Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar, wrote, "The medium is the message." McLuhan believed that the content of the message wasn't nearly as important as the medium by which it is conveyed. I suspect there is more truth to McLuhan's perspective than we would immediately recognize.
According to recent studies, it is suspected that one of the leading causes of and major reasons for the radical increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) among children is television. Children's health organizations are now warning that children before the age of 3 ought not be subjected to any video screens whatsoever. Others are saying that it should be severely limited prior to the age of 5 years old. Why? It isn't the message. It's the medium. Children in their early years of development have brains that are also developing. Television short-circuits that development. The rapid flashing images, the completeness of the medium (that is, the sound and sight), and the multisensory overload causes these developing brains to be damaged and makes for a higher demand of stimulation as they get older. Thus ... ADD. There are multiple problems, all brought about by allowing young children to watch TV. And that's completely apart from the content of the viewing. But it's not just children. A recent study said that the adult brain is more active when you are asleep than when you are watching television. Why? Again, not the content, but the medium. The television provides almost no room for mental activity. You aren't filling in an blanks. With a book, for instance, you are drawing the pictures in your mind. But with television the medium fills in all the blanks. And, of course, there is the simple mathematics of time. If the average television time is 6 hours a day, what are they not doing during that time? What more constructive, more beneficial, more valuable things could be done in that spare time that is consumed instead by nearly useless sitting and staring? Without even considering the content, the medium of television is a problem. The medium is the message.
There is another medium that bears its own message. This medium has an almost magical capacity to bypass the thinking portions of the brain and go directly to the emotions. It can almost cause physical movement without conscious attention. It can alter moods, going from content to angry or from angry to calm, just be being present. The content of this medium isn't nearly as effective as the medium itself. That medium is music.
Music is an amazing invention of God. As early as Genesis 4 musicians are mentioned in Scripture. David's first claim to fame was the music he played that calmed King Saul's evil spirit. Music was part of the fabric of the first Temple, and music was part of God's plan to bring down the walls of Jericho. Music is an amazing invention of God. It is also a powerful tool. Tools, by their nature, can be used for various purposes based on the one using them. Music, too, can be used for various purposes. It can calm the savage beast or raise a riot. It can lead you to sublime peaks and plummet you to depression's deepest valleys. It can bring a tear to your eye or a smile to your lips. Music is a tool, and failing to recognize it is like playing with a running saw. It might do something good, but it's more likely going to hurt someone. And while very, very few people seem to realize it, rashly applied music is very capable of hurting someone.
I did a little research and was interested in what I found. According to wikipedia, rock and roll music originated in the late 40's. This is the period immediately following World War II -- the period immediately following the creation of the group of people known as "teenagers". And this type of music was a product of teenage angst. The undeniable underlying thought in the music was sex. Indeed, wikipedia says, "The term 'rock and roll', which was black slang for sexual intercourse." Everyone knows the phrase, "Sex and drugs and rock and roll." The music is designed to appeal to the appetites, and it does it well. It appealed to the rebellion in youth, and it did it well. When it lost its shock value, it morphed into new forms, with shock as their appeal. Punk, rap, hip-hop, "alternative", they were all designed to express largely the discontent and anger that the youth have toward society.
Now we carry this musical message into our churches. We borrow the back beats and rythms and scrape off the old words, substituting praise, but the medium hasn't changed its message. It still aims its appeal at the senses. And somehow we're fine with that. Sensual music is good. It helps us praise God. It lifts our spirits to Him. We are completely unaware, it seems, that this is definitely a case where the medium is the message ... and the message doesn't match the intent. Are we sure this is the route we want to go? Is this actually the kind of music that we believe God enjoys? There is a wide variety of choices out there. I'm just wondering ... is the world's sensual rebellion the best we have to offer God?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Like Father, Like Son
We visited with my daughter and son-in-law and those two darling grandkids. Did I say darling? I suppose it's because I'm a grandparent. These two youngsters are without much parental control. Oh, they're cute enough, and it doesn't take much for a loving grandparent to bring them into line. And, as all children, they seem to want that sense of "fences", of being cared for and contained rather than wild and free. So it's fairly easy at this age to make the visit a pleasant one.
But I thought it was my responsibility to sit the boy down and explain to him his responsibilities as husband to my daughter and father to my grandchildren. So we had "a talk". You know what I'm talking about. I explain to him the wisdom of the ages. He nods, agrees, of course, and goes on about his way. I thought it was interesting that he was so intent on being viewed as a whole, fully functioning, responsible adult instead of admitting to any shortcomings. His failure to see the problems, however, assure that there will be no change unless God intervenes.
All we can do, sometimes, is pass on information, and that was all I could do. I left it at that and left it in better Hands than my own.
Then we visited my grandfather. He's an old man. I'm sorry. No way around it. Ninety is old. And I found myself there, visiting with my grandfather and my father, and me, the youngster in the group, talking just like my unaware son-in-law was. I wanted to be viewed as a whole, fully functioning, responsible adult. I wanted to be viewed as just as wise as these two older men who were much wiser and certainly much more experienced than I.
It's not the youth of my son-in-law. It's human nature. We call it "pride", and it's prevalent in all of us. I suppose that there will be no change unless God intervenes. And, oh, I'm praying for that.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Connection
I'm always hesitant to refer to "the good old days", so I'll avoid it now, but it seems like times have changed, and not always for the better. I was discussing with my brother the differences between our day and our parents' day. When we celebrated their 50th anniversary a few years ago, we had to pare down the list of invitees so we could fit them in the large hall we rented. People came from around the country, friends for decades eager to celebrate these two people who have been part of their lives. The same was true for my wife's parents at their 50th anniversary, and for my brother's in-laws. Yet, we were bemoaning, the likelihood of us having any such a gathering is remote. Why?
I suspect it is because our culture has changed. In our parents' day there was more of a community, more of a sense of "us". There were connections, long-standing friendships, neighbors who lived in the same home for life, and so on. But things have changed. Why are we so disjointed? I will offer a few contributing factors that I see.
One is the change between a father who worked and a mother who stayed home to both parents work. In their day, neighborhoods were full of mothers and their children. These women formed friendships, community, connection. They were the social glue of society. Women, I think, are the socializers of the family. Men will sometimes do one on one, but women are more likely to arrange gatherings. Today, however, women are busier with business. They're at work helping support the family. Someone else is raising the kids because it's very difficult in very many places to support a family with one income. (Of course, much of the difficulty is because we are sold a bill of goods about what we "need" and where happiness comes from, but that's another issue.) So as families have split off to go to work, our communities have lost some of their coherence.
One of the culprits in the problem is air conditioning. Okay, that's an oversimplification. But think about it. In days gone by, there was no air conditioning. So the weather turns warm and where would families go? They would go you out on the porch. And across the way their neighbors were out on the porch. Since then, we've acquired air conditioning. Now when it gets hot, we shut the doors behind us and sit in the cool of the indoors. Now, I am clearly being simplistic, but you get the idea. We have TV and computers, microwaves and frozen dinners and everything we need to avoid interacting with our neighbors. We are self-contained and safely insulated from the world around us by our pleasant technology.
Beyond this, our culture is breeding separation. Prior generations were neighborhood driven. Today is "me" oriented. In the past a man had a career. Now he has a job that he holds until something better comes along. There were connections at work, connections at church, connections at home. It wasn't about "me" as much as it was about "us". Someone once said, "You come into a room in two ways: Either 'Here I am' or 'There you are!'" We've indulged and even glorified the shift from "you" to "me".
One of the leading problems is the failure of the family. Some of it is disintegrating families. There is more strife, less harmony. Our media today tells us that parents are stupid and kids are wise. Our sitcoms glorify loser husbands and lousy wives and cynical children. The mere suggestion of the Leave It To Beaver lifestyle as something good and wholesome is laughed off the planet. Some of it is simple distance. As our transportation and civilization expands, families lose coherency. Children no longer work in their father's shop. They're off to another town, another state, working at whatever job they think will give them the best return without regard for the ties of family. Parents retire and move to warmer climates, making time with children and grandchildren occasional rather than commonplace. The family is falling apart.
There are lots of reasons, I'm sure. There are more than I've suggested. My goal here is to bring it to our attention. Connections are vital. Family is core. Fellowship is essential. It is counter to our culture, but we need to work at a unity in neighborhoods, church, and family that is at the core of the things of value. It may cost us, but anything worth having usually does.
I suspect it is because our culture has changed. In our parents' day there was more of a community, more of a sense of "us". There were connections, long-standing friendships, neighbors who lived in the same home for life, and so on. But things have changed. Why are we so disjointed? I will offer a few contributing factors that I see.
One is the change between a father who worked and a mother who stayed home to both parents work. In their day, neighborhoods were full of mothers and their children. These women formed friendships, community, connection. They were the social glue of society. Women, I think, are the socializers of the family. Men will sometimes do one on one, but women are more likely to arrange gatherings. Today, however, women are busier with business. They're at work helping support the family. Someone else is raising the kids because it's very difficult in very many places to support a family with one income. (Of course, much of the difficulty is because we are sold a bill of goods about what we "need" and where happiness comes from, but that's another issue.) So as families have split off to go to work, our communities have lost some of their coherence.
One of the culprits in the problem is air conditioning. Okay, that's an oversimplification. But think about it. In days gone by, there was no air conditioning. So the weather turns warm and where would families go? They would go you out on the porch. And across the way their neighbors were out on the porch. Since then, we've acquired air conditioning. Now when it gets hot, we shut the doors behind us and sit in the cool of the indoors. Now, I am clearly being simplistic, but you get the idea. We have TV and computers, microwaves and frozen dinners and everything we need to avoid interacting with our neighbors. We are self-contained and safely insulated from the world around us by our pleasant technology.
Beyond this, our culture is breeding separation. Prior generations were neighborhood driven. Today is "me" oriented. In the past a man had a career. Now he has a job that he holds until something better comes along. There were connections at work, connections at church, connections at home. It wasn't about "me" as much as it was about "us". Someone once said, "You come into a room in two ways: Either 'Here I am' or 'There you are!'" We've indulged and even glorified the shift from "you" to "me".
One of the leading problems is the failure of the family. Some of it is disintegrating families. There is more strife, less harmony. Our media today tells us that parents are stupid and kids are wise. Our sitcoms glorify loser husbands and lousy wives and cynical children. The mere suggestion of the Leave It To Beaver lifestyle as something good and wholesome is laughed off the planet. Some of it is simple distance. As our transportation and civilization expands, families lose coherency. Children no longer work in their father's shop. They're off to another town, another state, working at whatever job they think will give them the best return without regard for the ties of family. Parents retire and move to warmer climates, making time with children and grandchildren occasional rather than commonplace. The family is falling apart.
There are lots of reasons, I'm sure. There are more than I've suggested. My goal here is to bring it to our attention. Connections are vital. Family is core. Fellowship is essential. It is counter to our culture, but we need to work at a unity in neighborhoods, church, and family that is at the core of the things of value. It may cost us, but anything worth having usually does.
Monday, March 05, 2007
An Apple for the Teacher
Homeschooling is a valuable, sometimes necessary alternative to public schooling. It is a way for parents to eliminate the garbage that is being passed off as "education" today and to connect to our children in ways that the more traditional "school house" approach can offer. It provides for highly individualized instruction, far better attention, and a much better approach to education at all. Further, studies have shown that homeschooled children are better equipped to face the world than their "traditional" counterparts. Their education is better. Their conduct is better. Every aspect seems to be a vast improvement over those who went to a classroom environment. Homeschooling is a valuable, sometimes necessary alternative to the standard school approach.
There are those who would tell you, based on this information, that homeschooling is "the answer". This fails to take into account the pitfalls. In any plan one undertakes, it is important to consider all the variables. Or, as Christ put it, to "count the cost".
What kind of pitfalls are there in homeschooling? Well, there is obviously the time demand on the parent doing the schooling. They need to prepare as a teacher prepares ... along with all the other requirements of life. It is one of the general complaints of those doing the homeschooling that it takes so much more time than other schools require. Be prepared. Perhaps the most commonly named pitfall is socialization. Absolutely there are remedies for this one, but a parent contemplating homeschooling needs to take this danger into account.
I've seen one other pitfall for which I cannot fully account, but one that a parent contemplating homeschooling must consider. There is something about homeschooling that seems to attract bats. I don't mean winged rats. I mean those people who are prone to conspiracy theories and wild ideas. I can't fully explain it, but they seem to be drawn to homeschooling. Why is that? So in amongst the serious Christians who want their children to be trained up in the training and admonition of the Lord, you'll find those who believe that it is an abomination to use the word "October". "Those months are named after pagan gods, so you can only use Hebrew months." You'll find those who are confident that the government is trying to read their thoughts, so they teach their kids while they're all wearing foil hats. You'll find those who are sure that the unpardonable sin is sending kids to public school ... or, just as bad, Christian school.
Beware, parents. Homeschooling can be a valuable, sometimes necessary alternative to the standard school approach. On the other hand, it can bring you into the realm of influences on you and your kids that can be devious, misleading, and even destructive. Along with the other pitfalls, be on your guard for that one. That apple might have a worm in it.
There are those who would tell you, based on this information, that homeschooling is "the answer". This fails to take into account the pitfalls. In any plan one undertakes, it is important to consider all the variables. Or, as Christ put it, to "count the cost".
What kind of pitfalls are there in homeschooling? Well, there is obviously the time demand on the parent doing the schooling. They need to prepare as a teacher prepares ... along with all the other requirements of life. It is one of the general complaints of those doing the homeschooling that it takes so much more time than other schools require. Be prepared. Perhaps the most commonly named pitfall is socialization. Absolutely there are remedies for this one, but a parent contemplating homeschooling needs to take this danger into account.
I've seen one other pitfall for which I cannot fully account, but one that a parent contemplating homeschooling must consider. There is something about homeschooling that seems to attract bats. I don't mean winged rats. I mean those people who are prone to conspiracy theories and wild ideas. I can't fully explain it, but they seem to be drawn to homeschooling. Why is that? So in amongst the serious Christians who want their children to be trained up in the training and admonition of the Lord, you'll find those who believe that it is an abomination to use the word "October". "Those months are named after pagan gods, so you can only use Hebrew months." You'll find those who are confident that the government is trying to read their thoughts, so they teach their kids while they're all wearing foil hats. You'll find those who are sure that the unpardonable sin is sending kids to public school ... or, just as bad, Christian school.
Beware, parents. Homeschooling can be a valuable, sometimes necessary alternative to the standard school approach. On the other hand, it can bring you into the realm of influences on you and your kids that can be devious, misleading, and even destructive. Along with the other pitfalls, be on your guard for that one. That apple might have a worm in it.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
An Audience of One
Churches used to be a bastion of conservative. As churches climb on the "seeker-sensitive" bandwagon, there is a slide away from this trend. Older members are offended by the shift to "contemporary music". Many have been told, "If you don't like it, leave." One church I know of actually told their members, "If you don't like this music, you're just being selfish." The belief seems to be contemporary music is biblical and necessary and those who disagree are simply being disagreeable.
I have to disagree.
The primary reason we're shifting from "traditional" to "contemporary" is the perception of the audience. Churches believe if they make their music more contemporary, more "relevant", more like the world's music, then they'll attract more people to hear the gospel. And that, after all, is the point, isn't it?
Again, I have to disagree.
James wrote, "You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4). That's pretty harsh language. James considers friendship with the world adultery against God and hostility toward God. And yet, our churches are moving rapidly toward friendship with the world as if it is a keystone for God's plan for evangelism. Instead, John says, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "Nor the things of the world." So, tell me ... does that include their musical stylings? Well, you decide.
The question to me is two-fold. First, who is the audience to whom we are playing at church? Second, what is the purpose of church? What are we trying to accomplish with that audience?
To the first question, I suspect the answer is much more elusive than we think because we're not paying attention. We would likely answer quickly, "Well, the people that attend, right?" It's certainly the popular answer, but, unfortunately, it's not the biblical one. The biblical answer (read "God's answer") is:
So here we are. We've decided that the people who attend church make up the audience. We've decided that the purpose of this gathering is to reach those who don't believe as we do. And we've decided to use the methods of the world -- that segment of society that is defined as being in opposition to God. Our "best effort" is put toward making people "feel good about God", even though Peter warns "Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned" (2 Peter 2:2). When our best worship is "feeling good toward God" and our best means is the tools of the enemies of God and our goals don't match God's goals for the Church, we're in trouble. When we forget that Church is primarily for God, our Audience of one, we're in serious trouble.
I have to disagree.
The primary reason we're shifting from "traditional" to "contemporary" is the perception of the audience. Churches believe if they make their music more contemporary, more "relevant", more like the world's music, then they'll attract more people to hear the gospel. And that, after all, is the point, isn't it?
Again, I have to disagree.
James wrote, "You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4). That's pretty harsh language. James considers friendship with the world adultery against God and hostility toward God. And yet, our churches are moving rapidly toward friendship with the world as if it is a keystone for God's plan for evangelism. Instead, John says, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "Nor the things of the world." So, tell me ... does that include their musical stylings? Well, you decide.
The question to me is two-fold. First, who is the audience to whom we are playing at church? Second, what is the purpose of church? What are we trying to accomplish with that audience?
To the first question, I suspect the answer is much more elusive than we think because we're not paying attention. We would likely answer quickly, "Well, the people that attend, right?" It's certainly the popular answer, but, unfortunately, it's not the biblical one. The biblical answer (read "God's answer") is:
the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:12-13).The job of the Church is the equipping of the saints. Part of the job of the saints is indeed evangelism, but that's not the job of the Church. The job of the Church is to build believers. When we shift from building believers to gathering converts, we end up with an "immature man", a "diversity of faith" -- weakness and confusion, just like we see in the Church today. Indeed, the author of Hebrews says this about the church:
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near (Heb. 10:23-25).Our goal in gathering together is the mutual worship of God, the mutual holding fast to the truth, and the mutual stimulation to love and good deeds. None of that includes "reaching the lost". I'm not saying the lost need not be reached. I'm saying that this isn't the primary thrust of the Church.
So here we are. We've decided that the people who attend church make up the audience. We've decided that the purpose of this gathering is to reach those who don't believe as we do. And we've decided to use the methods of the world -- that segment of society that is defined as being in opposition to God. Our "best effort" is put toward making people "feel good about God", even though Peter warns "Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned" (2 Peter 2:2). When our best worship is "feeling good toward God" and our best means is the tools of the enemies of God and our goals don't match God's goals for the Church, we're in trouble. When we forget that Church is primarily for God, our Audience of one, we're in serious trouble.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The Software Solution
I am a programmer. I design software used to run tests in the lab experiments. These are complicated and precise tests for complicated and precise processes. So my controls of these processes need to be precise. I will send a command to a power supply and tell it, "Set yourself to 10 volts" or to a frequency generator and tell it, "Set yourself to 10 MHz" or to a temperature controller and tell it, "Set yourself to 90 degrees C." That is normally all that is required. But, as I said, these are complicated and precise processes, so I don't leave it at that. As a matter of routine, my next step in the sequence is to immediately ask the question, "So ... what are you set for?" The power supply or the frequency generator or the temperature controller will tell me what it is set for and I can compare the result with my intended result. If it is not the same, I know that something interfered with our communications, and I can take steps to remedy the communication error. It's a very workable method providing consistent results.
I often wish I had the same thing in my normal interactions with people. I don't know how many times what I say is not what they hear. Sometimes it's a simple mistake. I say, "That's pretty smart" and they hear "That's pretty hard" and get defensive because I'm questioning something they suggested rather than the agreement that I intended. So, my "software" would say, "That's pretty smart" and then say, "What did you hear me say?" and they would answer, "That's pretty hard" and I'd be able to say, "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant to say. I meant to say that your solution is smart, not hard." And peace would reign.
More often the misunderstanding is "behind the scenes". A prime example comes from someone else's experience. The husband and wife were in a nice ice cream shop because he offered to buy her an ice cream. While they reviewed the choices, he commented, "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive." What she heard was, "Boy, you sure cost me a lot of money." It wasn't that she misunderstood his words. She simply understood his words to have another intent behind them. So my "software" would kick in here beautifully. "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive. Now ... what did you hear me say?" "I heard you say that I cost you a lot of money." So the "software" could begin the process of immediately correcting the mistake. "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant. I was wondering if this ice cream company had demonstrably more expensive ingredients, or if they had more expensive processes, or if perhaps they were more greedy and were charging more money because of their name. As for you, there isn't enough money in the world to pay for what you are worth to me. Every dime I spend comes far short of the immense worth you are to me. I will never be able to repay the value you have for me." And peace would reign.
Of course, that's all fantasy. No such software exists for human interaction. It would be nice, but it doesn't exist. And, of course, the second half of that equation is that he really may have meant that she cost him a lot of money, and peace wouldn't reign. Still, wouldn't it be nice if we really could communicate before we start fighting.
My wise mother taught me "Communication is tenuous at best." It is my suspicion that we are either not aware of that, or we forget it. It is also my suspicion that if we spent a little extra time listening rather than speaking, we might find communication improves. What did they really say? What did they really mean? Before I leap to conclusions there, I should find out. Oh, wait ... isn't that what James said? "Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19). I would suppose that if God inspired it, it is a good idea.
I often wish I had the same thing in my normal interactions with people. I don't know how many times what I say is not what they hear. Sometimes it's a simple mistake. I say, "That's pretty smart" and they hear "That's pretty hard" and get defensive because I'm questioning something they suggested rather than the agreement that I intended. So, my "software" would say, "That's pretty smart" and then say, "What did you hear me say?" and they would answer, "That's pretty hard" and I'd be able to say, "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant to say. I meant to say that your solution is smart, not hard." And peace would reign.
More often the misunderstanding is "behind the scenes". A prime example comes from someone else's experience. The husband and wife were in a nice ice cream shop because he offered to buy her an ice cream. While they reviewed the choices, he commented, "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive." What she heard was, "Boy, you sure cost me a lot of money." It wasn't that she misunderstood his words. She simply understood his words to have another intent behind them. So my "software" would kick in here beautifully. "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive. Now ... what did you hear me say?" "I heard you say that I cost you a lot of money." So the "software" could begin the process of immediately correcting the mistake. "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant. I was wondering if this ice cream company had demonstrably more expensive ingredients, or if they had more expensive processes, or if perhaps they were more greedy and were charging more money because of their name. As for you, there isn't enough money in the world to pay for what you are worth to me. Every dime I spend comes far short of the immense worth you are to me. I will never be able to repay the value you have for me." And peace would reign.
Of course, that's all fantasy. No such software exists for human interaction. It would be nice, but it doesn't exist. And, of course, the second half of that equation is that he really may have meant that she cost him a lot of money, and peace wouldn't reign. Still, wouldn't it be nice if we really could communicate before we start fighting.
My wise mother taught me "Communication is tenuous at best." It is my suspicion that we are either not aware of that, or we forget it. It is also my suspicion that if we spent a little extra time listening rather than speaking, we might find communication improves. What did they really say? What did they really mean? Before I leap to conclusions there, I should find out. Oh, wait ... isn't that what James said? "Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19). I would suppose that if God inspired it, it is a good idea.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Better Gospel
The next time you're at your local Christian bookstore, pick up a hymnal and take a look in the back. There is almost always a Topical Index. Every hymnal I've ever seen has sections for things like "The Cross" or "Jesus, Crucifixion" or "The Blood", and sometimes multiple combinations thereof. And there is no shortage of listings for these topics. There are titles like "Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed", "Beneath the Cross of Jesus", "In the Cross of Christ I Glory", "O, Sacred Head Now Wounded", and "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross". There are whole groups on the last week of Jesus's life, His crucifixion, the cross, and His resurrection. It is not a small topic in the classical hymns of yesterday.
Now pick up one of the more contemporary song books. They might also have a topical index. And when you look for the same topics ... you won't likely find them. For some reason, the number of contemporary praise songs that focus on the Crucifixion is pretty close to zero. There is precious little on the blood, crucifixion, and even resurrection of Christ. There is much on how much we love Him, but almost nothing on the suffering of the cross itself.
This is confusing to me. Holding this information in one hand, I compare it to Paul's statement in the other: "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). So while our modern praise songs have almost entirely neglected the topic, Paul considered it almost the exclusive topic of his interest. Indeed, when he explains his version of the gospel, he puts it this way:
Perhaps it is necessary. Paul warned us that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). All that "sin" thing is really offensive (read "judgmental") to many people. I mean, sure, Paul devoted the first 3 chapters of his letter to the Romans to drive home the problem with sin, but that was Paul. Maybe we've figured out that it doesn't have to be that way.
Instead, we've managed to shift the focus. We have something better to offer. We have a warm, friendly God with a loving Son who wants to solve our problems and salve our wounds. His primary concern is meeting our felt needs. What God is really concerned about is that we be happy. This, indeed, is good news. It's certainly a lot easier to take than that "blood of Christ", "death on the cross, or "die to self" stuff. Now, we don't need to go so far as the "health and wealth" group because, let's face it, the facts don't seem to support that extreme. But we really like the "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" gospel far better than the "You're a sinner and without the death of the perfect Son of God you're without hope" kind of gospel. If only the Apostles had been able to pick up on this "new and improved" gospel. No telling how far advanced the Church would be, being friendlier with the world than it was back then.
Now pick up one of the more contemporary song books. They might also have a topical index. And when you look for the same topics ... you won't likely find them. For some reason, the number of contemporary praise songs that focus on the Crucifixion is pretty close to zero. There is precious little on the blood, crucifixion, and even resurrection of Christ. There is much on how much we love Him, but almost nothing on the suffering of the cross itself.
This is confusing to me. Holding this information in one hand, I compare it to Paul's statement in the other: "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). So while our modern praise songs have almost entirely neglected the topic, Paul considered it almost the exclusive topic of his interest. Indeed, when he explains his version of the gospel, he puts it this way:
I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).The Crucifixion of Christ is core to the gospel. Is it possible, then, that we've managed, as illustrated by our modern song selections, to come up with a better gospel?
Perhaps it is necessary. Paul warned us that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). All that "sin" thing is really offensive (read "judgmental") to many people. I mean, sure, Paul devoted the first 3 chapters of his letter to the Romans to drive home the problem with sin, but that was Paul. Maybe we've figured out that it doesn't have to be that way.
Instead, we've managed to shift the focus. We have something better to offer. We have a warm, friendly God with a loving Son who wants to solve our problems and salve our wounds. His primary concern is meeting our felt needs. What God is really concerned about is that we be happy. This, indeed, is good news. It's certainly a lot easier to take than that "blood of Christ", "death on the cross, or "die to self" stuff. Now, we don't need to go so far as the "health and wealth" group because, let's face it, the facts don't seem to support that extreme. But we really like the "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" gospel far better than the "You're a sinner and without the death of the perfect Son of God you're without hope" kind of gospel. If only the Apostles had been able to pick up on this "new and improved" gospel. No telling how far advanced the Church would be, being friendlier with the world than it was back then.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Have you noticed?
For some reason, we have this stereotype that says, "It's always the man's fault." More correctly, "men are evil." It occurred to me the other day. My wife and I were eating a meal in a public place when a man came in with three young girls. It didn't look like the girls were related. Instead, they all appeared to be about the same age. My wife said, "It's funny. When we were kids my dad would take us girls camping and no one thought anything about it. Today, the first thought when you see something like that is 'child molester'."
Now, I don't know if she was right, but I do know that perceptions have changed, and "men are evil". In days gone by, a father alone with his two sons would be "a good father spending time with his boys", but today it's "a lousy, divorced father trying to get his kids not to hate him by spending a meager weekend with them." And so it goes.
Here, try my little test. I'll give you some statistics. You draw your own conclusions. In 1980, for every wife that divorced her husband, 600 husbands divorced their wives. In 1990, for every husband that divorced his wife, 12 wives divorced their husbands. Your conclusion? Here's what I suspect. The majority of people today would conclude something like this. "Well, in days gone by men were dogs and left their wives for something younger or better. Now women have become empowered to leave their lousy husbands and move on with their lives." In other words, very few would conclude that the men were right in 1980 and wrong in 1990. Instead, in both cases the men were at fault.
It isn't just a guess. I have this same stereotype hanging about. A man (non-family) interested in a junior high boy is not interested in helping the kid out; he's likely interested in molesting him. Watch out! Men are the cause of nearly all divorces; they're just lousy people. Women tend to be good wives; men tend to be bad husbands. Women do all they can to save a marriage; men hardly lift a finger. These are my stereotypes -- I'm recognizing that they're wrong -- but I would guess that they are common stereotypes.
I don't think it's fair to characterize a group of people like this. I don't think it's fair of me. I know it's not fair of you. (Okay, going for a laugh, there.) I suspect that in 99% of all failed marriages, it is a mutual failure, not the man's fault alone. I suspect that there are actually men who want to be involved in their children's lives. It is my suspicion that some husbands are good husbands, that not all men with little girls in their company are child molesters, and that men are not worse than women in general. Maybe, if we start changing our stereotypes, people can start working in positive directions rather than fighting false negative perceptions. Just maybe.
Now, I don't know if she was right, but I do know that perceptions have changed, and "men are evil". In days gone by, a father alone with his two sons would be "a good father spending time with his boys", but today it's "a lousy, divorced father trying to get his kids not to hate him by spending a meager weekend with them." And so it goes.
Here, try my little test. I'll give you some statistics. You draw your own conclusions. In 1980, for every wife that divorced her husband, 600 husbands divorced their wives. In 1990, for every husband that divorced his wife, 12 wives divorced their husbands. Your conclusion? Here's what I suspect. The majority of people today would conclude something like this. "Well, in days gone by men were dogs and left their wives for something younger or better. Now women have become empowered to leave their lousy husbands and move on with their lives." In other words, very few would conclude that the men were right in 1980 and wrong in 1990. Instead, in both cases the men were at fault.
It isn't just a guess. I have this same stereotype hanging about. A man (non-family) interested in a junior high boy is not interested in helping the kid out; he's likely interested in molesting him. Watch out! Men are the cause of nearly all divorces; they're just lousy people. Women tend to be good wives; men tend to be bad husbands. Women do all they can to save a marriage; men hardly lift a finger. These are my stereotypes -- I'm recognizing that they're wrong -- but I would guess that they are common stereotypes.
I don't think it's fair to characterize a group of people like this. I don't think it's fair of me. I know it's not fair of you. (Okay, going for a laugh, there.) I suspect that in 99% of all failed marriages, it is a mutual failure, not the man's fault alone. I suspect that there are actually men who want to be involved in their children's lives. It is my suspicion that some husbands are good husbands, that not all men with little girls in their company are child molesters, and that men are not worse than women in general. Maybe, if we start changing our stereotypes, people can start working in positive directions rather than fighting false negative perceptions. Just maybe.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Skipped a Groove
How does this happen?
I am only going to refer to this person as an example, not to discuss anything of him in particular. Meet Texe Marrs. According to the bio on his website:
This guy is a conspiracy nut to the nth degree. There are articles linked there explaining how President Bush is a closet gay and how the U.S. military planned the planned the Beit Hanoun Massacre. There is an ad for Texe's latest book explaining how President Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Washington, Colin Powell, Doris Day, and many others are all part of the Illuminati, a secret organization that practices witchcraft to take over the world. In amongst offerings of Bibles (King James Only, of course) and Foxe's Book of Martyrs are other things like Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions (a seriously flawed attack on all Bibles not KJV), a 60-minute tape on "how the Bush team has transformed the White House into a brothel", a video about how Jews and Christians have formed an "unholy alliance", and a DVD about how governments "create and perpetrate terror incidents." (I quote here: "The Madrid train bombings, the London subway explosion, 9/11, even Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Maine and the Lusitania, were all staged events.") This guy is a loon.
So my question is, how does this happen? How does a seemingly intelligent, educated person end up on the fringe of sanity chasing demons in the dark and seeing conspiracies around every corner? How does one get so hateful while claiming to be so Christian? I'm not asking about Texe Marrs. I'm asking about all the "Texe Marrs" of the world. There are people in pulpits and ministries with lunacy on their minds. There are educated folk who are quite sure that every mad conspiracy you've heard whispered is indeed fact. No amount of logic can sway these folks. No amount of evidence will deter them. No amount of Scripture will change their course. They're sure -- against all evidence and reason. What gets people to this point? What went wrong?
I am only going to refer to this person as an example, not to discuss anything of him in particular. Meet Texe Marrs. According to the bio on his website:
Texe Marrs was assistant professor of aerospace studies, teaching American Defense Policy, strategic weapons systems, and related subjects at the University of Texas at Austin from 1977 to 1982. He has also taught international affairs, political science, and psychology for two other universities. A graduate Summa Cum Laude from Park College, Kansas City, Missouri, he earned his Master’s degree at North Carolina State University.Impressive, isn't it? I mean, this guy sounds bright, thinking, intelligent. His website sounds good, too, with the title "The Power of Prophecy". He's educated and a Christian. Then you visit his website, and you're in for a shock.
As a career USAF officer (now retired), he commanded communications-electronics and engineering units. He holds a number of military decorations, including the Vietnam Service Medal, and served in Germany, Italy, and throughout Asia.
This guy is a conspiracy nut to the nth degree. There are articles linked there explaining how President Bush is a closet gay and how the U.S. military planned the planned the Beit Hanoun Massacre. There is an ad for Texe's latest book explaining how President Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Washington, Colin Powell, Doris Day, and many others are all part of the Illuminati, a secret organization that practices witchcraft to take over the world. In amongst offerings of Bibles (King James Only, of course) and Foxe's Book of Martyrs are other things like Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions (a seriously flawed attack on all Bibles not KJV), a 60-minute tape on "how the Bush team has transformed the White House into a brothel", a video about how Jews and Christians have formed an "unholy alliance", and a DVD about how governments "create and perpetrate terror incidents." (I quote here: "The Madrid train bombings, the London subway explosion, 9/11, even Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Maine and the Lusitania, were all staged events.") This guy is a loon.
So my question is, how does this happen? How does a seemingly intelligent, educated person end up on the fringe of sanity chasing demons in the dark and seeing conspiracies around every corner? How does one get so hateful while claiming to be so Christian? I'm not asking about Texe Marrs. I'm asking about all the "Texe Marrs" of the world. There are people in pulpits and ministries with lunacy on their minds. There are educated folk who are quite sure that every mad conspiracy you've heard whispered is indeed fact. No amount of logic can sway these folks. No amount of evidence will deter them. No amount of Scripture will change their course. They're sure -- against all evidence and reason. What gets people to this point? What went wrong?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Peter's "Likewise"
Back in February I stepped onto Dangerous Ground by discussing what the Bible says about wives submitting to husbands. In the comments that followed, Julianne said:
In 1 Peter 2:18, Peter lays down a principle. "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." This principle is the discussion of the rest of the chapter. Peter draws a parallel not merely between servants and masters but between all Christians and the authorities in their lives, and it isn't merely about servants, but about how our example is the suffering of Christ. When we read this verse and Peter's explanation that follows, it should be noted that Peter has added an element that Paul didn't have. Paul told slaves to respect their masters, but Peter tells them to respect bad masters. This concept -- doing what is right in the face of evil people -- is the parallel Peter draws. Peter says, "If when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a good thing in the sight of God" (1 Peter 2:20). That's the thought process. And he uses Jesus as our prime example.
So when he gets to wives in chapter 3, the point is not "submit". Of course they are to submit. But when Peter says "likewise" (1 Peter 3:1), he isn't talking about "submit". He is talking about doing good and suffering for it. Why do I conclude this? I say this because of what he says in the first verse: "Be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives." The point is not "submit". The point is "Do what's right even if the one to whom you're doing it isn't right."
So when Peter gets to husbands, he says "likewise" again. He isn't saying, "Husbands submit to their wives." He doesn't even make a hint of it. Instead, the "likewise" is the same thing as before. Husbands, you are required to live with your wives in an understanding way. You are to honor them and treat them like fine china. You are to treat them as fellow heirs, not property or inferior beings. And, husbands ... it doesn't matter if they deserve it. "What if my wife is a shrew?!!" It doesn't matter. "What if she's mean and hateful and cruel?" It doesn't matter. "What if she doesn't appreciate me, doesn't respect me, doesn't submit to me?" It doesn't matter. You are to do what's right even if the one to whom you are doing it isn't right.
Peter's point is that we each have our own obligations given to us by God. What is right for us to do is not dependent on how people respond to it or whether they are worthy of it. What is right for us to do is right regardless of the other people involved. We are to submit to the authority over us regardless of how right they are (1 Peter 2:13-15). Slaves are to submit to masters regardless of how nice they are (1 Peter 2:18). Wives are to submit to husbands, even if they're bad husbands, and husbands are to treat their wives right even if they're bad wives. The point is "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:17). That's the point.
(On a completely unrelated note, I want to wish my son, Brad, a happy birthday. He's 27 today.)
You know as I am studying this today, I realize that 1 Peter 3:7 also says "Husbands, in the same way, live with your wives" so that is referring back to the last passage, so if that is referring to a woman submitting and winning her husband without a word, then the husband is supposed to do the same thing if we apply the same rules of interpretation?I answered at the time (and the line went dead, so to speak), but I was just reading 1 Peter again and I think I actually came across an answer to Julianne.
In 1 Peter 2:18, Peter lays down a principle. "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." This principle is the discussion of the rest of the chapter. Peter draws a parallel not merely between servants and masters but between all Christians and the authorities in their lives, and it isn't merely about servants, but about how our example is the suffering of Christ. When we read this verse and Peter's explanation that follows, it should be noted that Peter has added an element that Paul didn't have. Paul told slaves to respect their masters, but Peter tells them to respect bad masters. This concept -- doing what is right in the face of evil people -- is the parallel Peter draws. Peter says, "If when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a good thing in the sight of God" (1 Peter 2:20). That's the thought process. And he uses Jesus as our prime example.
So when he gets to wives in chapter 3, the point is not "submit". Of course they are to submit. But when Peter says "likewise" (1 Peter 3:1), he isn't talking about "submit". He is talking about doing good and suffering for it. Why do I conclude this? I say this because of what he says in the first verse: "Be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives." The point is not "submit". The point is "Do what's right even if the one to whom you're doing it isn't right."
So when Peter gets to husbands, he says "likewise" again. He isn't saying, "Husbands submit to their wives." He doesn't even make a hint of it. Instead, the "likewise" is the same thing as before. Husbands, you are required to live with your wives in an understanding way. You are to honor them and treat them like fine china. You are to treat them as fellow heirs, not property or inferior beings. And, husbands ... it doesn't matter if they deserve it. "What if my wife is a shrew?!!" It doesn't matter. "What if she's mean and hateful and cruel?" It doesn't matter. "What if she doesn't appreciate me, doesn't respect me, doesn't submit to me?" It doesn't matter. You are to do what's right even if the one to whom you are doing it isn't right.
Peter's point is that we each have our own obligations given to us by God. What is right for us to do is not dependent on how people respond to it or whether they are worthy of it. What is right for us to do is right regardless of the other people involved. We are to submit to the authority over us regardless of how right they are (1 Peter 2:13-15). Slaves are to submit to masters regardless of how nice they are (1 Peter 2:18). Wives are to submit to husbands, even if they're bad husbands, and husbands are to treat their wives right even if they're bad wives. The point is "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil" (1 Peter 3:17). That's the point.
(On a completely unrelated note, I want to wish my son, Brad, a happy birthday. He's 27 today.)
Monday, February 26, 2007
I Get It
I get it now. I didn't before, but I do now. The term was (and, mostly, still is) "global warming". I didn't get it. How could they blame something called "global warming" for both heat waves and cold spells? How could something called "global warming" be responsible for both the warmest January on record and the coldest January in more than 30 years? That was irrational. So they've renamed it "global climate change". Now we have a ball game.
So I've done my research and am climbing on the "global climate change" bandwagon. I think the evidence is irrefutable. According to records kept in my area since the 1800's, there have been indications of a climate change. It appears that every year, around May, the climate here begins to change to something quite warm. By mid July it can be above 110°F. However, as the year progresses, these temperatures begin to fall off. By December the high temperatures are barely over 70°F. As further proof of this phenomenon, I have been able to determine that this same sort of fluctuation in temperature appears to occur over a 12-month period throughout the northern hemisphere. See? "Global climate change". It's real. You can't deny it.
What is causing this? Well, clearly it is America. How do I know? Because this particular effect that has been documented to be 180° out of phase in the southern hemisphere. Quite clearly the effect has originated in the U.S., then radiated to the rest of the northern hemisphere and been inverted by passing the Equator. Deny it if you wish, but I think it's pretty hard to get around the facts.
Now, we need to be fair. I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the fault lies with "the U.S.", as if everyone in this country is to blame. No, indeed! The primary problem is greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are produced by major factories and large SUVs. Who owns the vast majority of these? Obviously it's the rich to middle class white males. So the blame for this documented global climate change lies squarely in the laps of American white males.
Now that we've figured all that out, I'm pretty sure the solution is obvious and easily accomplished. We simply need to start executing American white males. You may think that this is a bit extreme, but think about it. Global climate change is to blame for a lot of horrible things. It is the cause of every major climatic event for the last hundred years. It caused the earthquakes that destroyed San Francisco in 1906 and Anchorage in 1964. It caused serious damage, loss of life, and injury in Oakland in 1989. New Orleans has never recovered from Hurricane Katrina, obviously caused by global climate change. How many people died in the tsunami of of December 2004? Droughts, floods, cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, cold weather, heat waves ... how many people have died over the last 100 years because of weather? And worse! It is a well-documented phenomenon that when the temperature goes up, so does crime. Clearly, global climate change is responsible for crime. How many people have died or suffered serious injury from crime? When you add up the cost of crime and the cost of weather simply in terms of human life, it is a staggering number. Has anyone asked how warm it was on September 11? Well, they will, because it's clearly the reason. So I ask you ... is it unreasonable to make those responsible pay for their evil?
I suspect that as soon as we eliminate American whites (and likely their less culpable but equally suspect European counterparts), life will get better. Women will be treated better. Children will be happier. The climate of the Earth will stabilize. You (Since I'm an American white male, I don't include myself in the joys of the aftermath) will enjoy an unprecedented peace. Of course, unemployment will be rampant (because those evil white company owners hire a lot of people) and civilization as you know it will collapse (because it is the evil white Industrial Age that is the problem), but it will indeed be peaceful. At least, they say it's very peaceful in the grave.
So I've done my research and am climbing on the "global climate change" bandwagon. I think the evidence is irrefutable. According to records kept in my area since the 1800's, there have been indications of a climate change. It appears that every year, around May, the climate here begins to change to something quite warm. By mid July it can be above 110°F. However, as the year progresses, these temperatures begin to fall off. By December the high temperatures are barely over 70°F. As further proof of this phenomenon, I have been able to determine that this same sort of fluctuation in temperature appears to occur over a 12-month period throughout the northern hemisphere. See? "Global climate change". It's real. You can't deny it.
What is causing this? Well, clearly it is America. How do I know? Because this particular effect that has been documented to be 180° out of phase in the southern hemisphere. Quite clearly the effect has originated in the U.S., then radiated to the rest of the northern hemisphere and been inverted by passing the Equator. Deny it if you wish, but I think it's pretty hard to get around the facts.
Now, we need to be fair. I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the fault lies with "the U.S.", as if everyone in this country is to blame. No, indeed! The primary problem is greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are produced by major factories and large SUVs. Who owns the vast majority of these? Obviously it's the rich to middle class white males. So the blame for this documented global climate change lies squarely in the laps of American white males.
Now that we've figured all that out, I'm pretty sure the solution is obvious and easily accomplished. We simply need to start executing American white males. You may think that this is a bit extreme, but think about it. Global climate change is to blame for a lot of horrible things. It is the cause of every major climatic event for the last hundred years. It caused the earthquakes that destroyed San Francisco in 1906 and Anchorage in 1964. It caused serious damage, loss of life, and injury in Oakland in 1989. New Orleans has never recovered from Hurricane Katrina, obviously caused by global climate change. How many people died in the tsunami of of December 2004? Droughts, floods, cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, cold weather, heat waves ... how many people have died over the last 100 years because of weather? And worse! It is a well-documented phenomenon that when the temperature goes up, so does crime. Clearly, global climate change is responsible for crime. How many people have died or suffered serious injury from crime? When you add up the cost of crime and the cost of weather simply in terms of human life, it is a staggering number. Has anyone asked how warm it was on September 11? Well, they will, because it's clearly the reason. So I ask you ... is it unreasonable to make those responsible pay for their evil?
I suspect that as soon as we eliminate American whites (and likely their less culpable but equally suspect European counterparts), life will get better. Women will be treated better. Children will be happier. The climate of the Earth will stabilize. You (Since I'm an American white male, I don't include myself in the joys of the aftermath) will enjoy an unprecedented peace. Of course, unemployment will be rampant (because those evil white company owners hire a lot of people) and civilization as you know it will collapse (because it is the evil white Industrial Age that is the problem), but it will indeed be peaceful. At least, they say it's very peaceful in the grave.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Obvious Truth
One would think that the truth is obvious. Unfortunately, it's not always the case. Indeed, sometimes what we might think is obviously true is not true at all.
We've all seen them, the ads for various products that kill germs. You can kill germs on people, on kitchen and bathroom surfaces, and even in the air. That's good, right? One would think so, because, hey, it's advertised everywhere. But there is reason to think that this isn't so. I remember reading about a study where two groups of kids were observed for years. One group lived in pristine, basically sterile environments, and the other group lived in filth. It turned out, it seems, that the group of kids in the dirt ended up healthier than the other group. It turned out that the group in the less sterile conditions encountered the plethora of germs out there and their bodies figured out how to fight them. The other group didn't have that advantage, so they were sickly. It gets worse. Today, doctors are concerned about what they have deemed "super bugs", bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics. How is that? Well, you've seen the ads. "Kills 99% of bacteria." There are millions of bacteria out there. So what about that not-so-small number that aren't killed? They're immune. And they breed offspring who are immune. So you've just eliminated 99%of their competition, and the result is a whole new generation of bacteria immune to the antibacterials you are using.
One wonders, at this point, if it is true, then. Is it a good thing to kill bacteria? Should we really be using all those antibacterials? What seemed quite obvious turns out to be quite questionable.
Everyone knows that it's better not to suffer than to suffer. Bad things happening to people is a bad thing, not a good thing. It is best to avoid pain at all costs. No one should suffer. Suffering is bad. We all know it. It's quite obvious. Or ... is it? Well, if the Bible is true, then we're going to need to rethink this point as well.
Peter here is talking about our grand inheritance "imperishable and undefiled", "reserved in heaven" (v 4). He goes on to say that we are "protected by the power of God" (v 5). How much better can it get? So, of course he says, "In this you greatly rejoice" (v 6). But, wait! Then he says "even though now for a little while ... you have been distressed by various trials" (v 6). Please note. It is a given. Christians under the protection of God will experience trials. Please note also: I left out a key phrase. "If necessary." Some may focus on the "if". I want you to look at the "necessary". According to Peter it is necessary to suffer trials. The result is "proof of your faith" which results in "praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (v 7).
Indeed, Peter really hit this topic of suffering repeatedly. He seemed to think it was a given:
Look a moment longer at the second one. It says, "It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will ..." Peter isn't being vague. It is sometimes God's will that we suffer. (He says the same thing in 1 Peter 4:19.)
And examine the third one. The topic is "suffering unjustly" ... suffering when we shouldn't have to suffer. Peter says this "finds favor" with God. That's good. But more importantly, look at what Peter says about it: "You have been called for this purpose." Read that again slowly, because it is an absolutely explicit statement. Christians are called for the purpose of suffering unjustly.
The Bible establishes several things regarding suffering. First, it is unpleasant. No one should try to say, "Suffering is fun! Enjoy!" But, second, suffering is beneficial. Indeed, third, suffering is by God's design, part of God's necessary plan to mold us and shape us and, in the end, bless us. Now, if that doesn't put a crimp in the "obvious truth" that suffering is something bad that should be avoided at all costs, I don't know what will.
Sometimes we see things that appear to be obviously true ... and they're not. Be careful. Don't take these things for granted. Examine, test, review. The truth, when we find it, will set us free, and sometimes it isn't the most obvious.
We've all seen them, the ads for various products that kill germs. You can kill germs on people, on kitchen and bathroom surfaces, and even in the air. That's good, right? One would think so, because, hey, it's advertised everywhere. But there is reason to think that this isn't so. I remember reading about a study where two groups of kids were observed for years. One group lived in pristine, basically sterile environments, and the other group lived in filth. It turned out, it seems, that the group of kids in the dirt ended up healthier than the other group. It turned out that the group in the less sterile conditions encountered the plethora of germs out there and their bodies figured out how to fight them. The other group didn't have that advantage, so they were sickly. It gets worse. Today, doctors are concerned about what they have deemed "super bugs", bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics. How is that? Well, you've seen the ads. "Kills 99% of bacteria." There are millions of bacteria out there. So what about that not-so-small number that aren't killed? They're immune. And they breed offspring who are immune. So you've just eliminated 99%of their competition, and the result is a whole new generation of bacteria immune to the antibacterials you are using.
One wonders, at this point, if it is true, then. Is it a good thing to kill bacteria? Should we really be using all those antibacterials? What seemed quite obvious turns out to be quite questionable.
Everyone knows that it's better not to suffer than to suffer. Bad things happening to people is a bad thing, not a good thing. It is best to avoid pain at all costs. No one should suffer. Suffering is bad. We all know it. It's quite obvious. Or ... is it? Well, if the Bible is true, then we're going to need to rethink this point as well.
Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-4).Odd ... that doesn't sound very much like "avoid suffering at all cost" or "all suffering is bad". Instead, it sounds like "suffering is necessary and provides an invaluable service to the Christian." But, then, maybe James was a loon.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3-7).Perhaps we'd better slow down and look at that one more closely.
Peter here is talking about our grand inheritance "imperishable and undefiled", "reserved in heaven" (v 4). He goes on to say that we are "protected by the power of God" (v 5). How much better can it get? So, of course he says, "In this you greatly rejoice" (v 6). But, wait! Then he says "even though now for a little while ... you have been distressed by various trials" (v 6). Please note. It is a given. Christians under the protection of God will experience trials. Please note also: I left out a key phrase. "If necessary." Some may focus on the "if". I want you to look at the "necessary". According to Peter it is necessary to suffer trials. The result is "proof of your faith" which results in "praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (v 7).
Indeed, Peter really hit this topic of suffering repeatedly. He seemed to think it was a given:
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation (1 Peter 4:12-13).In the first one he says we are to "rejoice with exultation". In the third one he promises that the suffering is "for a little while" and that, in the end, "the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you." These are good things.
For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:19-21).
If you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil (1 Peter 3:14-17).
Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world. And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you (1 Peter 5:8-10).
Look a moment longer at the second one. It says, "It is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will ..." Peter isn't being vague. It is sometimes God's will that we suffer. (He says the same thing in 1 Peter 4:19.)
And examine the third one. The topic is "suffering unjustly" ... suffering when we shouldn't have to suffer. Peter says this "finds favor" with God. That's good. But more importantly, look at what Peter says about it: "You have been called for this purpose." Read that again slowly, because it is an absolutely explicit statement. Christians are called for the purpose of suffering unjustly.
The Bible establishes several things regarding suffering. First, it is unpleasant. No one should try to say, "Suffering is fun! Enjoy!" But, second, suffering is beneficial. Indeed, third, suffering is by God's design, part of God's necessary plan to mold us and shape us and, in the end, bless us. Now, if that doesn't put a crimp in the "obvious truth" that suffering is something bad that should be avoided at all costs, I don't know what will.
Sometimes we see things that appear to be obviously true ... and they're not. Be careful. Don't take these things for granted. Examine, test, review. The truth, when we find it, will set us free, and sometimes it isn't the most obvious.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The True Iraq II
I complained earlier that we weren't getting the true story from Iraq. Now I get this email from a friend who, by the way, spent a year there. It appears I'm right; we're not getting the true story.
Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?For more on this "other side" of what's going on in Iraq, here's a piece from National Review entitled Reviewing the Situation. There's more out there than purely bad news.
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United State s in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?
OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades. Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes: It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site: http://www.defenselink.mil/
Friday, February 23, 2007
Vacation Warning
Just letting my vast numbers of readers (there must be, oh, at least three of you out there) that I begin vacation tomorrow for three weeks. Don't be surprised if my posting isn't as regular as it has been for the last 9 months. I'll try ... but you know how vacations are.
House Church
According to studies I've seen and reports I've read, the "house church" phenomenon is growing. More and more people are starting to meet in homes rather than the traditional "church". You know the one ... that edifice on the corner with the nice sign and the parking lot? They're everywhere, with traditional names like "First Baptist Church" or creative names like "Church of Light and Life". They're connected, like the Episcopalians or the Presbyterians, or they're independent like the "Bible Church". And some are kind of connected without being fully connected, like Calvary Chapels across the country.
Pro: Smaller groups tend to breed greater accountability. People get to know each other. It's impossible to slip into and out of someone's house unnoticed, as opposed to the more popular church settings where it is not only possible but, to some, preferred. House churches are more personal.
Con: The smaller group tends to minimize the roles in the group. That is, how many teachers, evangelists, apostles, servants, etc. are there for one house church? While it is likely that you wouldn't be unnoticed, it is also likely that you might be unused, and exercising spiritual gifts is an important part of being in the Body of Christ.
Pro: House churches are immune to the vagaries of the politics of the larger organization. What I mean is that when the PCUSA decides to allow women to be pastors or the Episcopal Church USA decides that the Bible doesn't recognize homosexual behavior as sin, it has no effect on the house church. Being completely independent, the house church can retain sola scriptura, using the Bible alone as its source document for faith and living rather than being subject to the changes that often affect church polity.
Con: House churches are immune to the inputs of the catholic Church. By "catholic" I mean "the Church Universal". House churches answer to no one, so they don't have any accountability. When doctrine deviates from Scripture, it is most often in the smallest groups ... such as house churches. The Body of Christ is to be interconnected so as to be unified in doctrine, and that is lost in a house church.
Pro: House churches include everyone. In larger churches, children are carted off to children's church and teens are taken to their youth group and adults to their groups. In house churches, the family stays together. There is a unifying effect. The family that prays (and worships) together stays together.
Con: House churches include everyone. That means that the youth have no particular interaction. That means that if Mrs. Jones's baby is cranky this morning, everyone in the room will experience it. That means that there is no "youth pastor", no "youth group", no children's Sunday School. There is no "substance abuse" group, no "bike riders group", no "seniors group". The house church shares everything ... including the homogenization of all people in it.
Pro: House churches are ubiquitous. They're everywhere and anywhere. They're ideal for evangelism when the traditional church puts people off. They might be in your neighborhood or at the local Starbucks. They might be in a home or in someone's office. They might be on Sunday or on a more convenient evening during the week.
Con: With the more "relaxed" atmosphere of the house church comes a more "relaxed" atmosphere toward church in general. There is a general sense of antagonism toward the "structured church". There is often a sense of superiority, as if the house church is the best way to go, and anyone meeting in a traditional church is just inferior. Because humans are human, the house church tends to lend itself to a superiority complex just because it's different from the traditional church.
Pro: House churches, being more focused because of their size and family approach, can push deeper. They can develop more spiritual depth in the individuals that attend because the individuals are known. In larger churches, the teaching is often kept more superficial -- "milk" -- because the audience is too broad and too much of an unknown entity.
Con: House churches have no real structure. There is no real "government". That means there is no actual "elders" and "deacons" -- listed biblically as plural entities for every church. These "elders" and "deacons" have specific biblical roles in the biblical Church model, including teaching, retaining doctrinal purity, and service. These are not small issues. The "depth" gained by the house church environment is also threatened by its lack of biblical organization.
I'm going to stop here. I hope you are getting the idea. There are a lot of positives in the House Church movement. There are good things. Someone might think that, by listing the "cons" as I have, I'm against the house church concept. Not at all. That would be to ignore all the "pros". My point is that there are negatives or potential negatives associated with the positives or potential positives of the house church. Anyone intending to start or be involved or who is already involved in one of these needs to be aware of the pitfalls. Don't be lulled into thinking that the house church is the answer to all the problems. It isn't. Nor should the traditionalist churches be lulled into thinking that they have it all right. They don't. (I would suggest that when the persecution of Christianity arrives in America -- and it is coming -- it is the house church that will provide the "fellowship of the saints".) We should all be aware of the pros and cons, including ones I haven't listed. And we should all celebrate the communion of the saints in whatever form it takes.
Pro: Smaller groups tend to breed greater accountability. People get to know each other. It's impossible to slip into and out of someone's house unnoticed, as opposed to the more popular church settings where it is not only possible but, to some, preferred. House churches are more personal.
Con: The smaller group tends to minimize the roles in the group. That is, how many teachers, evangelists, apostles, servants, etc. are there for one house church? While it is likely that you wouldn't be unnoticed, it is also likely that you might be unused, and exercising spiritual gifts is an important part of being in the Body of Christ.
Pro: House churches are immune to the vagaries of the politics of the larger organization. What I mean is that when the PCUSA decides to allow women to be pastors or the Episcopal Church USA decides that the Bible doesn't recognize homosexual behavior as sin, it has no effect on the house church. Being completely independent, the house church can retain sola scriptura, using the Bible alone as its source document for faith and living rather than being subject to the changes that often affect church polity.
Con: House churches are immune to the inputs of the catholic Church. By "catholic" I mean "the Church Universal". House churches answer to no one, so they don't have any accountability. When doctrine deviates from Scripture, it is most often in the smallest groups ... such as house churches. The Body of Christ is to be interconnected so as to be unified in doctrine, and that is lost in a house church.
Pro: House churches include everyone. In larger churches, children are carted off to children's church and teens are taken to their youth group and adults to their groups. In house churches, the family stays together. There is a unifying effect. The family that prays (and worships) together stays together.
Con: House churches include everyone. That means that the youth have no particular interaction. That means that if Mrs. Jones's baby is cranky this morning, everyone in the room will experience it. That means that there is no "youth pastor", no "youth group", no children's Sunday School. There is no "substance abuse" group, no "bike riders group", no "seniors group". The house church shares everything ... including the homogenization of all people in it.
Pro: House churches are ubiquitous. They're everywhere and anywhere. They're ideal for evangelism when the traditional church puts people off. They might be in your neighborhood or at the local Starbucks. They might be in a home or in someone's office. They might be on Sunday or on a more convenient evening during the week.
Con: With the more "relaxed" atmosphere of the house church comes a more "relaxed" atmosphere toward church in general. There is a general sense of antagonism toward the "structured church". There is often a sense of superiority, as if the house church is the best way to go, and anyone meeting in a traditional church is just inferior. Because humans are human, the house church tends to lend itself to a superiority complex just because it's different from the traditional church.
Pro: House churches, being more focused because of their size and family approach, can push deeper. They can develop more spiritual depth in the individuals that attend because the individuals are known. In larger churches, the teaching is often kept more superficial -- "milk" -- because the audience is too broad and too much of an unknown entity.
Con: House churches have no real structure. There is no real "government". That means there is no actual "elders" and "deacons" -- listed biblically as plural entities for every church. These "elders" and "deacons" have specific biblical roles in the biblical Church model, including teaching, retaining doctrinal purity, and service. These are not small issues. The "depth" gained by the house church environment is also threatened by its lack of biblical organization.
I'm going to stop here. I hope you are getting the idea. There are a lot of positives in the House Church movement. There are good things. Someone might think that, by listing the "cons" as I have, I'm against the house church concept. Not at all. That would be to ignore all the "pros". My point is that there are negatives or potential negatives associated with the positives or potential positives of the house church. Anyone intending to start or be involved or who is already involved in one of these needs to be aware of the pitfalls. Don't be lulled into thinking that the house church is the answer to all the problems. It isn't. Nor should the traditionalist churches be lulled into thinking that they have it all right. They don't. (I would suggest that when the persecution of Christianity arrives in America -- and it is coming -- it is the house church that will provide the "fellowship of the saints".) We should all be aware of the pros and cons, including ones I haven't listed. And we should all celebrate the communion of the saints in whatever form it takes.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Safer Ground
Having thoroughly offended most of the women who might read this blog, I thought perhaps I would spend a little time on safer ground. The topic of marriage is important to me ... primarily because it's important to God. The various roles in marriage are important to me ... primarily for the same reason. The requirements of wives is often a subject of much discussion, I suppose because it's so ... politically incorrect. It runs counter to our society's norms today (one of the reasons I think it's so right). I think I did a satisfactory job on it. Clearly, however, one of the big problems ... is husbands. The "safer ground", perhaps, is in talking to husbands about what is required of them.
Husbands have no light role. We've managed to pick one out, but it's the wrong one. We're the ones that get to sit around the house, watch TV, and do as little as possible while our wives wait on us. We do the "manly" things like fix stuff while our wives do the other menial stuff (like everything that is required to make a house run). That's such a popular view, at least among men. It isn't the view in Scripture. And Scripture, being the Word of God, seriously outweighs "popular".
Women complain that Scripture is too tough on them. They question the "submit" requirements and really balk at the "keep silent" comments. I'm not arguing their merits here. My point is that men have it far worse. Take, for instance, the thought process of Eph. 5:22-6:9. Women are told one thing: submit to their husbands. Men, on the other hand, get the lion's share of responsibilities. They are to love their wives "as Christ loved the Church". This carries several implications, but it doesn't stop here. People often view men as responsible for making the money and women as responsible for the home and children, but God holds fathers responsible for their children. And it doesn't stop there. It is males in view when Paul tells masters how to act toward their slaves. Yes, it is a difficult burden laid on women to submit to their husbands, but it is a far lighter burden than that laid on men. God holds men responsible for most everything that occurs in their world.
It has ever been thus. Eve was the one that ate the fruit, but Adam bore the responsibility. Sarah was the one that encouraged her husband to sleep with her maid, but Abraham bore the responsibility. Moses's wife had to save his life because his sons weren't circumcised and God was going to kill him for it (Exo. 4:24-26). And on and on. It is part of the God-given structure in life. The Father is head of the Son, and the Son is head of the husband, and the husband is head of the wife (1 Cor. 11:3). Now, we can play around with the concept of "headship". Everyone assumes that "head" refers to "chief", "master", "the one in charge" ... until it comes to the question of submission. But the word means just that. It is used to refer to the physical head, but also the topmost part. It is that which is between God and the rest of the body. Without it there is no life. It is irrefutably used often in Scripture in figurative reference to the chief, the king, the one in authority. It is also the first one that God goes to when He is displeased with what is occurring under it. It is the one that bears authority, yes, but also responsibility.
Husbands have a great deal of responsibility. And, let's face it, men, we're often guilty of shirking it. Look at some of the things we are responsible for. We are responsible for raising the kids. That doesn't mean we have to be the ones doing it day and night, but we are indeed the ones responsible for it. We are the ones that must provide for our families. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are the ones actually doing it (I'm thinking of a wife that wrote that her husband was disabled and she was the primary bread-winner), but we are responsible for it. Here's a tough one, guys. According to Paul, our wives are supposed to ask us their questions on spiritual matters. Are you prepared for it? Are you prepared to disciple her and teach her? It's your responsibility. Oh, here's one ... are you ready for this? "Live with your wives in an understanding way" (1 Peter 3:7). Guys are forever bemoaning the fact that women are beyond our comprehension. Husbands ... it is your responsibility to understand your wife. Peter also tells us to treat her with honor. That's much easier to comprehend than "in an understanding way". It is your responsibility!
Husbands, examine yourself. Don't examine your wives. Don't look around at other husbands. Examine yourself. You have a huge responsibility. You are the one that God expects to manage yourselves, your homes, your income, your family, your wife, their spiritual well-being, and on and on. You are to treat her with honor and live with her in an understanding way. The only way that husbands who are intent on carrying out their God-given responsibilities can come across as overbearing, selfish, self-absorbed creatures is if they're doing it wrong. It is not possible to properly and successfully discharge those responsibilities in an overbearing, selfish, self-absorbed way. Examine yourselves, husbands. I would recommend you start with that big one ... "Live with your wives in an understanding way." How are you doing with that one? Then work from there to "honor" and you'll have a start. I'll go to work on my end. How about you?
Husbands have no light role. We've managed to pick one out, but it's the wrong one. We're the ones that get to sit around the house, watch TV, and do as little as possible while our wives wait on us. We do the "manly" things like fix stuff while our wives do the other menial stuff (like everything that is required to make a house run). That's such a popular view, at least among men. It isn't the view in Scripture. And Scripture, being the Word of God, seriously outweighs "popular".
Women complain that Scripture is too tough on them. They question the "submit" requirements and really balk at the "keep silent" comments. I'm not arguing their merits here. My point is that men have it far worse. Take, for instance, the thought process of Eph. 5:22-6:9. Women are told one thing: submit to their husbands. Men, on the other hand, get the lion's share of responsibilities. They are to love their wives "as Christ loved the Church". This carries several implications, but it doesn't stop here. People often view men as responsible for making the money and women as responsible for the home and children, but God holds fathers responsible for their children. And it doesn't stop there. It is males in view when Paul tells masters how to act toward their slaves. Yes, it is a difficult burden laid on women to submit to their husbands, but it is a far lighter burden than that laid on men. God holds men responsible for most everything that occurs in their world.
It has ever been thus. Eve was the one that ate the fruit, but Adam bore the responsibility. Sarah was the one that encouraged her husband to sleep with her maid, but Abraham bore the responsibility. Moses's wife had to save his life because his sons weren't circumcised and God was going to kill him for it (Exo. 4:24-26). And on and on. It is part of the God-given structure in life. The Father is head of the Son, and the Son is head of the husband, and the husband is head of the wife (1 Cor. 11:3). Now, we can play around with the concept of "headship". Everyone assumes that "head" refers to "chief", "master", "the one in charge" ... until it comes to the question of submission. But the word means just that. It is used to refer to the physical head, but also the topmost part. It is that which is between God and the rest of the body. Without it there is no life. It is irrefutably used often in Scripture in figurative reference to the chief, the king, the one in authority. It is also the first one that God goes to when He is displeased with what is occurring under it. It is the one that bears authority, yes, but also responsibility.
Husbands have a great deal of responsibility. And, let's face it, men, we're often guilty of shirking it. Look at some of the things we are responsible for. We are responsible for raising the kids. That doesn't mean we have to be the ones doing it day and night, but we are indeed the ones responsible for it. We are the ones that must provide for our families. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are the ones actually doing it (I'm thinking of a wife that wrote that her husband was disabled and she was the primary bread-winner), but we are responsible for it. Here's a tough one, guys. According to Paul, our wives are supposed to ask us their questions on spiritual matters. Are you prepared for it? Are you prepared to disciple her and teach her? It's your responsibility. Oh, here's one ... are you ready for this? "Live with your wives in an understanding way" (1 Peter 3:7). Guys are forever bemoaning the fact that women are beyond our comprehension. Husbands ... it is your responsibility to understand your wife. Peter also tells us to treat her with honor. That's much easier to comprehend than "in an understanding way". It is your responsibility!
Husbands, examine yourself. Don't examine your wives. Don't look around at other husbands. Examine yourself. You have a huge responsibility. You are the one that God expects to manage yourselves, your homes, your income, your family, your wife, their spiritual well-being, and on and on. You are to treat her with honor and live with her in an understanding way. The only way that husbands who are intent on carrying out their God-given responsibilities can come across as overbearing, selfish, self-absorbed creatures is if they're doing it wrong. It is not possible to properly and successfully discharge those responsibilities in an overbearing, selfish, self-absorbed way. Examine yourselves, husbands. I would recommend you start with that big one ... "Live with your wives in an understanding way." How are you doing with that one? Then work from there to "honor" and you'll have a start. I'll go to work on my end. How about you?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Love Your Enemies
In his piece entitled "love your enemies", Andrew Osenga struggles over the concept of a "just war" and what he tends to think of as the Christian mandate for pacifism. At one point he makes these comments, the basic essence of his objection:
This would be an interesting system, to be sure. There would be no laws ... or, at least, no law enforcement. The only real law would be "forgive". It didn't matter what anyone else did; the only legal recourse would be "forgive". Rape, murder, theft, child molesting, it wouldn't really matter because the only allowable response would be forgiveness.
"Wait!" you say. "This is a Christian command. It isn't applicable to non-Christians." Okay, good, let's go with that. It leaves us with the question of whether or not there is the possibility of a "just war" ... for non-Christians. Maybe it's wrong for Christians to be in the military fighting in Iraq, but it wouldn't have anything to say about non-Christians. And, of course, it would still leave us in an awkward position. While the rest of the world around us would have a legal system, laws, police enforcement, jails, etc., we would be unable to use any of them. They would have some legal protections, but for all the rape, murder, theft, child molesting, or taking of our legal rights under the Constitution, we would need to remain silent and forgive. Is this really the mandate of Scripture on believers?
There are some problems with the kind of thinking that Andrew espouses. I've noted some. First, it doesn't make sense. Beyond reason, though, it isn't applicable to everyone. Even if we assume that we are mandated to turn the other cheek to death, we cannot make the same demand of all citizens because they don't recognize Christ as their Commander. His instructions are non-binding. This problem is extended by the "False Analogy" fallacy. Andrew has drawn an analogy between his belief about what he should do to what a nation should do. The problem is ... a nation is not a Christian, or even a person. The analogy doesn't work. A government does not operate as a person. It doesn't have the same rights nor the same responsibilities. It cannot be "saved" or "damned". Nations and their governments are temporal. They don't operate in the same sphere as individuals. And this isn't mere conjecture. It is a God-given fact. Paul writes that God has established governments and authorities (Rom. 13:1-7). We are told, for instance, "'Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord", yet Paul tells us that government is "an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Rom. 13:4). So while Andrew complains about "vengeance" in war, it appears that this is a God-given governmental task. So the "love your enemy" and "forgive" commands to individuals is not extended to governments, and the argument breaks down.
There is another important error in the particular line of thinking that Andrew was suggesting. The suggestion is that "love your enemies" precludes the possibility that one would, say, smite your enemy. The suggestion is that "forgive" means "no consequences". The suggestion is that "thou shalt not kill" is a blanket statement for all time for all circumstances. It is always a sin to kill under any circumstances. These are all popular ideas ... but they're wrong. Love does not preclude inflicting pain. Forgive does not require no consequences. And "thou shalt not kill" cannot be a blanket sin without making God a sinner. These are important distinctions. It is possible to love a murderer and execute him. It is possible to forgive a child molester and send him to jail. And there are times when killing is not sin.
The suggestion that war is evil sounds very right ... because it generally is true. The plea to love your enemy and forgive those who trespass against you are certainly biblical. But we need to be careful where we take them. They cannot be applied to those who don't recognize their authority. And governments are not people ... by God's design. And "love" and "forgive" doesn't necessarily mean "no consequences". We start out on the right foot, but these missteps could get us into dangerous places.
The only real way to end a war, that I can see, is by ending the fight. For good. And that only happens one way. Not by victory, but by forgiveness. We will kill each other until someone chooses forgiveness over revenge, even over justice.I don't think a Christian who is in his right mind would disagree that forgiveness is the right thing to do. No one can deny that the founder of Christianity commanded that we love our enemies. But is it, then, the required conclusion that we should, therefore, take no action toward justice?
Especially as a Christian, one who believes that God chose to forgive me over exacting justice, how can I not apply that in war? Weren’t we commanded to love our enemies? I don’t see any grey areas there, as much as I feel I’m supposed to. I just don’t. Not only do I think forgiveness is the wisest thing to do, I feel like it’s the right thing to do.
This would be an interesting system, to be sure. There would be no laws ... or, at least, no law enforcement. The only real law would be "forgive". It didn't matter what anyone else did; the only legal recourse would be "forgive". Rape, murder, theft, child molesting, it wouldn't really matter because the only allowable response would be forgiveness.
"Wait!" you say. "This is a Christian command. It isn't applicable to non-Christians." Okay, good, let's go with that. It leaves us with the question of whether or not there is the possibility of a "just war" ... for non-Christians. Maybe it's wrong for Christians to be in the military fighting in Iraq, but it wouldn't have anything to say about non-Christians. And, of course, it would still leave us in an awkward position. While the rest of the world around us would have a legal system, laws, police enforcement, jails, etc., we would be unable to use any of them. They would have some legal protections, but for all the rape, murder, theft, child molesting, or taking of our legal rights under the Constitution, we would need to remain silent and forgive. Is this really the mandate of Scripture on believers?
There are some problems with the kind of thinking that Andrew espouses. I've noted some. First, it doesn't make sense. Beyond reason, though, it isn't applicable to everyone. Even if we assume that we are mandated to turn the other cheek to death, we cannot make the same demand of all citizens because they don't recognize Christ as their Commander. His instructions are non-binding. This problem is extended by the "False Analogy" fallacy. Andrew has drawn an analogy between his belief about what he should do to what a nation should do. The problem is ... a nation is not a Christian, or even a person. The analogy doesn't work. A government does not operate as a person. It doesn't have the same rights nor the same responsibilities. It cannot be "saved" or "damned". Nations and their governments are temporal. They don't operate in the same sphere as individuals. And this isn't mere conjecture. It is a God-given fact. Paul writes that God has established governments and authorities (Rom. 13:1-7). We are told, for instance, "'Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord", yet Paul tells us that government is "an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Rom. 13:4). So while Andrew complains about "vengeance" in war, it appears that this is a God-given governmental task. So the "love your enemy" and "forgive" commands to individuals is not extended to governments, and the argument breaks down.
There is another important error in the particular line of thinking that Andrew was suggesting. The suggestion is that "love your enemies" precludes the possibility that one would, say, smite your enemy. The suggestion is that "forgive" means "no consequences". The suggestion is that "thou shalt not kill" is a blanket statement for all time for all circumstances. It is always a sin to kill under any circumstances. These are all popular ideas ... but they're wrong. Love does not preclude inflicting pain. Forgive does not require no consequences. And "thou shalt not kill" cannot be a blanket sin without making God a sinner. These are important distinctions. It is possible to love a murderer and execute him. It is possible to forgive a child molester and send him to jail. And there are times when killing is not sin.
The suggestion that war is evil sounds very right ... because it generally is true. The plea to love your enemy and forgive those who trespass against you are certainly biblical. But we need to be careful where we take them. They cannot be applied to those who don't recognize their authority. And governments are not people ... by God's design. And "love" and "forgive" doesn't necessarily mean "no consequences". We start out on the right foot, but these missteps could get us into dangerous places.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The End/Beginning
I kind of wanted Jonathan to put "The End" or something on his last part of the story he posted ... you know, just so everyone would know that it was the last one. But then I thought, "He did! He ended with 'It is finished'."
Then I thought, "But ... 'It is finished' isn't the end, is it?" Has anyone ever thought about how grand a beginning "It is finished" was?
Then I thought, "But ... 'It is finished' isn't the end, is it?" Has anyone ever thought about how grand a beginning "It is finished" was?
Four Hearts, One Song - 4
The road had been a long one for Micah; glad he was to put it behind him. At this spot, he would lay down the weight that he had carried for so long. It was nothing more than a hill, but for him, it was the succor he had desired for what seemed an eternity. He thankfully fell to his knees, relishing the cool earth that yielded to him, coddling and caressing his aching muscles. The peace of this moment surpassed his expectations. With a groan, he let the beam of the cross slide from his shoulders.
The thud of the wood hitting the ground lightened his body and awakened his mind. He remembered now where he was and what he was doing. The malicious accusers behind him would not let him forget that. They hurled their insults and their anger at him as poisoned darts, their hateful faces contorting into grotesque shapes that would barely seem human to an observer. But to him, these were the faces that they always had, whether they were mocking him viciously or pleasantly greeting him like an old friend. This was how men were really. When the façade of charity and human kindness was taken away, the true face appeared and it was loathe to behold.
In some part of his heart, he had secretly feared this day’s coming. It must have been the condemned criminal in him. He could not deny that part of him, and it was ugly and cowardly. The other part of him, however, had longed to be caught, longed to be free from fear, longed to feel the harsh embrace of the cross. He stretched the length of his body along the beam, laying each arm out as far as he could. When the day had begun, the pain had been nearly unbearable. Still he could feel the bite of the lash across his back and the taste of sweat on the knuckles of the Roman guards was on his mouth.
He had always taken some amount of pride in knowing that he was a little different than the rest of the vagabonds he associated with. They were cruel and cold, thinking that the world owed them something for their suffering and it was their right to take by force what had been denied them by fate. He had never deluded himself with such idiotic notions. He did what his nature dictated because he was too weak to deny it. That was all. The truth of this had been with him since he was a boy. Pilfering from neighbors as a child, selling away someone else’s sheep for pocket change when he was a shepherd, it had all been so easy, so common. The descent to decay is often a pleasant trip. He might have changed the road he had begun to walk down had he ever bothered to look at his surrounding, but he never did. Save for that one night.
The terror of that night is what stuck with him the most. Naturally, he had feared the appearance of the angels as some sort of supernatural executors of the divine judgment of God for his wrongs. His three friends had nearly dragged him to the barn the angels indicated. Even then, he could have changed the momentum of his life, but the fear of reprisal drove away such hope. The compassionate eyes of that woman cradling her child had laid him bare, open to the attacks of the world. She saw everything that was in him, and he saw the fear that in her. But he was beyond redemption.
The convict’s wrists throbbed with pain and the familiar feel of warm blood trickled down his arms. He was hanging upright now, though he had not noticed the nails being driven into his wrists. The whole crowd stood before him now as a jury -- the verdict condemnation. The dejected criminal would make no plea for penance or forgiveness, knowing that he was well beyond hope of either. The pain started to push to the surface again, stifling him with aching spasms. He tried to concentrate on the world around him to block out the torture inside. He picked out several jeering voices, “What now Jesus? Hail the King of the Jews!” The name spoken startled him so badly that he lurched forward, straining his arms against the nails uselessly. It couldn’t be.
He realized now that two more men were being crucified alongside him. One man he recognized, an associate of his whose name escaped him. He was a murderer. The other was set slightly in front of him, giving him a view only of the back of the cross. The taunts of the crowd lessened over time, but the impact of their words accomplished more than they could have realized. The criminal gaped and gargled, laboring to see a face that was impossible to see. For the last few years, he had heard rumors of the prophet Jesus, and they had always reminded him of that night in the barn. But he could not fathom the idea of this man Jesus hanging on a cross alongside convicts.
Eventually, the other man joined in the flurry of insults raining down on Jesus, “Come on, Son of God! If you are so powerful, why not bring yourself down from there? Take me with you while you’re at it, I’m sure it would be no problem for you.” The first criminal began to feel his blood boil. The impertinence of such crudeness towards a holy man infuriated him. This was at least a decent man. This was a good teacher. This was a prophet. This -- the words of Mary returned to him out of the tender blue sky, “This is Jesus, he is the Savior of the world.”
In a voice that was not his own, then enraged convict denounced his jocular companion, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? We are judged justly, for we receive the due reward for our crimes, but this man has done nothing wrong.” The jester was thunderstruck a moment, then began to howl maniacally with laughter. It was unimportant. Turning from the lunatic, the man tilted his head and faced the back of the man in front of him. With stinging tears in his eyes, he spoke again, this time with a timidity and trembling that had hitherto never appeared in his voice, “Lord ... remember me when you come into heaven.”
It was a cry from his heart, a desperate plea hoping beyond reason, and despaired of as soon as spoken. There was no redemption for demons like him. There was only the licking, consuming fire of Hell. He hung his head, realizing now the pit of agony that awaited him. Suddenly, he was not eager to die. There would be no freedom in death, only the just and merciless payment for his deeds. He trembled. A rasping sound responded to his dejected heart from the direction of Jesus. The sound of it was as though from beyond the grave. He had never before heard anything so laden with torment. The frightful sound twisted and grew, formulating into shapes and colors before the convict’s eyes, each apparition more disquieting than the last. The shapes danced around him, coalescing into one horrifying form, the sound reaching a crescendo of abjection in sorrow that bore the accumulation of the whole of mankind’s suffering. The voice of Jesus pierced through all these ghastly phantasms, chasing them furiously away into the ether of the sky, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Jesus said no more. No more needed to be said. The impossible gift had been given. Would he truly be able to receive it? Forgiveness? Salvation? They had always been more fanciful dreams to him. Now he could taste them and touch them, and he reveled in it. His eyes were blinded by his tears, but still he seemed to be able to see beyond his normal scope of vision. The face of Jesus loomed up before him, torn and battered ... and utterly flawless. The crowd was still there for the most part, but the hideous masks were gone and he finally saw what people truly looked like. And then he spotted someone, or to be more precise, three someones he had never anticipated seeing again. It was his friends that had dragged him that night to the barn and had each shared in that glimpse of truth to lost souls. They switched between gazing at Jesus and the convict. When their eyes met, an understanding was exchanged. After more than thirty years, they had all ultimately come to the same conclusion. Jesus, Savior of the world.
The voice of Jesus boomed in the stillness of his heart, “It is finished!” Ah yes, Micah, the redeemed convict, closed his eyes to the stupor invading his body. A smile crossed his blood-soaked face, so it is.
The thud of the wood hitting the ground lightened his body and awakened his mind. He remembered now where he was and what he was doing. The malicious accusers behind him would not let him forget that. They hurled their insults and their anger at him as poisoned darts, their hateful faces contorting into grotesque shapes that would barely seem human to an observer. But to him, these were the faces that they always had, whether they were mocking him viciously or pleasantly greeting him like an old friend. This was how men were really. When the façade of charity and human kindness was taken away, the true face appeared and it was loathe to behold.
In some part of his heart, he had secretly feared this day’s coming. It must have been the condemned criminal in him. He could not deny that part of him, and it was ugly and cowardly. The other part of him, however, had longed to be caught, longed to be free from fear, longed to feel the harsh embrace of the cross. He stretched the length of his body along the beam, laying each arm out as far as he could. When the day had begun, the pain had been nearly unbearable. Still he could feel the bite of the lash across his back and the taste of sweat on the knuckles of the Roman guards was on his mouth.
He had always taken some amount of pride in knowing that he was a little different than the rest of the vagabonds he associated with. They were cruel and cold, thinking that the world owed them something for their suffering and it was their right to take by force what had been denied them by fate. He had never deluded himself with such idiotic notions. He did what his nature dictated because he was too weak to deny it. That was all. The truth of this had been with him since he was a boy. Pilfering from neighbors as a child, selling away someone else’s sheep for pocket change when he was a shepherd, it had all been so easy, so common. The descent to decay is often a pleasant trip. He might have changed the road he had begun to walk down had he ever bothered to look at his surrounding, but he never did. Save for that one night.
The terror of that night is what stuck with him the most. Naturally, he had feared the appearance of the angels as some sort of supernatural executors of the divine judgment of God for his wrongs. His three friends had nearly dragged him to the barn the angels indicated. Even then, he could have changed the momentum of his life, but the fear of reprisal drove away such hope. The compassionate eyes of that woman cradling her child had laid him bare, open to the attacks of the world. She saw everything that was in him, and he saw the fear that in her. But he was beyond redemption.
The convict’s wrists throbbed with pain and the familiar feel of warm blood trickled down his arms. He was hanging upright now, though he had not noticed the nails being driven into his wrists. The whole crowd stood before him now as a jury -- the verdict condemnation. The dejected criminal would make no plea for penance or forgiveness, knowing that he was well beyond hope of either. The pain started to push to the surface again, stifling him with aching spasms. He tried to concentrate on the world around him to block out the torture inside. He picked out several jeering voices, “What now Jesus? Hail the King of the Jews!” The name spoken startled him so badly that he lurched forward, straining his arms against the nails uselessly. It couldn’t be.
He realized now that two more men were being crucified alongside him. One man he recognized, an associate of his whose name escaped him. He was a murderer. The other was set slightly in front of him, giving him a view only of the back of the cross. The taunts of the crowd lessened over time, but the impact of their words accomplished more than they could have realized. The criminal gaped and gargled, laboring to see a face that was impossible to see. For the last few years, he had heard rumors of the prophet Jesus, and they had always reminded him of that night in the barn. But he could not fathom the idea of this man Jesus hanging on a cross alongside convicts.
Eventually, the other man joined in the flurry of insults raining down on Jesus, “Come on, Son of God! If you are so powerful, why not bring yourself down from there? Take me with you while you’re at it, I’m sure it would be no problem for you.” The first criminal began to feel his blood boil. The impertinence of such crudeness towards a holy man infuriated him. This was at least a decent man. This was a good teacher. This was a prophet. This -- the words of Mary returned to him out of the tender blue sky, “This is Jesus, he is the Savior of the world.”
In a voice that was not his own, then enraged convict denounced his jocular companion, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? We are judged justly, for we receive the due reward for our crimes, but this man has done nothing wrong.” The jester was thunderstruck a moment, then began to howl maniacally with laughter. It was unimportant. Turning from the lunatic, the man tilted his head and faced the back of the man in front of him. With stinging tears in his eyes, he spoke again, this time with a timidity and trembling that had hitherto never appeared in his voice, “Lord ... remember me when you come into heaven.”
It was a cry from his heart, a desperate plea hoping beyond reason, and despaired of as soon as spoken. There was no redemption for demons like him. There was only the licking, consuming fire of Hell. He hung his head, realizing now the pit of agony that awaited him. Suddenly, he was not eager to die. There would be no freedom in death, only the just and merciless payment for his deeds. He trembled. A rasping sound responded to his dejected heart from the direction of Jesus. The sound of it was as though from beyond the grave. He had never before heard anything so laden with torment. The frightful sound twisted and grew, formulating into shapes and colors before the convict’s eyes, each apparition more disquieting than the last. The shapes danced around him, coalescing into one horrifying form, the sound reaching a crescendo of abjection in sorrow that bore the accumulation of the whole of mankind’s suffering. The voice of Jesus pierced through all these ghastly phantasms, chasing them furiously away into the ether of the sky, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Jesus said no more. No more needed to be said. The impossible gift had been given. Would he truly be able to receive it? Forgiveness? Salvation? They had always been more fanciful dreams to him. Now he could taste them and touch them, and he reveled in it. His eyes were blinded by his tears, but still he seemed to be able to see beyond his normal scope of vision. The face of Jesus loomed up before him, torn and battered ... and utterly flawless. The crowd was still there for the most part, but the hideous masks were gone and he finally saw what people truly looked like. And then he spotted someone, or to be more precise, three someones he had never anticipated seeing again. It was his friends that had dragged him that night to the barn and had each shared in that glimpse of truth to lost souls. They switched between gazing at Jesus and the convict. When their eyes met, an understanding was exchanged. After more than thirty years, they had all ultimately come to the same conclusion. Jesus, Savior of the world.
The voice of Jesus boomed in the stillness of his heart, “It is finished!” Ah yes, Micah, the redeemed convict, closed his eyes to the stupor invading his body. A smile crossed his blood-soaked face, so it is.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Four Hearts, One Song - 3
It was a solemn day. Many of the townspeople had gathered together and were already walking down the main thoroughfare of the city of Nain. Demas had taken a little too much time to get ready and was no doubt late for the processional. Much was on his mind. Pain was everywhere in life, unavoidable and oft unbearable; but it was generally death that would send Demas into these fits of consternation. This most recent death weighed heavily on him. Nineteen years old, Demas brooded. Too young to die. It had only been a couple of years since the child’s father had died as well. With the both of them gone, the widow and now bereaved mother was alone, itself almost a death sentence in this society.
Demas finished getting dressed, putting on his sandals last before heading to the door. Leaning both hands on the door, he bowed his head until his forehead gently touched the wood. He sighed deeply. He sighed the sigh of a man in turmoil. He sighed the sigh of a man who was not suffering, but acutely felt the suffering around him. The heaviness of the pain almost brought him to his knees. Was there no healing in this land? Was there no way to relieve the pain that crippled it or the sorrow that incapacitated it? This poor widow had known nothing but worry for years now with the death of her husband followed by the drawn out sickness of her son. Today she had to bury one more body, one more lifetime of memories. Would she only find reprieve when others gathered to lay her body to rest? It was a morbid thought, but those were the only kind of thoughts Demas had been left with over the years.
Unlike the majority of people, Demas was not naïve enough to shut his eyes to what was going on around him. Every face he encountered bore both the cuts and the scars of haggard living. Bandages covered wounds, but this was not healing. A bandage can only staunch the wound; it cannot erase the indelible mark it leaves behind. No one can take that away, no matter how much he might pray for it otherwise.
Thinking of his own cuts and scars finally did bring Demas to his knees. The savage beatings. The constant rejections. The failures. These were the sum of more than forty years of life. Demas loved the stars, but he hated the sun and moon. The sun would wake him in the morning, shining cheerfully and pleasantly recounting to him the sorrows that sleep had wiped away for a few hours. The moon would keep him up at night, its doleful face reminding him of the drooping, encumbered faces of men. The stars were his only friends, millions of little dots that are so small and so huge at the same time. They spanned the width of the sky while only occupying a fraction of his view. So much like life, they were. When he could look up and only see the stars, Demas felt like someone finally understood him, and he could sleep peacefully while the stars promised to bear the burdens of mankind for the night.
A solitary tear rolled off his cheek. Composing himself, Demas rose to his feet, straightened his clothes, and walked outside. He had only to walk for a few minutes before he caught up with the funeral procession. He reached them as they were nearing the last turn before the city gates. Silence ruled the day but for a few stifled sniffles and an occasional sob. The creak of the wheels of the cart bearing the coffin made the most distracting noise. The widow stood close to the cart, one hand laying languidly on the coffin, the other being cradled by a friend. Before long, however, a new noise beyond the wheels presented itself to the mourners. A quiet muffle came from near the city gate, gradually growing in tempo and volume the closer they got. Upon turning the corner, all were surprised to see an even larger crowd walking their way.
The crowd was loud and unruly, augmented by the constrained procession, but as with the case of the funeral, the mob seemed to revolve around a single point. People were pushing and yelling, desperately attempting to reach a man walking in the center of the mass. They would touch any part of him or his clothing and then back away. The crowd continued to obliviously follow the man forward. He appeared to be the only one as yet to notice the procession heading their way. Fearful of the meaning of such a rabble, the mourners clustered together, bodies touching to bear a semblance of power. When the groups were too close to miss each other, the noisy mass took notice of the solemn occasion in front of them. They slowed down to a crawl, their yelps and cries dying down into whispers and nudges.
Though the crowd had stopped, the man at the center of their group continued onward, purposefully directing his steps towards the widow and the cart. Both crowds had now come to a complete stop, the mourning facing the jubilant, the death shroud before the festival. One of those with the man whispered hoarsely, “Jesus! What are you doing?” The name pierced Demas’ mind like a dart, allowing the light of memories to flood in unabated. The cackling of the intruding crowd and the creaking of the cart had ceased; only the scraping tread of the prophet’s sandals could be heard. He came to a stop next to the cart within a couple of feet of the widow. Glancing first at the coffin, Jesus slowly approached the mother of the deceased. Their eyes met. Jesus’ eyes were brimming with tears, his brow knit together in a look of powerful compassion. The two of them shared an understanding.
The widow broke the look as a fresh burst of tears fought their way to the surface. Sobs and moans escaped her throat, tumbling over each other in confusion and pain. The sound of it wrenched the hearts of all present, perhaps Jesus most of all. Reaching up with his right hand extended towards the widow, he implored in a ragged, broken voice, “Do not weep.” With a few more sniffles, she did master her tears, gazing expectantly at the face of the prophet for she knew not what.
Keeping his hand raised, Jesus laid his left on the side of the open coffin. Both groups surged forward, the newcomers expectant, the mourners defensive. The sorrow-filled voice was now gone as he commanded with authority, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” A tide of frustration rushed through the people at these words. Mutters of anger were turned to shouts of shock when the upper torso of the young man emerged from the coffin. The once dead child rubbed his eyes and gaped at the crowd as they gaped at him.
Jesus took the man by the shoulder and reintroduced him to the world of the living. Fear and awe dominated the scene. Murmurs of praise and terror spread throughout the city like fire. Only Demas remained silent. When the child had uttered his first phrase from beyond the grave, Demas had once again fallen on his knees, badly shaken. It was not fear that brought him down, but the most complete joy that he had ever felt. He had only to look at the faces of the mother and son to know ... to know that there was hope. One suffering, one sorrow had been removed. It was a small consolation for all the pain in the world, but the fact remained that it been taken away. Healing had occurred, not only of the child, but of Demas. For the first time, he searched for the memories that had haunted him all his life and they were lost.
Demas, tears still blurring his eyes, returned to his feet and peered back at the cart where the dead had already departed. The prophet was still there and Demas realized that he was not the only one that was silent. They exchanged looks and Demas felt for a moment that he could see the reflection of his inner sorrows reflected in the depths of those healing eyes. Yet they no longer troubled him; the eyes overcame the pain. Those eyes would always overcome the pain from now on.
Demas finished getting dressed, putting on his sandals last before heading to the door. Leaning both hands on the door, he bowed his head until his forehead gently touched the wood. He sighed deeply. He sighed the sigh of a man in turmoil. He sighed the sigh of a man who was not suffering, but acutely felt the suffering around him. The heaviness of the pain almost brought him to his knees. Was there no healing in this land? Was there no way to relieve the pain that crippled it or the sorrow that incapacitated it? This poor widow had known nothing but worry for years now with the death of her husband followed by the drawn out sickness of her son. Today she had to bury one more body, one more lifetime of memories. Would she only find reprieve when others gathered to lay her body to rest? It was a morbid thought, but those were the only kind of thoughts Demas had been left with over the years.
Unlike the majority of people, Demas was not naïve enough to shut his eyes to what was going on around him. Every face he encountered bore both the cuts and the scars of haggard living. Bandages covered wounds, but this was not healing. A bandage can only staunch the wound; it cannot erase the indelible mark it leaves behind. No one can take that away, no matter how much he might pray for it otherwise.
Thinking of his own cuts and scars finally did bring Demas to his knees. The savage beatings. The constant rejections. The failures. These were the sum of more than forty years of life. Demas loved the stars, but he hated the sun and moon. The sun would wake him in the morning, shining cheerfully and pleasantly recounting to him the sorrows that sleep had wiped away for a few hours. The moon would keep him up at night, its doleful face reminding him of the drooping, encumbered faces of men. The stars were his only friends, millions of little dots that are so small and so huge at the same time. They spanned the width of the sky while only occupying a fraction of his view. So much like life, they were. When he could look up and only see the stars, Demas felt like someone finally understood him, and he could sleep peacefully while the stars promised to bear the burdens of mankind for the night.
A solitary tear rolled off his cheek. Composing himself, Demas rose to his feet, straightened his clothes, and walked outside. He had only to walk for a few minutes before he caught up with the funeral procession. He reached them as they were nearing the last turn before the city gates. Silence ruled the day but for a few stifled sniffles and an occasional sob. The creak of the wheels of the cart bearing the coffin made the most distracting noise. The widow stood close to the cart, one hand laying languidly on the coffin, the other being cradled by a friend. Before long, however, a new noise beyond the wheels presented itself to the mourners. A quiet muffle came from near the city gate, gradually growing in tempo and volume the closer they got. Upon turning the corner, all were surprised to see an even larger crowd walking their way.
The crowd was loud and unruly, augmented by the constrained procession, but as with the case of the funeral, the mob seemed to revolve around a single point. People were pushing and yelling, desperately attempting to reach a man walking in the center of the mass. They would touch any part of him or his clothing and then back away. The crowd continued to obliviously follow the man forward. He appeared to be the only one as yet to notice the procession heading their way. Fearful of the meaning of such a rabble, the mourners clustered together, bodies touching to bear a semblance of power. When the groups were too close to miss each other, the noisy mass took notice of the solemn occasion in front of them. They slowed down to a crawl, their yelps and cries dying down into whispers and nudges.
Though the crowd had stopped, the man at the center of their group continued onward, purposefully directing his steps towards the widow and the cart. Both crowds had now come to a complete stop, the mourning facing the jubilant, the death shroud before the festival. One of those with the man whispered hoarsely, “Jesus! What are you doing?” The name pierced Demas’ mind like a dart, allowing the light of memories to flood in unabated. The cackling of the intruding crowd and the creaking of the cart had ceased; only the scraping tread of the prophet’s sandals could be heard. He came to a stop next to the cart within a couple of feet of the widow. Glancing first at the coffin, Jesus slowly approached the mother of the deceased. Their eyes met. Jesus’ eyes were brimming with tears, his brow knit together in a look of powerful compassion. The two of them shared an understanding.
The widow broke the look as a fresh burst of tears fought their way to the surface. Sobs and moans escaped her throat, tumbling over each other in confusion and pain. The sound of it wrenched the hearts of all present, perhaps Jesus most of all. Reaching up with his right hand extended towards the widow, he implored in a ragged, broken voice, “Do not weep.” With a few more sniffles, she did master her tears, gazing expectantly at the face of the prophet for she knew not what.
Keeping his hand raised, Jesus laid his left on the side of the open coffin. Both groups surged forward, the newcomers expectant, the mourners defensive. The sorrow-filled voice was now gone as he commanded with authority, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” A tide of frustration rushed through the people at these words. Mutters of anger were turned to shouts of shock when the upper torso of the young man emerged from the coffin. The once dead child rubbed his eyes and gaped at the crowd as they gaped at him.
Jesus took the man by the shoulder and reintroduced him to the world of the living. Fear and awe dominated the scene. Murmurs of praise and terror spread throughout the city like fire. Only Demas remained silent. When the child had uttered his first phrase from beyond the grave, Demas had once again fallen on his knees, badly shaken. It was not fear that brought him down, but the most complete joy that he had ever felt. He had only to look at the faces of the mother and son to know ... to know that there was hope. One suffering, one sorrow had been removed. It was a small consolation for all the pain in the world, but the fact remained that it been taken away. Healing had occurred, not only of the child, but of Demas. For the first time, he searched for the memories that had haunted him all his life and they were lost.
Demas, tears still blurring his eyes, returned to his feet and peered back at the cart where the dead had already departed. The prophet was still there and Demas realized that he was not the only one that was silent. They exchanged looks and Demas felt for a moment that he could see the reflection of his inner sorrows reflected in the depths of those healing eyes. Yet they no longer troubled him; the eyes overcame the pain. Those eyes would always overcome the pain from now on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)