Grace upon Grace

There is a well-known section in Exodus where Moses makes the bold request, "Show me your glory" (Exo 33:18). God agrees, but warns him that he cannot see God in all His glory -- it would be fatal -- and puts him in the cleft of a rock to see only His back. Great story. But John Piper points out this very bizarre verse that precedes the request:

"If I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight" (Exo 33:13).

How strange! "If I have found favor in your sight" ... "to find favor in your sight". Moses's request is predicated on having found favor and aimed at finding favor.

I see it as the perfect definition of Christian living. No, not Christian salvation; Christian living. Having found favor in His sight, we seek to know Him better so that we can find favor in His sight. Having been made perfect, we seek to live up to that which we have been made (Phil 3:11-16). The first favor is grace -- unmerited favor. In truth, the second favor is grace -- unmerited favor. But the cry of the heart of the true believer is something similar. "Having found grace, I want to know you better to find grace." "As an act of gratitude, I thank You." "Because I am forgiven, I seek Your forgiveness." "I believe; help my unbelief!"

Ten Signs

It has been around for awhile, but it has been making the rounds lately on largely anti-theist blogs. It is titled Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Christian (or something like it), and it's hailed by anti-theists as a glorious assault on Christianity.

There are so many approaches to take with this whole thing. Unfortunately, it is designed to make it impossible to do so. The idea is to ridicule, so if you respond, any response is considered ... ridiculous. The assumption is "This thing is so right on that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot."

Stepping into the accusation of idiocy, then, there are still so many things to consider. Take, for instance, the repeated ad hominem arguments. As an example, if you are a Christian you will "vigorously deny", "feel outraged", "feel insulted", "laugh", your face will turn purple, you will "spend your life looking for little loopholes", and so it goes. There is also a series of more subtle ad hominem approaches nestled in many of the points. Intentionally using the lower case "g" for "God" is intended to minimize God. Take, for instance, the first argument. If, in truth, there is a God with a capital "G", then it is only logical to dismiss (not "vigorously deny") the existence of other gods (with a lower case "g") because the capitalized version is genuine and the lower case version is not. It's like dismissing the entire set of numbers except "4" to answer the question "What is 2 plus 2?" Another dig is in the obvious notion that anyone who believes this stuff is an idiot without actually making the argument. The frequent use of quotation marks is intended to besmirch Christians. If, for example, you claim that Christianity is the most tolerant and loving religion, it is not perceived the same as when you claim that it is the most "tolerant" and "loving". The quotation marks clearly say you're lying without actually having made an argument. And that whole thing about "with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects" is unnecessary, isn't it? Taking the outlying ideas of a few crackpots as the standard view of Christianity isn't reasonable. The whole thing is riddled with these ad hominems. Now, an actual series of arguments doesn't require the pejorative descriptions to make the point. Generally, when the descriptions designed to insult are pulled out, it simply means you've run out of logical points.

Another point to consider is the piles of purely erroneous statements. God did not slaughter all the babies of Egypt in Exodus. It is utterly inane to refer to the authors of the Bible as "pre-historic tribesmen". "Prehistoric" means "before recorded history", so if they're recording history, they cannot be prehistoric. I was also unaware of the study done where some statisticians did a careful examination on the number of prayers God answered (in the positive, I assume). I won't call it a lie, but I suspect that there is no genuine data and no scientific study that would give us a "0.01% success rate" for answered prayers. I won't say for sure, but it seems to me that this is less than honest. So when you read through these arguments, realize that there are simply false statements in them.

Then there are the whole host of false premises. There is the faulty correlation of "Trinity" to "polytheism". The two are not connected and the suggestion is false. There is nothing in Christianity that suggests that the Holy Spirit "slept" with Mary. Science, history, geology, biology, and physics have not offered evidence that there is no God or that Christianity is false. I mean, they're not even looking in that direction. Find for me, for instance, the experiments in physics that were done to test the hypothesis "There is no God". Interestingly, the #1 argument listed is based on the strange notion that a person is a Christian based on what they know about the Bible, Christianity, and church history. Now, I don't know anyone in Christendom or anywhere in the Bible that determines your status of being a Christian or not based on comparative knowledge. Logically, false premises nullify conclusions. If I build a syllogism -- "All men are dogs", "Socrates was a man", therefore, "Socrates was a dog" -- may work out logically ... until you recognize that the first premise is false. If it is not true that all men are dogs, then it cannot be conclude that Socrates was either.

All of this is just the start. The good folk over at Pyromaniacs are addressing each of these points logically. They are assuming them to be genuine arguments to be addressed. They will likely do a far better job than I will, so I'll leave it to them. There is one of the arguments, though, that really forces me to respond. Their Item 3 is this: "While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor 'speaking in tongues' may be all the evidence you need." I won't defend "some idiot rolling around on the floor 'speaking in tongues'". It's pointless. But there is an implication there that must be addressed. One of the popular approaches among anti-theists is that if God really existed, it would be easy for Him to prove it. Just do a miracle or something. This item, however, leaks their dirty little secret. No amount of miracle will do it. We know this is the human condition. When Israel escaped Pharaoh by nothing less than undeniable divine intervention, their response was to grumble. Awhile later they experienced the direct presence of God, and before the whole thing was over they were having a worship service for a golden calf. In the New Testament, the Jews witnessed Jesus calling a certainly dead Lazarus out of a tomb, and their response wasn't, "Oh, now we believe." It was to seek to kill them both. This point of theirs, then, is to affirm that no amount of genuine, observable evidence would be sufficient to change their minds. And that, they are quite sure, is good logic.

My point is not to complain about ad hominem arguments nor is it to demonstrate that the arguments are not arguments at all or to even prove a point. Sure, there are errors, logical fallacies, and other nonsense going on. You might even benefit from looking for it. I am simply saying that there are answers to objections. We are commanded to contend for the faith, to make a defense. Despite the popular notion, faith and reason are not enemies, but, properly understood, compatriots. If the attack on your beliefs upsets you, perhaps you need to examine the questions more carefully. It doesn't require idiocy to believe. There are reasons to hold to Christianity. Too often we sit there and say, "Well, I believe and that's all there is to it" as if there is no reasonable response. Don't buy the line.

Upside-Down World

Welcome to Upside-Down world. That's where we live. We live in a world where those who consider sex with anyone at any time for any reason or none whatsoever are the ones who value sex, but those who consider it as exclusively for marriage, for one particular person alone -- like a rare jewel -- have no regard for sex. We live in a world where atheists who loudly claim that human beings descended from amoeba on one hand and are of great value on the other are being reasonable, but Christians who claim we are valuable because we are made in the image of God are being irrational. And so it goes.

You've seen the most obvious example I can think of. It is the debate around homosexuals. If you hold a position against the morality of such activities, you are not opposed to the morality of such actions -- you're scared of them. They call it "homophobia". And why are you scared? Well, because secretly you're in favor of such actions. So, you see, those who are opposed are actually in favor and the term for those who are against is not "anti", but "phobic".

I wonder why it doesn't work that way everywhere? It would seem to me that it should if we are going to be fair (and "fair" is all the rage, isn't it?). I mean, if you hate Christians, that must mean that you're actually afraid of Christians because, well, you're pretty sure they're right and you secretly want to be a Christian. But, no, we're not allowed to assume that, are we?

You Owe Me - the Sequel

Yesterday I wrote about business and our perception that they owe us. Today's is a bit bigger. I think it's a problem from which we all suffer. I'm aware of it in myself even though I've written about it on more than one occasion. Still, I bring it up because ... well ... I need to remind myself and, I suspect, you, too.

Consider a couple of TV shows. We watch a nature show that depicts wolves in the wild hunting down and killing that poor, cute little snowshoe rabbit. My wife is sad. "He was so cute." I remind her, "That's the way it is." "I know," she says, "but it's still sad." True enough. Then comes the news. This guy is arrested for raping and murdering a little 7-year-old. That mother is in jail for starving her child to death. And we've now shifted from "it's sad" to moral outrage. What's the difference? The difference is that there is a fundamental value shift between a rabbit and a child, between and animal and a human being. Most of us may not like seeing an animal killed -- that's natural -- but we're angry that a person is killed and we will take steps to prevent it from happening again because animals are nice, but people are important.

Now, go to the next story. The news goes on to describe how an earthquake has killed thousands. We see women crying in the rubble and little limp bodies of children killed in the disaster. What is the response to that? For many it is the same moral outrage. "Where was God in all of this?" they demand. "How could He allow such a thing?" What happened there? It is the same moral outrage because the perception is the same. Human beings are important and God ought to see it that way. "God, you owe me." No, no, we would never say that. I don't think we'd even think it. But it's what we mean when we express moral outrage at God for allowing such things.

We (I do mean "we") have a real problem with this. We don't recognize that we are creatures and God is Creator. We see ourselves more on par with God. We are, after all, made in His image, are we not? We're God's representatives, right? We're God's children, for pity sake. Doesn't that make us ... little gods? Oh, now, wait. Perhaps that's too far. And it is.

You see, we have a natural, sinful tendency to worship the creature rather than the Creator. It's an easy mistake. Since we are in the image of God, God has ruled that we don't have the right to damage that image in others. In Gen 9 He made it a matter of the death penalty for murder based on that fact. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). So, we naturally think, that restriction must also be on God, too, right? And that's the mistake. Or we think of responsibility. If you make your child responsible for a pet, you expect your child to take good care of that pet. Since God is responsible for us, shouldn't He take good care of us? You see, without actually thinking it out loud, we often and generally believe that God owes us.

The problem is the problem of Theodicy. Why do bad things happen to good people? Where is God in all of that? And we don't recognize the fundamental error. There are no good people. Instead, we are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and the best we can hope for us not merit, but mercy. We suffer from the fundamental sin -- "I will be like the Most High" -- not seeing that this sin disqualifies us from anything good from God. So when He provides it, we aren't grateful and when He provides less than what we expect, we're angry. "You owe me, God." It's a dangerous position to take. You really don't want "fair" from God.

You Owe Me

Do the research. You'll likely find some disturbing information. According to statistics and records and all that good stuff, prior to 1966, productivity and wages tracked pretty close. That is, as productivity increased (as it has), so did wages, and at approximately the same rate ... you know, as it should be. However, after 1966, things changed. Productivity has continued to rise and in the 21st century it did the proverbial "hockey stick", where it really spiked. Wages, however, have essentially gone flat for most of the working population. Oh, that top 10% got real income growth, but while productivity went up 70%, the everyman worker gained about 4% in wages from 1966 to 2001. Let's put this another way. In 1966, the upper echelon of workers made about 20 to 30 times the average worker. Today they make something around 270 times what your typical worker makes. In fact, it appears that 56% of the money gained from your increased productivity has gone to the top 1% , with more than a third of it going to the top 0.1%. The bottom 90% of us got just under 16% of the income growth. What's up with that?

So we, the every day workers, are ready to revolt. Those dirty rotten rich people! How can they do that to us? They've stripped us of our ability to have unions, gained through deregulation, and hold us captive by this recession. Those evil rich people.

Of course, this isn't the complete story. First, other economic experts are saying that, well, it's all wrong. We're certainly better off now than in 1966. At least 80% of us believe we're better off or at least as well off as our parents were. We are, after all, still going to the malls, still buying SUVs, still paying to see blockbuster movies. We're not that bad off. So, of course, you have to decide which argument you'll buy.

When I was considering all this, it was Jesus's parable that came to mind:

¹ "For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. ² After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. ³ And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, ⁴ and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' ⁵ So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. ⁶ And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' ⁷ They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' ⁸ And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' ⁹ And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. ¹⁰ Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. ¹¹ And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, ¹² saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' ¹³ But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? ¹⁴ Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. ¹⁵ Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' ¹⁶ So the last will be first, and the first last" (Matt 20:1-16).

Jesus asks, on behalf of the master of the house, "Did you not agree with me for a denarius?" and "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?" They're the same questions I'm asking when I hear of this kind of inequity.

What is the source of the complaint? "You owe me!" But this isn't so, is it? No one forced you to take that job. The job corp didn't show up at your door and drag you to work for a company that gives more money to the upper echelon than it gives to its workers. There was no coercion. What drives us to take these jobs, then? "Well," you assure me, "it's survival. We have to have an income." Is that actually true? Or is it that we "have to" have an income that keeps us at the standard of living to which we've become accustomed? Have we succumbed to the entitlement mentality that says that we are owed something simply by virtue of our existence?

I wonder all this because we've seen hints of what would happen if things were not this way. When the number of qualified workers becomes significantly less than the number of positions to fill, big business changes. They up wages. They pad the perks. They compete for the best workers. So if we were willing to take a lower standard of living, it is my suspicion that companies would be forced to improve conditions for their employees. But ... we're not, are we?

We live in a capitalist country. Companies own themselves; the government doesn't. They are not owned by the people. They are privately owned. If we affirm capitalism and if we affirm freedom, we cannot resort to force (for instance, legislation that forces businesses to change their wage policies) to change these companies. We have to use the free market. But that would require personal sacrifice of the American worker, and, let's face it, American workers are not willing to sacrifice, are we? So we'll just complain about the inequity and hope someone will tear down those bastions of injustice ... and wonder what happened to the American economic leadership in the world ...

Read Through The Bible

I know quite a few people these days that are diligently reading through the Bible in a year. You know ... they have a plan to follow that will give them maybe a chapter in the New Testament, several Old Testament chapters, and likely a Psalm. There is an organization called The Bible in 90 Days that offers you a schedule to read the whole thing in three months. There's another that offers a 6 month program. Lots of options.

I've never done any of these programs. Don't misunderstand. I'm not opposed to them. I just don't want to do them. And I am certainly in favor of reading the entire Bible. Every Christian should. No doubt about it. But I'm not happy with a "Read the Bible in a year" approach, and the 6 month and 90-day plans just get worse ... again, for me.

To me, reading the Bible in a year is like touring the country in a month. Sure, I can see the sights of America in a month. I might even be able to visit every state in a month. I could probably hit a few special highlights depending on my preferences. You know, an entire day at the Grand Canyon or a trip to the Statue of Liberty or some such. Fine. But when I'm done, could I say that I know America? I could truthfully say I know it better than those who have never done it. That's true. But I wouldn't know America at that rate. And I wouldn't know God's Word at that rate, either.

My preference is to dwell there. I prefer to take my time, to stay in a place, to examine it, get to know it. I'm talking here about Scripture, not travel. But, like travel, if you spend some time in a place, you'll know it far better than if you drive through it quickly. So I like to read a portion of Scripture and turn it over and find where it cross references and maybe figure out what some of the original words meant and how does it all fit and ... well, you get the idea.

Like I said, I'm in favor of reading the whole Bible. If you never do, you cannot say you know God's Word. And for those who like to do their rapid tours of the Word, I'm quite sure there is value in it and I'm not opposed. But I hope you don't mind if I tell you it's just not for me. I want to spend time savoring, soaking, enjoying the nourishment. I've read through the Bible this way and I will keep going. I just prefer to do it at a slower pace. Is that okay?

Addiction

There has been a debate of late in certain circles (thanks to a well-known golfer who will remain nameless) about whether or not there is such a thing as "sex addiction". The world of psychology once thought there was, but then they changed their minds because, well, that's a moral issue, isn't it? (You see, being an alcoholic, for instance, isn't immoral ... or something like that.) And so the debate goes on.

One of the concerns I heard recently on the topic was quite odd to me. It seems that wives are somewhat skeptical about the concept of sexual addiction because they think it just gives their husbands an excuse to cheat. Now I'm confused. Since when was "addiction" an excuse to be addicted? Since when was being addicted to something an approval of that something?

Apparently I'm the only one confused. It seems that a large number of people believe that "if you just can't help yourself, then it must be okay." I mean, if you are attracted to the same gender, it must be okay to carry out that attraction, right? Some go so far as to argue that it's possible that we're born with some of these propensities. If we're born with them (be it the inclination to become addicted or the desire for the same gender), it must not only be acceptable; it must be good. After all "God made me this way", right? And step by step the world goes mad.

A book by William Struthers is titled Wired for Intimacy with the chilling subtitle, "How pornography hijacks the male brain". The book is written from the medical perspective, primarily, explaining the effects of porn on the brain. Dr. Struthers is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College. He writes as a Christian doctor who sees a problem outside of the standard psychological and moral difficulties. Pornography, according to Struthers, rewires the male thinking patterns, corrupts all sorts of areas, and makes itself nearly impossible to escape. So ... it must be good, right? I mean, it's part of the brain ... and now I want it!

Frankly, we live in a society that endorses this idea almost wholeheartedly. "If I want it, it must be good." It's good to be rich and famous ... because I want it. You can't be too rich or too thin ... because I want it. Power is good ... as long as I want it. When others have it, I don't want that, so it's bad. I want to have sex with (fill in the blank), so it's good. And just because you want to tell me that it's wrong or that God is against it or something equally pointed doesn't make it right for you to do so because ... I don't want you to. I am, after all, the center of the universe and your freedom ends wherever I please. I want it that way.

It's an insidious and all-too-common way of thinking. "You right-wingers are dirty, rotten, mean-spirited so-and-so's" someone on the left might say, not recognizing that they're being dirty, rotten, and mean-spirited. It's okay for me to be intolerant and judgmental of your views; you just shouldn't be so intolerant and judgmental of mine! In other words, I can do what I want simply because I want to ... and you can't. That, dear friends, makes perfect sense -- or so they tell us.

Well, let's be clear. "Because I want to" is not a valid reason. "Because I want to" doesn't make something moral. Addiction does not excuse actions. We all have inclinations to do what's wrong. And we all have choices. We are not excused because we want or even "must". What is the case, however, is that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked; who can know it? Feel free to quote me on that.

Who do you trust?

Isn't it funny? It's alright these days to trust just about anyone. Well, anyone not human. I mean, of course you don't trust strangers or the government or things like that. No, I'm talking about life choices. It's okay to trust ... "the Force" or karma or the "spirit that lives within us all". In the movie, Alaska, the young hero was told by the wise eskimo to "trust the bear". And we hoped he would. Hey, in Avatar the really astute ones trusted a tree. Well, of course, that's because the tree was part of the entire life force that encompassed the entire planet and all that was on it. Now, that was commendable. And yet ... try to tell people that you are trusting in God and they'll likely think you quaint, trite, foolish. It's okay to trust a tree, but not the Creator.

The Curse of Work

How many times have you seen it? It seems the dream of so many is to be able to stop working. "What would you do if you won the lottery?" "Oh, I'd quit work and live it up!" It seems like for many people "the perfect world" would include no work at all. We hate work ... don't we?

It is a common belief among Christians that work is the curse of sin. You know: "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field" (Gen 3:17-18). See? We have to work because of Adam's sin.

Not changing the subject, but one of the perks in my car is satellite radio and one of the stations I enjoy hearing is the Radio Classics station. They play old-time radio shows from the 30's through the 60's. I enjoy it. The other day they played an episode of Escape about a guy who wanted to get away from all the struggle of life. He wanted to find "the perfect place". And he found it. Except when he did, he found it wasn't perfect. There was no competition, no effort, no direction. He couldn't achieve anything because it was already done. He went fishing and the fish simply gave up and jumped in the boat. He went hunting and the deer lined up for him to shoot. There was no challenge. And it wasn't perfection.

The show highlighted what many of us tend to forget. We were not designed for only leisure. We were designed to do. Before the Fall, Adam was not idle. He wasn't sitting under a tree eating fruit that dropped into his hand. He was tasked by God. "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it" (Gen 2:15). Adam, in his original, sinless state, was not unemployed. He had jobs to do. He tended the garden. He named all the animals. He worked.

What, then, was the result of the Fall? It wasn't the curse of work. It was the curse of hard work. Essentially, God sentenced mankind to hard labor.

What does it say, then, when we complain about having to work? First, it says we're sinful and selfish and don't realize the many benefits of fruitful labor. Even Natural Man can identify the value of work. We're born for it. We inherently desire to contribute, to be successful, to be significant. That doesn't happen without work. And even Natural Man knows "No pain, no gain." But it also says that we are in rebellion against God's justice. Work is a gift. Hard work is a curse. We have to work hard because God justly ordained it so. And we would prefer to remove God from our lives. In other words, when we complain about having to work and having to work hard, we are complaining about God. We are telling the Potter, "Why have you made me thus?"

Work is not a curse. I sincerely doubt that any of us have really hard work these days, either. The next time you find yourself wishing you could quit work and just live a life of leisure, remember whose voice you're hearing. It's not your Maker's voice. It's the Father of Lies. You know, the one who said, "Did God say ...?"

Where are you headed?

My wife recently watched a remake of the movie Fame. (She told me, "You won't like this. Why don't you go do something you'd like?" I have a great wife.) It got me to thinking. The story (as much as I gathered from the other room) is about a school that teaches kids the arts. The goal, obviously, is "Fame". And while the teachers try to expand the kids' understanding of these arts, the goal remained the same: "I wanna live forever." And I had to ask myself, "What kind of goal is that?"

You realize, of course, that it is, in its essence, a purely self-centered goal. It is perhaps one of the most common -- "fame and fortune" -- but it's purely about me. Others may tag their own take onto it, like "power" or some such, but it's still purely selfish. And I got to wondering how many of us are operating on purely selfish goals. Is your job a way to selfish endeavors or is it a vocation -- a calling from God?

When you start considering a career, it is unavoidable that you start with self. That may sound wrong, but it's the way it is. And we who have determined that "self" is always bad haven't been paying attention to the Bible. God commands as the #2 command, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." That makes self love the standard by which you love your neighbor. Paul commanded husbands to love their wives "as their own bodies". He went on to say, "He who loves his wife loves himself" (Eph 5:28). In other words, you start with self love and it is the standard by which you love others. Further, in loving others correctly, you love yourself. And, practically, when you think about it, how can you not start with self when considering a career? You have to consider strengths and weaknesses, inclinations and dislikes, skills and talents -- your own, of course. You see, avoiding being "self-centered" doesn't mean you never consider yourself. It means "in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil 2:3-4). Or, "I am significant, but you are more so. I need to care for my own concerns, but I need to care for yours as well." You start with self and work your way out.

The question isn't the starting point. The question is the end point. Where are you headed? I wonder how many of us view our employments as something for someone else.

Imagine, if you will, the young singer who is considering their chance to try out for something like American Idol. Would he or she ever be considering anything but self? Is there the possibility of a goal that would be for the benefit of others? I think we can all be pretty sure that it is not an other-centeredness that pushes young actors and performers into drug and alcohol addictions.

But that career field just makes the question so obvious. Do any of us take a job thinking, "With this position I'll be able to serve others" or "spread the Gospel" or "make a significant impact on the lives of others" or the like? Some careers, I suppose, tend more toward that. A social worker or a pastor would likely approach it that way. But what about a programmer or an airline pilot? What about a janitor or a CEO? What about a washing machine repairman or a banker? Do we take these tasks simply as a means to get what we want, or is it possible to see a vocation, a calling from God to serve others in these roles?

I don't think it's an easy question, but I believe the answer is a given. We are commanded "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Workers are told to render "service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man" (Eph 6:8), operating "as servants of Christ" (Eph 6:6). We are commanded, "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men" (Col 3:23). Your job, then, is not a job. It is a calling from God to serve God where you are. You don't work for your boss; you work for Christ. And you're not there to become rich and famous or powerful or even to collect a paycheck. You're there as an ambassador, an evangelist, a minister.

We are not employed; we are called. And when we realize that we are called to serve God where we are, it no longer is self-centered, is it? You may have decided where to be by first considering yourself, but when your goal is love for others and glory to God, it cannot be called selfish. Nor can it be merely called "a job".

The Names Have Been Changed

I'm going to tell you a story. The names (and anything else that might identify someone) have been changed ... even though there are no innocents.

They were living together, the two of them, with his two teenage kids in a nice place in the suburbs. He was a Christian, but wasn't much for going to church ... or doing anything else that would indicate he was a Christian. He believed it was fine to live with and sleep with his girlfriend because, well, it was the only way he could pay the bills and, after all, they were engaged to be married, weren't they? So what's the big deal?

Well, one night when she went off to work, tragedy struck. He was in an automobile accident. Fault was irrelevant. She suffered fatal injuries and soon after died. It was all very sad. His family gathered around him and wept. Everyone tried to figure out how to help him out. And his response? Well, it was what you might expect. "Why would God do such a thing?" And it wasn't an innocent question. He was mad.

These things are always difficult. We have compassion for the loved ones who suffer through them. And you want to be able to answer their "whys", but, let's be reasonable -- who can say why God does anything? The most common answer, of course, is "God didn't do it; these are just things that happen. God can't be everywhere, you know." This ever-so-popular and well-meaning answer comes from people who obviously don't know God. The Bible is full of people whom God causes to suffer for a variety of reasons. Some are struck dead for judgment. We tend to think this is the only possibility, but it's only one and not the only one. One man was born blind "so that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:3). Saul was struck blind to get his attention. Some people died so they could be raised again as a sign of authenticity for God's prophets. Job suffered specifically not because of sin, but because he served God. Does God cause pain and death as judgment? It would be foolish to deny it since there are so many biblical examples. On the other hand, it would be foolish to suggest that this event or that trial was an act of judgment without God's specific statement to that effect. Bottom line, then ... I cannot answer that question: "Why would God do such a thing?" I can say it was right. And I cannot but affirm that God ordained it. I just can't say what His reason was.

What is really bizarre in these circumstances is that these people who suffer these types of circumstances suddenly shift from practical atheist to learned theologian. They live their lives ignoring what God might have to say about it and then, when He intervenes, they're quite sure that He had no business intervening in their lives. It is the lie we all tend to tell ourselves. We are the most important thing and not even God has the right to interfere. None of us deserve that kind of suffering. That's a lie.

We are all human and we care and we are more comfortable with sinners than with God, so we feel the pain of a loved one in pain. Telling this one "You didn't care what God thought when you chose to live together; why do you care why He does what He does now?" wouldn't be of any service. That would be scant comfort. Jesus's reply in a similar situation wasn't very pleasant. They asked him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with the sacrifices. He replied, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-3). Maybe that's all we can do in times like these. Comfort the hurting and look to our own sinful condition. Maybe these kinds of events ought to serve as a call for us to repent. Couldn't hurt.

Religious Pragmatism

Pragmatism is "the doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge and meaning and value". Stated like that, it almost appears to be a religious doctrine, doesn't it? But you get the idea. What is right, true, or valuable is determined by ... well ... what works. We all practice this "religion" in every day life, and it's fine. If the laundry detergent you're using doesn't work, you find one that does. Rational. Makes sense. If giving your wife a vacuum cleaner for her birthday doesn't please her, find a gift that does. We can see that. In fact, this was the number one doctrine I heard from those who did not support President Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election. It wasn't that the voters I knew were delighted with their options. They just believed that they had to do "what works" because doing nothing did not work. You know ... "If you vote outside of the party, you'll be throwing your vote away." That's political pragmatism.

On the rise and pushing into prominence today is the concept of religious pragmatism. No, that's not accurate. It has been the case for a long time. But it's pushing into prominence in Christianity these days, too. What does this kind of pragmatism look like? It was the approach of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren when they formed their churches. Ask people "What do you want in a church?" and then do it. That is, find out "what works" and do it. Religious pragmatism. If this kind of music isn't producing the results you want, change to another. If this kind of worship service isn't drawing in the numbers you want, change to another. If people don't like to hear the Bible in sermons, stop using the Bible in sermons.

Can you begin to see the problem? If "what works" is the defining doctrine for "knowledge and meaning and value", and God's truth "doesn't work", where are we left? When someone tells me, "I tried that 'born again' thing; it didn't work" (emphasis mine), where am I to go? When the congregation tells the pastor, "We don't want to hear about sin and repentance; just give us happy sermons", what is the pastor to do with the other 75% of the Word?

There are places in life where pragmatism works. Christian truth is not one of those places. Too many people are giving ground on biblical truth because it doesn't seem to work. That's because of a skewed concept of "work" in view of biblical truth. Truth, by its nature, is discriminatory and devisive. It doesn't tolerate a variety of opinions and doesn't allow for relativism. In biblical history, the only time that I recall God working in a pragmatic way was when Israel demanded a king. He acquiesced ... but warned them of the outcome. And He was right. So are we sure we want to try to do "what works" rather than what God says is true? Or would it be better to realign our thinking about what is meaningful and valuable to God's way of seeing things?

Faith and Reason

In a recent article by Dr. Albert Mohler he asked the question, "Just how secular can an education be?" The question is in regards to a battle at Harvard University over whether or not undergraduates should have "at least one course in religion". The notion was that they should be prepared, along with everything else their education gives them, to deal with questions of faith. The question, of course, was struck down with vigor. The modern university, you see, must only be concerned about reason, not faith. Stephen Pinker, the most outspoken opponent of the idea, wrote,

The juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like "faith" and "reason" are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these.

This is what we're up against. It is a common perception, even among Christians, that "faith" means something radically different than "reason" -- that faith is faith and reason is reason and never the twain shall meet. "Faith", it is popularly held, "is believing something without good reason to do so."

I looked the word up. According to a variety of dictionary sources, the primary meaning of "faith" is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Funny thing ... I don't find anything in that which requires "without reason". In the Encylopedia of Judaism on the topic of faith in the Old Testament it says, "To those who lived in the biblical period, it seemed that evidence of God's presence and activity was so apparent that only willful blindness motivated by self-interest or being misled by a false prophet could explain disobedience." That phrase, "evidence of God's presence and activity", should shake you if you hold that sharp distinction between faith and reason because at its core faith does not require the complete lack of reason.

In the New Testament the word used most often for "faith" is peitho (in its various forms). Strong's defines the word this way: "to convince (by argument, true or false)". In other words, the New Testament concept of faith is reason that leads you to become convinced of something. In fact, without this definition there are commands in Scripture that make no sense. We are told, for instance, to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). Jude calls us to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

If we acquiesce on faith, making it something without reason, we are giving up our ability to obey these commands. You cannot defend something that has no reason. The root word there is apologia and is the word used in Greek courts for the legal defense. It is defined as "a reasoned statement or argument". Thus, if you allow "faith" and "reason" to be severed, you cannot make a reasoned statement about faith.

Tertullian, a 2nd century lawyer-turned-Christian, asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" He was warning against mingling Christian revelation with human philosophy. We've adopted the view by warning against mingling faith and reason. And there are fundamental problems with both. If reason is not an issue, why did Paul reason with the philosophers at Athens? If reason is not an issue, why did Paul use classical logic to argue for the Resurrection? If reason is not an issue, why did biblical writers offer reasons for faith? Paul wrote of eyewitnesses. John and Peter both spoke of being witnesses themselves. Why bother if reason is not an issue? Indeed, why would we be commanded to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is" if faith is without reason, the mind is irrelevant, and proof is pointless?

You'll hear that drivel a lot. Don't buy it. The Bible itself gives us reasons for believing. We are commanded to make logical arguments and proofs. Modern atheists would like to strip away one of the basic positions God requires -- reason -- but don't you let them. Some of faith may have components that cannot be tested in a laboratory, but there is no reason to think that this requires that you fold up your brain and put it away to be a Christian. The Bible demands the opposite. Don't do it.

What is Valuable?

I suggested on Sunday that we need a new set of values. Our values since the Fall have become so skewed and so utterly shallow that we have no idea what is really good. It's no wonder Paul echoes the psalmist when he says, "There is none who does good, no, not one." We don't even know what that is. I recommended then that we need to acquire God's sense of values. So, what is it that God considers valuable?

Well, it's not a difficult answer, but I'd like to spell it out to make it abundantly clear. First, we have the problem of sin. You know ... all have sinned. What we often miss, however, is why that is such a problem: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). The remedy to sin is grace and mercy, but why does God offer grace and mercy?

Mercy: "Then you will know that I am the LORD when I have dealt with you for My name's sake, not according to your evil ways or according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel," declares the Lord GOD'" (Ezek 20:44).

Grace: We have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God (Rom 5:2).

God deals with our sin by means of grace and mercy. The question, however, is why? Why does He bother to forgive sins? "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake" (1 John 2:12).

God's grace leads us to repentance, and we are saved by faith. For what purpose? Well, Eph 2:10 says we're saved for good works. Why does God lead us to good works? "He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake" (Psa 23:3). One of the acts of obedience that is not in question is the Great Commission -- evangelism. Why does God command us to take the gospel to all? "... through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake (Rom 1:5). I could keep asking why, but there is an overarching answer. What is to be the reason for everything we do? "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Indeed, "everything" there is all-inclusive. Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for persevering in suffering, but not merely for the sake of persevering -- it was because they endured "for My name's sake" (Rev 2:3). According to Jesus, even Peter's method of dying had a purpose: "Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God (John 21:19).

It's very simple. In Ephesians Paul writes that the Father has "blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Eph 1:3). Why did He do all that? He predestined us to adoption as sons "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (1:5-6). We obtained an inheritance "to the praise of His glory" (1:11-12). We are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit "to the praise of His glory" (1:13-14). Indeed, there is one and only "highest thing": Be exalted, O God, above the heavens, and Your glory above all the earth (Psa 108:5) (see also Psa 57:5,11).

What is God's highest priority? His own glory. All He does is to His glory. There are lots of things we can do to glorify God. All we are to do is to His glory. Scripture tells us that giving thanks will abound to the glory of God (2 Cor 4:15). Confessing that Jesus is Lord glorifies God (Phil 2:11). Obedience in general and sexual purity in particular glorifies God (1 Cor 6:20) (see also Matt 5:16; 1 Peter 2:12). Suffering for Christ glorifies God (1 Peter 4:16).

Do you want to share God's value system rather than Man's faulty value system? It's simple. God's glory is God's highest concern. It ought to be ours as well. That kind of top-down value system filters into everything we think, say, or do. It changes perspectives on everything from work to family to Christianity to self. Everything shifts. That's a paradigm we need to adopt.

Value System

I've been reading in Genesis lately. I found chapter 3 particularly interesting. It's the story of the Fall. We're all familiar with that one, right?

It starts with the serpent who was "was more crafty than any beast of the field". Look out! There's a warning there! His first approach is simple: "Did God say ...?" It's so simple. Question God. What did He really say? Was it fair? Was it kind? How good really is this God of yours? Eve overreacts like any good Pharisee. If dancing might lead to sexual sin, then it's best not to dance. If it's possible that drinking alcohol will get you drunk, it's best not to drink alcohol at all. If God said not to eat the fruit, it's best not to even get near it. Unfortunately, it also bears a component that the serpent already suggested: "Is God kind?" I mean, how kind is He if you can't even touch some fruit?

Satan's next attack is to directly contradict God. "You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:4-5). Can I share a little secret with you? It struck me as I read this that Satan didn't lie. Everything he told her was the truth. Proof? Well, Adam and Eve ate of the fruit that day and Adam lived something like 830 years. He did not die on the day that he ate it. As for the second claim, God Himself affirmed it. In Gen 3:22 God is quoted as saying, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ..." -- exactly what Satan claimed.

We're faced now with a tricky question. Who was right -- Satan or God? Satan questioned God, and it appears that Satan was right. They didn't die and they did become like God, knowing good and evil. The problem, of course, is the very same problem we carry around today. It is a problem of values.

There is a (somewhat nonsensical) joke told about the rich man who figured out how to take his riches with him to heaven. He loaded up his casket with gold bars and when he arrived at the pearly gates he had a load of gold. Of course, Peter greeted him with a mixed response. "We're glad to see you ... but why did you bring paving bricks?" You know ... streets of gold. I know, not that good. But it illustrates my point. We suffer from a problem of values. It's as if God offers us diamonds and, unfamiliar with such stones, we turn Him down because we're happy with dirt. God's version of "die" is not the same one we have. And God's concern about "like God" in knowing good and evil is not the same as ours. When Eve saw that the fruit was "desirable to make one wise", she ate. God, on the other hand, would have spared her -- us -- that wisdom. So dangerous was this wisdom that God threw them out of the garden lest Adam "stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen 3:22). That would be a bad thing. (Really? Well, apparently God thought so.)

We are so twisted in our judgments. We think of "living" as "the period between life and death" and God thinks of it as a personal relationship with God (John 17:3). We think that extending that period as far possible is grand and God thinks that it would be better to be in an eternal relationship with Him. We think that knowing evil as well as good is wise and God considers it ... fatal. Did Adam and Eve die on the day they ate? Not physically, and that's a massive tribute to God's mercy. Had He killed them on the spot He would have been just. But they did indeed die that day as evidenced by their first act -- to hide from God. Their intimate relationship with God was ended -- God's version of "die". And humans ever since have been stillborn, spiritually dead in sin, requiring a second birth to remedy a problem from Adam's sin. Their "wisdom" presented them with a new set of knowledge -- evil -- and we've been honing, expanding, and perfecting that knowledge ever since.

So how is it that Satan as the serpent managed to get mankind to step into sin? He questioned God -- primarily His goodness -- and he told the truth -- a truth that appealed to Man's shallow sense of values rather than God's genuine values. Satan hasn't changed tactics since. It is still the number one question of humans in general and skeptics in particular. "Is God good?" There is an entire wing of Christian Apologetics devoted to responding to that question. We call it "Theodicy". After that, it gets easy. Just point to Man's skewed sense of what is and isn't valued and sinful perspectives sound so ... wise. Do we have to keep falling for this ruse? Not necessarily. We just need to get a new set of values -- God's version.

Marrying Late

The other day I was talking to a guy who was about my age, just exchanging pleasantries. He asked about kids and I told him about mine. He was surprised when he heard that my oldest daughter is 31. "Wow! You must have married young!"

I never thought I married young, but I had to look into it. According to the Census Bureau, men of my age group back when I got married were averaging just under 25 years old. I married at 22. Yeah, young ... but not very. Unless, of course, you compare it to today. By today's standards, I married very young. Currently males marry at nearly 28 and females at nearly 26. There are more who are not married at all and it is not uncommon to wait until your thirties to get married today. Why do you suppose that is? Why is the average age of the first marriage going up?

The number one answer offered by society today is that career comes first. Before you marry you want to get yourself settled into a lucrative career with steady income, good benefits, and good prospects. In other words, "I need to get myself on track before I settle down." Interestingly (at least to me), the second most common reason offered is a commitment to fun. "If I get married, I won't be able to travel or do all the things I want to do." So they put off commitment because they want to live it up. Marriage, you see, terminates life, at least in some regards. Close behind the desire to live it up is the drive for education. That makes sense, I suppose, given that the first goal was to establish a career. The higher your education, the more you make, right? Stands to reason ... except that in America higher education is dropping off, especially among males. So I wonder.

I'm not really in disagreement with these answers. The reason age of marriage is going up is our personal devotion to self. "I want" occurs long before and at a far higher priority than "I do". I suspect, however, that there are other reasons that aren't showing up on the radar screen of answers. I think, for instance, that marriage has suffered a general decline in terms of reputation. With higher divorce rates lots of people are saying, "Why marry if it's just going to end up in divorce?" A close kin, then, is the "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" Whatever you do, don't analyze that sentence too closely. It's disgusting from all sorts of angles. If "the milk" is sex, the suggestion is that the only reason anyone would marry is for sex. Wrong. And, seriously, what woman (or man) wants to be referred to as "the cow"? And are all relationships really that mercenary? Wrong in so many ways. Also related, I think, is the problem of multiple relationships and breakups. Do that over time and you're going to become gunshy, so to speak. It will leave scars. People who married early wouldn't have as many relationships and breakups to deal with, so they're operating on a different system.

I think there are likely two more factors that you won't find in most studies. First, while most people will disagree with me, I think that today's youth are maturing much, much later than they were in the mid-20th century. Oh, they have more information and more input. They may have more knowledge. They may know more than their parents did at their age. But I'm talking about maturity, the sense of personal responsibility for self and others. They've called the recent generations "the boomerang generation" because so many leave home only to end up back home. They couldn't make it. They still need help. Self-sufficiency isn't an option, let alone commitment to and being sufficient for someone else. The other factor, I believe, is this constant striving to remove differences between genders. In earlier times everyone knew that men were less interested in commitment than women. Women were expected to be virginal, but young men were practically expected to "sow their wild oats". Wrong as that might be, that's the way it was. But Women's Liberation has come along and gender equality is all the rage and now we're encouraging women to be just as bad as men always were. For the longest time "nudie" magazines were for men. Women really had no interest. And it wasn't odd at all. Men were more visually driven while women were more emotionally driven. But Women's Liberation has changed all that. Women are now expected to be as visually stimulated and sexually raunchy as men. So instead of taming the wild male, women are going wild. This would tie into my earlier premise -- the later maturing -- but also into the problem of marriage. I mean, if you are devoted first to your own pleasure and your own pleasure is to have as many partners as possible, then putting off marriage is a given.

There are those, of course, who argue that marrying later is a good thing. Well, of course they would. Since it is already the case, we want to think that we're doing things better now than before. So we feed self-centeredness above all else and commit to personal pleasure rather than responsibility. We demean marriage as a questionable institution at all and then strip it of any meaning at all. We feed immaturity and call it normal and strip away the "gentler" part of the gentler sex and call it progress. To me, these are not good reasons for marrying later in life. Fortunately for me, I married too young.

What I Learned in Farmville

I'm just doing a little brainstorming here. What's up with this?

On Facebook there are lots of games that people can play, primarily aimed at socializing. Fine. One well-known game is Farmville. The concept is that you create your own farm and then work it. You plow fields and plant seeds and when they grow you harvest them and make money to do more. You can grow trees of all varieties and, when they are ready, you can harvest them and make money. There are all sorts of things that are on a farm. There are barns and animals and ... stuff, lots of stuff. Nice.

So, here you are with a nice farm. You grow stuff. You have chickens and get their eggs. You have cows and milk them. You have goats and you milk them. You have calves and you pet them. Oh, wait ... pet them? Um ... okay. You have pigs and you collect truffles from them. Okay, now wait a minute. How many farmers have pigs to collect truffles from them? You have turkeys and you collect feathers from them. Now that's just about enough of that!

You see, on a normal farm there are some animals that contribute by adding things (eggs, milk, dairy products) and there are other animals that contribute ... by dying (meat). There isn't a big market for turkey feathers or even horsehair (another product you can gather from horses). Gathering down feathers from geese or ducks is fine, but you typically gather them from dead geese or ducks, not live ones. In other words, Farmville is not presenting the operations of a real farm.

Now, of course it's a game, so who cares? Well, like I said, I'm just brainstorming here. Why do you suppose the makers of the game did not include the slaughter (and raising) of animals in the game? It wouldn't have to be graphic. They could even make the "ripe time" the time it takes to produce a replacement set of animals to slaughter, so it wouldn't be graphic at all. So why is it that they don't allow the slaughter of animals on a game intended to depict a farm?

I wonder if it could be the PETA effect. You know, who wants to face the rage of PETA for the artificial slaying of artificial animals in an artificial environment? I get it. And maybe that's it. I suspect, however, that it's not that at all. I suspect it's the general user who is in view. We civilized folk have become so accustomed to buying chickens and beef and turkey and such in the store that we've become disconnected with our own food source. We don't like the idea of killing ducks and chickens and such for food. What's wrong with you? We're almost baffled when PETA complains about Kentucky Fried Chicken serving chickens because, after all, don't they buy their meat from the store like everyone else? What's the big deal? And modern times have further removed us from the actual source by packaging it. Most of us don't buy whole chickens to cook. Nowadays you'll see advertisements from Swansons (the frozen meal folk) that say, "Don't eat out! Have a good, homecooked meal with Swansons!" So we have pretty packaged frozen food that resembles some sort of meat along with everything else and to actually think that stuff all the way through to a dead cow or chicken is just a long way to go.

Now, do I care about Farmville's depiction of a farm? No, not really. I just see it as a metaphor for life. The guy who says "I have never cheated on my wife" doesn't see the lust he had toward a woman he only saw a picture of in a sexual act he's never even considered on a computer monitor as adultery. It is, but he doesn't see it. To be fair, the "faithful" wife who never even looks at another man but lives out a fantasy life in her favorite Harlequin romance novels is just as guilty. Some couples even share the vices, watching pornographic images together without considering that they're watching someone else having sex. But who needs porn for that? We have scantily clad people parading in front of us on prime time TV doing things that would be vile if we did them and we call it "entertainment". Like Farmville, we allow the packaging to remove us so far from the reality that we don't even see it anymore. Then we wonder why our world is so confused about terms like "marriage" and "fidelity" and "sexual purity" and where we get our food ...

Lies

Have you ever noticed how much lying is a part of life? I'm thinking at the moment about advertising. It seems as if we get a constant stream of lies offered as truth and it is so prevalent that we barely notice it. Me personally ... I'm sick of being lied to.

There is a glut of advertising on the market right now for weight loss. "I tried this product and lost 47 pounds the first week!" she may tell you. It's only in the fine print that you'll find the disclaimer "results not typical". But the lies go deeper. There is the unspoken suggestion that if you lose weight you'll not only be healthier, but sexier, happier, and likely wealthier. You see, all of that seems to hinge on how much you weigh. Didn't know that, did you? Well, that's what I'd conclude from the commercials. And, of course, it's a lie.

Advertising has always used sex as one of its key selling points. One after shave for men was named for the skills you would need to fight off the women if you used it. Of course, I've never seen anyone having to fight off women because they smell good. But if you use their products -- if you smell good or drive their car or wear their outfits -- you'll be in such demand that you won't know what to do. Some of these claims are explicit. One TV ad for a product essentially claims, "Use our product and you'll have great sex!" More of them are implied, with sexy people and sexy images used for selling. None of them are true.

Then there are the dating sites on the Internet. You know the ones. They will find you the love of your life. Just sign up and you'll find romance, lifelong happiness, that "one true love" who has eluded you for so long. He/she is right there on the other side of the wire just waiting for you. And while they use a variety of methods and make a variety of promises, they're all quite sure that love is just a few keystrokes away -- a claim, of course, that is not genuine.

Even outside of advertising we get these same types of lies. I saw a "helpful" bumper sticker that sagely suggested, "Treat your wife like a thoroughbred and she won't be a nag." That's a common notion. Treat other people well and they will all treat you well. The truth is that you are more likely to be treated well if you treat others well, but being a nice person is no guarantee. And that's just one example.

The one that bugs me the most is the false advertising I hear from Christians. Give your life to Christ and everything will be wonderful. We hear it directly sometimes, but generally it's just a suggestion. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." That may be true, but God's "wonderful plan" could be martyrdom for His sake. I'm pretty sure when we think "wonderful plan" we're not thinking "incredible suffering". The biblical promise for believers, however, is just that. "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12). "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). Indeed, the Bible views suffering for the sake of Christ as a gift (Phil 1:29-30). The abundant life we are promised is something not of this world. The Christian's peace is a "peace that surpasses all understanding" (Phil 4:7).

We live in a world of lies. It's part of the nature of the beast, so to speak. We have hearts that are deceitful. Okay. So we recognize it and live with it. The wise person does well to analyze the advertising with which we are bombarded to find the lies and avoid them. They're everywhere, spoken or implied. The believer, however, has no business offering lies on behalf of God. He has true joy and genuine peace and more to offer, but it's not the cheap joy and peace we know in this world. Let's not tell people lies to trick them into the kingdom. That's a strategy that's sure to backfire. Lies are not God's strategy. That's from another father.

Verbal Brainwashing

You likely don't recognize it, but most of us are victims of verbal brainwashing. It's very subtle, this brainwashing. You hear a term used a particular way and you hear it repeated. It becomes a part of the vocabulary and pretty soon you're unaware that you've accepted new concepts as true.

One that has struck me of late is the term "actor". For most of my life there were two forms of the word. One was "actor" and the other was "actress". The difference between the two was simply gender. "Actress" was simply defined as "a woman who is an actor". You don't hear "actress" used much anymore. Actresses have discarded the term. They don't want to be recognized as women who are actors. Gender is irrelevant, you see. Despite the protests, the move to eliminate gender differences has gotten a firm foothold in Hollywood simply by eliminating a term -- "actress". Of course, that elimination has been popping up all over the place. You won't likely find a spokesman or spokeswoman anymore. They are all spokespersons. You no longer have a mailman. They are all mail carriers. It's everywhere. The language is shifting to eliminate gender differences, and we go with it, hardly aware that it's happening.

One of the most obvious places it occurs is in the language of homosexuality. Think about it. I bet you use the terminology pretty freely without even considering its ramifications. The first one is pretty easy to see. I've complained about it before. "Gay" used to mean "happy" and now ... it doesn't. But "gay" has shifted even more. While I think of it as "homosexual" (and only use that term), there appears to be only gay men because homosexual women prefer to be termed "lesbian". (Thus the LGBT -- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual -- designation.) But we've also appropriated an entire philosophy into our language that is hard to avoid. You are probably quite comfortable with the term "gay lifestyle" or the like. It references not a way of living, but a complete person. Mandatory in the term is the position that a person who has homosexual desires is born that way and is fundamentally different in how they live than those who have heterosexual desires. In other words, the term "lifestyle" in that context requires that "gay" or "homosexual" is a condition, not a choice or activity. If you use the term "lifestyle" in that context, you are agreeing that a person who has homosexual desires is a person with the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of a group we recognize as "gay". If you would like, from that point, to argue that "homosexual" is a choice, you've already lost the argument. It is a lifestyle, not a preference.

Oh, and we've bought it there, too. A simple shift in terminology and we've gone from "sexual preference" to "sexual orientation". No one speaks about "sexual preference" anymore. It's not a matter of the gender with whom you prefer to have sex, you see. It is an "orientation". By succumbing to the "orientation" terminology, you are admitting that there is something inborn, something fundamental, something intrinsic in this. This is flawed at its core. You see, I may have a tendency to be attracted to females rather than males, but I don't have to act on it. What one does with one's preferences is a choice. But we accept "orientation" and "lifestyle" and are happily moving toward philosophical positions that are neither true nor relevant.

Step from there to "gay marriage" and you've gone farther. You haven't brought equality to people who have a sexual preference for the same gender. You've loosed the term "marriage" from its original moorings and cut it adrift. It is no longer the core of society, the life-long joining of two people into one unit for the purpose of procreation and perpetuation. All of that is gone ... with a simple acceptance of a term.

Try it sometime. See how far you get. I know I have to work hard at not using terms that admit to beliefs I don't have. The minute you use the term "homosexuals", for instance, as a reference to a group, you've likely used it to mean a group of people who not only have sexual preferences, but also have their own "lifestyle", their own morals, their own attitudes, their own orientation, and so on. They are born that way and have no control of their actions. That is, they cannot choose not to act on their sexual desires for the same gender. In fact, you've made sex a divine right. I mean, you can't ask someone who has sexual desires for the same gender to be celibate, can you? That wouldn't be fair! Now, you may not have meant it that way, but that's the way it will be interpreted. The same is true with "gays", "gay lifestyle", "sexual orientation", and so on. We've been moved from personal responsibility, individual choice, and sex as an option to automatons who have no options in their preferences or the way they live ... simply by use of language.

And it doesn't stop there ...

Christian Morality

Ask just about anyone. They'll tell you. All religions are about morality. Ask most Christians and they'll tell you the same thing. Christianity may not be all about morality, but it is certainly a big part. The object is to make good people. That's the primary point.

It's not true, you know. Oh, in all other religions it certainly is. That is the sole measure of where you end up when you die. Be good ... or else. And the vast majority of folks figure it's the same with Christianity. But that's because the vast majority of folks, within and without Christianity, have failed to understand.

Most religions are a system of rules that you follow. Christianity is a relationship. There is a basic problem that has to be overcome. That problem is that we're dead in sin. Now, the "in sin" part is just the descriptor. We're dead because we're sinners. Fine. We got that. But that means that simply being good isn't a solution. "Dead" is the problem. Being a better behaved dead person won't solve the problem. What is needed ... is life. That's what Christ offers.

So, having been reborn, Christians have new life. That life is eternal life. That is, it comes from God who is eternal. Eternal is not the same as everlasting. Everlasting is from here forward. Eternal is certainly that. But eternal means that it never started, either. This is the life that is injected into the Christian, the life of God. We are given the Holy Spirit. We have Christ in us. We are, in fact, something entirely new.

So, the question becomes, "How does this new kind of person live?" This new person lives in accordance with the new nature -- in accordance with God. This new person loves "because He first loved us." He works out his salvation because "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." He can commit sins, but cannot tolerate it for long because "he has been born of God." And so it goes. While the rest of the dead world is either working hard to be better dead people or giving up entirely, the Christian operates out of a new nature that produces a new desire to do new things motivated and powered by God in us. The morality isn't the issue. The new nature is the issue. Like a lion who eats a zebra or a natural-born skater who skates, the new nature produces a standard output that the world recognizes as "morality". And, indeed, it is moral, even though that's not the point. If "being good" is your aim as a Christian, you missed the point. "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). It's much simpler than "being good". It's being what we are -- new creations.