The debate continues. Does Man have "free will" or doesn't he? Now, to be fair, I know of almost no one that argues that Man has no free will. The only ones I know arguing for that are the hardcore evolutionists who say that all of our decisions are products of our biochemical construction. Fine. The rest argue for free will, but define it in different ways. One says, "We have the ability to make uncoerced decisions" and another says, "If we don't have absolute Free Will, it's not free will." You see, if Man has no free will, then he is not culpable for sin, and all Christians believe that Man is culpable for sin. Still, there are nuances, and they tend to get pushed aside in the broader question. For many, the only allowable definition of "free will" is autonomy. Humans can choose anything at all and no one and nothing can interfere. Anything less doesn't qualify.
We don't often stop and ask ourselves, "Just how free is free will?" So let's do an experiment to find out. If you want to believe that humans have true autonomy, try this out. Tomorrow, choose not to sin. I'm not asking you to choose to be perfect. I'm not asking you to never sin again. I'm just asking for a single day. If you find that you are not capable of making such a simple choice, where are you going to stand on the argument that Human Free Will is as ultimate as you seem to think?
The perception of human beings is that we have the ultimate free will. The language of Scripture is not so inclusive. It includes terms like "No man can ...", "cannot", and even "slaves". (If you need references, I can provide them.) Both in my experience and from what I read in the Bible, I don't find the concept of the ultimate autonomy of Man. Maybe you do. Maybe you can even avoid sinning for an entire day. But be careful. One person I talked to about this assured me that he didn't sin anymore; he just "made mistakes". Rewording it won't help.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Monday, July 05, 2010
Let 'em eat cake
"You can't have your cake and eat it, too." If that confuses you, let me help you out. You can't both have a cake and eat a cake. If it's eaten, you don't have it anymore. See? So ... what's the point? The idiom is intended to tell you that you can't have it both ways, whatever "it" is.
This, of course, is an amazingly common goal these days. At least, it seems to me. I cannot tell you how many people have told me that 1) the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, but simply ideas from which we can (or cannot) derive truth and 2) we ought to obey the Bible. Oh, they don't typically do this in the same sentence. Usually it occurs in two separate conversations. Bob and Ted are talking. Ted will say, "The Bible says ..." and then express an opinion, based on Scripture, that differs with Bob's perspective. "Oh, no," Bob will assure Ted, "you can't go basing your argument on Scripture. That's a man-made book that you can't take literally ... you rotten literalist. I mean ... sure ... it's got good stuff in it, but not the literal 'Word of God' like you're using it." And Ted is no longer able to defend his position because now he's forced to defend the Bible. Fast forward. Now Ted says something like, "It's not right for the government to take from the rich to give to the poor" and Bob will sputter and complain, "Doesn't the Bible say that we're supposed to care for the poor?" Now, wait, Bob. Didn't you just explain that he can't take the Bible literally, that it's not inerrant, that he shouldn't be arguing that way? And now you get to argue the way you told Ted he couldn't? Because, you see, Bob is planning to have his cake and eat it.
This, of course, happens with all sorts of nuances. The atheist will argue that "Religion has done all sorts of evil over the ages", but if you ask him/her the source of the definition of "evil" in the absence of any moral authority, he/she is stuck. You need a moral authority to define immoral, and they deny any such authority. So on what basis can they accuse religion of doing something that they deny can exist? Sounds to me like an attempt to both have and eat one's cake.
It is much more common, I think, than most of us realize. They will rise up and shout, "Stop being so judgmental and intolerant", a thoroughly judgmental and intolerant thing to shout. They will complain, "Don't try to tell people what to believe" which is, of course, an attempt to tell people what to believe. "You can't legislate morality," they'll assure us, but complain that the laws are not strong enough on their pet problem. (If that one was unclear, think about the complaints that too many Christians think that homosexual behavior is a sin, so they try to pass laws to make it illegal for Christians to have such an outlook -- legislating morality.)
It's an easy mistake to make. It's far too common. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to argue that "The Bible says ..." for your position, please don't argue "That's not in the Bible" when your view is disputed ... and the references are offered. If you want to argue, "Don't use the Bible for your argument", please don't use the Bible for your argument. If you want to argue the separation of Church and State, please don't complain when the removal of the moral influence of religion brings about negative effects. And please, please, if you want people to be less judgmental and intolerant, don't be so judgmental and intolerant of what they believe. If you want them to be accepting of other beliefs, do the same thing for theirs. This kind of stuff just baffles me.
Cake, anyone?
This, of course, is an amazingly common goal these days. At least, it seems to me. I cannot tell you how many people have told me that 1) the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, but simply ideas from which we can (or cannot) derive truth and 2) we ought to obey the Bible. Oh, they don't typically do this in the same sentence. Usually it occurs in two separate conversations. Bob and Ted are talking. Ted will say, "The Bible says ..." and then express an opinion, based on Scripture, that differs with Bob's perspective. "Oh, no," Bob will assure Ted, "you can't go basing your argument on Scripture. That's a man-made book that you can't take literally ... you rotten literalist. I mean ... sure ... it's got good stuff in it, but not the literal 'Word of God' like you're using it." And Ted is no longer able to defend his position because now he's forced to defend the Bible. Fast forward. Now Ted says something like, "It's not right for the government to take from the rich to give to the poor" and Bob will sputter and complain, "Doesn't the Bible say that we're supposed to care for the poor?" Now, wait, Bob. Didn't you just explain that he can't take the Bible literally, that it's not inerrant, that he shouldn't be arguing that way? And now you get to argue the way you told Ted he couldn't? Because, you see, Bob is planning to have his cake and eat it.
This, of course, happens with all sorts of nuances. The atheist will argue that "Religion has done all sorts of evil over the ages", but if you ask him/her the source of the definition of "evil" in the absence of any moral authority, he/she is stuck. You need a moral authority to define immoral, and they deny any such authority. So on what basis can they accuse religion of doing something that they deny can exist? Sounds to me like an attempt to both have and eat one's cake.
It is much more common, I think, than most of us realize. They will rise up and shout, "Stop being so judgmental and intolerant", a thoroughly judgmental and intolerant thing to shout. They will complain, "Don't try to tell people what to believe" which is, of course, an attempt to tell people what to believe. "You can't legislate morality," they'll assure us, but complain that the laws are not strong enough on their pet problem. (If that one was unclear, think about the complaints that too many Christians think that homosexual behavior is a sin, so they try to pass laws to make it illegal for Christians to have such an outlook -- legislating morality.)
It's an easy mistake to make. It's far too common. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to argue that "The Bible says ..." for your position, please don't argue "That's not in the Bible" when your view is disputed ... and the references are offered. If you want to argue, "Don't use the Bible for your argument", please don't use the Bible for your argument. If you want to argue the separation of Church and State, please don't complain when the removal of the moral influence of religion brings about negative effects. And please, please, if you want people to be less judgmental and intolerant, don't be so judgmental and intolerant of what they believe. If you want them to be accepting of other beliefs, do the same thing for theirs. This kind of stuff just baffles me.
Cake, anyone?
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Celebrating Freedom
It's the 4th of July, America's "Independence Day". It's a big deal for us. Technically, it is a celebration of the anniversary of when we gained independence from Great Britain, but we see it as a celebration of freedom in general these days. (Most of us aren't old enough to remember what it was like under Great Britain's rule. Most of us.)
America really is the home of the free. I mean, sure, there are constraints as any society must have, but we have much fewer than so many. Many Americans complain about America, and I'm not suggesting in the least that our country is remotely perfect, but oddly enough it is our freedom, defended at the point of arms, that allows people to complain about America. There are those that try to impinge on our freedom and there are times that we surrender freedoms, but, all in all, this is a good country with more liberty than most.
I often have difficulty, though, with our concept of "freedom". We call it "freedom" when there is an absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. In other words, we call it "freedom" when we can do whatever we please and no one tells us otherwise. Now, from a biblical perspective, I get all tied up with that kind of definition. We would call it "freedom", for instance, if we were free to become addicted to drugs. Wait ... isn't that kind of contradictory? On the basis of our constitutional right to the freedom of speech, people all around are becoming addicted to pornography. Isn't there some contradiction in "freedom" that gives us addiction? Biblically, Natural Man is called a "slave of sin". Just how free is that? If the Bible claims that no one does good and Natural Man cannot respond to spiritual things, just how free are we?
I would define freedom in a different way. Lord Acton is attributed with the quote, "Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought." Okay, maybe. But I wouldn't put it that way. I would say that true liberty is the ability to do what is best. First, then, what is best is what God says we ought to do, so I'm not thoroughly disagreeing with the famous quote -- just refining it. Second, if what God says we ought to do is what is best, the Bible is clear that Natural Man lacks that ability. It is only those who are a new creature in Christ that have God at work in them giving them both the ability and desire to do what pleases Him.
Coming full circle, then, it's the 4th of July, sure, but this 4th of July falls on a Sunday. Sunday is the day we gather in honor of the Resurrection of Christ. That Resurrection is what enabled all who believe to have the capacity to do what is best. So, as it turns out, Sunday is a day that we celebrate genuine freedom. Freedom in Christ. Freedom from sin. Freedom to do good. Yes, it's a good day to celebrate freedom.
America really is the home of the free. I mean, sure, there are constraints as any society must have, but we have much fewer than so many. Many Americans complain about America, and I'm not suggesting in the least that our country is remotely perfect, but oddly enough it is our freedom, defended at the point of arms, that allows people to complain about America. There are those that try to impinge on our freedom and there are times that we surrender freedoms, but, all in all, this is a good country with more liberty than most.
I often have difficulty, though, with our concept of "freedom". We call it "freedom" when there is an absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. In other words, we call it "freedom" when we can do whatever we please and no one tells us otherwise. Now, from a biblical perspective, I get all tied up with that kind of definition. We would call it "freedom", for instance, if we were free to become addicted to drugs. Wait ... isn't that kind of contradictory? On the basis of our constitutional right to the freedom of speech, people all around are becoming addicted to pornography. Isn't there some contradiction in "freedom" that gives us addiction? Biblically, Natural Man is called a "slave of sin". Just how free is that? If the Bible claims that no one does good and Natural Man cannot respond to spiritual things, just how free are we?
I would define freedom in a different way. Lord Acton is attributed with the quote, "Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought." Okay, maybe. But I wouldn't put it that way. I would say that true liberty is the ability to do what is best. First, then, what is best is what God says we ought to do, so I'm not thoroughly disagreeing with the famous quote -- just refining it. Second, if what God says we ought to do is what is best, the Bible is clear that Natural Man lacks that ability. It is only those who are a new creature in Christ that have God at work in them giving them both the ability and desire to do what pleases Him.
Coming full circle, then, it's the 4th of July, sure, but this 4th of July falls on a Sunday. Sunday is the day we gather in honor of the Resurrection of Christ. That Resurrection is what enabled all who believe to have the capacity to do what is best. So, as it turns out, Sunday is a day that we celebrate genuine freedom. Freedom in Christ. Freedom from sin. Freedom to do good. Yes, it's a good day to celebrate freedom.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
The Curse of Confidence
There are a variety of new sins on the market today. You know, things that didn't used to be "bad" but are now. Like, being boring. That's evil. Claiming that there is absolute truth. That's just wrong. Or how about "political correctness"? Everyone knows that using terms that might possibly be remotely offensive in some sort of misunderstood context is wrong, wrong, wrong. But, of course, one of the "deadly sins" now added (I believe) to the list of "7 deadly sins" is confidence. No, not confidence in yourself. Confidence that what you believe is true. Now that, dear friends, that just shouldn't happen.
Well, let's be fair. If you are confident that, for instance, the president's healthcare reform is good, then that confidence is okay. If you're certain that the Church should not recognize sin as sin, then that's perfectly acceptable. If you affirm that science is right and anything that might disagree is obviously wrong, then you're doing fine. No, no, it's confidence in beliefs that are outside the vogue. You know, if you believe, for instance, that the Bible is God-breathed, well, now, that's just arrogance. If you think that Christianity is true, that's simple intolerance. And to suggest that people need salvation, now that's just downright mean-spirited.
The "bad zone" obviously spreads a little farther than that. (Ask General McChrystal.) It was right and good to be unkind, mean, and demeaning to President Bush, but it is evil and wrong to even think bad thoughts about President Obama. What are you ... a racist? Now, you can say, "I don't know if what he's doing is great." You see, that's not "confidence". That's more of a question. And we here in America have free speech, right? (Again, ask the general. Maybe not all of us. But, hey, that's the way it works.) But what's wrong is if you say with certainty that what he's doing is wrong. Do not claim that he is the most pro-abortion president to ever be in office. That's evil! Don't even begin to compare his policies with socialism. That's ignorant! And ... well, you get the idea.
When did it become evil to be confident in what you believe? I really don't know. I've studied, for instance, a wide variety of views on eschatology -- what will happen in end times. I've had a variety of opinions myself. And after careful study and lengthy analysis, I can boldly and plainly state ... I don't know. So you won't likely hear me taking a strong, confident position on that stuff. On the other hand, I have also spent a great deal of time studying and analyzing a host of Christian doctrines such as the Atonement, the Trinity, Original Sin, and the like. Everything I read brings me to the conclusion that my beliefs on these topics are in line with orthodox Christian views. They are in line with Scripture. They are biblically, rationally, and historically defensible. I am, therefore, quite confident that my views on these are correct. But let me express those with certainty and I'll be transgressing that 8th deadly sin -- "confidence". And never let them hear you say, "The Bible is quite clear that homosexual behavior is a sin" because that cannot be stated without being arrogant, judgmental, and intolerant! (I know this from people who have arrogantly judged me for it and won't tolerate my view.)
Funny thing. A lot of what is called "sin" has moved to "tolerable", then to "normal", and finally to "admirable" while other things have shifted the other way. Why is that? And when did "sure of what I believe" become a bad thing?
Well, let's be fair. If you are confident that, for instance, the president's healthcare reform is good, then that confidence is okay. If you're certain that the Church should not recognize sin as sin, then that's perfectly acceptable. If you affirm that science is right and anything that might disagree is obviously wrong, then you're doing fine. No, no, it's confidence in beliefs that are outside the vogue. You know, if you believe, for instance, that the Bible is God-breathed, well, now, that's just arrogance. If you think that Christianity is true, that's simple intolerance. And to suggest that people need salvation, now that's just downright mean-spirited.
The "bad zone" obviously spreads a little farther than that. (Ask General McChrystal.) It was right and good to be unkind, mean, and demeaning to President Bush, but it is evil and wrong to even think bad thoughts about President Obama. What are you ... a racist? Now, you can say, "I don't know if what he's doing is great." You see, that's not "confidence". That's more of a question. And we here in America have free speech, right? (Again, ask the general. Maybe not all of us. But, hey, that's the way it works.) But what's wrong is if you say with certainty that what he's doing is wrong. Do not claim that he is the most pro-abortion president to ever be in office. That's evil! Don't even begin to compare his policies with socialism. That's ignorant! And ... well, you get the idea.
When did it become evil to be confident in what you believe? I really don't know. I've studied, for instance, a wide variety of views on eschatology -- what will happen in end times. I've had a variety of opinions myself. And after careful study and lengthy analysis, I can boldly and plainly state ... I don't know. So you won't likely hear me taking a strong, confident position on that stuff. On the other hand, I have also spent a great deal of time studying and analyzing a host of Christian doctrines such as the Atonement, the Trinity, Original Sin, and the like. Everything I read brings me to the conclusion that my beliefs on these topics are in line with orthodox Christian views. They are in line with Scripture. They are biblically, rationally, and historically defensible. I am, therefore, quite confident that my views on these are correct. But let me express those with certainty and I'll be transgressing that 8th deadly sin -- "confidence". And never let them hear you say, "The Bible is quite clear that homosexual behavior is a sin" because that cannot be stated without being arrogant, judgmental, and intolerant! (I know this from people who have arrogantly judged me for it and won't tolerate my view.)
Funny thing. A lot of what is called "sin" has moved to "tolerable", then to "normal", and finally to "admirable" while other things have shifted the other way. Why is that? And when did "sure of what I believe" become a bad thing?
Friday, July 02, 2010
Bending Steel
Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph 6:17).The word of God which includes the Bible is called a sword. Made from hardened metal, a good sword is sharp and it is strong. So, what do you do with it now?
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb 4:12).
Many people approach the Bible as if it's a piece of wood ... or something more flexible. Here's the common approach (and I need to point out that it's very common, even among those with a strong sense of concern for the Word): How does what I'm reading align with how I think and feel? "How I think and feel" in this approach becomes the arbiter of what I read. "It says," for instance, "that God ordered the deaths of men, women, and children (see 1 Sam 15 as an example). Well, I don't think that would be right for God to do, so ..." and now I fill in the blank. "It cannot mean what it says because I don't think that would be right." So I take the sword and begin to bend it. My deciding issue is what I think, not what it says. Even among those deeply concerned about valuing the Word, this is a common perspective and one that we have to overcome if we are to properly read the Bible.
Now, there are lots of helpful places out there to assist you to properly interpret Scripture. There are great little lists of rules like "interpret the implicit by the explicit" and "let Scripture interpret Scripture" and that kind of thing. My aim here is not to provide such a list. My purpose is to ask the question, "What do you do with what you read?" Do you bend Scripture to meet your thinking and feeling, or do you allow Scripture to shape your thinking (and, consequently, your feelings)? When you read something that collides with your present beliefs, do you consider changing your beliefs or do you prefer to change what you read?
Let's look at some examples. Take, for instance, the unavoidable biblical concept of the wrath of God. There is very little doubt that no one likes the concept of the wrath of God. It just sounds bad. Some will tell you, "That Old Testament God was really wrathful; I like the New Testament Jesus who was so loving." Many will try to explain away the wrath of God as perhaps an Old Testament superstition or, at least, an outmoded perception. But the Bible is full of the wrath of God from beginning to end and if you are to be true to the Word, you can't dismiss it. It doesn't feel very good, to be sure, but it is an unavoidable biblical concept. (Hey, I think I said that already.) So ... do you try to mitigate it or do you incorporate it as fact and readjust your thinking and feelings about it?
Look at what the Bible has to say about marriage. Starting at the beginning (Gen 2), marriage is a running theme. There are rules about how spouses relate to one another. There are rules about divorce (and if you're going to take them seriously, they are far more stringent than today's "no fault" approach). There are biblical parallels between marriage and God's relationship with Israel and between marriage and Christ's relationship to the Church that cannot -- must not be ignored. Today's world tends to be egalitarian in marriage. There are no "gender roles". Such a suggestion is sexist and evil. The Bible, on the other hand, provides instruction on roles of wives and roles of husbands ... and they are different. So, what do you do with that? Do you try to mold all that in the image of today's perceptions on marriage and gender roles or do you determine to mold your perceptions to the image God places in the Bible?
There is a whole lot there in the Bible that collides with modern views. The notion of a God who orders the deaths of men, women, and children (and goats and ...) is horrific in the modern mind. Many skeptics hold that up as a clear problem. Is it? It absolutely is ... if you assume that the modern mind is correct. If your starting place is Scripture, then you'll find that you have to change your mind about lots of things. The suggestion that homosexual behavior is sinful is offensive to today's world. Do you avoid offense and ignore (by shifting and bending) what the Bible says or recognize the offense and still hold to what the Bible says? Do you interpret the Bible from your worldview or do you allow the Bible to determine your worldview? When the Bible quotes God as saying, "I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right" (Isa 45:19), do you accept the demand that "what is right" is above and beyond God and He must conform to it or do you accept that God defines what is right? When you read, "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil", do you say, "Well, that's not right" or do you ask, "Am I failing to properly understand the relationship of God and evil?" When you read, "No one does good, not even one", do you suggest, "Well, my experience says otherwise" or do you think, "It seems abundantly clear that no one does good, not even one, so is it possible that my understanding of 'good' is not right?" Do you give God the right to shape your thinking, or do you make the effort to bend the steel of the sword to match your own perceptions? I'd like to point out that trying to bend a sword is a very good way to get badly cut up.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
The World v Marriage
I've been "complaining" for years now that marriage is under attack. The first torpedo hit broadside when the 60's generation pushed "free love". Sex was no longer a marriage issue. But marriage is a big ship and it kept going. "They weren't really shooting at us" we told ourselves. The next hit was when "no fault" divorce became the norm. But marriage is a big ship and it kept going, lower in the water. "Really, it wasn't marriage who was the target" we told ourselves. Then, there was another sustained barrage culminating in California in 2008 trying to create a new version entirely of "marriage" by adding in same-sex relationships. The court itself, in approving the measure, recognized that marriage had a "longstanding tradition" of being solely between a man and a woman. The big ship, listing badly now, shuddered again. But they keep telling us, "We're not attacking marriage." And we believe them.
Now Newsweek comes out with a June 11, 2010, article titled 'I Don't' and subtitled "The case against marriage". Now, please, let's be reasonable. You may try to tell me that "free love" and "no fault" divorce and "same-sex marriage" are not actual attacks against marriage -- you may try to tell me that no one is attacking marriage at all -- but when the article is exactly "The case against marriage", can you really keep up that front?
From the authors, Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, we read, "Once upon a time, marriage made sense. It was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights." Of course, things have changed. "Marriage is — from a legal and practical standpoint, anyway — no longer necessary." To what do they ascribe this development? The feminist movement. And what has feminism provided that has obsoleted marriage? Well, today, "Women now constitute a majority of the workforce; we’re more educated, less religious, and living longer, with vacuum cleaners and washing machines to make domestic life easier. We’re also the breadwinners (or co-breadwinners) in two thirds of American families. In 2010, we know most spousal rights can be easily established outside of the law, and that Americans are cohabiting, happily, in record numbers. We have our own health care and 401(k)s and no longer need a marriage license to visit our partners in the hospital."
So, what is the case against marriage? Well, to start with, women don't need it anymore. They can do it all on their own. (The authors never explain how they can get "the fathers of their children to stick around", so apparently that is no longer of any importance.) It's clear that the primary purpose of marriage was financial security and legal rights. Now there is a new definition of marriage. (Do you see, by the way, that the flood of women in the workplace is considered one of the primary causes of the termination of marriage? What started largely as "We both need to work to provide for our family" has turned out to be one of the key assaults on the family.)
Another argument is the modern divorce rate. As everyone knows, it's up around 60% in America today. (That's a popular number you'll hear.) Now ... do you know where that number comes from? It's fairly simple and wholly flawed arithmetic. What you do is take the number of divorces in a year per 1000 people divided by the number of marriages in a year per 1000 people. In 2009, for instance, the marriage rate was 6.8 and the divorce rate was 3.4. Look! Do the math! That clearly tells us that the divorce rate in 2009 was 50%, right? Well, that's a loose and misleading number. If you calculate the number of people who have ever married against the number of people who have divorced, the rate drops to something more like 40%. Now, this it still an unacceptable rate, but it isn't the much-touted 50 or 60% rate you hear. You see, when you just count "marriages" and "divorces", you fail to take into account those people who divorce and remarry multiple times versus those who never divorce, and this skews the numbers. Now, the authors do make a good point: "When conservatives argue that same-sex couples are going to 'destroy' the 'sanctity' of marriage, we wonder, wait, didn’t we already do that?" (emphasis in original). Yes, we have.
There is another running theme inherent in their definition of marriage. You find it in phrases like "we’ll take reason over romance." In this definition, part of the definition of marriage is "romance". That puts a crimp in the need for marriage, doesn't it? I mean, you don't need marriage to find romance, and marriage does not insure that romance will last. (Hint: It won't.) Another reason they pile on for obsoleting marriage is "we identify as secular." It used to be bad to have kids out of wedlock. No more. It's all good. I mean, "in 2008, 41 percent of births were to unmarried mothers", so you surely don't need marriage for that anymore. The concept of "saving myself for marriage" is all but gone. (I knew a guy who did just that, and instead of congratulations, he was mocked.) One quote on this was from a 28-year-old male who said, "If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know." So that issue is dead. And we certainly don't need marriage to have legal rights anymore. "Thanks largely to the efforts of same-sex-marriage advocates, heterosexual couples have more unmarried rights to partnership now than ever."
I think the evidence is overwhelming. In the last 50 years a sustained and largely successful assault has been waged against marriage. It came from the "free love" advocates in the 60's who pushed at the need for sexual morality. It came from the feminists who pushed away any biblical sense of male and female roles. And, let's be clear, the desire of women to rule over men isn't a product of feminism. It isn't a new thing. Nor is it right. It is a direct product of the Fall. Every support holding marriage up has been eroded. It has been eroded by sexual immorality. It has been eroded by feminism. It has been eroded by "same-sex-marriage advocates". Let's face it; it has been eroded by sin. In fact, when marriage finally falls to the current onslaught of same-sex advocates, it won't be much to surrender. The genuinely sacred, God-given, male-female union used as the fundamental building block of the family, of society, of the human race is no longer acceptable -- even recognizable. It's outdated and unwanted. This ship is going down, and this, dear readers, is a slap in the face of God.
Now Newsweek comes out with a June 11, 2010, article titled 'I Don't' and subtitled "The case against marriage". Now, please, let's be reasonable. You may try to tell me that "free love" and "no fault" divorce and "same-sex marriage" are not actual attacks against marriage -- you may try to tell me that no one is attacking marriage at all -- but when the article is exactly "The case against marriage", can you really keep up that front?
From the authors, Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, we read, "Once upon a time, marriage made sense. It was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights." Of course, things have changed. "Marriage is — from a legal and practical standpoint, anyway — no longer necessary." To what do they ascribe this development? The feminist movement. And what has feminism provided that has obsoleted marriage? Well, today, "Women now constitute a majority of the workforce; we’re more educated, less religious, and living longer, with vacuum cleaners and washing machines to make domestic life easier. We’re also the breadwinners (or co-breadwinners) in two thirds of American families. In 2010, we know most spousal rights can be easily established outside of the law, and that Americans are cohabiting, happily, in record numbers. We have our own health care and 401(k)s and no longer need a marriage license to visit our partners in the hospital."
So, what is the case against marriage? Well, to start with, women don't need it anymore. They can do it all on their own. (The authors never explain how they can get "the fathers of their children to stick around", so apparently that is no longer of any importance.) It's clear that the primary purpose of marriage was financial security and legal rights. Now there is a new definition of marriage. (Do you see, by the way, that the flood of women in the workplace is considered one of the primary causes of the termination of marriage? What started largely as "We both need to work to provide for our family" has turned out to be one of the key assaults on the family.)
Another argument is the modern divorce rate. As everyone knows, it's up around 60% in America today. (That's a popular number you'll hear.) Now ... do you know where that number comes from? It's fairly simple and wholly flawed arithmetic. What you do is take the number of divorces in a year per 1000 people divided by the number of marriages in a year per 1000 people. In 2009, for instance, the marriage rate was 6.8 and the divorce rate was 3.4. Look! Do the math! That clearly tells us that the divorce rate in 2009 was 50%, right? Well, that's a loose and misleading number. If you calculate the number of people who have ever married against the number of people who have divorced, the rate drops to something more like 40%. Now, this it still an unacceptable rate, but it isn't the much-touted 50 or 60% rate you hear. You see, when you just count "marriages" and "divorces", you fail to take into account those people who divorce and remarry multiple times versus those who never divorce, and this skews the numbers. Now, the authors do make a good point: "When conservatives argue that same-sex couples are going to 'destroy' the 'sanctity' of marriage, we wonder, wait, didn’t we already do that?" (emphasis in original). Yes, we have.
There is another running theme inherent in their definition of marriage. You find it in phrases like "we’ll take reason over romance." In this definition, part of the definition of marriage is "romance". That puts a crimp in the need for marriage, doesn't it? I mean, you don't need marriage to find romance, and marriage does not insure that romance will last. (Hint: It won't.) Another reason they pile on for obsoleting marriage is "we identify as secular." It used to be bad to have kids out of wedlock. No more. It's all good. I mean, "in 2008, 41 percent of births were to unmarried mothers", so you surely don't need marriage for that anymore. The concept of "saving myself for marriage" is all but gone. (I knew a guy who did just that, and instead of congratulations, he was mocked.) One quote on this was from a 28-year-old male who said, "If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know." So that issue is dead. And we certainly don't need marriage to have legal rights anymore. "Thanks largely to the efforts of same-sex-marriage advocates, heterosexual couples have more unmarried rights to partnership now than ever."
I think the evidence is overwhelming. In the last 50 years a sustained and largely successful assault has been waged against marriage. It came from the "free love" advocates in the 60's who pushed at the need for sexual morality. It came from the feminists who pushed away any biblical sense of male and female roles. And, let's be clear, the desire of women to rule over men isn't a product of feminism. It isn't a new thing. Nor is it right. It is a direct product of the Fall. Every support holding marriage up has been eroded. It has been eroded by sexual immorality. It has been eroded by feminism. It has been eroded by "same-sex-marriage advocates". Let's face it; it has been eroded by sin. In fact, when marriage finally falls to the current onslaught of same-sex advocates, it won't be much to surrender. The genuinely sacred, God-given, male-female union used as the fundamental building block of the family, of society, of the human race is no longer acceptable -- even recognizable. It's outdated and unwanted. This ship is going down, and this, dear readers, is a slap in the face of God.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Faith or Works?
Christianity often suffers from an apparent dichotomy. While all other religions are essentially moral structures providing the path to heaven, Christianity alone claims "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9). Really? Yes, indeed! Christianity stands alone in this concept of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. "Not of works." That's the phrase. Still, we can't seem to get away from this stunning need to do good works. So ... what's up with that?
There are a couple of terms that we are possibly familiar with. One is "contradiction" and the other is "paradox". A contradictory statement is a statement that is ... contradictory. A paradox is "a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true." So, is this tension between "not of works" and the demand for good works a genuine contradiction, or is it a paradox?
First, we cannot avoid that Christianity teaches that we are saved apart from works. Any step toward "saved by works" is a step away from Christianity and a step into heresy. On the other hand, what does the Bible have to say about good works? On the command:
But, how does that work? Is it a contradiction or a paradox? Well, let's see what else we can find.
Paul tells Titus, "The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people" (Titus 3:8). So, here we see that devotion to good works is a matter of 1) excellence and 2) "profitable". It's good for you to be devoted to good works. Of course, we already knew that it glorified God. So there's one thing we can see that is distinct from "salvation by works".
The Bible goes beyond this, though. In the very verse that follows the famous Ephesians 2:8-9 passage we read this: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Did you get that? We are "created in Christ Jesus for good works." That is a primary purpose of our salvation! And, of course, if you think it through, it makes perfect sense. Our purpose is to glorify God. Good works glorify God. So ... well, you can do the math. We see the same thing in Paul's letter to Titus. "... who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). His purpose in giving Himself and redeeming us was to obtain a possession "zealous for good works". Again, a purpose statement. In fact, James asks, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" (James 2:14). What good is faith without works? None. It's dead faith. So Christ came to provide salvation through faith, and the purpose of that salvation was that we would do good works. Living faith produces good works.
But, then, is it faith or works that saves? No, we're clear on that. Faith saves. Works follow. So how important are those works? Paul says, "12 ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13). Works, then, are the out-working of our salvation ... and we do those works because God is at work in us giving us both the will and ability to do them.
You see, when you follow it through, you find that it was a paradox, not a contradiction. We are saved by faith apart from works. We are, however, saved for the purpose of good works. These good works are the out-working of our salvation. They are a primary means by which we can glorify God. So when you hear folks say, "You need to work to get to heaven", be sure that they are confused. And when you hear folks say, "Good works don't matter", you can be equally sure that they are confused. Saved apart from works, to be sure, but saved for the purpose of good works. Let's try to keep that straight.
There are a couple of terms that we are possibly familiar with. One is "contradiction" and the other is "paradox". A contradictory statement is a statement that is ... contradictory. A paradox is "a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true." So, is this tension between "not of works" and the demand for good works a genuine contradiction, or is it a paradox?
First, we cannot avoid that Christianity teaches that we are saved apart from works. Any step toward "saved by works" is a step away from Christianity and a step into heresy. On the other hand, what does the Bible have to say about good works? On the command:
Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt 5:16).Okay, so it shouldn't be a question. Good works should accompany Christians. It is commanded ... repeatedly. (Repetition is the biblical method of highlighting, italicizing, or using an exclamation mark.) No doubt at all. So we have what looks like a contradiction because the Bible makes both statements. We are both saved apart from works and required to do good works.
Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works (Titus 2:7).
[I desire] that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works (1 Tim 2:9-10).
And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works (Titus 3:14).
But, how does that work? Is it a contradiction or a paradox? Well, let's see what else we can find.
Paul tells Titus, "The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people" (Titus 3:8). So, here we see that devotion to good works is a matter of 1) excellence and 2) "profitable". It's good for you to be devoted to good works. Of course, we already knew that it glorified God. So there's one thing we can see that is distinct from "salvation by works".
The Bible goes beyond this, though. In the very verse that follows the famous Ephesians 2:8-9 passage we read this: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Did you get that? We are "created in Christ Jesus for good works." That is a primary purpose of our salvation! And, of course, if you think it through, it makes perfect sense. Our purpose is to glorify God. Good works glorify God. So ... well, you can do the math. We see the same thing in Paul's letter to Titus. "... who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). His purpose in giving Himself and redeeming us was to obtain a possession "zealous for good works". Again, a purpose statement. In fact, James asks, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" (James 2:14). What good is faith without works? None. It's dead faith. So Christ came to provide salvation through faith, and the purpose of that salvation was that we would do good works. Living faith produces good works.
But, then, is it faith or works that saves? No, we're clear on that. Faith saves. Works follow. So how important are those works? Paul says, "12 ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13). Works, then, are the out-working of our salvation ... and we do those works because God is at work in us giving us both the will and ability to do them.
You see, when you follow it through, you find that it was a paradox, not a contradiction. We are saved by faith apart from works. We are, however, saved for the purpose of good works. These good works are the out-working of our salvation. They are a primary means by which we can glorify God. So when you hear folks say, "You need to work to get to heaven", be sure that they are confused. And when you hear folks say, "Good works don't matter", you can be equally sure that they are confused. Saved apart from works, to be sure, but saved for the purpose of good works. Let's try to keep that straight.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Narrow-Minded
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power (2 Tim 3:1-5).Years ago I taught on this passage. As I prepared to teach it, I was thinking, "Yeah, the world sure has grown to resemble this list of sins, hasn't it?" And then it dawned on me that it wasn't just the world. It wasn't hard to find this list in people in the church. Sin, it seemed, was becoming more and more acceptable in church, let alone in the world.
Of course, those of us who are trying to be diligent followers of Christ stand up and say, "No!" We point our fingers at the sin and urge people to avoid it if possible and repent if not. And we do so not out of some arrogance or self-righteousness. No. We do it out of love. These things are both morally bad and bad for people and, if we care about them, we will encourage them to avoid doing what is bad for them.
It seems that Christians are known for pointing out sin. We're known for being "judgmental and intolerant" even though judging people for that is judgmental and intolerant. We're told we are too divisive even though the truth, by its very nature, divides. We're told we're wrong for saying that sex outside of marriage is sin and we're told that we're wrong for saying that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and we're told that we're wrong for saying that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and ... well, it goes on and on. But the Bible isn't unclear on what sin is and it doesn't fail to be both judgmental and intolerant ... of sin.
It occurs to me, though, that we tend to get narrowly focused at times. You will find, for instance, Christians condemning homosexual behavior. (It is important to note that condemning sin is not the same as condemning sinners, that God offers salvation to sinners, that we need to be careful about the distinction.) What you will rarely hear is a Christian who warns against being "lovers of self". In fact, they encourage it. We might warn against being "lovers of money" (although too many of us are), but how often do you hear Christians condemning the sin of "disobedience to parents"? We are against brutality and treachery, but are we against ingratitude? And how often do we shout warnings against the appearance of godliness without the power?
You will hear that the sin of Sodom was not homosexual behavior. Oh, no! It was ... inhospitality. (Seriously, they make that argument.) Jude argued that the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah was indulging in sexual immorality and pursuing unnatural desires (Jude 1:7). And I wouldn't argue in the least that we should shut up about sin. In fact, it is natural and reasonable to be where the fire is, so to speak. As the world tries to "normalize" what God calls "sin", we need to be there. I understand that. Never call evil good. I get that. But let's not get too focused on a sin when God is opposed to all sin. Let's be careful about pointing fingers at "those who are sexually immoral" while we're, perhaps, "lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful" and so much more. And it isn't hypocrisy to say, "Those are wrong and I'm guilty of them." Let's just be fair and equitable in our condemnation of sin (as opposed to sinners), both in ourselves and in others, both in the current fads and in all sin. After all, holiness is our aim, and if all we achieve is "I'm no longer sexually immoral", we've missed a ton of other problems to face.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Willful Ignorance or Simple Malice?
The amount of failure to comprehend what others believe can sometimes be staggering. As an example, I saw a sign in a protest against SB1070 here in Arizona. It was held by a small boy and it read, "Mommy, why is my skin color a crime?" Now, I was totally stunned by this question. I was unaware that anyone in Arizona was arguing that we ought to charge anyone with brown skin with the crime of having brown skin. I haven't heard of anyone going to jail with a charge of being brown (or black or white or whatever other color you may choose). I don't know anyone (I'm not saying they don't exist; I just don't know any) who are arguing, "All Hispanics ought to be arrested and deported." The sentiment on the sign, then, is ... a lie. No one is making any suggestion that everyone of a particular skin color is guilty of violating a law against that skin color. So either it is a stunning failure to comprehend a law under protest, or it is an intentional, bald-faced lie. Preferring to think the best of people when I can, I have to assume supreme stupidity over malicious false witness.
A blog I usually enjoy linked to A Quiz for your Calvinist Friends located on a site called "Evangelical Arminians". It was specifically labeled (on the site) as satire. Fine. It was very difficult to read it through with the words "Calvinist Friends" in the title because it was intended to be unkind. Like the small boy with his sign, it presents a horrible failure to comprehend the Doctrines of Grace. I mean horrible. The author, Kevin, didn't include a single truthful representation of anything "Calvinist", as if this kind of misleading satire proves any kind of point.
Here's the funny thing -- and I find it over and over and over in so many of these debates. It seemed to me that while he was laying down clever landmines for his "Calvinist friends", he forgot to mark them down very carefully because it looked like he was in just as much trouble as his intended targets.
Consider some of the standard objections in these debates:
1. According to Ezekiel 18:23, how much pleasure does the Lord take in the death of the wicked? Now, the "Calvinist" is assigned* the answer, "No revealed pleasure, but lots of secret pleasure." (I haven't heard a Calvinist offer such an answer.) But if the Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (as it plainly says), then what does the Arminian do with it? "Well, God takes no pleasure in it, but His hands are tied." Isn't that a problem?
2. According to Romans 11:32, God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on all men. The "Calvinist" is assigned some nonsensical response about "the first 'all' refers to everyone and the second 'all' refers only to the elect". But ... does the Arminian argue that "All means all" and, therefore, all men will receive mercy from God? Sounds like an argument for universalism to me, and I'm quite sure that the Arminians would not agree to that. Looks like there's a problem there for them as well as Calvinists.
3. According to 1 Peter 1:1-2, the elect "have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God". Now, how this contradicts anything "Calvinist" I don't quite know. In this little scenario, the "Calvinist" is assigned the answer, "Who are you oh man to talk back to Piper?" (Seriously, how is a "friend" supposed to take that?) But since Arminans like to argue against predestination and election, aren't they kind of stuck here? I mean, regardless of the means God uses (foreknowledge or divine edict or whatever), if some are "elect" in advance (you know, like "foreknowledge" would require), then some are chosen in advance and the rest are ... not. Haven't you just agreed with predestination?
If I were to lay out Arminian doctrine from these three examples, here's what I would (wrongly) conclude. "We deny the sovereignty of God. He is a gentleman, a deity that won't interfere in His creation without permission. Many things occur on a daily basis outside of His control and will. Too bad, God. Fortunately, God's plan is to show mercy to all, so while we affirm that some go to hell, we also affirm that God will show mercy to all, so at the same time in the same sense God will save all. Isn't He amazing? And we deny predestination explicitly. Just because God knows what will happen in advance doesn't mean it will happen in advance. Oh, wait ... hold on ..." (Let me repeat, that's what I would wrongly conclude based on this quiz.) I'm not so sure you want to go there.
Those were just a few examples. The entire quiz is intended to be a cruel misrepresentation of anything "Calvinist". I don't like it when Calvinists make their arguments by misrepresenting Arminian views. It doesn't work any better for me in reverse. More likely, however, is the possibility that lots and lots of Arminians are protesting what they think Calvinists believe ... but don't. It goes back to my calls in the past. Before you start arguing against something, be sure you understand it. Otherwise you'll just make yourself look foolish -- at best.
Post Script: Before I leave this quiz, I do need to comment on the "Bonus Round" question in the quiz. He quotes Revelation 3:20 -- you know, "Behold I stand at the door and knock ..." -- you know that verse. He shows three pictures. One is the famous picture of Jesus standing at a door. The second is a picture of a soldier (apparently in Iraq) kicking down a door. The third is a picture of a soldier pointing a gun at a father and his son. (I'm not sure if he's trying to take the son, trying to keep them subdued, or trying to position them all to shoot them.) The question: "Which one best depicts that verse?" I know lots of people really like that first picture and lots of people see that verse in the light of Jesus gently offering Himself to anyone who wishes and, frankly, I'm not opposed to the concept. But, please, if you're going to be true to Scripture, go back and read that passage. The context is a letter to "the church in Laodicea". The letter is the harshest of all the letters sent to the seven churches. It is a blatant call not for salvation, but for repentance. And the door outside of which Jesus is standing and knocking is not the unsaved, but the church in Laodicea (or any church of the same type). It is a call for believers to repent, not for sinners to be saved. The call for sinners to be saved is throughout the Bible, but this isn't one of them. Please be careful about how you read the Bible.
_______________________
* I used the term "assigned" for the answers for Calvinists. If you read the quiz, you'll find that "C" is the answer that labels you a "Calvinist", so all "C" answers were the "assigned" answers for Calvinists.
A blog I usually enjoy linked to A Quiz for your Calvinist Friends located on a site called "Evangelical Arminians". It was specifically labeled (on the site) as satire. Fine. It was very difficult to read it through with the words "Calvinist Friends" in the title because it was intended to be unkind. Like the small boy with his sign, it presents a horrible failure to comprehend the Doctrines of Grace. I mean horrible. The author, Kevin, didn't include a single truthful representation of anything "Calvinist", as if this kind of misleading satire proves any kind of point.
Here's the funny thing -- and I find it over and over and over in so many of these debates. It seemed to me that while he was laying down clever landmines for his "Calvinist friends", he forgot to mark them down very carefully because it looked like he was in just as much trouble as his intended targets.
Consider some of the standard objections in these debates:
1. According to Ezekiel 18:23, how much pleasure does the Lord take in the death of the wicked? Now, the "Calvinist" is assigned* the answer, "No revealed pleasure, but lots of secret pleasure." (I haven't heard a Calvinist offer such an answer.) But if the Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (as it plainly says), then what does the Arminian do with it? "Well, God takes no pleasure in it, but His hands are tied." Isn't that a problem?
2. According to Romans 11:32, God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on all men. The "Calvinist" is assigned some nonsensical response about "the first 'all' refers to everyone and the second 'all' refers only to the elect". But ... does the Arminian argue that "All means all" and, therefore, all men will receive mercy from God? Sounds like an argument for universalism to me, and I'm quite sure that the Arminians would not agree to that. Looks like there's a problem there for them as well as Calvinists.
3. According to 1 Peter 1:1-2, the elect "have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God". Now, how this contradicts anything "Calvinist" I don't quite know. In this little scenario, the "Calvinist" is assigned the answer, "Who are you oh man to talk back to Piper?" (Seriously, how is a "friend" supposed to take that?) But since Arminans like to argue against predestination and election, aren't they kind of stuck here? I mean, regardless of the means God uses (foreknowledge or divine edict or whatever), if some are "elect" in advance (you know, like "foreknowledge" would require), then some are chosen in advance and the rest are ... not. Haven't you just agreed with predestination?
If I were to lay out Arminian doctrine from these three examples, here's what I would (wrongly) conclude. "We deny the sovereignty of God. He is a gentleman, a deity that won't interfere in His creation without permission. Many things occur on a daily basis outside of His control and will. Too bad, God. Fortunately, God's plan is to show mercy to all, so while we affirm that some go to hell, we also affirm that God will show mercy to all, so at the same time in the same sense God will save all. Isn't He amazing? And we deny predestination explicitly. Just because God knows what will happen in advance doesn't mean it will happen in advance. Oh, wait ... hold on ..." (Let me repeat, that's what I would wrongly conclude based on this quiz.) I'm not so sure you want to go there.
Those were just a few examples. The entire quiz is intended to be a cruel misrepresentation of anything "Calvinist". I don't like it when Calvinists make their arguments by misrepresenting Arminian views. It doesn't work any better for me in reverse. More likely, however, is the possibility that lots and lots of Arminians are protesting what they think Calvinists believe ... but don't. It goes back to my calls in the past. Before you start arguing against something, be sure you understand it. Otherwise you'll just make yourself look foolish -- at best.
Post Script: Before I leave this quiz, I do need to comment on the "Bonus Round" question in the quiz. He quotes Revelation 3:20 -- you know, "Behold I stand at the door and knock ..." -- you know that verse. He shows three pictures. One is the famous picture of Jesus standing at a door. The second is a picture of a soldier (apparently in Iraq) kicking down a door. The third is a picture of a soldier pointing a gun at a father and his son. (I'm not sure if he's trying to take the son, trying to keep them subdued, or trying to position them all to shoot them.) The question: "Which one best depicts that verse?" I know lots of people really like that first picture and lots of people see that verse in the light of Jesus gently offering Himself to anyone who wishes and, frankly, I'm not opposed to the concept. But, please, if you're going to be true to Scripture, go back and read that passage. The context is a letter to "the church in Laodicea". The letter is the harshest of all the letters sent to the seven churches. It is a blatant call not for salvation, but for repentance. And the door outside of which Jesus is standing and knocking is not the unsaved, but the church in Laodicea (or any church of the same type). It is a call for believers to repent, not for sinners to be saved. The call for sinners to be saved is throughout the Bible, but this isn't one of them. Please be careful about how you read the Bible.
_______________________
* I used the term "assigned" for the answers for Calvinists. If you read the quiz, you'll find that "C" is the answer that labels you a "Calvinist", so all "C" answers were the "assigned" answers for Calvinists.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Another Sunday Hymn
Originally posted back in May, 2007, I thought a reminder about one of my favorite hymns would be in order ... you know ... because it's Sunday.
Horatio Spafford knew God. It could only be an abiding relationship with the Almighty that would enable a man enduring such loss to say, "It is well with my soul." He echoes the words of Paul who says, "I have learned to be content." (Phil. 4:11-13)
What did Spafford know of God that held him in such peace? His second verse tells us. "Let this blest assurance control, that Christ hath regarded my helpless estate and has shed His own blood for my soul." To him, knowing that God loved him enough to die for him was enough. God had no requirement to do so, and the cost to Him was great - His own blood. What greater love could there be?
I think Mr. Spafford tied greater weight to his sin condition than most of us do today. He saw the forgiven state of the Christian as enough from God. His third verse dwells on the bliss of that thought. He saw forgiveness as glorious, and complete. He regarded God's pardon as the end of the question, with sin no longer a concern. "Not in part, but the whole." Paul says the same. We are crucified to sin. "Do not let sin reign." (Rom. 6:12) Praise the Lord, O my soul!
So many Christians today struggle with sin. They see their shortcomings - which are real - as an obstacle to their relationship with God. There is even a sort of superstition mixed in, as if God will curse us if we sin but bless us if we don't. They see God as turning away when they fail Him, and in some cases their large numbers of failures amass such a perceived wall between themselves and the Almighty that they give up and walk away hopeless. But sin - "not in part, but the whole" - has been nailed to the cross. We bear it no more. It is forgiven, past, present, and future. God sees us as clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He stands ready to commune with us at all times. We need merely to confess, for our benefit, our failure to obey, and we can continue the relationship. Would that we saw our sin condition and its collapse at the cross in the same light as this hymn does.
Like so many of the hymn writers of the past, Spafford looked forward to the coming of the Lord. He longed to be home. While many today aren't sure they want Christ to return just yet, he asked that God "haste the day." When all is said, it is there that peace is finally ours. It is in the knowledge of the transcendent God, the God who is holy and just, who is able to make all things right, the soon and coming King, that we can ultimately rest. His faithfulness is our repose. And His return is our hope. As the hymn alludes, "even so, come quickly." It is God's presence that brings final peace.
We, too, can enjoy this response to difficult circumstances. We can learn, with Paul, to be content in all situations. The truth is simple. If we know the God we serve, "who can be against us?" If God is God (and we are not), what more can we require? We can agree with Spafford and say, "Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, it is well, it is well with my soul."
It Is Well With My SoulThe hymn has quite a story behind it. Perhaps by understanding some of the events surrounding it, the meaning will be clearer. Horatio Spafford was a lawyer in Chicago in 1871 when the Chicago Fire destroyed his lakeshore real estate and his finances along with it. Having already lost a son to premature death, He decided to take his wife and four daughters on a trip to England to join D.L. Moody on one of their campaigns and to get some much needed rest. Business forced him to delay his departure, so he had his family go on ahead, intending to join them as soon as he could. Soon Spafford received word that the ship had sunk. He waited anxiously for word of survivors and finally received a telegram from his wife that read "Saved alone." Spafford hastened to join her in England, and as he sailed past the spot where his four daughters had drowned, he wrote, "When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, when sorrows like sea billows roll - whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, ‘It is well, it is well with my soul.’"
Horatio Spafford
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll -
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.
Tho' Satan should buffet, tho' trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ hath regarded my helpless estate,
And has shed His own blood for my soul.
My sin - O the bliss of this glorious tho't -
My sin, not in part, but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more:
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
And, Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll:
The trump shall resound and the Lord shall descend,
"Even so" - it is well with my soul.
Horatio Spafford knew God. It could only be an abiding relationship with the Almighty that would enable a man enduring such loss to say, "It is well with my soul." He echoes the words of Paul who says, "I have learned to be content." (Phil. 4:11-13)
What did Spafford know of God that held him in such peace? His second verse tells us. "Let this blest assurance control, that Christ hath regarded my helpless estate and has shed His own blood for my soul." To him, knowing that God loved him enough to die for him was enough. God had no requirement to do so, and the cost to Him was great - His own blood. What greater love could there be?
I think Mr. Spafford tied greater weight to his sin condition than most of us do today. He saw the forgiven state of the Christian as enough from God. His third verse dwells on the bliss of that thought. He saw forgiveness as glorious, and complete. He regarded God's pardon as the end of the question, with sin no longer a concern. "Not in part, but the whole." Paul says the same. We are crucified to sin. "Do not let sin reign." (Rom. 6:12) Praise the Lord, O my soul!
So many Christians today struggle with sin. They see their shortcomings - which are real - as an obstacle to their relationship with God. There is even a sort of superstition mixed in, as if God will curse us if we sin but bless us if we don't. They see God as turning away when they fail Him, and in some cases their large numbers of failures amass such a perceived wall between themselves and the Almighty that they give up and walk away hopeless. But sin - "not in part, but the whole" - has been nailed to the cross. We bear it no more. It is forgiven, past, present, and future. God sees us as clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He stands ready to commune with us at all times. We need merely to confess, for our benefit, our failure to obey, and we can continue the relationship. Would that we saw our sin condition and its collapse at the cross in the same light as this hymn does.
Like so many of the hymn writers of the past, Spafford looked forward to the coming of the Lord. He longed to be home. While many today aren't sure they want Christ to return just yet, he asked that God "haste the day." When all is said, it is there that peace is finally ours. It is in the knowledge of the transcendent God, the God who is holy and just, who is able to make all things right, the soon and coming King, that we can ultimately rest. His faithfulness is our repose. And His return is our hope. As the hymn alludes, "even so, come quickly." It is God's presence that brings final peace.
We, too, can enjoy this response to difficult circumstances. We can learn, with Paul, to be content in all situations. The truth is simple. If we know the God we serve, "who can be against us?" If God is God (and we are not), what more can we require? We can agree with Spafford and say, "Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, it is well, it is well with my soul."
Saturday, June 26, 2010
An American Disaster
It's hard to miss. This epic oil spill just goes on and on. It has already exceeded any other oil spill including the massive Exxon Valdez spill. Dwarfing that catastrophe, this one is still spewing oil, damaging the environment, and impacting thousands of lives. It's a bad thing ... a very bad thing. What I'm hearing these days is something like, "This oil spill in the Gulf is the worst disaster I have ever seen."
I was wondering about that. What would classify as "worst disaster"? I found a variety of American candidates:
Then I think about the fact that an average of about 3,500 children a day die in American abortion clinics. Again, I begin to wonder about the concept of "the worst disaster".
According to the statistics, something like 150,000 people die every day from a combination of all causes. That's a lot of people. How many of them know Christ? How many of them are facing an eternity of darkness? Again, I begin to wonder about the concept of "the worst disaster".
This oil spill thing is bad ... really bad. We need to fix it as soon as we can. I would imagine, though, that our classifying it as "the worst disaster" would depend on our priorities, wouldn't it?
I was wondering about that. What would classify as "worst disaster"? I found a variety of American candidates:
May 25, 1979: An American Airlines DC-10 crashed shortly after takeoff, killing 275 people.I start to wonder about the concept of "the worst disaster" when it comes to an oil spill like this. Really? The worst?
March 18, 1925: The great "Tri-State Tornado" hit in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, killing 689, injuring more than 2,000, and producing more than $16 million in property damage.
April 27, 1865: More than 1,500 died on the Mississippi River near Memphis, TN, when their steamboat exploded.
Oct. 8, 1871: A forest fire in Peshtigo, WI, killed more than 1,500 people and burned more than 3.5 million acres.
May 31, 1889: The South Fork Dam collapsed, flooding Johnstown, PA, killing more than 2,200 people.
September 11: Three aircraft hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killing almost 3,000 people.
April 18, 1906: An earthquake struck San Francisco, CA, leveling almost 4 square miles and killing an estimated 3,000 people.
Sep. 8, 1900: A tidal surge from a hurricane that struck Galveston, TX, killed an estimated 8,000 people.
1918: A nationwide epidemic of the Spanish influenza killed over half a million Americans.
Then I think about the fact that an average of about 3,500 children a day die in American abortion clinics. Again, I begin to wonder about the concept of "the worst disaster".
According to the statistics, something like 150,000 people die every day from a combination of all causes. That's a lot of people. How many of them know Christ? How many of them are facing an eternity of darkness? Again, I begin to wonder about the concept of "the worst disaster".
This oil spill thing is bad ... really bad. We need to fix it as soon as we can. I would imagine, though, that our classifying it as "the worst disaster" would depend on our priorities, wouldn't it?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Casualty of War
I'm not sure how to respond to this firing of General Stanley McChrystal. There are several factors to consider.
On one hand, the UCMJ -- the rules that govern the military (which are in some ways unique to the military) -- is quite clear. Article 88 says, "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." As much as this may disturb Americans, the truth is that those who are on the front lines defending our freedom do not enjoy all the freedoms they are defending. One of the first freedoms you surrender in the military is the freedom of speech. You are regulated for a variety of reasons, and it is just a given. One of those regulations is this Article of the UCMJ. Did the general violate the rules under which he is allowed to operate? I don't think there is any question. Now, many are calling it "insubordination", but I don't think that's accurate. If he failed to carry out commands, he would be insubordinate. Nothing indicated that. But he did violate the military rules.
On the other hand, the rule is equally specific. The general "shall be punished as a court-martial may direct". The general didn't get his "day in court". He was summarily dismissed, thank you very much, go away. No negative talk about this administration will be allowed. No questioning of the capabilities of this administration will be tolerated. Begone! And a decorated, four-star general who has served for some 34 years, who was credited with the death of Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and who was leading an effective new offensive to clean up Afghanistan is gone. His career is done. Thanks for your service. Go away. What happened to the court-martial? What happened to due process? I mean, sure, sure, military members don't get freedom of speech and all, but do they also not get due process? I guess not.
The president is being touted as "decisive" by the media. Anything less than handing the general his head would have been flinching on the president's part. No, no, he had to go. No mere reprimand. No simple demotion. Generals cannot disrespect presidents. The whole thing is being compared to Lincoln's problem with General McLellan who refused his order to fight Robert E. Lee's army. That, by the way, is definite insubordination. (I loved the quote of President Lincoln when he fired the general: "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.") But that's a refusal to obey a command, obvious insubordination, and a failure on the general's part to follow the orders of the civilian government that commands him. That was not the case with General McChrystal.
The other parallel is interesting. The media is comparing this event to that of Truman and MacArthur. For those of us too young to remember and too short on memory from school to recall, MacArthur led the American forces in the Korean War. MacArthur had great success, but when he criticized President Truman's "limited war", he got into trouble. You see, MacArthur thought that defeating the enemy was the goal, but Truman thought that just stopping the fighting would suffice. MacArthur wanted to push communism out of Korea and Truman just wanted to stop North Korea from attacking South Korea. (Consider where we'd be today if that nasty little Kim Jong Il never had a country in which to take power.) Well, our system is civilian control of the military, and in that case again the president chose to eliminate the problem.
I bring all this up because there is a factor here that no one seems to be addressing. Should the general face discipline? I'd say "Yes." He violated the UCMJ. Should he be fired? I don't know for sure. Maybe. All of that is up for debate, and that's fine. But no one is asking, "Is he right?" The leadership in the Vietnam era successfully tied the hands of the military so that we failed miserably to accomplish the mission. The general is afraid that it's happening again. He is afraid that the leadership is ignoring the guys on the ground with the best view of what's going on. When he asked for more troops, he was reprimanded. (It worked in Iraq, but, hey, that was Bush -- bad.) The general aside, is the civilian leadership directing the military in Afghanistan incompetent? Are they tying the hands of the military to the point of producing certain failure? No one seems to be asking whether or not the general had valid concerns. The fact that he expressed them seems to have dwarfed that possibility. That's a problem.
On one hand, the UCMJ -- the rules that govern the military (which are in some ways unique to the military) -- is quite clear. Article 88 says, "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." As much as this may disturb Americans, the truth is that those who are on the front lines defending our freedom do not enjoy all the freedoms they are defending. One of the first freedoms you surrender in the military is the freedom of speech. You are regulated for a variety of reasons, and it is just a given. One of those regulations is this Article of the UCMJ. Did the general violate the rules under which he is allowed to operate? I don't think there is any question. Now, many are calling it "insubordination", but I don't think that's accurate. If he failed to carry out commands, he would be insubordinate. Nothing indicated that. But he did violate the military rules.
On the other hand, the rule is equally specific. The general "shall be punished as a court-martial may direct". The general didn't get his "day in court". He was summarily dismissed, thank you very much, go away. No negative talk about this administration will be allowed. No questioning of the capabilities of this administration will be tolerated. Begone! And a decorated, four-star general who has served for some 34 years, who was credited with the death of Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and who was leading an effective new offensive to clean up Afghanistan is gone. His career is done. Thanks for your service. Go away. What happened to the court-martial? What happened to due process? I mean, sure, sure, military members don't get freedom of speech and all, but do they also not get due process? I guess not.
The president is being touted as "decisive" by the media. Anything less than handing the general his head would have been flinching on the president's part. No, no, he had to go. No mere reprimand. No simple demotion. Generals cannot disrespect presidents. The whole thing is being compared to Lincoln's problem with General McLellan who refused his order to fight Robert E. Lee's army. That, by the way, is definite insubordination. (I loved the quote of President Lincoln when he fired the general: "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.") But that's a refusal to obey a command, obvious insubordination, and a failure on the general's part to follow the orders of the civilian government that commands him. That was not the case with General McChrystal.
The other parallel is interesting. The media is comparing this event to that of Truman and MacArthur. For those of us too young to remember and too short on memory from school to recall, MacArthur led the American forces in the Korean War. MacArthur had great success, but when he criticized President Truman's "limited war", he got into trouble. You see, MacArthur thought that defeating the enemy was the goal, but Truman thought that just stopping the fighting would suffice. MacArthur wanted to push communism out of Korea and Truman just wanted to stop North Korea from attacking South Korea. (Consider where we'd be today if that nasty little Kim Jong Il never had a country in which to take power.) Well, our system is civilian control of the military, and in that case again the president chose to eliminate the problem.
I bring all this up because there is a factor here that no one seems to be addressing. Should the general face discipline? I'd say "Yes." He violated the UCMJ. Should he be fired? I don't know for sure. Maybe. All of that is up for debate, and that's fine. But no one is asking, "Is he right?" The leadership in the Vietnam era successfully tied the hands of the military so that we failed miserably to accomplish the mission. The general is afraid that it's happening again. He is afraid that the leadership is ignoring the guys on the ground with the best view of what's going on. When he asked for more troops, he was reprimanded. (It worked in Iraq, but, hey, that was Bush -- bad.) The general aside, is the civilian leadership directing the military in Afghanistan incompetent? Are they tying the hands of the military to the point of producing certain failure? No one seems to be asking whether or not the general had valid concerns. The fact that he expressed them seems to have dwarfed that possibility. That's a problem.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Purpose of the Penal System
There is a term out there that almost jars the mind. It is the "Prison Industry". That's right. Today (in fact, for years) we have an industry devoted to prisons. Various government entities are turning over (or building) prison facilities run by private organizations. They make a profit (as private organizations are supposed to do) by receiving payment from the government entities and, of course, controlling their costs. The thinking is that private industry is much more efficient than government industry and privatizing the prison systems will save the taxpayers money. Okay, fine. Whatever. I'm not questioning (approving or disapproving) the morality or wisdom of such a concept. My question is more at what their purpose would be. You see, any product on the market, from toys to prisons, has to have a purpose, a goal, a set of specifications to meet. You know. How do you determine if the private prison facility is a quality service? So ... what is the purpose statement of a prison? More broadly, what is the purpose of our penal system at all?
You'll likely find three distinct purposes for the penal system. First, there is rehabilitation. Second, there is protection. Third, there is punishment. That is, the concept is that prisons in particular exist to rehabilitate the criminal, protect society from the criminal, and punish the criminal. Now, I listed them in mostly random order. I think you'll find that most people don't actually hold to these three views, and they do that by changing their emphasis. We'll leave protection alone. Most people see that. And that one stands alone as something for society, while the other two are aimed at the criminal. So, is the purpose of prison rehabilitation or punishment? I think that, depending on your perspective, one will engulf the other.
One of today's most common views is that the purpose of the penal system is rehabilitation. In fact, we often call them "correctional institutions". The idea is to return these people to society as changed people, no longer criminals. To this view, the "punishment" aspect isn't so much punishment as incentive to not do it again. That is, if you make it unpleasant enough, maybe that will aid them in their rehabilitation. So, to this view, the purpose is to bring the criminal back to "normal" and return them healthy to society.
On the other hand, the other view sees the primary purpose of the penal system as punishment. They did something wrong. They have to pay. Now, once they get out again, it would be good if we didn't have them repeat the offense, so, of course, you'll want to rehabilitate them if you can, but the real purpose is punishment and the rehabilitation concept is just folded into the "protection" concept. They need to be punished for their crime, and if you can protect people from them repeating their criminal behavior by rehabilitating them, that would be good.
To determine which side you fall on, let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that modern science came up with a method whereby, in a thirty day procedure, a person would not repeat a particular crime. You know, some sort of genuine "rehabilitation". There would be no chance that they would come out after that 30 days and repeat the crime for which they went in. Would you 1) embrace that method and do away with extended sentences or 2) require that varying crimes include varying sentences? One is the rehabilitation side and the other is the punishment side.
I think that, for a large part, your choice of which of those two sides you take will be determined by an underlying premise. I think that if your basic premise is that people are fundamentally good, then your conclusion will be that we need to rehabilitate these fundamentally good people. You know. They're broken. Fix them. Criminals are maladjusted. They lack self-esteem and never learned the proper morality. They need work. Give them some means of better self-esteem, some job skills, some sense of moral values. We can rebuild them. On the other hand, if your view is that humans are inherently evil, then fixing them is literally an impossibility. You might try to correct those behaviors, but they will always be inherently evil. This side likes the term "criminal justice system" because it recognizes that crimes are acts of injustice and justice demands payment. Justice, you see, is "the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics." Thus, punishment is part of justice (ethics, fairness, equity); rehabilitation would be a side issue.
Of course, your view on these two points will largely affect your view on the quality of privatized prisons. We've gone a long way toward making prisoners comfortable. That's because the primary goal is not justice, but reform. Justice would want to make it uncomfortable; reform would want to make them feel better about themselves. If I am right about the premise of these two positions, I would also conclude that the prevalent view of the day is that people are basically good. Of course, that is neither rational nor biblical, but in this day and age neither of those are major concerns, are they?
You'll likely find three distinct purposes for the penal system. First, there is rehabilitation. Second, there is protection. Third, there is punishment. That is, the concept is that prisons in particular exist to rehabilitate the criminal, protect society from the criminal, and punish the criminal. Now, I listed them in mostly random order. I think you'll find that most people don't actually hold to these three views, and they do that by changing their emphasis. We'll leave protection alone. Most people see that. And that one stands alone as something for society, while the other two are aimed at the criminal. So, is the purpose of prison rehabilitation or punishment? I think that, depending on your perspective, one will engulf the other.
One of today's most common views is that the purpose of the penal system is rehabilitation. In fact, we often call them "correctional institutions". The idea is to return these people to society as changed people, no longer criminals. To this view, the "punishment" aspect isn't so much punishment as incentive to not do it again. That is, if you make it unpleasant enough, maybe that will aid them in their rehabilitation. So, to this view, the purpose is to bring the criminal back to "normal" and return them healthy to society.
On the other hand, the other view sees the primary purpose of the penal system as punishment. They did something wrong. They have to pay. Now, once they get out again, it would be good if we didn't have them repeat the offense, so, of course, you'll want to rehabilitate them if you can, but the real purpose is punishment and the rehabilitation concept is just folded into the "protection" concept. They need to be punished for their crime, and if you can protect people from them repeating their criminal behavior by rehabilitating them, that would be good.
To determine which side you fall on, let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that modern science came up with a method whereby, in a thirty day procedure, a person would not repeat a particular crime. You know, some sort of genuine "rehabilitation". There would be no chance that they would come out after that 30 days and repeat the crime for which they went in. Would you 1) embrace that method and do away with extended sentences or 2) require that varying crimes include varying sentences? One is the rehabilitation side and the other is the punishment side.
I think that, for a large part, your choice of which of those two sides you take will be determined by an underlying premise. I think that if your basic premise is that people are fundamentally good, then your conclusion will be that we need to rehabilitate these fundamentally good people. You know. They're broken. Fix them. Criminals are maladjusted. They lack self-esteem and never learned the proper morality. They need work. Give them some means of better self-esteem, some job skills, some sense of moral values. We can rebuild them. On the other hand, if your view is that humans are inherently evil, then fixing them is literally an impossibility. You might try to correct those behaviors, but they will always be inherently evil. This side likes the term "criminal justice system" because it recognizes that crimes are acts of injustice and justice demands payment. Justice, you see, is "the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics." Thus, punishment is part of justice (ethics, fairness, equity); rehabilitation would be a side issue.
Of course, your view on these two points will largely affect your view on the quality of privatized prisons. We've gone a long way toward making prisoners comfortable. That's because the primary goal is not justice, but reform. Justice would want to make it uncomfortable; reform would want to make them feel better about themselves. If I am right about the premise of these two positions, I would also conclude that the prevalent view of the day is that people are basically good. Of course, that is neither rational nor biblical, but in this day and age neither of those are major concerns, are they?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Code Breakers
I'm sure you have noticed ... but maybe not. It seems as if the art of spelling is a vanishing art. I'm not talking about typos. Anyone can make a mistake. I'm talking about intentional ignorance. Carefully protected by the "shorthand" of the Internet, it would appear that fewer and fewer people are entering the working world with any real skills in spelling -- or grammar, for that matter. When I see it in kids, I'm not too appalled. They're kids. They're learning. Okay, fine. But when the world calls on them to intentionally misspell words, learning correct spelling and grammar is likely an impossibility.
What does that mean? Well, look around. There is the entire language base used on the Internet aimed at shorthand. You could laugh out loud, but today it's "LOL". Kids no longer have best friends; they have "BFFs". There is a website devoted entirely to this shorthand for Internet and texting. You see, it's far too much work to say, "My 2 cents worth", so they say, "02". In a long stretch, "I don't know" has digressed to "404" because, as everyone knows, a "404 error" is "not found" on the Internet ... yeah, okay. Some are less bizarre. "BBL" is "be back later", a pleasant little acronym. Not so bad. But "buhbye" replaces "bye"? For what possible reason? And does "BYOW" mean "Build Your Own Website" or "Bring Your Own Wine"? Can't tell.
The Internet and its sister, texting, aren't alone. "To", "two", and "too" have meanings, but far too often you will find "to" when "too" was intended. "Than" has a meaning -- used for comparing things -- but many people think of it as "then" -- a reference to time. I'm amazed at how many times I've seen "prolly" instead of "probably" as if the former is an actual word. While "its" is possessive and "it's" is a contraction, you'll most often see "it's" as a possessive because people don't seem to know the difference.
The problem is that people today haven't a basic clue about language and how it works. You see, the words on the page are simply symbols. They don't actually mean anything. They are standardized methods of transmitting the information from one person's mind to another person's mind. It is ... code. Without the decoding information (being able to speak the language), it is meaningless. With partial decoding information, it is obscure. And therein lies the problem. Knowledge of the decoding information appears to be waning. And with it, genuine communication is on the decline.
Beyond that, spelling is designed to be a way to put the sounds of words on paper. They had a word for it: Phonics. Now it's a joke. Have you ever seen the bumper sticker, "Hukd on fonix wurked fur me"? When I was in school they taught me, "It's spelled like it sounds" and that meant something. Today the whole concept is bizarre to most people. The simple connection between the sounds of letters and the sounds we make when we form words is gone.
In an actual email from an actual company the other day I got this: "It function better this way then doing it another way." What am I to make of this sentence? Stumbling over the "function" rather than "functions", I move on to the "then". Is it saying that it function(s) better by doing it first this way then that way? Or is it a mistake that should contrast two ways of doing things rather than sequencing them?
It's getting harder and harder to read these days. Spelling errors are everywhere. They're in blogs and in text messages. They're in official letters and on billboards. Communication is tenuous at best. It is one of the biggest problems in relationships. In fact, most other relationship problems include a communication failure factor. So are we really okay with this decline in our ability to reasonably and clearly communicate in print? I mean, do we really want Daniel spelling his name "D-e-n-i-a-l"? Is it really good for kids to be well taut? Do you really want your child to put on a résumé something like "I have a none track record and excellent experience with accurancy and fixing erors"? (Go ahead. Find all those mistakes.) Or are we doomed to being continuous code breakers?
What does that mean? Well, look around. There is the entire language base used on the Internet aimed at shorthand. You could laugh out loud, but today it's "LOL". Kids no longer have best friends; they have "BFFs". There is a website devoted entirely to this shorthand for Internet and texting. You see, it's far too much work to say, "My 2 cents worth", so they say, "02". In a long stretch, "I don't know" has digressed to "404" because, as everyone knows, a "404 error" is "not found" on the Internet ... yeah, okay. Some are less bizarre. "BBL" is "be back later", a pleasant little acronym. Not so bad. But "buhbye" replaces "bye"? For what possible reason? And does "BYOW" mean "Build Your Own Website" or "Bring Your Own Wine"? Can't tell.
The Internet and its sister, texting, aren't alone. "To", "two", and "too" have meanings, but far too often you will find "to" when "too" was intended. "Than" has a meaning -- used for comparing things -- but many people think of it as "then" -- a reference to time. I'm amazed at how many times I've seen "prolly" instead of "probably" as if the former is an actual word. While "its" is possessive and "it's" is a contraction, you'll most often see "it's" as a possessive because people don't seem to know the difference.
The problem is that people today haven't a basic clue about language and how it works. You see, the words on the page are simply symbols. They don't actually mean anything. They are standardized methods of transmitting the information from one person's mind to another person's mind. It is ... code. Without the decoding information (being able to speak the language), it is meaningless. With partial decoding information, it is obscure. And therein lies the problem. Knowledge of the decoding information appears to be waning. And with it, genuine communication is on the decline.
Beyond that, spelling is designed to be a way to put the sounds of words on paper. They had a word for it: Phonics. Now it's a joke. Have you ever seen the bumper sticker, "Hukd on fonix wurked fur me"? When I was in school they taught me, "It's spelled like it sounds" and that meant something. Today the whole concept is bizarre to most people. The simple connection between the sounds of letters and the sounds we make when we form words is gone.
In an actual email from an actual company the other day I got this: "It function better this way then doing it another way." What am I to make of this sentence? Stumbling over the "function" rather than "functions", I move on to the "then". Is it saying that it function(s) better by doing it first this way then that way? Or is it a mistake that should contrast two ways of doing things rather than sequencing them?
It's getting harder and harder to read these days. Spelling errors are everywhere. They're in blogs and in text messages. They're in official letters and on billboards. Communication is tenuous at best. It is one of the biggest problems in relationships. In fact, most other relationship problems include a communication failure factor. So are we really okay with this decline in our ability to reasonably and clearly communicate in print? I mean, do we really want Daniel spelling his name "D-e-n-i-a-l"? Is it really good for kids to be well taut? Do you really want your child to put on a résumé something like "I have a none track record and excellent experience with accurancy and fixing erors"? (Go ahead. Find all those mistakes.) Or are we doomed to being continuous code breakers?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Jesus and the Pharisees
The term "Pharisee" is pretty well-known among Christians and even more broadly than that. To call someone "Pharisaical" is not a compliment. No, no. We're all clear on this. It's a bad thing. Those overly pious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, hypocritical Pharisees have come to represent this whole concept of, well, an overly pious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou hypocrite. Jesus reserved His harshest words for the Pharisees, pronouncing "woes", which isn't today's term. In His day it was a curse, the pronouncement of evil on whoever received it. There were, in the Hebrew mind, blessings and curses. This "woe" concept was the curse side of that equation. It meant, to them, that God would turn His back on them, truly a horrible concept. And Jesus pronounced multiple woes on the Pharisees.
So ... how bad were these guys? I mean, they must have been the "Hitler" of their day. You know. If you wanted to describe someone who is utterly evil, you could compare them to Hitler and everyone would know the depths of their depravity. Truly horrible. At least, that's how we see it. The Pharisee was the religious zealot, the evil hypocrite who heaped rules on the people without merit. I believe, however, that our understanding of the Pharisees is skewed today. Consider the biblical record.
Historically, the Pharisees started out during the intertestamental period, that 400-or-so years between the last of the Old Testament prophets and the arrival of Christ. They feared that the Scriptures weren't meaningful enough to the people (sound familiar?), so they decided to present them in a more meaningful way. When God said "Six days you shall labor, and do all your work ...", what exactly did He mean? I mean, what is "work"? Is it "work" to go visit your neighbor? To pull your livestock out of a ditch? Defining "work" became a little dicey, so the Pharisees tried to liven it up a little and make it clear. That kind of thing. Not a bad concept ... until their suggestions became rules and violation of their rules became sins and keeping all this straight became important. Then they were elevated to a position of power. That wasn't a good thing, right?
Well, if you read the words of Jesus, you might start to come away with a slightly different perspective. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). "Yeah," we say, "they weren't very righteous." No, that wasn't the intent. That would be a foolish comparison. That would be like saying, "Unless you become more righteous than your casual, everyday child molester, you'll never make it to heaven." No, what Jesus was saying was that they really did have a high level of righteousness. And if you wanted to get to heaven, you'd have to exceed that. Or consider His words in Matthew 23 where He actually pronounces those "woes" on them. Did you know that Jesus told His disciples to listen to them? "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses's seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you -- but not what they do" (Matt 23:2-3). That is, they had the position of authority and they had the right things to say. There problem wasn't in their theology, but in their practice. What else does Jesus say in that passage? Well, for one thing, it turns out that the Pharisees were serious about making converts (23:15). Are we? They held the things of God in high regard (even though they misunderstood the actual concept) (23:16-22). Do we? One of the things they were very well known for was tithing. They tithed on small spices! "Yeah," we grumble and point, "they were sure concerned about foolish things, weren't they?" Actually, Jesus is commending them for it. "These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others" (23:23). It wasn't that they were too concerned about little things. It was that they were concerned about little things as they should be but missed the weightier things as they should not. What about us? Are we concerned about the little things as well? (Don't even get me started on tithing.) The Pharisees were not in error because of what they said. The Pharisees were in error because they didn't do what they said. What about us?
The Pharisees were the teachers of the people (that's a good thing). They were known (rightly) for an above-average level of righteousness (that's a good thing). They tithed on the smallest thing (that's a good thing). Do you know what else they did right? They searched the Scriptures. Why? "Because you think that in them you have eternal life" (John 5:38). And that's a good thing! The truth is that the Pharisees actually had a whole lot going on that was good. The problem, of course, was their hypocrisy. They claimed a level of holiness they didn't have. They claimed to obey in ways that they did not. That, of course, is the famous concept of a Pharisee, but don't forget all the positives assigned to them.
The question, then, is not, "Are you overly self-righteous?" We're all pretty clear on that. It's a bad thing. Nor is it, "Are you a hypocrite?" We all know that's a bad thing. And (hopefully) we are aware of that and working to avoid it. But the question I have is about the reverse. Are we aiming at attaining the level of righteousness they had? Do we search the Scriptures with their diligence? Are we careful about tithing at all? Are we diligent about spreading the Gospel? Is our theology correct? The Pharisees were certainly self-righteous hypocrites, and we don't want to mimic that. On the other hand, there are things about them we ought to be copying. Are we?
So ... how bad were these guys? I mean, they must have been the "Hitler" of their day. You know. If you wanted to describe someone who is utterly evil, you could compare them to Hitler and everyone would know the depths of their depravity. Truly horrible. At least, that's how we see it. The Pharisee was the religious zealot, the evil hypocrite who heaped rules on the people without merit. I believe, however, that our understanding of the Pharisees is skewed today. Consider the biblical record.
Historically, the Pharisees started out during the intertestamental period, that 400-or-so years between the last of the Old Testament prophets and the arrival of Christ. They feared that the Scriptures weren't meaningful enough to the people (sound familiar?), so they decided to present them in a more meaningful way. When God said "Six days you shall labor, and do all your work ...", what exactly did He mean? I mean, what is "work"? Is it "work" to go visit your neighbor? To pull your livestock out of a ditch? Defining "work" became a little dicey, so the Pharisees tried to liven it up a little and make it clear. That kind of thing. Not a bad concept ... until their suggestions became rules and violation of their rules became sins and keeping all this straight became important. Then they were elevated to a position of power. That wasn't a good thing, right?
Well, if you read the words of Jesus, you might start to come away with a slightly different perspective. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). "Yeah," we say, "they weren't very righteous." No, that wasn't the intent. That would be a foolish comparison. That would be like saying, "Unless you become more righteous than your casual, everyday child molester, you'll never make it to heaven." No, what Jesus was saying was that they really did have a high level of righteousness. And if you wanted to get to heaven, you'd have to exceed that. Or consider His words in Matthew 23 where He actually pronounces those "woes" on them. Did you know that Jesus told His disciples to listen to them? "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses's seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you -- but not what they do" (Matt 23:2-3). That is, they had the position of authority and they had the right things to say. There problem wasn't in their theology, but in their practice. What else does Jesus say in that passage? Well, for one thing, it turns out that the Pharisees were serious about making converts (23:15). Are we? They held the things of God in high regard (even though they misunderstood the actual concept) (23:16-22). Do we? One of the things they were very well known for was tithing. They tithed on small spices! "Yeah," we grumble and point, "they were sure concerned about foolish things, weren't they?" Actually, Jesus is commending them for it. "These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others" (23:23). It wasn't that they were too concerned about little things. It was that they were concerned about little things as they should be but missed the weightier things as they should not. What about us? Are we concerned about the little things as well? (Don't even get me started on tithing.) The Pharisees were not in error because of what they said. The Pharisees were in error because they didn't do what they said. What about us?
The Pharisees were the teachers of the people (that's a good thing). They were known (rightly) for an above-average level of righteousness (that's a good thing). They tithed on the smallest thing (that's a good thing). Do you know what else they did right? They searched the Scriptures. Why? "Because you think that in them you have eternal life" (John 5:38). And that's a good thing! The truth is that the Pharisees actually had a whole lot going on that was good. The problem, of course, was their hypocrisy. They claimed a level of holiness they didn't have. They claimed to obey in ways that they did not. That, of course, is the famous concept of a Pharisee, but don't forget all the positives assigned to them.
The question, then, is not, "Are you overly self-righteous?" We're all pretty clear on that. It's a bad thing. Nor is it, "Are you a hypocrite?" We all know that's a bad thing. And (hopefully) we are aware of that and working to avoid it. But the question I have is about the reverse. Are we aiming at attaining the level of righteousness they had? Do we search the Scriptures with their diligence? Are we careful about tithing at all? Are we diligent about spreading the Gospel? Is our theology correct? The Pharisees were certainly self-righteous hypocrites, and we don't want to mimic that. On the other hand, there are things about them we ought to be copying. Are we?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Grand Canyon Tour
When I started this blog, I intended to have a focus on birds because, well, I just like them. I think they're an incredible part of God's creation. Of course, doing an entire blog about birds turned out to be not so feasible. Still, over time, I've sprinkled in a few entries.
Saturday my wife and I went with some friends to the Grand Canyon. (It's fun to live close enough to make it a day trip.) Lots of great scenery and all. The canyon itself is amazing. It is 277 miles long. It is up to 13 miles wide at its widest. From the rim to the floor is up to 5500 feet. (Note to those who have forgotten their distances from school: That's more than a mile.) The friends with whom we went had just finished a rim-to-rim hike last month. Walking from the north rim to the south rim took them 16 hours. (The official line is that this is not a day hike. It should be done in two days.) They weren't record breakers. That just gives you an idea of the magnitude of this canyon.
The canyon is home to a wide variety of animals. There aren't too many places you can go to walk alongside a bull elk. The javelina is native to the area. And there are indeed a variety of birds. One of the more interesting, however, is one of the newest additions ... or, should I say, reintroductions. In the late 20th century the condor was reintroduced into the Grand Canyon. 
We were fortunate to catch sight of one of these. (Number 23, as it turns out, has been there since 1997 and is the father of two living offspring.) Oh, sure, he's in the vulture family, so it's hard to think of him as cute, but he is certainly an amazing bird. Don't let the picture fool you. An adult male condor (like this one) 
can have a wingspan of 9 ft. (By way of contrast, a golden eagle can have a 7' span and a turkey vulture a 6' span. In fact, the condor is the largest flying land bird in North America.Oh, I suppose I could regale you with descriptions and pictures of the amazing geology of the place. It was indeed a beautiful day at one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It was a great time sharing it with my wife and friends. And it was a wonderful opportunity to see the wildlife I enjoy so much. But I'll just leave you with this smattering. Enjoy.
(FYI, for the curious, I took the pictures. They aren't "canned" photos from other sources.)
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Father's Day, 2010
Being a parent is not an easy thing. There is no actual manual. We get some ideas from the Bible, but how to potty train or how to respond in this situation or that is pretty vague. We might lean on others, either "professionals" or other parental examples, but ultimately the parent is the one that makes the choices and the parent is the one that is responsible. It is often a thankless job. It is often a painful job. And, of course, as is generally true, the more expensive something is, the more precious it is.
Knowing what to say and do and when are difficult things. Perhaps more difficult is knowing what not to say or do. This is particularly difficult for mothers, I think. Their natural nurturing pushes them to be there for everything. Fathers, on the other hand, often fall on the other side of that road. Between work, modern feminism, and other pressures, it's sometimes easier to take a more "hands off" approach. A good father, though, is a rare gem. He knows when to be there (and he's always there in some form or another) and when to take his hands off. You get the picture, I'm sure. There he is running behind his youngster as the tyke is learning to ride a bike. He's got his hand on the back the whole time as little Bobby pedals down the sidewalk gaining momentum and balance. And then, without telling Bobby, he lets go. Bobby is balancing and pedaling on his own. He's doing it! He's riding his bike. He doesn't even know it for some time until he suddenly realizes that Dad is not behind him anymore. And what a thrill! He's riding his bike!!
Being a father is a tough thing. Knowing what to say and do is tough. Knowing what not to say and do is perhaps more difficult. But children need both a "hands on" and "hands off" approach to learn. It's one of the things I deeply appreciate from my own father. He has always provided excellent guidance and training when it was needed and also knew when to let me get into my own trouble (or, less often, have my own success). To me it's one of the things that makes him a standout among fathers. It takes real wisdom to know when to speak and when to be silent, when to act and when to watch. And, let's be honest, watching your kids do foolish things can be very painful. But he has done it masterfully. He has shared his wisdom and borne the pain and continues to be the finest example of a good father that I can find.
Happy Father's Day, Dad!
Knowing what to say and do and when are difficult things. Perhaps more difficult is knowing what not to say or do. This is particularly difficult for mothers, I think. Their natural nurturing pushes them to be there for everything. Fathers, on the other hand, often fall on the other side of that road. Between work, modern feminism, and other pressures, it's sometimes easier to take a more "hands off" approach. A good father, though, is a rare gem. He knows when to be there (and he's always there in some form or another) and when to take his hands off. You get the picture, I'm sure. There he is running behind his youngster as the tyke is learning to ride a bike. He's got his hand on the back the whole time as little Bobby pedals down the sidewalk gaining momentum and balance. And then, without telling Bobby, he lets go. Bobby is balancing and pedaling on his own. He's doing it! He's riding his bike. He doesn't even know it for some time until he suddenly realizes that Dad is not behind him anymore. And what a thrill! He's riding his bike!!
Being a father is a tough thing. Knowing what to say and do is tough. Knowing what not to say and do is perhaps more difficult. But children need both a "hands on" and "hands off" approach to learn. It's one of the things I deeply appreciate from my own father. He has always provided excellent guidance and training when it was needed and also knew when to let me get into my own trouble (or, less often, have my own success). To me it's one of the things that makes him a standout among fathers. It takes real wisdom to know when to speak and when to be silent, when to act and when to watch. And, let's be honest, watching your kids do foolish things can be very painful. But he has done it masterfully. He has shared his wisdom and borne the pain and continues to be the finest example of a good father that I can find.
Happy Father's Day, Dad!
Saturday, June 19, 2010
A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Recently on Facebook a friend's comment brought up (in my mind) the topic of a child's right to privacy. Now, the situation for this friend was somewhat different, but it made me think about what was a reasonable expectation of privacy for dependent children. Is it right or wrong for a parent to transgress the privacy of their children? Is it wise or unwise? (A different question.) The response you'll normally hear is "Don't do it!" Both kids and adults will say that it's their space, that you shouldn't violate it, that "trust is important" and other wise-sounding things. According to UNICEF, "Children have a right to privacy." Common perception is that we ought not violate their privacy. The common perception is that they should have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as any adult. My question: Is that true?
How does a parent balance concerns for the safety and welfare of their children with their children's desire for privacy? Under what circumstances is it acceptable/advisable to invade their privacy and under what circumstances is it not? How does a parent balance their own culpability (parents are legally liable for illegal items in the home, for instance) with their children's desire for privacy? Is it okay to monitor the Internet use of a teen or read their emails or monitor their texts or calls? Are the tracking devices being marketed today for parents to keep tabs on their kids an unwarranted invasion of privacy? Are there rules to follow, steps to take to do it right?
I can see arguments on both sides. I easily don't fall in the category of "Never violate their privacy", but I can see the pitfalls of completely disregarding their privacy. How does one strike the proper balance? I'm just wondering.
How does a parent balance concerns for the safety and welfare of their children with their children's desire for privacy? Under what circumstances is it acceptable/advisable to invade their privacy and under what circumstances is it not? How does a parent balance their own culpability (parents are legally liable for illegal items in the home, for instance) with their children's desire for privacy? Is it okay to monitor the Internet use of a teen or read their emails or monitor their texts or calls? Are the tracking devices being marketed today for parents to keep tabs on their kids an unwarranted invasion of privacy? Are there rules to follow, steps to take to do it right?
I can see arguments on both sides. I easily don't fall in the category of "Never violate their privacy", but I can see the pitfalls of completely disregarding their privacy. How does one strike the proper balance? I'm just wondering.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Unwilling
In yesterday's passage from Matthew we read, "It is not the will of My Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." I commented that it must not mean that it wasn't God's will that children should perish because they do. I offered an alternative. Not revisiting that, I think it begs the question. Is it ever God's will that any humans at all should perish?
If you have the slightest smattering of Bible knowledge, you have already pounced on the parallel passage.
Well, hold on there a minute. First, did you know that the ever popular sentence above is only a half sentence? The correct reference would be "2 Peter 3:9b" because it is only a piece of a verse. In fact, the phrase "God is" is added above to make a complete sentence. Second, yanking this out of context like that can be very misleading. Let me give you two examples to demonstrate.
Example 1: I saw an old movie recently in which the oldest daughter wanted her father to save the trees on their farm. He wanted to sell them. You see, she was unwilling that any should perish, but that all should be saved.
Example 2: We've all heard stories about some elderly rich lady with too many cats. She bequeaths all her wealth to her cats when she dies because she was unwilling that any should perish, but that all should be saved.
Now, consider these two examples. You will note (I hope) that there is a repeated phrase. In the first example, did anyone read it to mean that the daughter was unwilling that any humans should perish? Of course not. It was clear from the context that she was unwilling that any trees should perish. In the second example, did you think she was concerned about people? Obviously not. She was unwilling that any cats should perish. No, that's not accurate. She was unwilling that any of her cats should perish. Is it clear, then, that the context of the phrase determines the reference to "any"?
So what is the context of the phrase from 2nd Peter?
So, when he says that God is "not willing that any should perish", what is that context of "any"? Well, clearly it's not "trees" or "cats", but is it mankind? That would be a leap given the context. You see, he says that God "is longsuffering toward us." "We" are the context. Who is "we"? Well, it would be those to whom he was writing, "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1). It would be believers.
Now, look again at the content in context. God is now slack in keeping His promise. He is just being very patient toward believers. Why? Because He is not willing that any believers should perish. Now, since the existing believers were already in repentance, to whom would Peter then be referring? Who was he referencing that were delaying Christ's return? What was/is God waiting for? To me, the answer is clear. You?
If you have the slightest smattering of Bible knowledge, you have already pounced on the parallel passage.
God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).Popular verse. Lots of people know it. It says right there that it is never God's will that anyone perish. Right?
Well, hold on there a minute. First, did you know that the ever popular sentence above is only a half sentence? The correct reference would be "2 Peter 3:9b" because it is only a piece of a verse. In fact, the phrase "God is" is added above to make a complete sentence. Second, yanking this out of context like that can be very misleading. Let me give you two examples to demonstrate.
Example 1: I saw an old movie recently in which the oldest daughter wanted her father to save the trees on their farm. He wanted to sell them. You see, she was unwilling that any should perish, but that all should be saved.
Example 2: We've all heard stories about some elderly rich lady with too many cats. She bequeaths all her wealth to her cats when she dies because she was unwilling that any should perish, but that all should be saved.
Now, consider these two examples. You will note (I hope) that there is a repeated phrase. In the first example, did anyone read it to mean that the daughter was unwilling that any humans should perish? Of course not. It was clear from the context that she was unwilling that any trees should perish. In the second example, did you think she was concerned about people? Obviously not. She was unwilling that any cats should perish. No, that's not accurate. She was unwilling that any of her cats should perish. Is it clear, then, that the context of the phrase determines the reference to "any"?
So what is the context of the phrase from 2nd Peter?
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.There's the complete verse. You see, in the Matthew reference Jesus was quite clear about "any" -- any of "these little ones". Whether or not you agree with me about who "these little ones" are, He wasn't saying "anybody at all." It was a limited statement. In this verse, we require the surrounding elements to determine what "any" is referring to. The context (starting in verse 1) is that there were scoffers who were saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." Peter was trying to reassure them that God was not slack in keeping His promises. He would return. Don't listen to the scoffers.
So, when he says that God is "not willing that any should perish", what is that context of "any"? Well, clearly it's not "trees" or "cats", but is it mankind? That would be a leap given the context. You see, he says that God "is longsuffering toward us." "We" are the context. Who is "we"? Well, it would be those to whom he was writing, "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (2 Peter 1:1). It would be believers.
Now, look again at the content in context. God is now slack in keeping His promise. He is just being very patient toward believers. Why? Because He is not willing that any believers should perish. Now, since the existing believers were already in repentance, to whom would Peter then be referring? Who was he referencing that were delaying Christ's return? What was/is God waiting for? To me, the answer is clear. You?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
These Children
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 And calling to Him a child, He put him in the midst of them 3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. ... 10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. ... 14 So it is not the will of My Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish (Matt 18:1-6, 10, 14).This really is a popular passage. You know, it has such warmth. "Jesus loves the little children." That sort of thing. It is the origin of the concept of the "guardian angel" that each child is supposed to have. Really a nice passage.
Me, of course ... I have to ask questions. But first, I want to make it clear. We are not being told to become childish, but child-like. Trust easily. Believe. Set aside skepticism and enjoy. That's the idea.
Now to the content. I don't intend to suggest anything bizarre or even negative. I just need to ask a question. Who are "these little ones"? He uses that phrase in verses 6, 10, and 14. Who are "these little ones"? The common idea is that it refers to literal children. And we like the idea that "it is not the will of My Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." But that's problematic if you think about it ... because they do. Children, sadly, die. So is Jesus saying that God's will doesn't happen. Or is He talking about something else?
I think that once Jesus establishes "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven," He has established a group of people. These people are child-like. They are part of His kingdom. They believe in Him (v 6). I think that when Jesus speaks of "these children", He is speaking (after verse 3) about believers ... of any age. That would have some ramifications. It would mean that deceiving any believer would be a dangerous thing to do. It would mean that His followers all have guardian angels. It would mean that it is not His will that any of His followers perish.
Now, like I said, I'm asking questions. This is what I see. It's not a hill I'll die on. I just think that this is what Jesus had in mind. You can work through the ramifications of the ramifications at your leisure. Or ... you can just disagree. Like I said, I'm at best a know-it-some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)