The Problem of Love

Two people separated by a common language. I see that concept lived out way too often in conversations with people. Most recently it was with that couple I mentioned earlier -- that lesbian couple. They asked me the same thing you hear so often: "How can it be wrong to love someone?" The question seems to baffle a lot of people. Even Christians have a hard time responding. To me, however, it is a radical failure to communicate.

"Now," you ask, "what could be more straightforward than that?" Well, the whole question hinges on a single word, assuming we are all talking about the same thing -- "love." The word, however, is a serious communication problem. When the question is asked, "How can it be wrong to love someone?", there are underlying assumptions. First, we all believe that love is good ... in fact, always good. Second, if you object to sex between people of the same gender, you must be objecting to love. Third, all people who argue that homosexuality is immoral do so on the basis that they object to love. As if it's a simple question.

Let's pick it up the concept of love in this context for a moment, twirl it about a few times, and see what we find. I think, like a prism, the more angles you view it from, the more complicated it will be. Take, for instance, the absolutely implied conclusion that loving someone includes having sex with them. Now, I would hope that the moment I say this, everyone would immediately see it is a problem. We love in many ways. We love our families, but I would assume that most of us don't include sexual relations with that. We love food, pets, power, all sorts of things that the notion of sex can't even approach. And even if we want to argue that we're speaking here of romantic love, it is nonsense to suggest that even this kind of love always includes sex. It is just so obviously wrong. "Oh, so you are opposed to love!" No, of course not. Turning that prism of "love" one way, we see quite clearly that Jesus commanded His disciples to love one another. (In context, it was abundantly clear that He was commanding male disciples to love other male disciples ... as well as female disciples.) No hint of sex there, but a certain embracing of love. Turning that prism another way, we see that God, like a good father, chastises those whom He loves. Now that puts another twist on it. Love always seeks the best for the other person, and sometimes that includes the least pleasant for the one who loves as well as unpleasant (but necessary) things for the loved one. (A trite but obvious example might be when a loving parent allows a nurse to coldly and cruelly stab a piece of metal into their tiny child for the purpose of injecting them with the components required to later save them from worse diseases.) Love, indeed, has many facets.

So here we are, back at the conversation, with a question dangling. "How can it be wrong to love someone?" The question is intended to justify a sexual relationship that God has declared "unnatural" (Rom 1:26-27). The goal is to use God's own command to love as a reason to say that God was wrong when He said not to engage in these practices. At this point I have to ask ... "What's love got to do with it?" But, then, I fear that would be a radical failure to communicate on my part. Sigh.

HDJDI?

WWJD? We all know that one. What would Jesus do? It was a fairly popular, albeit odd question among Christians for awhile. The one that I've been contemplating lately, however, is a slightly different question. How did Jesus do it? No, no, I'm not asking for a scientific explanation of how He walked on water or fed the 5,000. I'm thinking of more "mundane" things. How did Jesus keep His cool when His disciples were such jerks (you know, like when they argued about who would be at Jesus's right hand)? How did He keep from getting angry when His opponents were so cruel and foolish? The question that has most recently nagged at me, however, is this one. How did He deal with the sinners with whom He spent so much time?

'Tis the season, and it often includes spending time with people you don't normally spend time with. As it happens, I managed to spend an evening with people from my wife's place of employment, including most notably a lesbian couple who shared our table, followed by an afternoon with a heterosexual couple who live together without the benefit of marriage. I was amiable and all, even when the lesbian couple learned that my wife and I met at church and were honest-to-goodness Christians. After all, we are not called to correct the world. We aren't called to change the behavior of those around us to more closely conform to God's standards. We are, in fact, all in the same boat -- sinners in need of a Savior. The only difference is that some of us have found Him and some haven't. On the other hand, we can't come across as agreeing with sin. We can't encourage it or condone it. So there is something else in between -- our more proper position.

Jesus spent a lot of time with sinners. He was known for it. What line did He walk? He surely was never perceived as condoning sin. He illuminated it, not condoned it. And He certainly preached repentance. But if His only conversation with prostitutes and tax collectors was "Repent, sinners!", they wouldn't have spent much time with Him. No, that wasn't how He came across to them at all. He had that ... proper position.

What was that place? What was the balance He struck? How did He do it? You can ask, "What would Jesus do?", but I'm currently more interested in "How did He do it?" That little piece of information might be helpful at the next social gathering I'm sure I'll encounter.

Chreaster Christians

It's that time of year. Every church knows that their church service closest to Christmas will be one of their best attended services of the year. The other, of course, is Easter. I call them "Chreaster Christians," those folks who feel some compunction to show up on Christmas and Easter, as if this makes them "Christian" in some sense.

What is this compunction? What are these people doing? I talked to someone just the other day who told me, "I like going to this church once in awhile because I can just go and no one will bother me." "No one will bother me." What is that all about? What is it that makes people go to church when they don't actually want to be part of church? What is it that makes people feel like they need, somehow, to "touch bases with God" without actually being involved with God?

When you think about it, it's really quite bizarre. They obviously recognize that they are not in line with what the Bible teaches is "right living." To put it in actual, Christian terms, they obviously recognize that they are sinners. They further sense, at some level, that they aren't right with God. There is a problem. So they think, I suppose without thinking, that they can make it right by showing up once in a great while where God is and that makes them right with God.

It gets more bizarre if you take it apart and look at what's really going on. If you could get them to actually admit what's being said, it would look something like this. "No, I am not actually concerned with repentance. I'm not really interested in doing what God wants me to do. All I'm really looking for is absolution. I want a god who will tell me that whatever I'm doing is perfectly fine with him. I have no intention of bending my will to the will of the Almighty. I will not, of course, change anything about myself, my choices, or my lifestyle. I just want a god who will be pleased that I showed up ... once or maybe twice a year ... and has nothing to say about what is right, wrong, or what to do about it." In other words, "I want a god who I can come to on my own terms to make me feel okay without any demands, regulations, or, well, truth involved."

It's at these times that you can begin to see going to church as idolatry. This is a substitution of god for God, of the Sovereign Lord for "my puppet". Who, in this instance, is "god"? Well, I am, of course. What I want is my god, and anyone who disagrees is the devil. Unfortunately, that particular god isn't found at any real church. And if you find yourself comfortable or comforted on Christmas or Easter or any other Sunday when you use that approach, it's not because you had an encounter with God. It's because you found a building that isn't church and you closed your ears to God and in no way can that be considered absolution or a correct relationship with God.

Crossing Against the Light

The other day I was standing at a street corner waiting for the "Walk" sign to light. In front of me was an apparently loving grandmother with a little 4 or 5-year-old girl. It was a cute picture, the grandma using the teachable moments to get the little girl to count or to learn something new by watching things that were around. The left turn light turned green, but the "Walk" didn't light, so I waited ... but the grandmother didn't. She grasped firmly the little girl's hand and walked into the street toward cars turning into her path. She waited in the middle of the street until they stopped and then went on.

"Big deal," most of you would say. "She kept the girl safe." Not my concern here. What else did she do? She taught this little girl another valuable lesson: Rules are made to be broken. She did it in the most innocuous way, making it more dangerous. She categorized the traffic safety laws as "less important" and taught her grandchild, "Don't consider laws as things to obey. Think of them as things to break when it suits you and you can get away with it."

I know ... much ado about nothing. Still, I can't help thinking that it's exactly what each of us does. I'm sure that this grandmother would never tell her dear granddaughter, "Why don't you go into that store and see if you can grab some candy without being caught!" No, no, stealing is bad. Crossing the street illegally is ... well ... not. And so we all seem to do. I knew a Christian woman who argued, "Christians shouldn't see R-rated movies!", but felt no compunction to submit to her husband. Conservative moralists will shout, "Homosexuality is immoral!" while they ignore the adultery they commit or the stealing they perpetrate. I bet there were plenty of heterosexual couples who live together without the benefit of marriage who voted on moral grounds to prevent "same-sex marriage". Too many who call themselves "Christians" beat their breasts against the immorality of this world while they mimic it. It is no wonder that it's tough to tell the Christians from the world. Still, it is a human thing. We all do it to a varying extent.

It is in the nature of human beings to minimize our own error. One of the smoothest ways to commit this sleight of hand is to maximize the errors of others. "Well, I never killed 6 million Jews like Hitler did. I'm not a bad person." Sorry. Wrong standard. The standard we are bound to keep makes crossing the street against the light equivalent to murder in terms of violating God's standards. Be careful when you start pointing fingers. I know I can't afford to do it much without considering my own sins first. You see, what they are doing is bad; what I am doing isn't so bad. They are committing big sins, but I'm just ... crossing against the light.

Maybe a Hint

I got a hint the other day of what, perhaps, could be a large part of what's wrong with the American economy. They did a news story about the top five employers in the greater Phoenix area. These were, in order from top to bottom, the State of Arizona, Walmart, Banner Healthcare, the City of Phoenix, and the County of Maricopa.

What an odd group! Not one of them produces anything. Three of the five don't even support themselves. They operate with income from the public that is not voluntary. In other words, more people in this area are employed by companies that don't produce anything and don't support themselves than anything else.

Now, I'm sure we need government. And I have to be honest -- I work for the State of Arizona myself. Still, you have to wonder. If our economy is built largely on government and service, where is the production? Where is the progress? Where is the underlying structure needed to support government and service? It seems to me that this isn't a particularly good balance for a healthy economy.

We Protest!

Leaving work the other day, I found I had to walk through a demonstration on a street corner. So ... what were they protesting? Oh, it was those evil cameras on the corner ... you know ... those evil cameras that snap pictures of drivers and their license plates when they run red lights. In fact, we here in Arizona have a sudden boom in the photo traffic enforcement arena. They're at street corners for red lights and they're on streets and freeways to catch speeders.

So, what is it that has these people so upset? I first went by their signs. It was "Camera fraud." They argue that the local governments that put these things up are making money by fining people caught breaking traffic laws. (I'm confused. Do local governments not make money when fining people caught breaking traffic laws by police officers?) But there is more. Several protesters had signs about privacy rights. Apparently it's a violation of your privacy to enforce the law with cameras. Oh, but it gets worse. Now those pesky camera folks want to use license plate recognition software to track criminals. At one particular intersection they've installed a red filter which could be used as part of an evil plot to photograph the faces of motorcyclists with helmet visors. Diabolical! And apparently it's the common belief. The local radio stations talk about it as if it's a given. It's wrong. It's evil. It violates the "innocent until proven guilty" clause. It's just a scam. It doesn't help safety at all. (You have to ignore the statistics to hold that, but most aren't normally bothered with facts when they make their claims.) It's wrong and everyone knows it.

What, then, is the issue? I'm not getting it. Apparently it is "fraud" to use anything except live police to enforce the law. I don't know why it is that cameras on ATMs, at banks, on toll roads, and so many other similar places haven't raised such a ruckus, but this one is it. It's wrong -- horribly wrong -- to use technology to enforce traffic laws. What we really need is officers on the beat to do the job. Oh, but, no, they can't actually chase you down. That causes a safety risk. So, they have to be live and they cannot pursue, so I suppose the only possibility at this point is to have speeders volunteer to pull over if a police officer -- an increasingly rare and expensive commodity on today's market -- happens to flash his (or her) lights at them. Otherwise, forgive the intrusion. Please ... speed on.

I wanted to tell them, this gaggle of angry protesters, "Do you want to know how to stop this 'intrusion into your privacy' that you are protesting? Don't break the law! Seriously! These camera systems aren't cheap. Stop running red lights and speeding (these only take your photo if you're more than 10 MPH over the speed limit), and you'll find that government entities can't afford to keep them around." It's a case of the tail wagging the dog here. "We protest you doing things that prevent us from breaking the law when we want!!" What? Come on, people, that's not making any sense at all. Stop breaking the law and the question goes away.

One Thing

The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When evildoers assail me to eat up my flesh, my adversaries and foes, it is they who stumble and fall. Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war arise against me, yet I will be confident. One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple. For he will hide me in his shelter in the day of trouble; he will conceal me under the cover of his tent; he will lift me high upon a rock. And now my head shall be lifted up above my enemies all around me, and I will offer in his tent sacrifices with shouts of joy; I will sing and make melody to the LORD (Psa 27:1-6).

Sometimes the original is best. You don't need my help understanding this. Selah.

Who's to Blame?

We can debate this issue 'til the cows come home. Should society alter the definition of "marriage" to allow "same-sex couples" to be included in the new definition? A large portion of "religious conservatives" (whatever that really means) argue that "same-sex couples are immoral, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry." A smaller group says, "Marriage is what it is; you can't redefine it to include same-sex couples." (Note: The first argument is from a moral/religious view; the second is from a logical view. They aren't the same.) In most states in the U.S., there is no such thing as "same-sex marriage." Still, the question is being asked ... again and again. Most recently, Iowa's Supreme Court examined the question. And while there is little doubt what I think about it, here's what I foresee. Eventually the nation is going to cave. The cases are going to hit the fan. The protests will be too loud and the responses too quiet. By a long and slow process started long ago, American mindsets will shift and marriage as it stands will be lost.

Don't misunderstand. It's not "those rotten gays" that I blame. The problem is elsewhere. And because it is elsewhere, it won't stop at marriage. It will continue to erode all sorts of institutions and traditions until ... well, we'll see what happens then.

So, who is to blame? Well, the first line is humans in general. You know, those "dead in sin," hostile to God, that kind of thing. You know, the ones that the Bible describes this way:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one (Rom 3:10-12).

Now, in case you were saying, "Yeah, those dirty rotten sinners!", I need to point out that the description is of humans, not "them." That would be ... all of us.

Still, as Christians, we are changed, saved, born again, baptized into Jesus's death and resurrected to new life. We're different. Sure, we are. Or, we ought to be. The difficulty is that it's so hard to tell. We have similar numbers of people shacking up, divorcing, committing adultery, stealing ... well, sinning just like the rest. While the one we claim to follow said, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), we remain as divided as any other group. While we are the ones who receive the Spirit of God who "will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13), we have conferences to explain why that particular group of Christians is so wrong that we need to shoot them on sight. (I exaggerate only slightly.) And even though we have some of the best minds in the world as Christians and some outstanding sources for apologetics, it seems like your average Christian on the street can't receive the simplest challenge without responding in anger and confusion.

Here's the bottom line. Why is it that marriage is on the verge of being overturned to mean something different in our society? It is first and foremost because Christians in our society have turned it over to mean something different. We dislodged the biblical explanation that it was a union of two into one. If we hadn't, divorce among Christians would be too horrible to contemplate. We bought the lie that it was about "love" and "fulfillment" and "equality" and perpetuated it. We perpetuated it when we allowed "man and wife" to change to "husband and wife." We built on it when we edged out "wives, submit to your husbands" in favor of "submit to one another" (a completely nonsensical concept taken out of context as this is). We further compounded the problem when we neglected the God-given structure we were commanded. Human beings were made for a purpose. Our primary purpose is, of course, to glorify our Maker. That purpose, however, was made specific. "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Gen 1:28). God made Man to do it and made Woman to assist him in doing it (Gen 2:18). When we decided, with the rest of our world, that it was all about self-fulfillment and self-gratification, marriage lost its meaning among Christians.

Why doesn't the world see how nonsensical "same-sex marriage" is? Sure, there is the problem of sin. They are blinded to what God wants. Still, the most obvious reason is that Christians haven't stood their ground. We haven't offered examples of living out lives of dying to self for the benefit of others, obeying Christ, submitting to husbands, loving wives to the point of dying, raising godly offspring, representing Christ to those around us. We've bought the notion that our job is, well, to let those people in church tell our neighbors because, after all, the gospel isn't very attractive on its own. There is a lot of blame lying about. I know there's some here with my name on it. I'm fairly sure there's some here for you, too. Perhaps, as we try to defend marriage (without really grasping what it is), we ought to take the log out of our own eye. Yes, they need to hear the truth preached, but there is an old saying: Actions speak louder than words.

Put Christ Back in Christmas

It's a popular phrase among many Christians. "We need to put Christ back in Christmas." I certainly understand the sentiment. What passes for "Christmas" today seems to generally have very little to do with Christ. I mean, even atheists celebrate "Christmas," don't they? Still, it begs a couple of questions.

First, was Christ ever in Christmas? No one with any information today actually believes that Christ was born on December 25th ... 0 A.D. Clement of Alexandria guessed it was January 6. Others guessed that Jesus was conceived at the spring equinox, putting His birth in December. But in the 18th century, Christian scholars began to recognize that the date was more likely chosen for other reasons. Today, we all know that the 25th of December is a convention, a commonly agreed upon date to celebrate the birth of the Savior. But it gets worse. Most of us know that the date was actually stolen. In the early days of the Church, it was the date pagans recognized as the birth of the Sun God every year. It was deeply entrenched in their time, so Christians decided to snatch that date away from idolaters and use it to celebrate the birth of the Son of God. (Now, since English wasn't around at the time, don't try to make anything of "sun" versus "son." That's purely an English construct.) As it turns out, many of our "Christmas traditions" are actually built on pagan traditions. In fact, it is so convoluted that at times it is hard to tell what is "Christmas" and what is pagan in origin. So ... to what degree was Christ ever in Christmas?

On the other hand, the term is "Christmas." It is based on an older English term meaning "Christ's Mass." (By the way, those of you who like to get agitated about "Xmas" when talking about "put Christ back in Christmas," let it go. The "X" in Xmas is simply a reference to the Greek letter that corresponds to the first letter (in Greek) for "Christ." Just like "J.P. Morgan" means that someone named Morgan had a first name that began with "J," the "X" in Xmas is simply an initial, in Greek, for Christ. But I digress.) And the celebration is not so much a "birthday" as we might think. (Seriously, what birthday celebration have you been to where everyone but the birthday boy (or girl) gets gifts?) No, it is actually a celebration of the arrival of our Savior ... whenever He arrived. We find very little in the way of "Christmas" in Church history. It was included in Epiphany at times and outlawed at times. No one in the Church, however, was opposed to the joy of the Savior who came on our behalf. No one in the Church ever has.

Here are the facts. Christ came. When, we don't know. His miraculous arrival is the second most important event in human history. (I would argue that the Creation of humans would have to be the first.) With His arrival came the possibility of redemption, and we are eternally grateful. Now, some may have stolen a day from pagans to recognize that event, and that's somewhat clever if you ask me. And it seems only natural that pagans would steal it back. Nonetheless, the Church -- those who know Christ -- will always celebrate His coming. December 25th has little to do with it. Trees and lights and gifts have little to do with it. Do you want to "put Christ back in Christmas"? That, my friends, is simply a function of your own recognition that every day belongs to Him. "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). "Who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?" (Rom 11:35). Do you want to put Christ back in Christmas? Well, since the Church has always belonged to Him, and since He said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15), maybe that would be a good place to start.

Another One Bites the Dust

Did you notice? Yesterday was "A Day Without A Gay" Day. According to their website, "A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love." Fascinating! I suppose that can only mean that homosexuals are the only humans capable of love. Quite a surprise to me!

So, yesterday, they were encouraged to "call in 'gay'", not sick. Of course, in Arizona that would be sufficient grounds for dismissal, so I'm not sure of the wisdom of such actions, but still ... who knows? (In Arizona, if a gay business owner wants to fire a heterosexual worker because he/she is straight, that, too, is legal.) The goal was "to shift our strong feelings about injustice toward service" by using the day off (that they stole from their employers) to do kind things ... you know ... to show "the world how we love" (as contrasted with what they called "anger" of recent weeks). Some also called for all of the "gay community" to boycott any economic activity to show the financial muscle of the gay community. Others consider that a mistake. The whole idea is actually a spin-off of a similar "Day Without a Mexican" event by Latinos to fight the American bias against illegal immigrants who are, oh, by the way, illegal. That one didn't work out so well. That particular group still remains illegal. The day was intentionally selected to coincide with International Human Rights Day. You see, the only humans who have the capacity to love are not being allowed to do what they want and that's not right. Still, I wonder. Did you notice? Even if we have 10% of our population (that number is likely a gross exaggeration, tending more toward 2%) who are "gay" and some percentage (not nearly all) of those stayed away, would we notice?

You know, volunteering is a good thing. Solidarity is often a good thing. Standing for what you believe in is generally a good thing. Still, I have never actually seen a boycott succeed at what it was intended to accomplish. Statistically, boycotts "have had negligible impact on their targets." So maybe, just maybe, if the "gay community" wants to show the love, skipping work and not buying from their heterosexual neighbors isn't the best choice. (I'd tell the Christian community the same thing.) Maybe folks ought to reconsider that strategy.

Do You Love the World?

The question remains, especially for American Christians. Do you love the world?

I recently read a book by Joel Richardson entitled Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah. Interesting book. Mr. Richardson discusses Islamic eschatology (their view of end times) and compares it to Christian eschatology. He explains the importance of end times to Islam (ranked as #2 after devotion to Allah) and their perspective. They have a Messiah that they anticipate. They believe that Jesus (keep in mind -- it's not the same Jesus in which Christians believe) will return and be his "right hand man." They believe that there will be an end to Jews and Christians and all infidels. Interesting stuff, almost all of which I haven't heard. The comparison of what they believe about their Messiah and his right hand man with Christian eschatology was jarring. It sounds incredibly like the "Antichrist" of Christian eschatology. You know ... the Beast of Revelation. And their description of the role of "Jesus" was amazingly similar to that of the Beast's prophet.

It was an interesting read. I didn't exactly know what to do with the information. Was it real? I don't know. I'm not entirely clear on Christian eschatology. How much is figurative and how much is actual? Still, it was interesting. There were a few things that Mr. Richardson wanted to stress. In his section, "How Should We Respond?" (Thanks, man. I wasn't sure until you offered that. Seriously.), he suggested three things. First, pray. Second, share the Gospel with Moslems. Good. I like that. Then he suggested, "Prepare for Martyrdom." Now that was a little jarring. In fact, regardless of whether or not his thesis was correct regarding the correlation of Islam's Messiah and Christianity's Antichrist, he spent some time explaining how Islam is the future. It is the fastest growing religion in the world. It will soon outpace Christianity. And it is unapologetically anti-tolerance when it comes to other religions. So prepare for martyrdom.

And the question remains: Do you love the world? Or is it inconceivable to you that you would hold beliefs that could get you killed?

Newsweek has come out with an article that, amazingly, tries to make a Christian case for a linguistic non-sequitur -- "gay marriage." In it, the author, Lisa Miller, explains that we have no reason as Christians to bother believing what the Bible says. Sure, sure, she admits that the vast majority of Christianity rejects the morality of homosexual relationships. But she is quite sure they're all wrong. The concept of "marriage" as we see it isn't found in the Bible. (It is, but she denies it.) The "traditional family" isn't in there. (It is; she just doesn't know what she's looking at.) In fact, she's quite sure that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." (Again, she's blatantly mistaken, but if you're argument is that the Bible cannot be taken at face value and must change with time, what's the point of trying to actually find out what's in it?) She argues that love trumps everything, and you rotten Christians who want to take the Bible literally had better stop ... except, of course, for the parts that talk about love. But Newsweek has taken its stand. According to Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek, "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." Got that? If you believe that the Bible is a reliable book, worthy of believing, you are "intellectually bankrupt," "unserious," and in violation of "the great Judeo-Christian tradition." (Please ... you go figure that out. I don't get it at all.)

We don't currently truly comprehend persecution here in America. Oh, there are some who will argue that we Christians are persecuted, to which I'd answer, "You ain't seen nothin' yet." The question remains: Do you love the world? What will you do if Islam becomes the superpower it is growing into? Will you stand against it to your own peril or would you rather live in some measure of comfort? What will you do if the New Atheists have their way and outlaw your beliefs? They continue to make noises about how dangerous Christians really are. Will you stand on your beliefs or will you run for cover and side with the world?

The corollary question has nagged at me for a long time. Is it to our benefit or detriment that Christianity has been so acceptable and powerful in this nation of ours for so long? Has it made us lackadaisical? Has the world enticed us to love it more than Him? Will we be finding out the real answer to these questions soon? Could be.

Against the World

My wife is a big fan of '70's songs, so it is appropriate that I would mention one of those. Released in 1974, Helen Reddy did a song called You and Me Against the World. The chorus went like this:

You and me against the world
Sometimes it feels like you and me against the world
When all the others turn their back and walk away
You can count on me to stay

It was a love song, of course, and expressed a wonderful sentiment. I always liked the idea that no matter what, my wife and I were together facing whatever adversities we may encounter. I suspect, however, that this is short-sighted in view of Scripture.

We tend to think of "you and me against the world" as "when adversity comes," but the Bible says something different to Christians. Jesus said, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:19). On the other hand, John wrote, "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). What we have, then, as Christians is a standardized conflict. There is "the world" and there is "us." Since the "us" designation is often hard to determine, When it comes down to it, it is "me against the world" or, more accurately, the "you and me" would refer to Christ and me.

That position seems a bit harsh, I'm sure. Some will try to tell you you're wrong and everyone thinks so. It's nearly true that "everyone thinks so." Are you willing to accept that position? Sometimes you'll likely wonder, "How is it that I seem to be among a very, very few that thinks this way? What makes me think I'm right and everyone else is wrong?" Are you willing to accept the possibility that you really do stand in opposition to the vast majority of everyone else? It is the truth of our situation. The world hates us because we are not of the world.

On the other hand, do you get along quite well with the world? Are the things of the world important to you? Do you love the world? That is its own dangerous position. I would warn against that one. If you indeed love the world, you may need to repent (change your thinking) or you may not be one of "us." Neither is a good place to be.

The fact is that it is "you and me against the world." Of course, the "you" is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe, so it's not a bad position to be in. Numerically it looks bad, but it is the strongest position, isn't it? Still, it sounds daunting and it can be unpleasant. Be ready for it.

Unintended Consequences

A recent report by an organization called Common Sense Media has raised the alarm on children and the media. Taking into account television, videos, and computers, they warn that "there is a strong correlation between media exposure and long-term negative health effects to children." The "negative health effects" included "tobacco use, sexual behavior, obesity, ADHD, academic performance, and drug/alcohol use." The clearest, most obvious connection was to childhood obesity.

We like to think of ourselves as good parents. We tend to think "I'm monitoring my kids." We tell ourselves that's what is important. I suspect, however, that we are mistaken on two counts. First, it is nearly impossible to actually monitor kids, especially in the world of media. Things pop up unbidden. Computers go to websites they never intended. Ads show up which we didn't have a chance to reject. Even "safe" places have sexually-related material shown for all to see. There is no real way to monitor kids when they are connected to the media. The other problem is that in many cases the content isn't the problem. For example, obesity in kids is not a product of content as much as it is of simply being there. Where previous generations used to "go outside and play," today's generation prefers to sit and vegetate. Beyond that, the medium of the media is designed primarily not to feed thinking processes, but to deny them. That is, very little is left to the imagination. Being an audio and visual construct, it leaves nothing for children to think about. Compare that to, say, books, where words construct ideas that readers need to visualize themselves. Other aspects, like poor academic performance and ADHD, would also be, at least somewhat, a product of the medium rather than the content. Time spent in front of a screen is time neglected in other areas, regardless of the content. When it comes to very young, developing children, time spent in front of a screen has several non-content related impacts that I don't think we really want them to suffer. It seems as if our standard society functioning with daily video screens of all types is fraught with consequences we aren't taking into account.

The answer, of course, is unthinkable to most families today. "Get rid of it." That isn't going to happen. Adults enjoy their TVs too much. Computers are necessary. We need the media. But ... do we? The question, I suppose, is really one of priority. Which is more important -- our children or our entertainment? (Face it ... the vast majority of our media usage is entertainment.) To tell the truth, there are negative impacts on adults as well. Will we ignore those, too? Perhaps a middle ground is limiting contact to the media. Perhaps that can work. Are you willing to do that? If we choose to do nothing about it, we can't complain about the media's impact on our society when we have options we refuse to exercise.

The Wisdom of God

Sometimes in our "chapter and verse" world of Scripture we get a little ... choppy in our understanding of what is written. We tend to think of, as an example, Romans 1:32 as an end of a thought and Romans 2:1 (the next verse) as the beginning of a new thought. The truth is that these were all written without chapter and verse designations. These followed later so we could all be on the same page, so to speak. The unfortunate side effect, then, is that sometimes we miss the bigger picture. In Paul's epistle to the Romans, for instance, Paul has a message that starts in the first chapter and ends around the 11th chapter. He is outlining a fairly comprehensive theological perspective. It is ... doctrine. Chapter 12, then, starts with a "therefore" -- "What should we do in light of this doctrine?" The rest of the epistle (essentially) is application.

Between the doctrinal part and the application part, Paul, finishing his theological perspective, says this:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?" For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen (Rom 11:33-36).

Now, there are some real important and deep things in that little paragraph. There is the fact that no matter how much "good" we do, it can't be said that God owes us anything. There is the absolutely God-centered focus of all things. There is the focus on His glory. All very, very important things worth examining further and pondering. I, however, want to look only at the first thought.

Paul has laid out a pretty clear theological framework, starting with Man's sinful condition, the solution to that condition, the ramifications of that solution, and so forth. However, despite eleven chapters of preaching (I mean, seriously, which of us would sit through 11 chapters of preaching in a church service?), Paul has an interesting conclusion. "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" In other words, Paul says, "Yes, I've done the best I can, but let me tell you ... I haven't scratched the surface. God and His judgments and His ways are so far above anything I can explain or even understand. It's too marvelous to even contemplate!"

The next time you think, "I think I have this stuff figured out", think again. You don't. Can't happen. And the next time someone asks you a question about God that you can't answer, don't worry about it. Sure, search to see if you can find an answer, but realize that, in the final analysis, human beings (finite) can never fully grasp God (infinite). That's okay. To Paul, it's even a good thing. It should be to us as well.

Saved by Foreknowledge

Probably, if you're a Calvinist-type, you've heard this. "Oh, I believe in the omniscience of God ... I believe that God knows in advance who will and won't be saved. I just don't believe that He predestines who will and who won't."

Think about that for a minute. Without even going into that "middle knowledge" or "foreknowledge is not the same as predestination" argumentation, think about the concept. God knows who will be saved; He just doesn't predestine it. Here is what they are trying to do with this type of statement. "Salvation is available for everyone. No one but the individual determines whether or not they will receive salvation." (I know, I know, it is possible for various individuals to differ with what I just said.) They want to maintain that the individual, not God, determines if he or she will receive Christ. So they want to maintain a type of uncertainty. They think that, somehow, if there is a group of people who will not be saved, then they are excluded somehow and God is not fair (and, maybe, we don't have to share the Gospel with them).

Here's the problem. If God is truly omniscient and if God knows who will and who will not be saved ... then the story is over. Those who will be saved will and those who won't won't. It cannot be changed or God has failed to properly know. In other words ... there is no uncertainty, and allowing for God's perfect foreknowledge is a tacit approval of predestination. Now what do you do? Well, until you find someone else who has perfect foreknowledge, I suppose we had better keep sharing the Gospel with everyone.

Why I Believe

Why do I believe what I believe (on the topic of Reformed theology)? Many will claim that I'm listening to the teachings of men (a primary reason that I despise the "Calvinism" label). Many will claim that I'm ignoring the Bible. So let me lay out as briefly as I can what it is I believe with the briefest of reasoning behind it and you can decide if I get it from Calvin (or Luther or Augustine or whomever you wish to name) and if I'm ignoring the Bible.

I believe that human beings in their natural condition are dead in sin (Eph 2:1), inclined only to evil (Gen 8:21), hostile to God (Rom 8:5-8), and unable to comprehend the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). At the same time, the Creator has required them to submit to Him, an impossible task for a person in that condition. In light of this, I find that there is nothing about human beings in their natural condition that commends them to God. None are "special" or "worthy" or merit God's grace or mercy. However, God, based on His good pleasure (Rom 9:11) (as opposed to anything valuable in the individual), chooses to dramatically intervene in the lives of some. Keep in mind that all have earned death (Rom 6:28), and God would be fully just in letting them receive what they have earned. However, "in order that God's purpose of election might continue," He has chosen to intervene in some of the lives of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22) in order to demonstrate His astounding mercy and grace. These "vessels for honorable use" (Rom 9:21) do not arrive at this by means of their choices or actions (John 1:12-13; Rom 9:16), but simply by God's mercy. These few, deemed special only because God chooses to make them so and not because of anything within them, are forgiven their sins and made alive (Col 2:13), come to Him in faith (Rom 10:9), and are adopted in to the family of God (John 1:12). These are kept by God to the end by His working within them (Phil 2:12-13) so that they are changed in how they live and do not perish. As carefully tended love-gifts from Father to Son, these are given as a Bride to Christ, not on the basis of anything they have done, but on the basis of Christ's atoning work applied by God to these whom He chooses and makes alive.

Now, maybe someone sees "John Calvin" in something I wrote. Maybe someone thinks I pulled this out of a book somewhere rather than from my Bible. If either of these are true, I missed it. Someone once asked about me, "How can Stan believe that?" The explanation offered was "Well, if you read what he read, you would, too." We'll see if that's so.

Strawman

Last week was a family gathering. The more family that gathers, the more interesting the conversations can get. It was very interesting when one of my family members explained that if he ever became convinced that Calvinism was right, he'd join the Ku Klux Klan because they were the same thing.

I found it to be a wonderful "teaching moment." My son and his new wife had both been talking with me about the "strawman" argument. They understood it to simply be a weak argument. I was explaining to them that it was something different. The "strawman" argument substitutes a person's actual position with something that is not an accurate representation, and then explains why that position is wrong. I found, during the initial conversation, that I was having difficulties coming up with illustrations. Then I was given this beautiful example. Calvinism is like the Aryan Nation. People who believe in Election believe that they are special people and everyone else is inferior. That, of course, is so wrong! And my son picked up on that illustration quite well.

The difficulty of the strawman argument is that 1) it is linked in some sense to the real position, and 2) there is a tendency, in defending your real position, to want to defend against the strawman argument. In the example above, my son wanted to explain why Calvinism is not like white racism, but the defenses looked as if he was defending the Ku Klux Klan. The correct answer is, "You're right! That kind of thinking is wrong! Now ... what has one to do with the other?" But when you agree with the opponent that the argument he offered on your behalf is wrong, it appears as if you're agreeing that you are wrong, and that's not right either. And humans, being what we are, are very quick to pick up defenses based on emotion much more quickly than defenses based on reason, so the mere fact that we are being opposed, even if it isn't a valid argument, tends to make us want to "take up arms," so to speak.

Arguments can be tricky things. Most of us, when we hear the word "argument", think of "fight", but this isn't the case. We are indeed called to make a defense of the truth. In so doing, we will be required make arguments. We should do so with care. We should do so with reason. We should make sure that the motivation isn't so much self-defense, but both defense of the truth and concern for those we believe to be mistaken. We need to avoid "talking past" each other where we might be using similar terms without similar meaning. We need to be careful to understand the concerns of the other person so we can properly address those concerns rather than merely our defense. There is a lot that goes into this. Perhaps a good starting place would be prayer.

Anticipation

"What would you like for Christmas?" It's a common question. Kids will hear it when they go to the mall and sit on Santa's lap. Families will ask each other as they anticipate gift-giving gatherings. Friends and coworkers might even ask it just out of curiosity. "What would you like?"

I'm always amazed at those who anticipate rather than ask, and not just at Christmas. You likely know one or two people like this. They don't necessarily ask, "What would you like?" but simply dive in and give or do or say what is needed. They sense that you are down, so they offer a word of encouragement. There are dishes in the sink, so they wash them. There is a mess left behind after the family gathering, so they clean up. They see something in the store and say to themselves, "Oh, that is so much something he or she would like" and they get it ... even without Christmas or a birthday pending.

These "anticipators" are a special breed. They often go without notice or thanks. Many times they do this so often that it is taken for granted. "Of course he'll pick up after himself; it's what he always does." "Why wouldn't she fix us a meal when we drop by for a visit? She always has." Often the anticipated "gift" is "small." He put the dishes in the dishwasher. She found some dirty socks and washed them with the rest of the stuff, knowing you'd need clean socks soon. He sees you coming in the rear view mirror and moves out of your way before you get there so you won't have to change lanes. And the one who receives this kind of gift often go on oblivious to the kindness.

Anticipation at Christmastime is normal. Anticipating the needs and wishes of others, on the other hand, isn't quite so common. It takes an outward look rather than the standard self center. Besides that, it is often practiced with little reward. Still, anticipating the needs and wishes of others and meeting them is a rare gift itself, one that would be well-sought by anyone who calls themselves a follower of Christ who anticipated and met our need long before we knew we had it.

Marriage Epiphany

I know. This is a religious viewpoint I'm going to offer. But, hey, I'm a religious guy. My beliefs about God will necessarily inform my worldview. It's just the way it works. So, of course, this isn't intended to be convincing to those who don't share my worldview. However, for those who do ... I had an epiphany I thought I'd share.

Anyone who has read my blog much knows that I have a deep concern about marriage. I think it is important. I think it is in danger. The problem, though, is that it tends to be so ... vague. If you're too vague in what you're trying to say, it leaves room for confusion and misrepresentation. A vague definition of "marriage," for instance, leaves you hard pressed to defend a vote to restrict marriage to a man and a woman without being hateful.

Part of the problem with marriage -- part of the debate -- has swirled around the term "traditional." I've used the language of the California Supreme Court to say that the "longstanding and traditional definition" is ... and there it's between a man and a woman (as even the court recognized). But what is the value of "traditional"? And what about all the changes that marriage has endured over time? The questions are valid. However, I think they should be dismissed. By that I mean that we shouldn't be defining marriage by its trappings and variations. Instead, what is it about marriage that has always been the same? That should serve as the basis for a definition.

Well, at the start, of course, it was defined as the union of a man and a woman (Gen 2:24). It was intended for companionship (Gen 2:18). A husband and a wife were to be faithful to each other, and they were to raise godly offspring (Malachi 2:15). Okay, there we have the primary components. Things change. Things vary. Marriage has had many faces. Still, the bottom line of marriage has been the union (not a small term) of a man and a woman for the purpose of companionship, faithfulness, and offspring. Sometimes that included multiple wives. Sometimes it didn't. For most of history being childless was disgraceful and sad. Childlessness has only recently become vogue. Sometimes there was a racial component or a religious component ... or not. Sometimes women were treated worse than others. All of these are variables, but the bottom line has always remained the same -- the union of a man and a woman. Only recently has "because we love each other" become the primary definition. For most of history marriage was understood to be about companionship, but not necessarily romance.

The most basic component, then, of marriage is "union." It is a unique concept. You don't get it in other types of relationships. Friendships are not the same union. Bloodlines are not even the same union. This concept takes two unrelated people and makes them one. It makes a family where there was none.

Here's the thing. This has always been the case. Before governments, before churches, before Christianity, before even Judaism, it was the case. That means one thing. This fundamental event of making a family out of two unrelated people occurs outside of governments or churches. According to Paul, it is a great mystery (Eph 5:31-32). According to Malachi 2:15, God does it. And that is my epiphany.

The world may do what it wants. They can try to define marriage as something else. They can try to say it's about being happy or sharing love or being recognized. They can try to say it should include same-sex couples. Regardless of what they do, they don't get to define marriage because they don't actually get to make what is totally unique about marriage. God does it. Therefore, God defines it. Tradition doesn't define it. Churches don't define it. Government doesn't define it. God defines it because God makes the union happen. And what was Jesus's warning? "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:6).

Update: I think you will be hard pressed to find a more clear, concise, or complete statement on the topic than here.

Blind Spots

The term refers primarily to that spot when you drive that is outside of your rear-view mirror range. It's that spot where, unless you turn your head, you won't see the other car. Truckers routinely warn about it. "If you can't see me in my mirror, I can't see you." It's a dangerous place because, well, you have it, but you don't know it.

The term is useful elsewhere, too. We all have blind spots in life. These are those things about ourselves that we just don't see. Some are easily understandable. "You snore." "No, I don't. I stayed awake all night just to see, and I didn't snore once." Of course, you only snore when you're asleep, so it's understandable that you might not know it. Others are harder to imagine. You're doing them when you're wide awake. You're with you when you do them. You know ... "Why do you always make that noise?" "What noise?" "That noise with your tongue." "What noise?" We do these things, but for one reason or another, we are not aware of it.

Often, I suspect, an easy way to tell a blind spot is to ask yourself, "What is it that irritates me about other people?" I think that too many times we are irritated when people do the same rotten thing we do but aren't fully aware we do it. I talked to a coworker once who complained to me, "My mom is so easily offended that she hasn't spoken to us for 4 years because someone made a comment about shoes." Yeah, that's sad, but he seemed completely unaware that his fellow laborers walked around him on egg shells because he was so easily offended.

Blind spots when you're driving can be dangerous, even deadly. Blind spots in life are equally dangerous. They can damage your health and ruin relationships. She doesn't know she grinds her teeth, but the dentist bill is going to be high. He may not know that he squeezes the toothpaste wrong, but she's divorcing him for it. Trite examples, perhaps, but you get the idea.

I think it's wise to have a few close, trustworthy friends who have the freedom, even the mandate to point these things out to you. Unfortunately, too many of us, for reasons I can't fathom, aren't very likely to ask for that. "I know I've got problems -- perhaps serious ones -- but by no means do I want to know what they are." Think about it. That might not be the wisest approach. And just because someone points out something you didn't know you were doing doesn't necessarily mean that it's an attack. The wounds of a friend ... you know.