexual sin. Jesus said the world would hate us as it hated Him, and Paul assured us, "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) Am I really reaching here? Or is it the logical next step?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)