Lines are our friends

I know ... the title line there is generally used as a joke. America loves the "free spirit", those who do whatever they please, the rebel without a clue. Oh, no, wait, that probably wasn't fair ... you know ... that I said it out loud. True, but not acceptable. The fact is, however, that lines so very often are our friends. We want to know how far we can go and where we must stop. We want to know what is and is not acceptable. We want a 12-step program to fix our problems. We want to know the top 10 answers to everything. Despite our love of the rebel in all of us, we like our lines.

Today is tax day, so I thought I'd use taxes as an illustration. Over at Blog and Mablog (clever name, that), Doug Wilson has done a series on taxation as thievery. Interesting series. (It starts with Ten Principles on Redistributive Taxation as Theft followed by More on Government Thievery and finally coming to Meum and Tuum.) He goes to great lengths to explain that on one hand taxation is not, by definition, theft and, on the other hand, taxation can be theft. He does this over a whole series of entries because, well, exactly where taxation crosses the line to theft is hard to draw.

As it turns out, I don't think that this is the only difficult line to draw. We all know, for instance, that Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:27-28). How is that for a line? Too tough? Yeah, I know. Someone responded, "It's the second look that counts." In other words, now we start to muddle around with "look" and "lust" and what really constitutes "adultery" in this case?

My aim here is not to explain that line. My intent is to point out the difficulty of lines. You see, Jesus drew a very clear "line in the sand" and we're not clear on it. What constitutes "to lust after"? Where is the line between "looks at" and "lusts"? How do I know when you have done it (you know ... so I can point it out)? So careful were the Jews on this topic that they considered it wrong to look at another man's wife's little finger or to even admire his own wife's beauty. The Talmud references a "foolish saint" who refuses to save a drowning woman because he shouldn't look on her. Lines, you see, were their friends. But they drew the lines in all the wrong places. Jesus was drawing the line in your head or, more accurately, in your heart.

More often than not the sins in which we engage are not sins because of the action but because of the heart. As Wilson points out, for instance, "Murder is not taking a life. Murder is taking a life contrary to the revealed will of God." Intent is the problem. Thus, in Num 35:11, manslaughter was defined as killing someone "without intent". Solomon tells how God hates the sacrifices of the wicked. "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent" (Pro 21:27). When Simon the magician asked to pay Peter to receive the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit, Peter berated him. The real problem, according to Peter, was "the intent of your heart" (Acts 8:22). The problem with mankind is that "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). In fact, the Word of God is said to be so sharp that it can divide between soul and spirit, between "thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12).

Suddenly lines become quite difficult. If the problem is the intent of the heart, the externals become harder to figure. We can know, for instance, that murder is a sin, but when is it murder or manslaughter? If sexual activity outside of the will of God is sexual immorality, is it possible to have sexual activity within a marriage that is immoral because of the intentions of the heart? I think the answer would obviously be "Yes". Jesus said we should pray in private because showing off in prayer was wrong, that we should give in private because showing off in giving was wrong, that we should fast in private because showing off in fasting was wrong. You see, it is possible to pray, give, and fast wrong.

Lines are indeed our friends. It's just that sometimes they get a lot harder to draw than we realize. I would think that in many cases they're clearer to us in our own heads, but far too often we find ourselves deceived by the world and confused about those lines and someplace along the way we realize we long since crossed lines we shouldn't have crossed. Our world may adore the free-spirited rebel. God isn't quite so amused with that approach. So we're left with examining ourselves to see if we're in the faith, with testing everything, with judging ourselves not for our actions so much as our intentions. It's a hard line to draw ... but not impossible.

Now what?

This little meme is floating around Facebook.

23K teachers were given pink slips in CA and 17K in IL. NJ and FL are cutting teacher jobs and reducing salaries. We need to get our priorities in order. Athletes are paid millions, but teachers, with whom we entrust to help raise our kids, are not valued. In honor of ALL teachers, copy and paste this into your status.

Poor grammar aside (is that a commentary on teachers?), I think that our priorities are indeed askew when we pay non-producing members of society exorbitant amounts of money to ... what ... entertain us? And we neglect the more important people -- like teachers. On the other hand, I don't believe the solution to educational problems is more money. I'm quite certain our educational woes lie elsewhere. Still, I wish we did pay teachers better than we do. It would 1) give them better recompense for their very important jobs and 2) give us a bit more leverage to control things. (It's really difficult these days to try to fire a bad teacher, for instance.)

Still, I'm at a complete loss about what this thing is supposed to accomplish or even say. Teachers are paid out of taxes. Athletes are paid out of ticket purchases. We should tax athletes to pay teachers? No, that's not it. We should charge admission to schools so we can pay teachers more? No, no, that's not right either. Clearly our values in our society are skewed. But what am I or you or even a group of us supposed to do about this particular situation? Our tax money doesn't pay for athletes, so the correlation to their wages doesn't fit. Is it a call for higher taxes? Agreeing that teachers are underpaid, what do I do now?

Or is this just another "Here's a problem" without a solution offered?

Everyone has the right to my opinion.

It is a commonly held belief today. "The Right" (whatever that may designate) is an arrogant group of opinionated people who have no regard for others and their beliefs. They are intolerant and judgmental. Oh ... and they are wrong.

Have you ever noticed that it always seems to go one way and not the other? "You guys are wrong and I'm right." Next, "If you disagree with me, you're just an idiot. (See statement 1.)" What most people never seem to realize is that everyone thinks they're right. No one would hold any opinion at all if they didn't think it was right. And most of us would agree that having no opinion at all would be a bad thing.

People draw conclusions based on what they believe to be true. Changing those views is quite often a difficult and time-consuming task. However, it is a basic truth that each of us believes what we believe is the truth. So why is it that, for instance, the Right is arrogant and opinionated and not anyone else? In fact, the truth is that everyone is opinionated. We all have our own firm opinions. Even if your own opinion is that "all opinions have equal value", it is likely that you are dogmatic about that opinion. I would go on to argue that most people have little regard for the beliefs of others. Why? Because of how many times I've been told, "You Christians are judgmental and intolerant", a very judgmental and intolerant statement. Because I've heard the very same thing from "the Right" about "the Left" ... and from the middle about both ends.

The fear, it seems, is division. Truth claims are divisive. I can offer you a question -- "What is 2 + 2?" -- and the answers are extremely limited. You may answer "4" or "addition" or even "math" and that's fine. You may not answer any other number, any other mathematical function, or the nearly infinite number of other possible answers and be correct. It is not "zoology" or "green" or "pig". Truth claims limit the answers in every case. So if you think that you are "open-minded" and "tolerant", there are only two possibilities. Either you are so open-minded that your brains leaked out, or you're lying to yourself.

Perhaps we ought to learn to be more careful when we approach people of differing opinion. It is mandatory that you differ (or it wouldn't be a "differing opinion"), but it is not required that you belittle the one who holds the opinion or accuse them of being what you are if you do -- intolerant. By all means discuss differences of opinions. (I really dislike "agree to disagree".) Share your view, defend it, explain it, examine it. Absolutely. There's just no need to get nasty about it, is there? Because for every view you have, someone else has an equally strong view and when you turn ugly in a discussion, it is more likely to reflect badly on you (and, it follows, your view) than to settle anything at all.

When Christians Speak

Back in September, 2005, the South endured Hurricane Katrina's onslaught. It caused the expected round of "Where is God?" questions from various quarters. One of the responses was the well-known Tony Campolo. Dr. Campolo identifies himself as an Evangelical Christian. He is an author and a professor and respected by many. He took on the question, "Why didn't God do something?"

I kind of liked Dr. Campolo's conclusion. "I contend that the best thing for us to do in the aftermath of Katrina is to remain silent, and not try to explain this tragedy. Instead of asking 'Why?' we should be asking, 'What does God want us to do now?'" I agree that answering for God as to why He does what He does without specific revelation is unwise at best. I wish that was all he wrote. But his largest response was remarkably predictable and, at times, horribly wrong. He assured his readers that Katrina was not God's judgment on America. Any preacher who said so would be wrong. "Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were -- for the most part -- Katrina's victims." Well, it may or may not be God's judgment, but what Bible was he reading when he 1) labeled most of the victims of Katrina as "innocent" and 2) what Bible was he reading when he suggested that God wouldn't judge people? He went on to inform his readers that suffering is not part of God's great plan. To ascribe that to God is, in his view, to dishonor God. "When the floods swept into the Gulf Coast, God was the first one who wept." When the question of "Where is God when there is suffering?" comes up, there are typically two possible answers offered. Either God is not loving enough to do anything about it or He is not powerful enough to do anything about it. Okay, maybe both. Campolo's answer? "God is not really as powerful as we have claimed." He confidently asserts that "omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible."

Sometimes, when Christians speak, I cringe. When Anne Graham Lotz was asked about 9/11 -- "How could God let this happen?" -- she responded, "God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life." What a painful concept! God acquiesces to His creation? When Pat Robertson claimed that the earthquake in Haiti was due to their national "pact with the devil", it hurt to hear. When prominent Christians lined up at the microphones to tell us how Katrina was God's judgment for everything from rampant gambling on the Gulf coast to legalized abortion in America, it was painful to endure. And then there are those who speak for "Christianity" with no connection to Christianity. (The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind.) Sometimes, when Christians speak, I cringe.

I wonder how often that happens here. I have no doubt that some people don't like what I say. I believe what I write, so I believe I am right, but I am pretty sure that other genuine Christians might cringe when they read what I write. I know that Tony Campolo would label me as one who dishonors God. Of course, I'd have to return the favor, but I can see that he might not like it. When Steve Saint, son of murdered missionary Nate Saint, told an audience that he believed that his father's murder wasn't an accident, but was actually a plan of God, one of his listeners told him, "Don't ever say that again about my God." I would have wanted to tell that listener, "Stop maligning my God." Okay, well, I suppose I'll need to tolerate their foolishness if I expect them to tolerate mine, eh?

The Truth

Local Christian talk show host, Andrew Tallman, had an interesting post on his Thought of the Day blog recently. He talked about how the Bible was not "a book about truth", like some helpful guide to morality and living, but about Christ, the truth. I thought it was a good thought. But he got me to thinking ... always dangerous as anyone who knows me can attest.

We are quite familiar with Jesus's famous claim, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6). Any genuine Christ follower (AKA, Christian) understands this to reference the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. Lots of people complain, "You Christians are so exclusive", but we're kind of stuck with it if we are going to be followers of Christ. We didn't make the claim; He did. He is "the Way" and there is no other.

Perhaps it's because of the second sentence in that verse -- "No man comes to the Father but by Me" -- but it seems to me that we are missing something if we stop at the exclusive claim of Christ as the only means of salvation. Yes, indeed, that is undeniably there. Yes, indeed, we need to hold to that. All the calls to being less restrictive are simply calls to deny what Christ said and we can't. Fine and good. But if (or rather since) we see the claim of being "the Way" as being a claim to exclusivity for salvation, what about the other two? We seem to skip those.

What am I talking about? Well, if "the Way" says that He is the only way, wouldn't "the Truth" say that He is the only Truth and "the Life" say that He is the only life? If we are going to affirm (as we do) that Jesus is the only way to God, then we must also affirm that He is the only Truth and the only Life. Of course, that may get a bit sticky, so let's see if I can make sense out of it.

When I say that Jesus is the Truth (as in "the only Truth"), I'm not suggesting that there is no truth outside of what the Bible says about Jesus. The Bible never touches on 2 + 2, but we know the right answer. The Bible doesn't talk about the Law of Gravity, but we know it is there. So in what way would I say that Jesus is the only Truth? Well, it is a common saying, "All truth is God's truth." All truth that exists is created and upheld by God. We err when we think that the physical laws in which we operate bound God, too. No, He is the one who made them. In a similar sense, John 1 says about Christ, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). He is the Creator. Beyond that, "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17). He is the one who sustains all things. If all that was made was made by Him and all that exists is held together in Him, it would have to also be true that all that is true is contained in Him. While that may seem like a pointless conclusion, I would have to disagree. The point of that conclusion is that if "all things were created through Him and for Him" (Col 1:16), then the discovery of all truth would best be pursued by starting with Him. From that vantage point, we can see how all truth works together for Him rather than the concept that truth is true outside of Him. John Piper puts it this way:

"If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God." (1 Corinthians 8:2-3). Which I take to mean that until we know in such a way that we love God more because of it, we do not yet know as we ought to know.

If Jesus is the Truth, then whatever truth we may learn is only valuable as it relates to Him and our relationship with Him.

The other concept is similar. If He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, then He is the Life, as in "the only life". We do know that Jesus defines life in a different way than we do. He says, "This is eternal life, that they know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). We also know that outside of Christ humans are dead in sins (Eph 2:1). So in a very real sense the only genuine life that exists is in Him.

Religions in general and Christianity in particular are often attacked for being exclusive. We need to understand two points. First, when religions claim to be exclusive, it is possible that the claim is valid. If it is valid, then only one can be actually correct. Thus, merely claiming to be exclusive shouldn't be a surprise. The question should be "Which one is right?" Second, if we are to be followers of Christ, it means that we have to, well, follow Him. If He claims exclusivity, then for us to deny it would be to deny the one we claim to be following. Others may not like it, but if we are to be Christians, we are without options here. On the other hand, assuming Christ was who He said He was and assuming His claim was valid, being a follower of the Way, the Truth, and the Life is a really good thing.

The Socinian Heresy

Meet Laelius Socinus. He was one of the founders of a secret religious sect operating under the banner of "Christian". In the late 1500's, this sect, called "Socinians", referred to themselves as Unitarians. The primary doctrinal difference between them and the rest of the existing Christian Church was on the nature of God. Most obviously, they denied the Trinity. They argued, instead, for ... well, a unitarian view. There was one God. The "Holy Spirit" wasn't a person, but was simply the power of God. And Jesus? Well, He was a nice fellow, but certainly no God. They saw "Christianity" as the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus. Jesus lived an exemplary life and we ought to follow it. Oh, they had other differences as well. They affirmed human Free Will and rejected doctrines like Original Sin and the existence of Hell. They believed that there were many ways to heaven and held that, while the Bible may have been inspired by God, it was written by humans and subject to error. In other words, the Socinians had a serious problem with heresy. Today, Unitarians have achieved a new version of Christianity ... one without Christ. On their website they actually assert, "Belief in God is welcomed but not required within Unitarian Universalism." They claim, "We welcome people who identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions." So the heresy has gone as one might expect. Reject God and you end up rejecting God. Embrace the supremacy of Man and you reject God. It's hard, once out that far, to call such a belief system "heresy" since it has lost nearly all connection with Christianity except for the occasional tacking on of the word "Christian".

But the Socinian heresy is not dead. There are various anti-trinitarian groups today including large ones like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. There are others who share their annihilation of the doctrine of eternal damnation and substitute ... annihilation. (Yes, I was playing with words there.) A large number of people calling themselves "Christians" would agree that the Bible was inspired but contains error. But the one I am concerned about is this one. Among their key beliefs, the Socinians were very concerned about the Free Will of Man. The article in wikipedia includes this paragraph:

The Socinians believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen), and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). They believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible; and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience. (Italics in the original)

Does that sound familiar? It should. I referenced it back in my Absolving God recently. It is one of the key tenets of Open Theism: God is not Omniscient.

There is a problem with that, of course. I mean, if it was no big deal, I'd keep quiet about it. But it is a big deal. It speaks to the character of God and the reliability of Scripture. The Bible repeatedly claims for God that He knows all things. I won't belabor the point about knowing what we've done or what we think. They don't deny that. But there are repeated references over and over to God knowing more than what simply is or has been. Peter argued that Jesus knew all things (John 21:17). God claims for Himself, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isa 46:9-10). The very existence of a prophet (including Christ) says that God knows the future. And how many references are there to either God's foreknowledge or His predestination? (Oh, oh! I know! I found 5 references to some form of "predestine", 7 references to "determine" in the sense of determing in advance, and 3 references to God's foreknowledge. That, of course, is without reference to prophecies and statements about the future. An example would be 1 Sam 23:10-12.) (There is also a phrase, used in various places, about "long ago" or "of old" or the like. Acts 15:18 says that God declared what would be "from long ago". Jude 1:4 references people who were ordained to condemnation "from of old". So the number increases.) God's Omniscience with a capital "O" -- knowing all things including the future -- is supported over and over in Scripture, starting with prophecies as early as Genesis 3 and ending with the certainties of Revelation, the end declared from the beginning.

If Omniscience were alone here, perhaps it would be negotiable. Maybe we could discuss an alternative meaning. But it's not. If God is not Omniscient -- knowing everything -- then other characteristics change. God would necessarily be constantly learning as new things happen ... and we have eliminated the certainty of His claim, "I am the Lord, I do not change" (Immutability). He changes continuously! God claims to have no regrets (1 Sam 15:29), but if He is constantly seeing new things, it is inevitable, isn't it? Of course, if God is incapable of knowing the future and unwilling to do anything about it, the concepts of both His Omnipotence and, more importantly, His Sovereignty are moot. He cannot alter the future. He cannot control His creation. All He can do is muddle about after the fact and hope to fix the messes we make.

Heresies come and heresies go. Generally, after they go they resurface. The Socinians were eliminated some time ago, but they're not gone. Their heresies are alive and well. Painfully, some of them reside in groups that consider themselves "Christian" and even "orthodox". It is clear to me, however, that the god of Open Theism is not the God of orthodoxy.

Freedom from Religion?

Perhaps you've heard of them. They are an organization called Freedom From Religion, and their goal is to eliminate religion from the public arena. Similar to the NAACP LDF, which exists to provide legal assistance to poor African Americans and civil rights and voting rights activists, and brings lawsuits against violators of civil rights or the ACLU which (ostensibly) exists to advocate individual rights, by litigating, legislating, and educating the public on a broad array of issues affecting individual, the FFF group aims to "educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state." Now, perhaps I'm overstating when I say that they want to eliminate religion from the public arena. In the case of the New Atheists, however, it would not be an exaggeration. At the top of their website they declare their own aims: "Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview."

Right or wrong, what would it be like if the New Atheists had their way? They would like the whole "religion" thing to go away. It's a myth, fairy tales told by ignorant people to ignorant children. It serves no purpose. Replace it with "the truth". So ... what if we did as they demanded? How would that alter life as we know it?

I'll leave off obvious things like "no more churches everywhere you go". Sure, we'd eliminate the dominant beliefs of 95% of Americans, but that's their problem, right? No, I'm thinking of broader matters. I mean, if you disagree with a religion, just ignore their church on the corner. Big deal. If you believe that the dominant beliefs of 95% of Americans are wrong, you're doing them a favor, right? But what about other matters? What about, say, holidays? If we were to be consistent with "no religion", it would mandate the end of everything from St. Valentine's Day and Halloween to Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. (Don't forget Hanukkah and the like.) (I don't actually understand how a conscientious atheist can take off holidays that are religious in nature. Indeed, the word "holiday" is religious in nature. Taking a day off work that is offered for the celebration of things they deny exist would seem blatantly deceitful. But maybe that's just me.) The impact of removing these would be much larger than simply adding days of work (and school) to the calendar. Take, for instance, the obvious affect these types of events have on human interaction. Grouse all you want, but there is an undeniable sense at Christmas time, for instance, of "good cheer", of optimism and better relations between people. Thanksgiving gives a definite moment to recall "blessings" which would otherwise be ignored. We whine about how these things are no longer related to their origins, but there is still enough of a carryover to have a positive effect. Throw that effect out. The positive sense that religion gives at holidays would be gone. In a much more measurable sense, businesses count on these holidays for a large part of their income. According to the National Retail Federation, "the holiday season can represent anywhere between 25-40% of annual sales." So expect retail businesses to lose up to 40% of their annual revenue. I'll let the New Atheists make that offer to retail businesses everywhere.

How about the effects on health care? "Health care?" you ask. Yes. About 12% of community hospitals in the United States are Catholic hospitals. Something like 18% of hospital beds in America are provided by religious-based hospitals. If we eliminated religion, we would impact health care from the perspective of hospital beds at least. Beyond that, however, the medical profession has done studies as well on the effects of prayer and faith on health. For whatever reason you care to assign it, it turns out that prayer and faith have a measurable effect on health. Dr. Brick Johnstone declared, "Prayer isn't related to health per se, but if you have real strong beliefs in a loving, caring God, and if you have real strong support from your congregation, those things lead to better health." Or consider Alcoholics Anonymous as an example. They (and their relatives) base their approach on a "higher power" -- a religious belief. Remove that higher support and you remove their success. In many ways, removing religion from society would impact health care.

How about charity? From the American Jewish Committee to the YWCA, there are long lists of faith-based charitable organizations. In fact, in one article back in 2003, "Five of the nation's largest faith-based charities were ranked as part of Worth magazine's 100 most efficient charitable groups." According to government figures, more than one third of all volunteers donate their time to religious-based organizations. "Volunteers across all racial and ethnic groups are more likely to donate their time through religious organizations than through any other type of organization." Some 43% of youth mentors work through faith-based organizations. These organizations, from church congregations through major charitable organizations, work in areas like housing development, economic development, and community development. It is not possible to conclude that ripping away faith-based charities would have minimal impact on the charitable contributions (time, money, etc.) to society.

From there, the questions get more personal. For instance, The Heritage Foundation has reported on various aspects of the effects of religion on life. Studies have found things like this:

* The strength of the family unit is intertwined with the practice of religion. Churchgoers are more likely to be married, less likely to be divorced or single, and more likely to manifest high levels of satisfaction in marriage.
* Church attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability and happiness.
* The regular practice of religion helps poor persons move out of poverty. Regular church attendance, for example, is particularly instrumental in helping young people to escape the poverty of inner-city life.
* Religious belief and practice contribute substantially to the formation of personal moral criteria and sound moral judgment.
* Regular religious practice generally inoculates individuals against a host of social problems, including suicide, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, crime, and divorce.
* The regular practice of religion also encourages such beneficial effects on mental health as less depression (a modern epidemic), more self-esteem, and greater family and marital happiness.
* In repairing damage caused by alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital breakdown, religious belief and practice are a major source of strength and recovery.
* Regular practice of religion is good for personal physical health: It increases longevity, improves one's chances of recovery from illness, and lessens the incidence of many killer diseases.

Remove religion, and you impact several aspects of individual lives. For instance, without religion there is no rational basis for a moral system. This isn't a merely religious argument. The rational atheist admits it. Bertrand Russell wrote, "Outside human desires there is no moral standard." This is not to suggest that atheists are immoral or have no basis for their morality. It simply says that without a Lawgiver there is no source of moral values that must be applied to all people. Morality shifts to pragmatism. As Bertrand Russell said, morality is simply based on human desire. One person may argue that it's wrong to kill people and another may argue that it's perfectly acceptable and there is no basis on which to call one right and the other wrong. All morality is based on "What's right for me." Remove religion and you remove several fundamental human beliefs. The basis of the American Revolution was the premise that a Creator had endowed humans with rights. If, on the other hand, the Creator is disallowed, humans have no more rights than any other creature. Judaism and Christianity have always held that Man has the highest value among living beings because we were made in the image of God. Remove God and you have, as Peter Singer has worked so hard to argue, mere speciesism, the pernicious belief in the superior value of the human being that needs to be removed with God. All calls to a "higher power" need to be eliminated, along with their effects. Some are provided a sense of purpose in life from that call. Some are provided comfort in sorrow and death from that call. Some experience extra strength to go through difficult situations from that call. Away with all that.

None of this is an apologetic for theism. I hope you understand that. Nor is any of it some sort of argument against atheism. None of this argues for either as a truth claim. I'm simply offering a view of the alternative to the present. Would we be better off by eliminating God? Would we be better off economically, socially, physically, mentally? Would our lives be better? Our marriages? Our families? Our care for others? Our morality? Our personal outlooks? If it is true that there is no God, it would paint a much different, much bleaker picture of our existence. I haven't argued that there is a God, but I'm pretty sure that the argument against God isn't offering us something better than what we have.

Versus

Compare Romans 6 with Romans 7, and you end up with a difficult tension. (Skeptics would like to call it a contradiction.) In chapter 6 Paul writes, "We know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin" (Rom 6:6). He assures us, "One who has died has been set free from sin" (Rom 6:7). He encourages us "Consider yourselves dead to sin" (Rom 6:11). In fact, he commands, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions" (Rom 6:12). And he gives the reason:

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness (Rom 6:16-18).

Now, this is all good news. "All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus" have an entirely new condition. The "old man" is dead. We are "free from sin" and, better, "dead to sin". We have the option to no longer let sin reign. All good stuff. And then we come to Romans 7.

In Romans 7 Paul starts out talking about the Law. He tells us how, similar to being released from sin, "we are released from the law" (Rom 7:6). We no longer live by the written code, but by the Spirit. He steps back for a moment, however, to assure us that there is a difference. Sin is bad, but the Law is good (Rom 7:7). Reading on, we come across what is believed to be a problem. We just saw in chapter 6 that we are free from sin. Now in chapter 7 we read that Paul claims "I am of the flesh, sold under sin" (Rom 7:14). Now wait! Didn't he just say he was free from sin? So how is he under sin? Aha! There it is! A contradiction in the Bible!

It is, in fact, a hotly debated passage of Scripture. Many have reconciled the two chapters by suggesting that chapter 7 is Paul talking as an unregenerate man. He is talking about not being a Christian. Others have argued that this cannot be. For instance, Paul argued in Romans 3 that "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). If this is true, then no unregenerate person would "delight in the law of God, in my inner being" (Rom 7:22). But if this is about Paul (which is suggested by all the first-person pronouns used) as a believer, then in what sense is he both "free from sin" and "sold under sin"? If the "old self" is dead, what is this "sin that dwells within me" (Rom 7:20)? If he is no longer a slave of sin, how can he say, "I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out" (Rom 7:18)? All very confusing. The Roman Catholics sought to make sense of it by separating Original Sin from "Concupiscence". In Roman Catholic theology, concupiscence is desire, either good or bad. The Reformers disagreed. They considered it to be "lust", a desire for evil. Martin Luther offered the famous "simul iustus et peccator" -- "At the same time righteous and a sinner". In this view, we are declared just by faith in Christ ("righteous") and then are sanctified over time -- the process of becoming more holy. Thus, although we are declared just, we spend the rest of our lives decreasing in sin.

I personally don't have as much of a problem with the passage. Let's see if I can spell it out clearly. In Romans 6 Paul assures us that we are "free from sin", but if he intended by that to say that we no longer sin, he wouldn't have told us to not to let sin reign. At that very point in Scripture, apparently there is a tension between the "old self" being dead and our continuing ability to pursue our sinful passions. So the first passage tells us that, while we are dead to sin, it doesn't mean we are no longer capable of sinning. What, then, is the sin to which we are dead? I would assume it to be this condition described in Romans 3 -- the total inability to do good. The unregenerate man is incapable of not sinning. The regenerate man is "dead to sin" -- capable of not committing sin. The old man is capable of only sin while the new man is capable of choosing. The "sin" in view, then, would be Original Sin. We're free from that condition while still living in the flesh.

Then look at the second passage. The topic is the Law. Paul says we are free from the Law. So when he writes that he was "sold under sin", it was while he was under the Law. Being free from the Law, he (we) is no longer a slave of sin. In fact, he exults in holiness. No longer under the Law, he delights in the Law. It points to what is good. The problem, then, is the left over "flesh". We carry around a "dead man", this body of flesh. It is the residual self-centeredness, the left-over sinful desires. We seek happiness in the wrong places and look for joy in the wrong ways. We have a mind, rotted and twisted by sin, that needs renewing. How is this accomplished?

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death (Rom 7:24-8:2).

We are not left alone to muddle through this. We have "no condemnation" in Christ and we have the Spirit of life to free us.

Oh, and we don't have a contradiction anymore.

No Creed but Christ

A creed is a concise statement of beliefs or principles. It is a "confession of faith". It is a brief version of "What we believe". It is the essential doctrinal statement. And it is, in so many Christian circles, taboo.

Theology, in its purest form, is the study of God and His relationship with the world. ("Theo" is "God", and "logia" is "the study of".) Of course, our standard definition today is a distinctive body of a systematic perspective on religious faith, practice, and experience. And it is, in so many Christian circles, taboo.

Why is this? How can it be that, in Christian circles, doctrine and the study of the character of God and how it relates to us can be unwelcome? Well, I would suggest that, like in so many other areas in our current culture, the whole idea of careful examination and diligent study is fading out. Our society isn't particularly interested in thinking things through anymore. (How else would you explain, for instance, that so many are so judgmental and intolerant of people who they deem to be judgmental and intolerant?) We are more experiential. "Don't bother telling me why or how ... just let me feel it." That's the way it is in much of society today. In our entertainment today, for instance, it's not about thinking it through; it's about feeling it out. Don't think through the movie Avatar, for instance. That just ruins it. A friend of mine recently told me he was moving from modern music to more classical in his studies. "Man," he told me, "they really took their music seriously!" So today it is "Thrill me; don't ask me to think."

And so it is in the Church. I know a pastor of more than 20 years who told me, "I don't know much about theology; I just love Jesus." There are a large number of people who I know as Christians who do not want to discuss doctrine or theology with me ... and I'm not talking about arguing. I'm talking about discussing. When I ask, they tell me, "I'm not really into that deep stuff; I just love Jesus." Bring up an analysis of a biblical passage or a theological concept and their eyes will glaze over. Some will cut me off with a smile and admit, "I'm not that into it." Others will tolerate me in a friendly way until they can escape. They've taken the world's approach. "Thrill me; don't ask me to think."

The whole idea baffles me. Starting with identical premises, we come to radically different conclusions. We start with "I love Jesus." There! We have something in common. So I pursue what I would think is the only reasonable course. If I love someone, I want to know all I can about them. I want more and more. I want to glean everything I can. I am insatiable because I love Jesus and want to get all I can possibly get from that relationship. So many others seem to think "I love Jesus" is the good starting and ending place. I don't get it. I mean, sure, everyone knows "experience unites; doctrine divides", but by definition truth divides. Isn't that a good thing? And don't we want the truth? I heard someplace "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Is that something to avoid?

Doctrine is biblical. Thinking is biblical. Renewing our minds is mandated. Knowing and being known by God is essential. I have yet to find the place where I can stop and say, "I know all I need to!" Yes, it is a vibrant and experiential relationship, but if that's all it is, it would be too shallow for me. The study of biblical truth and the nature of God, in fact, is a thrill for me. So, if some of you who just aren't that into doctrine and theology are willing, I wonder if you can help me understand how "I love Jesus" can be all that you need. What is it that you find distasteful about the study of the body of biblical beliefs that make up Christianity ("doctrine") and the study of the character of God and how He relates to our world ("theology")? Can you help me understand?

Good for Whom?

One of the things that has always bothered me in Christian circles is this little thing we have going on with Romans 8:28. Oh, we all know that one and we all love it. I like it best in the New American Standard Bible.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

What a great promise! We love it. For those of us who love God, it is a marvelous promise, a certainty upon which we can rest. But ... what about the rest?

I've often told fellow believers "God works all things together for good" and stopped right there. More often than not they feel the need to correct me. "Well, for those who love God." I have to disagree. I have argued in the past and continue to hold that God is good and that God is Sovereign. The only possible conclusion is that God works all things together for good -- all things. This isn't a reference to the promise of Romans 8:28. It's simply a statement of fact.

This, then, begs two questions. First, in what sense does God work all things together for good, and what is this promise saying that is different? I think that answering these might bring a little more light to the topic.

We have seen that God is good. We know that He is Sovereign. The only possible conclusion is that all that happens, then, is good. We see the logic. It is true, then, that God works all things together for good. The mistake occurs when we conclude that this good is our good. That's our standard mistake, isn't it? "It's all about us." No, it's not. In fact, the complaint of the skeptic typically starts with ... us. God is not doing right by us. If we suffer, then God is bad. But God's perspective starts always and rightly with Himself. He is, after all, the Center of the Universe. It really is all about Him. It really is not all about us. So when I say that God works all things together for good, I mean for His good. Sometimes His good is good for us, and sometimes it may not seem so, but the good that He works all things together for is not necessarily ours; it is His. Now we come to this promise. The difference, you see, is not in the good, but to whom it is good. If all that happens is for God's good and we love God, then all that happens will be good to us. Perhaps if I reword that you'll see it. We know that, to those who love God, God causes all things to work together for good.

If you love someone, when good happens to them it is good to you. When your child does well in school it makes you feel good because it makes them feel good. When you love, you want the best for the one you love. That's the most basic definition of love. So when we love God and God causes all things to work together for good, it is good to us. That's the promise.

Of course, you and I are imperfect. Sometimes we don't see how it is working together for good. Sometimes we are more concerned about (more "in love with") ourselves than God. At times like those we may not see the good. We still see through a glass darkly. But in the end we can be certain that, to those who love God, all that happens will be woven together for God's good. In so doing, it will be our good as well. That's a great place to be.

Right Answer/Real Answer

I spend a lot of time on this blog writing about the right answer. Oh, I don't use that term, but that's what I'm doing. I try to recognize what is true and expound on it. I'll explain what it is, why it is, and why you should agree. I'll tell you where I got it and where you should go with it. It's the right answer.

The truth, however, is that there are often two answers to many human questions. One is the right answer and the other is the real answer. That whole series on suffering and God's Sovereignty was a prime example. I spent days explaining that God is good and God is Sovereign so all that happens is good. I told you how suffering is one of God's tools and He uses it for His good purposes and that's good. That is all the right answer. So ... what happens when I suffer? Well, the right answer would be that I rejoice, that I count it all joy when I encounter various trials. The right answer would be that I would see that God was at work and would work it all for good. The right answer would be that I would respond with gratitude. That, of course, isn't (always) the real answer.

We humans suffer from a sin nature. As such, we are fully capable of recognizing the truth and failing to act on it. Like Paul's problem with sin in Romans 7, we know what is right and we know the truth, but the sin nature in us obscures our vision and we lose sight of the truth. All that stuff I wrote, for instance, was, I believe, true, but would it really be of benefit to, say, a mother who lost her newborn to SIDS to counsel her, "God is sovereign and will use this for good"? It is true, but it doesn't address her very human, very understandable grief. The right answer is "God works all things together for good", but the real answer is "I see that you're in pain and I'm here for you." Later, as the edge comes off, it is possible to point to truth.

We know, for instance, that sexual immorality is a sin. And too many Christians commit it. Ask them, "Is that act a sin?" and they'd certainly agree that it is. But they did it. You see, we have a right answer -- the truth -- and the real answer -- our experience.

The goal, then, is to "grow up into salvation" (1 Peter 2:2). Paul says that we have been made perfect. Then he says that we need to "hold true to what we have attained" (Phil 3:16). It is a process, called sanctification. It is a lifelong effort of being transformed by the renewing of the mind. And as we mature in Christ, the distance between the right answer and the real answer diminishes until the two are the same. That is the goal. "I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil 3:14).

What's Good About It?

I recently wrote a whole series on suffering and God's Sovereignty. It can be a sticky subject and I wanted to give it fair treatment. But it does beg the question ... Are things all that bad?

Christians are commanded to give thanks in everything. We are told to "rejoice evermore". Jesus said He came to give life and "that more abundantly". It seems that the perception from God's point of view is that, while things can certainly be difficult, there is a whole lot of good going on. I think that sometimes we lose sight of that, so I wanted to give it some thought.

I asked myself the other day, "What is the worst thing that ever happened to you?" I'm not sure I could come up with a positive answer. First, I had to think hard about what I considered suffering in my life and then I had to figure out what I thought was worse than what else and then ... well, you know ... suffering varies in degrees and it's hard to quantify it. But then I asked myself the reverse: "What is the best think that ever happened to you?" It was a similar question but a radically different response.

I listed my wife and my kids, my parents, my family. I listed the care that God has given me over my life. (If you knew the story of my jobs, for instance, you'd likely see as I do the hand of God at every turn.) There was the privilege of being born in America and a general good health and comfortable living. There was ... well, so much. Again, though, I ran into the problem of quantifying what was good. What would I rate as better than what? How would I compare and rank all of the good? You see, I think, despite the raging questions over suffering and God's role in it, that there is far more for which to be grateful than there is about which to complain ... and not just for me. But what was the best thing?

And then it hit me. Hands down without a doubt the very best thing that has ever happened to me is this: Someone died. I know ... confusing ... but bear with me. It, interestingly, ties together both God's Sovereignty in suffering and the best thing that ever happened. This past week we recognized, again, the death of our Savior. Today we celebrate His Resurrection, the ultimate triumph over death. We celebrate that the Son of God laid aside His claim to be God to become human, to live a perfect, sinless life, and to pay for our sin by dying on our behalf. We celebrate the death of death, the provision of eternal life, the imputation of His righteousness to us, sinners. We celebrate victory over Satan and, even while we struggle in this life with failure and sin, we exult in knowing that He has covered it all. And we celebrate the individual nature of it -- what the Scriptures repeatedly refer to as being "chosen". However you choose to view that term, it is in there. We are "the elect", "the chosen", "saints". Get that? "Saints". We who were sinners without hope are now declared holy! We who were enemies of God have been reconciled to Him. All of this (and so very much more) is all due to that which we celebrate today, Christ's death and resurrection.

The best thing that ever happened to me, then, was that He died for me, rose again, and is now the King of kings and Lord of lords. When I lay it all out in my head (or, at best, give that task a start), I cannot even fathom the question, "What's good about it?" What is not? Suffering? Yeah, I've had it. But all of that pales in comparison to the glory of being chosen, saved, bought by the blood, declared a child of God, and all the benefits that accompany that. That, then, is a huge example of God's Sovereignty in suffering (giving us His Son) and good.

What Makes an Arminian?

There are those who argue "I'm a Calvinist" and then clarify, "Well, I'm a four-point" or "three-point" or some such. There are others who claim, "I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian", thinking that they agree with a few of the points of Calvinism and a few of the points of Arminianism carefully crafted and modified, of course, to match something that is not quite either. Now, mind you, I'm not talking about people like me. I argue that I'm not a Calvinist because I'm wary of being tied to a man. My beliefs come from my understanding of Scripture, not from something John Calvin wrote. No, I'm talking about those who prefer not side with either view.

What is it that makes an Arminian (or a Calvinist)? What is the difference that would define the two? I think this is a key question. If we can figure out a basic difference, perhaps it would clear up or, at least, fundamentally change the discussion. So let me answer the question with what I believe to be the primary, singular difference between the two. In my estimation, where you fall on this one question will determine whether or not you are an Arminian or a Calvinist. That is, based on this question, everything else will fall in one direction or another.

Here's the question: What is the source of your regeneration? In theological terms, there are two views. One is synergism. I'm sure you've all heard the term (which is why I started with that one) and I'm sure most of you start with that premise. What premise? In its purest form, the word is constructed of two Greek terms. The first is sun (which Latin converts to "syn"). It means "with". The second, then, is the root word ("with" is a descriptive term). The root Greek word is ergon. Some of you may know that in English an erg is the unit of energy. In the same way, ergon is a reference to "work". Thus, "synergism" in its purest form means "working with". Of course, in English it has a more rounded sense. It means, "the working together of two (or more) things to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects." In theology, synergism references regeneration as a cooperative endeavor between a person and the Holy Ghost. "Working with". See? So, the idea is this: We are regenerated (born again) by the cooperative effect of our faith that enables the Holy Spirit to then regenerate us. Synergism.

The second term is far less prevalent, but together with "synergism" and a little thought I think we can figure it out. The term is "monergism". Note the same root -- ergon. So we're talking about "work". The prefix, then, describes the difference. And I don't think I need to explain to too many what "mono" means. It's simply "one". Monergism is, to the best of my knowledge, only used in the arena of theology. Thus, it is defined this way -- the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

Synergism is the majority belief of the day. God and I work together to get me born again. He can't (or won't) do it without me. Before He acts to regenerate me spiritually, I have to choose Christ and come in faith. Having done my part (Billy Graham liked to describe God's work as 99.9% of the way and ours as .1%), God is now enabled to finish the task. Together, then, we've accomplished what neither God nor I could have accomplished alone -- my spiritual rebirth. Synergism. There are others (apparently growing in numbers) who are horrified at the thought. They say this. "How can someone who is dead in sin, hostile to God, blinded by the god of this world, and incapable of understanding the things of God be expected to make that first step of choosing Christ and coming in faith?" They further object, "If it is our faith that enables the Holy Spirit to regenerate us, isn't there something there, even if it is very small (.1%), of which to boast?" These, based on a host of Scriptures, will subscribe instead to monergism. (I don't mean to imply that those who subscribe to synergism do so without Scripture. I'm merely saying that both are biblically sourced.) Their view is that God first regenerates whom He pleases and gifts them with faith and they, then, choose Christ and come in faith.

All other considerations work their way down from this single question. Did you enable God to regenerate you, or did God do it without your assistance? Set aside all the wrangling over whether or not the Holy Spirit can be resisted or what the extent and intent of the Atonement was. Disagree all you want over minor points. The only real question that differentiates a Calvinist or an Arminian is this single question. Did you begin by your own faith, or did you begin by God's divine first act? (I'm trying very hard not to poison the well. I may have to ask the question later in comments.) Your answer there will determine whether or not you are one or the other. After that it's mere details.

Absolving God

Perhaps you've heard of Open Theism. This view on the market today is an intentional attempt at absolving God from our problems. Open Theism denies certain characteristics of God that orthodoxy has always maintained, such as Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Sovereignty, and Immutability. They hold that God does not know the the future in any real sense because the future hasn't happened. Oh, sure, He knows probabilities, but not realities. Humans, you see, have Free Will and God cannot know in advance what they will choose to do (or there would be no choice, you see). The entire point of this exercise is to free God from culpability and to affirm Man's Free Will.

Free will, it seems, is the real issue. Does Man have free will? It is a genuine question. The philosophical libertarian (as opposed to the political libertarian) would argue that for Man to have meaningful free will, he must be able to have genuine options from which to choose. That is, at any given time, genuine free will "requires the individual to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances." There are, of course, disagreements. Theological Determinists argue that God "determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience or by decreeing their actions in advance." This, others protest, eliminates free will. Compatibilists, such as Thomas Hobbes, argue that free will and determinism are compatible. (Thus the clever name "compatibilists".) Incompatibilists may either reject determinism or free will because, well, they believe that each is ... wait for it ... incompatible with the other. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts the two together this way:

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Chapter III:I).

This statement includes both "determined" and "free will". The answer they offer as to how that could be is what is termed "second causes".

The basic definition of "free will" is something like this: "The ability to make choices that are not externally determined." An alternate definition is along these lines: "The ability to make a choice without coercion." The question, it seems, comes down to "determined". If God is omniscient (considering only that singular aspect), then God knows all that will happen. That would require that He knows (without error) every choice every human will make in every circumstance. If He knows that without error, then it is not possible for any human to make a different choice than the choice God already knows he or she will make. Thus, from the perspective of omniscience, all choices are already "determined" and, therefore, there is no free will ... right?

I subscribe to the second definition rather than the first because I think it is clearer and more consistent with reality. You see, to me "determined" is a bit unclear. If "determined" includes a causal "set in place", then it would make sense. But if "determined" simply means "knows perfectly in advance" (in the case of omniscience), then there isn't any causal sense. Here, let me use a human (and therefore imperfect) illustration. A mother knows that her children love freshly baked chocolate chip cookies. She cooks up a batch, goes into their room with a plate of the warm delights, and asks, "Does anyone want cookies?" The response is a given. There is no doubt. She knew when she made them what the answer to the question would be. She did not coerce them, but the outcome was "predetermined". Did those children have free will? I would say that, without a doubt, they did even though Mom knew what their answer would be.

The biblical record does include a times that God contravenes Man's free will. He prevented Abimelech from going in to Sarah (Gen 20). He certainly prevents some choices from ever coming up by natural means. There are second causes. And I think it is biblically undeniable that God knows everything and knows it perfectly. Still, knowing "from the beginning" (John 6:64) who would believe and who would betray Jesus didn't absolve Judas Iscariot of his own, uncoerced choice to betray Him (Luke 22:22). Even though God used Joseph's brothers' sinful choices for His good purposes, He didn't coerce the choices and they were not absolved for making them. I think that it is entirely reasonable for Man's free will (lowercase and limited) to coexist with God's omniscience and sovereignty as long as we properly define free will as choice without coercion and clearly understand that there is, in the final analysis, only one Sovereign. Of course, it must be understood that Man's free will is limited in all cases, but that should be blatantly obvious.

So, there you go ... a lesson in philosophy and a defense of God's Sovereignty and Man's free will, all in one. No charge. You're welcome.

Honesty

Some quotes on the topic of honesty:

If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. Mark Twain

Those who think it is permissible to tell white lies soon grow color-blind. Austin O'Malley

Honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom. Thomas Jefferson

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful. Edward R. Murrow

Honest hearts produce honest actions. Brigham Young

Some of the more recent quotes carry a harder edge to them.

Honesty has come to mean the privilege of insulting you to your face without expecting redress. Judith Martin

People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty. Richard J. Needham

But the one that seems most telling to me is one from someone of whom I've never heard:

The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

What is honesty? It is typically understood this way: Freedom from deceit or fraud; truthfulness. Face it. We know what honesty is ... and we all fall short. But I got to wondering the other day -- What would it be like in this world if honesty was mandatory, if we could not lie? I enjoyed, for instance, the movie, Liar, Liar in which the main character, a divorce lawyer of all things, could not lie. The results were hilarious ... and telling.

Call a help line and you might get a message like this: "Your call is important to us." Of course, that's simply a prelude to an hour of Muzak while you wait for someone to take your oh-so-important call. But in a world of mandatory honesty, it would be more like, "Please hold. Remember that we provide this help line as a mandatory service to try to keep our customers and, in all honesty, it's a lot more trouble than it's worth most of the time. Expect a lengthy delay and understand that the person who finally answers probably doesn't really know or care what you need, so please be patient."

How about those emails you get from Nigeria? "Dear sir or madam, I am a scam artist posing as a relative of a non-existent person who has died and left a lot of money that I need your help to acquire. I will try to convince you that you can help me in getting that money by offering you some of it in exchange for providing me with your bank account number. I will, of course, proceed to steal you blind, but you will think that I'm trying to give you a whole lot of money and your greed impulses should overcome your rational brain and we'll do business -- me taking what you have. If you're interested, please send me ..."

And, oh, it's frankly nearly impossible to imagine what a political campaign ad, let alone speech, would look like. "Vote for Mike! He will go to Washington to represent himself in the best possible manner! He'll pretend to care about what you want, but he'll be more interested in the power he can acquire, the fame he can mass, and, of course, the side money he can make from lobbyists and special interest groups. Trust him! He'll do his best to pander just enough to your concerns to get voted in and stay voted in. He probably won't be any more dishonest that any other politician -- probably. Yeah, yeah, we know, lousy set of choices, but vote for Mike because he's up there among the best of those really lousy options!" Political speeches would be worse. We'd have to, of course, eliminate the phrase "I promise" entirely. We'd learn to recognize that the politician that voices agreement with our own views is either too naïve or too stupid to be in office. It's not that they would be dishonest, but an honest evaluation would recognize that agreement with our own views will have little to do with what happens politics.

Okay, perhaps I'm being too cynical. Maybe I'm just a bit too biased in one direction. I do find it odd that, while on one hand we can easily see and agree that honesty is indeed the best policy, we seem to be quite incapable of either recognizing it or providing it fully and consistently ourselves. That doesn't bode well for us, does it?

Holy Week Revisited

I wrote this way back in 2007. I have a whole set of new readers and thought I'd put it out there again for the fun of it. If I'm right, instead of Good Friday being the day of His Crucifixion, we'd be celebrating it today. Not that it makes a big difference, but ...
_________________________

Mind you, this is just a theory of mine. It is my goal to try to correlate Scripture. If any of this upsets you, I don't find it anything worth fighting for, so, please, simply let it go. On the other hand, if you enjoy trying to piece together puzzles and are willing to set aside some long-held ideas that may not be right, well, this might be fun.

In Matt. 12:40, Jesus makes a statement about His death and resurrection:

"For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Now, the normal person, when asked when Jesus died and rose again, will tell you that He died on Friday and rose again on Sunday. This is a problem for me because this isn't "three days and three nights." I know, I know, the standard answer is "Well, the Hebrews measured days from sundown to sundown, so Friday-Saturday-Sunday would be three days." That's all well and good ... but it's not three nights by any measure. So I'm a little bit confused.

So I took a different approach. What do we know? We know that the women found Him alive on "the first day of the week." Okay, good, a time reference. Jesus was discovered alive on Sunday. Funny thing. Beyond that, we know very little. There are references to "the next day" in a variety of places regarding the last week of Jesus's life, but there are holes in the time line and little is certain. The primary reason that we believe that Jesus died on a Friday was that it says that they wanted to bury Him before sundown because the Sabbath was the next day. That's about all we have to go on. So I tried to piece together a possible time line taking into account what we do know.

Working backward from Sunday, we know that "the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55-56). They prepared spices then rested on the Sabbath. Mark says something different. "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint Him" (Mark 16:1). So, it appears that women bought the spices on the day after the Sabbath, prepared them, then waited for the Sabbath. That means that there would be a Crucifixion and burial, a Sabbath, a day after the Sabbath, a Sabbath, and the first day of the week. That would mean that Jesus died on a Wednesday, not a Friday.

This is reasonable. This gives us three days and three nights. He died on a Wednesday afternoon and was buried by the evening. Wednesday night is night #1, Thursday is day #1, Thursday night is night #2, Friday is day #2, Friday night is night #3, and Saturday is day #3. Jesus rose the sometime after sundown Saturday evening. This fits. Unfortunately, this pushes back "Good Friday" to "Good Wednesday". It puts the Triumphal Entry on a Friday rather than a Sunday. Well, it moves "Holy Week" to "Holy Week and a half".

But, wait, is there any reason to think that there would be a Sabbath, a day, and a Sabbath? Well, indeed, there is. Biblically, the Passover falls on the 14th of Nisan. That is, the paschal meal (which we know as "the Last Supper") takes place on the 14th of Nisan. This starts a 7-day feast called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Oh, and, as it happens, the day after the 14th of Nisan is "a High Sabbath" (Lev 23:5-7). Now, if the 14th of Nisan falls on a Wednesday, Thursday would be a High Sabbath, Friday would be the second day of the feast (but not a Sabbath), and Saturday would be the normal Sabbath. There we have it -- the exact combination needed to account for Mark's and Luke's accounts and give us exactly what Jesus said would happen.

What changes if we do this? Well, as far as I can tell, just a few traditions. Oh ... and Scripture aligns and agrees. Yeah, that's a good thing. I like it. It's just a theory, but I like it.
__________________

As a side note, commenters back then pointed out that April 6th, 30AD would be a Wednesday and would exactly align with all that I wrote here. Just interesting ... nothing more.

Politics as Usual

I was talking to someone the other day -- someone I barely know -- and heard come out of his mouth one of the strangest things I've ever heard. We simply touched in passing on the health care reform that was just passed and he said, "Yeah, Republicans will vote against anything that is Democratic." Now, mind you, he's not the first. I've heard it from the mouths of members of Congress and even from the President himself. You know the idea: "Politics as usual." What is really interesting and, therefore, ultimately stupid about the idea is that it seems, when they say it, to only go one way. That is, "Republicans will always vote against the ideas of the Democrats, and only Republicans do that. Democrats, on the other hand, vote for what is good and right and principled regardless of whose idea it is."

What nonsense! When you look at that truly historic vote (understanding that "historic" may mean "historically marvelous" or "historically catastrophic") on health care reform^*, it is quite remarkable that not one single Republican voted for the plan. Is the only possible conclusion "Republicans will always vote against the ideas of the Democrats," or is it possible that there are other factors in play here? Since there actually were Democrats who voted against the bill, I would have to assume that some Republicans may have agreed with the Democrats who voted against it and did not vote solely on the basis of political affiliation. I mean, obviously those Democrats who voted against it didn't do so because they would vote against any Democrat's idea, right? So they had another reason. What other possible reasons are there?

There is the possibility of one's constituents. If a representative comes from a group of people obviously and overwhelmingly opposed to the bill, a good representative will vote against the bill. You know, "the will of the people" and all that. Oh, sure, maybe that's idealistic, but if people are going to keep insisting that ours is a government "of the people", it has to remain a possibility. (Interestingly, it appears that most of the Democrats who voted against the bill came from traditionally conservative places.) It is not possible to conclude that the bill was just so perfect that there was not the slightest possibility that anyone could be opposed on the basis of principle, is it? Or, to reverse that, it is certainly possible that some might vote against a bill because, well, they genuinely think it's a bad idea. If a representative of the people genuinely believes that a bill before him or her is bad for the people, it is incumbent upon him or her to vote against it, regardless of its political source, isn't it? And this might lead to another possibility -- ignorance. It is possible (especially in the case of a bill the size of this one) that a government representative does not understand the bill well enough to support it. In a recent interview by Chris Matthews with Vice President Biden, Matthews asked whether or not the President had effectively communicated with the American people and, if so, why there was such resistance on the health reform bill. Mr. Biden responded with an explanation about how complex the bill is. We were left with very few logical conclusions. Either the answer was, "No, the President had not communicated effectively with the American people because the bill was so complex" or "Yes, the President had communicated effectively, but the bill is so complex and the American people (let's face it) are mostly too stupid to understand that we're left with this large resistance to the bill." (In other words, the President can't effectively communicate with the people because we're not smart enough to understand a complex bill.) Now, there are other possibilities, but these seem the most obvious and likely and they illustrate what could be a reason to vote against the bill. It's too hard to understand to actually support it.In one paragraph, then, I've offered several possibilities as to why people may have voted against the health care bill without including "politics as usual" as one of them. I'd like to think "I'm opposed on principle to that idea" would be a viable possibility, also, but I don't know how many of today's politicians (on either side of the aisle) are principled people.

All of this is aimed at that initial and irritating concept of "politics as usual". Is it possible that some Republicans will vote against anything that the Democrats might cook up? It's possible. But it's not remotely possible that all Republicans will vote that way. And, on the other hand, it must be admitted that there is very likely a close correlation of Democrats to Republicans who will also vote against anything that Republicans favor. I would love to find out who they are (on either side) and eliminate them because that's no way to run a government, but it is my conviction that 1) they wouldn't admit it, 2) they would be replaced by some of the same, and 3) they, like so many political ideologues on both sides in the country, might not even recognize it in themselves. All I'm asking, then, is can we please drop this nonsensical accusation and get along with the issues?

^* Please note that this is not a commentary on the bill itself, but simply uses this very obvious, recent event as an example of the issues I'm addressing.

Up in Arms

There are those who are getting so agitated over the whole health care reform thing that there is talk of armed rebellion. Now, I can't personally fathom that concept, so I'm not able to characterize what that looks like, but it does make me think. What conditions in my country would push me toward armed rebellion? At what point would I advocate the overthrow of the government?

Well, perhaps I'm an odd one, but this question would never occur to me. And here I am about to step into uncharted territory and mark myself as a lunatic ... again. You see, assuming that I held the same views as I currently do, if I had been around during the American Revolution, I would have been opposed to it. Okay, I know that places me on the fringe, but, hey, I'm used to being there. Still, let me explain why so, while you may not agree with me, at least you'll understand my thinking.

I believe that my worldview ought to conform to God's worldview, and I believe that the only way I can approach that is to conform my worldview to Scripture. Thus, it is always my goal to 1) properly understand Scripture and 2) allow that understanding to shape my views (rather than vice versa). I try, then, to operate on biblical principles rather than personal preferences. So, what biblical principles do I find that relate to this question?

I keep telling Christians this, but they don't seem to believe me, but from what I see the Bible is quite sparce on information about human governments. We read in the Old Testament that human government gets to take the life of a person that kills a person. Fine. That's helpful. And we see this:

¹ Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴ for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. ⁷ Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Rom. 13:1-7)

Now, this passage is pretty clear and, if you take it as it is written, somewhat disturbing. This is why I needed to address all that stuff about Sovereignty and suffering before. You see, according to what Paul wrote here the governments that exist "have been instituted by God" (v 1). Get that? This is saying that Barack Obama has been put in place not by foolish Democrats or wayward Americans, but by God. Our Congress, no matter what you may think of it, has been put in place by God. And if you oppose these, you oppose God. (Again, remember all that stuff about Sovereignty and suffering and "My ways are not your ways" and such.)

I believe, then, that armed rebellion, especially on the part of those who call themselves Christians and wish to allow their reality to be shaped by God rather than the world, has no place in our thinking. Now, I know that I'm not in the majority here. I know that the founders of our nation disagreed with me. Still, I cannot begin to imagine how I would fit "Overthrow the government" with "he is God's servant for your good" (v 4). I don't see how I put together "armed rebellion" with "one must be in subjection" (v 5). It just doesn't fit in my head. And suggesting, as some of our founding fathers did, that the government isn't what it is supposed to be doesn't seem to excuse it for me.

I do find room for civil disobedience. There is a distinction here. Civil disobedience, by definition, is non-violent. It is simply the refusal to obey a law because the law is immoral. If I were a pastor, for instance, and the state mandated that I perform same-sex marriages, I would be forced to refuse. When the government commands me to violate what God commands me, I have an obligation to refuse. Likewise, if the government forbids what God commands, I am forced to break that law as well. But here is the main distinction. In civil disobedience, I am being accountable to God (as opposed to the government, society, etc.), and in civil disobedience if I break the law either by omission or commission, I accept whatever punishment is meted out. That is, I still agree that the government has the God-given right to enforce their laws with the "sword" if necessary. It's just that I have to be responsible to God for my conscience.

I can see the possibility in the not-so-distant future of Christians having to engage in civil disobedience. There are those who would like to restrict our right to practice the faith as we must. (There is, for instance, a city near me that actually has a ban on holding Bible studies or meetings for prayer in your own home, believe it or not.) There are those who would like to require Christian organizations to recognize as moral things that God has deemed immoral. It doesn't seem too far away. And if it comes to it, I will have to stand my ground and take whatever punishment I must. But I cannot for the life of me find any way I can observe Romans 13 and still advocate the violent overthrow of the government of my country. And note that the passage won't even allow me to balk at paying my taxes based on this health care bill because he plainly writes, "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed ..." (v 7). How do I get around that? So ... you might think I'm on the lunatic fringe, but here I stand ...

Update:
4/5/2010 - It was interesting to read Dr. Albert Mohler's blog on the topic. He agrees with me that we need to obey the government and pay our taxes even if it means paying for the health care bill. I may be wrong ... but I'm not wrong alone.

God the Father

Anyone even vaguely familiar with Christian jargon knows that we refer to God as "the Father". There is also "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit". We use these terms to differentiate between persons of the Godhead because, in truth, "the Son" is also God and "the Holy Spirit" is also God, so we can easily get confused. Thus, we apply to the God of the Old Testament the term that Jesus applies to the God of the Old Testament: "Father".

Viewing it from a primarily idealistic approach, the term has various connotations. Fathers are not primarily nurturers. In human experience, that's generally the mother's job. In theological terms, the Holy Spirit is known as "the Comforter". Instead, fathers are typically the ones who provide the discipline. They are the providers. They are the model of manhood for the male children and the model of manhood for the female children. I differentiate because male children would typically emulate the male model while female children would see in their fathers the model for a husband. Fathers are normally the protectors, the front line of defense for a family. A good father is devoted to his family, although that devotion may look a little odd. He is away during the day, for instance, not because he wants to be away, but because he is working hard to provide for the family. He appears to be the stern one at times not because he's mean, but because he cares about the discipline of the children. He allows his children (especially boys) to do things that Mom would consider reckless not because he doesn't care if they get hurt, but because he's trying to expand their abilities and train them to handle tougher situations in life. And so it goes.

In what sense, then, does God refer to Himself as "Father"? Well, the term is used to correlate our concept of "father" with some of the ways in which He relates to us. You know ... go from the known ("father") to the unknown ("God"). So God as Father is the one, according to Hebrews 12, that disciplines His children. He does it, as a good father does, not out of anger, but out of love. As Father, He is the provider. What we tend to forget, in fact, is that He is the only genuine provider. We have all heard the term, "providence". The term means "to be provident". (I know ... "Thanks, Stan ... we wouldn't have known that.") It means to provide for future needs or events. When capitalized, Providence means the provision of God. Simply put, Providence simply references God's provision for us. That comes in the form of providing what we need as well as providing guidance and correction. In Gen 22:14, Abraham named a place after Him, calling it "Jehovah-jireh" -- "the LORD who provides". One of God's key characteristics is Providence. And, of course, God serves as our model. We are told, "You are to be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." He is holy and expects holiness of us. And the Bible refers to God as our security and salvation. He is described in the Psalms this way: "God is our strength and refuge in the time of trouble" (Psa 46:1) and "The LORD is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusts, and I am helped" (Psa 28:7) (just to show a couple verses). There is no better protection than that of the Sovereign God. Of course, there are many times that we may think that God is not going about this role correctly, but that's simply because we don't understand ... like human fathers.

It is little wonder, then, that Satan has "fathers" on his hitlist. If he can demean and denigrate "fathers", what do we conclude about God the Father? If a child grows up without a father, what does "God the Father" mean to him or her? If a child grows up with an abusive father, what does he or she know of God the Father? Twist the image of "father" in human life and you can twist the intent of the term "God the Father" in spiritual life. Satan has been so effective here that you might start to wonder about the wisdom of using the term as it relates to God. If fathers have become such a poor example of what fathers should be -- being either absent or abusive -- is it wise to tell people that God is our Father?

It's a funny thing. No matter how far out fathers get, it seems like most of us have this ingrained, innate sense of what a father should be. You all felt, I suspect, that even while I was describing the idealistic father earlier, you knew that fathers weren't good at that to a large part. Nonetheless, you all could relate to the concept of the ideal father. Whether or not you had such a father or knew such a father, you all knew that these are some of the traits of a good father. Thus, while Satan has succeeded in a large part in subverting fatherhood in humans, God has retained in our hearts what a good father looks like. And that ideal, whether our own fathers came close or not, remains as a valid, viable image of what God the Father is ... taken to perfection.

Children need fathers. They need good fathers. They need mothers, to be sure, but the balance of father and mother is key to a child, so much so that mothers who are without husbands are encouraged to find male role models for their children. And it is undeniably clear that the optimum arrangement for a growing child is a loving mother and father. Fathers are essential. Satan has worked to diminish that, but it can't be completely removed. And God, despite all our modern difficulties with faulty fathers, shows Himself to be the ideal Father. He disciplines and trains, provides and protects, models and molds us. It's a good thing in this world to have a genuine, good Father.

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

It's a given in physics -- Nature abhors a vacuum. Aristotle suggested it. Experience proves it. The natural world will do anything it can, it seems, to fill in empty space. It is, for instance, the basic premise of a pump. Instead of following gravity, liquid will actually rise to fill a vacuum in a pump. It's also the basic premise of the straw you use to drink that soda. Still question it? Then consider this. Try putting a running vacuum cleaner next to a sleeping cat. Oh, yeah, that won't be a sleeping cat anymore. (Get it? "Nature abhors a vacuum." Never mind.) Okay ... bad example. But you see how it works. So, how about this? Think of kids with nothing to do. That's a type of vacuum, and they hate it. It's also the reason that our world has become over-stimulated and under-fulfilled. As television and entertainment has gotten larger and larger and free time has increased, we've felt the need to fill the empty spaces with more stuff, events, stimulation, and whatever else we can find. It's the reason for "rebound romance" when someone suddenly terminates a long-term relationship. It's the reason that so many people are seeking self-fulfillment. It's the reason for the mid-life crisis. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Consider, then, the suggestion of the New Atheists (no, I'm not making up that term) who are currently on the scene. You know the ones. They're actually fairly well known names like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris along with a host of smaller but equally beligerent voices. They stand for "Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition" and "disregard for the tolerance of religion." Again, not my words; theirs. They are suggesting, sometimes quite loudly, things like the indoctrination of children into religion is child abuse.

What do they offer instead? The idea would be to replace the existing freedom of parents to teach their kids about their own faith with the "absolute certainty" of naturalism. Specifically, they want to remove such things as teachings about heaven and hell or any idea that a Divine Lawgiver is the source of morality. What would replace these things? Well, actually, nothing. Truly magnificent morality, they say, is when you are good simply because you choose to be rather than because you either hope to gain heaven or fear to fall into hell. Religion, they hold, leads to bigotry because you are taught that you are correct and those who disagree are wrong. Replace that with ... well, nothing ... you know, so you won't be bigoted. To be fair, some would wish to teach ... everything. They'd like to place the "Jewish creation myth" alongside the "Babylonian creation myth" as they compare to Darwinism so kids could see for themselves that Darwinism is right while those others are wrong. On teaching children ethics, Dawkins writes, "When the religious education class turns to ethics, I don't think science actually has a lot to say, and I would replace it with rational moral philosophy." So he would ask them questions. "Should we value human life above all other life? ... When, in our evolutionary descent from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, did the fence suddenly rear itself up?" And they would carefully replace any underlying value of human life with ... nothing.

Now, I ask you. The suggestion here is to replace religion with naturalism, replace any future hope or fear with oblivion, replace ethics with personal choice, and replace the value of human life with nothing. If nature abhors a vacuum and human nature is included in that, what do you suppose will be the next step? If today's kids operate on the theory that "Anything I can get away with is legal", what foundation will that generation work with? In a world without a Lawgiver, on what basis can you possibly suggest morality? The suggestion is that it would be an improvement. It seems to me that replacing what is, shaky as it can be, with nothing will simply promote anarchy, and that can't be called "improvement", can it?