What You Believe

There are those who would like to so simplify things that to simply claim "I believe in Jesus" should be sufficient to classify that person as a Christian, all other considerations aside. Oh, sure, I'm oversimplifying things, but that's the basic idea. Subscribe to the "basics" of Christianity and you get a free pass to heaven.

Now, on the surface this might seem right, but be careful. Take, for instance, 1 John 4:15 -- "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in Him, and He in God." "Well, there it is," someone might suggest. "All I have to do is just write up a 3x5 card with the sentence, 'Jesus is the Son of God' and walk down the street asking people to read it out loud. They'll be saved because that's what the Bible says and I believe the Bible." That, of course, is ludicrous and no one would buy that ... or would they? I've never heard that suggested, but I've heard something similar. A pastor I know had the entire church stand up and repeat the Sinner's Prayer out loud. No call. No explanation. Just "Stand up and repeat after me." Later I asked why and he told me, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord ... you will be saved." I told him he missed a phrase and he said, "Oh, I'm standing on the promises of God. That 'believe' part will certainly come later now that they've all confessed with their mouths." Sigh.

I think it becomes clear that "I believe in Jesus" is not sufficient to place one in the definite category of "Christian". Here, let's try a fun example. I tell my neighbor, "You know, you need Jesus." "Oh," he smiles broadly, "I know. I believe in Jesus." "You do? How wonderful! Tell me more." "I believe in Jesus and trust him for my salvation based on his sacrifice at the cross." So, what more could I ask? Well, I could ask about this "Jesus", because, as it turns out, this neighbor's Jesus is his Mexican gardener who died last week trying to rescue a kid from being run over in a busy intersection. He died ... in the crosswalk. Now, we have all the components, and yet no one would (likely) suggest that this is a faith that saves.

Faith -- faith in general -- has several components. It's not merely belief. It includes "placing your weight on", a "counting on", a reliance upon. It isn't merely mental assent as so many think. It's actually placing your confidence in something. Al Gore, as a silly example, may have a belief that there is a global warming crisis, but he doesn't have faith in that because his actions don't reflect it. He uses energy, flies in private jets, drives SUVs, does nothing at all consistent with the problem he purports to believe. Or, in James's words, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18).

We all (mostly all) know that about faith. What then tends to get lost in this discussion is the prior component of faith. For faith to be genuine, viable, saving, there is another lower level that needs to be there. Saving faith must be placed in something that is true. My (imaginary) neighbor that has faith in Jesus (the gardener) may be placing his reliance on Jesus, but that Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible and is not, therefore, a genuine savior. So my neighbor has faith, again in James's words, that is dead. Note, however, that no amount of arguing is going to shake this guy's faith. "Wait, do you not believe the Bible?" he will argue. "It says, 'For by grace are you saved through faith.' I have faith. I have faith in Jesus. Why are you trying to force your odd, heretical beliefs off on me?" And it would appear that you are stuck.

This is all a little bit of fun. I really don't know anyone who is trusting his Mexican gardener for salvation. Of course, that pastor I mentioned was real, and that was a matter of concern, but he's still "out there", not the norm. Unfortunately, even though most of this can be humorous, there are serious consequences behind it. In real life people can easily get confused about who Jesus is and then end up trusting in something they think is real only to be in spiritual jeopardy. The case of the Mormons springs to mind who count on a "Jesus" who is not the Jesus of the Bible but has origins in those texts. They say they're trusting in Jesus for their salvation and it sounds like they are, but it's not the real Jesus they're trusting in and they're in real trouble.

Well, obviously faith is important. Where you put your faith is equally important. In that sense, Truth is vitally important. Sometimes the simplicity of the Gospel can create its own problems, but I suppose there is another real reason for that. "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4). I would say that vigilance and prayer are in order here.

1 John 3:9

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (1 John 3:9) (KJV).

This has always been a gut-wrenching read for me, taking the Bible as seriously as I do. What does John mean? Is this a call for sinless perfection? Or is it hyperbole? "Oh, no, everyone sins and sins a lot! He's just saying that, well, we shouldn't." Is that all it is? Let's take a closer look.

First, the King James (and other older translations) all say it like that -- "doth not commit sin". Taken at face value, that is indeed a call for sinless perfection. It cannot mean anything else, unless you're going to go with the "hyperbole defense". And if that was what the text called for, your defense "Well, we know that everyone sins" would be irrelevant because your experience doesn't define God's reality. However, if this is a call for sinless perfection, we have a problem. In this very book John writes, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). Hmm, problem. He goes on to say, "I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2). Okay, so he is encouraging us to stop sinning but knows that we will and comforts us with the confidence that we have an Advocate. Good. So either John was incoherent and self-contradictory, or we're missing the meaning of 1 John 3:9.

So what about other translations? Do they concur? As it turns out, there is a significant difference between the older ones and the newer ones.

No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (1 John 3:9) (NASB).

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9) (ESV).

Okay, so there is a difference. It is not "doth not commit", but "cannot make a practice of". But is it significant? Is it saying in just another way that the one born of God cannot go on sinning? Is it saying that true believers cease from sin? Or are we, again, at the mercy of the "hyperbole defense" that, in its final analysis, strips all meaning from the text?

One source that provides ample agreement is the commentators. From those prior to today's modern translations through today, they all seem to agree.

does not make it his trade and business; it is not the constant course of his life; he does not live and walk in sin, or give up himself to it; he is not without the being of it in him, or free from acts of sin in his life and conversation, but he does not so commit it as to be the servant of it, a slave unto it, or to continue in it. (John Gill).

they who are born of God, that is, who are true Christians, do not sin habitually and characteristically (Barnes).

does not work iniquity nor practise disobedience, which is contrary to his new nature and the regenerate complexion of his spirit (Matthew Henry).

does not have the habit of sin (Robertson).

Sam Storms puts it this way:

The view adopted by most commentators is that the sin a Christian does not and cannot commit is habitual, persistent, unrepentant sin. John is not concerned so much with the momentary, individual acts of sin as he is with the overall characteristic tendencies and inclinations of a person's life. John is looking at the pervasive temper of one's overall experience in life, not at the singular incidents individually. John is not taking a snapshot, but a moving picture. His repeated use of the Greek present tense appears to bear this out. He focuses on the habitual character of the activity in view.

Is it possible for a Christian to sin? John says it is not merely possible, but certain (1 John 1:8, 10). Is he, then, simply exaggerating to make a point with this passage? I don't think so. He speaks of the lack of ability, a concept inconsistent with mere hyperbole. John is not saying, "Everyone sins, but the ideal is that you don't." He is saying that if you are fully capable of habitually walking in sin, you have reason to be concerned about your salvation. If you can sin without remorse, if you have persistent, unrepentant, perhaps even well-defended sin, you need to question whether or not you are actually born of God. The one born of God lacks the ability to do that. And simple ignorance is no excuse. Not if we serve a living God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure.

He Stayed

I've been reading in John recently and was struck by this:

Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick." But when Jesus heard this, He said, "This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it." Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was (John 11:1-6).

We know the story. It's all quite clear. Lazarus, according to Jesus, was sick and, ultimately, dying "for the glory of God." And we, with the "aerial" view we have now, know exactly how that worked. Lazarus died and Jesus raised him from the dead and it became impossible to deny that Jesus was from God without flying into irrationality. Good. But look at the text and the language.

Notice, first, that Lazarus's sisters knew that Jesus loved Lazarus. "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick." No question. No doubt. Nor did John doubt it. Lest you think that, possibly, they were mistaken, John states without equivocation, "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." No question. No doubt.

The thing that struck me, then, was the word "so" and the text that followed. We have it clear that He loved them, "so ... He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was." Do you see the "cause and effect" here? Jesus stayed where He was because He loved them. He wasn't ambivalent. He wasn't tied up. He wasn't confused. He knowingly and intentionally stayed where He was for the purpose of loving them.

Well, of course, neither Martha nor Mary got that. Both said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." (John 11:21, 32). They didn't see it as a kindness. It was no act of love from their perspective. But that's what the text says. "So ... He stayed." Nor was Jesus "warmed" by the act. He knew what He was doing. He knew it was for God's glory. He knew it was out of love. He knew that Lazarus would live again. All of that He knew. And, yet, "When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in His spirit and greatly troubled" (John 11:33). He wept (John 11:35). He felt their pain. Of course He did; it was out of love that He inflicted it.

I come away with something important here. How many times have you prayed "Lord, I'm in trouble here"? How many times has there been a cry to God for help, a plea for rescue, a request for relief, only to have Him withdraw His hand? To conclude, as Mary and Martha did, that He failed would be a mistake. To think for a moment that He didn't feel your pain would be an error. The thing to keep in mind when troubles strike and God seems far away is "He loved them, so He stayed two days longer." He cares. Because He cares about God's glory first and foremost and about you, He may choose to stay away. In the end, however, He will be there to do what is needed. He cares, even when -- especially when -- He "stays away".

Heart Condition

And He called the people to Him again and said to them, "Hear Me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." And when He had entered the house and left the people, His disciples asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person" (Mark 7:14-23)

Sin is a product of the heart. Sin doesn't defile the heart, but comes from a defiled heart. We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. It's a heart condition. It's called "Original Sin."

Biblical "Cannots"

The Bible is full of "cannot". Now, this is an interesting concept because it is absolute. It isn't a "might not" or "may not", but "cannot". Well, let's look at some examples:

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot hear My word" (John 8:43).

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:5-8).

You get the idea. "Cannot", not "unwilling" or "maybe won't". But what exactly is this "cannot"? The Greek phrase is a two-word construct: ou dunamai. The first, ou, is an absolute negative (not merely "not", but emphatically not). The second is dunamai, from which we get "dynamic" or "dynamo" or "dynamite". It means "having the power to". Thus, ou dunamai is "has absolutely no power to". This same sequence appears in every one of the "cannots" above except one. That is in Rom 8:7 -- "indeed, it cannot." That one is oude dunamai ... which means but ou, or "neither does it have any capacity to (submit to God's law)." So all of these examples are not merely "not able", but "absolutely lacking in power to".

Now, when you look at the things that are being referenced as "absolutely outside the realm of capability", I don't think they would typically be viewed as "cannot". We tend not to think that a person who is not born again is lacking the ability to "see the kingdom of God". He or she can see it; they just refuse to acknowledge it or appreciate it. Why didn't people understand what Jesus said? Well, because they weren't paying attention or didn't care to understand or were hostile. No, that's a "cannot". Why is it that unbelievers do not please God? It's because they don't want to. No, that's a "cannot".

If you let that sink in, it will likely shift your thinking a bit. People aren't saved because they cannot be. We tend to think of it as a lack of will; the Bible calls it a lack of power. Thus, your kind endeavors and skillful arguments and careful presentations also lack the capacity to change this condition. There is a wall of inability. You're asking a man with no legs to walk or, to be more biblical, a dead man to come forward and pray the prayer. In order to alter that condition, God has to do something miraculous first, and it's not merely a "call". It's a literal empowerment.

There's one more that you should notice:

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9).

And that last one is a little unnerving. The one born of God does not make a practice of sinning because he cannot. He absolutely lacks the ability sin continuously. The wording doesn't allow for "he might not" or "if he's willing". It isn't a matter of his agreement with God. The text says that the one born of God absolutely lacks the power to make a practice of sinning. He can sin. He can violate God's law. But in an ongoing, continuous sense, John says that the ability of the one born of God to go on sinning is lacking. It's not there. It doesn't exist. Something to think about.

Youth Ministry

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see that the marriage of the Bible (the lifelong union of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and complementing) is not the marriage of today. Nor is it any great insight to see the erosion of this position over the past century. It wasn't big steps, of course, but it wasn't invisible. There was the feminist movement that sought to free wives from the biblical construct of "wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord". There was the "free love" movement of the 60's that sought to free couples from the biblical construct of sex within marriage. There was the "no fault divorce" concept that sought to free married couples from the biblical requirement of a lifelong union. There was the romance of the media that sought to eliminate the biblical concept that husbands and wives were meant to complement one another rather than warm each other's hearts. And, of course, we're now at the "marriage equity" stage where, having stripped off all the components that made marriage marriage, they seek to eliminate the biblical concept of "husband and wife" and leave it at "spouses", whatever the gender. And children? Children are a nuisance or, at best, a rare and prized possession. So far have we drifted in such a short time from the original concept that to even suggest my biblical definition (the lifelong union of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and complementing) is generally regarded as ludicrous. "No one thinks that anymore."

What has this to do with youth ministry? I fear that I see the same thing happening in the church.

A couple hundred years ago families went to church together. The notion of "Sunday School" didn't start until the late 18th century, and they were started as schools, an opportunity to give poor kids an education. They spent their weeks working in factories, so folks like Robert Raikes promoted the idea of teaching them to read on their day off -- Sunday. The Bible was their reading primer, so that worked out well. When state education was established in the late 19th century, Sunday school became a solely religious endeavor. Prior to this, all families who went to church went together. The religious instruction they received was either from the pastor or the parents.

Now, of course, we live in a different world. Most conscientious Christian parents looking for a church will choose that church with a keen eye on the ministry afforded their children. What kind of youth ministry is there and does it reach my kids' age group? Lots of families elect to go to larger churches precisely because they provide the best age-distinct groups. (It seems obvious that to have age-distinct youth ministries you would need to have the numbers for it.) Churches of practically any size include a "youth pastor". Typically, a "youth pastor" is not a real pastor. He's more of a pastor in training, a youth himself to some degree. He wouldn't be the senior pastor of a church; he's too young. In fact, he may not even be a "he". But he's fun and he knows how to interact with kids. He knows how to entertain them and to speak at their level and to hold their interest. So a good youth group would have the music of the day and games and fun with, hopefully, a little truth snuck in there for good measure. And this is a good thing.

I see some serious problems here. We see all around us the disintegration of families (as we see in the simple decline in "marriage" itself), yet we are encouraging dis-integration of families in church. "Youth ministry" is designed to provide something separate from the parents and even, preferably, stripping out each age group from any other, separating parents from children and siblings from siblings. Yet we affirm the family as a unit. Isn't that a little problematic?

Sunday school in general and "youth ministry" as a whole serves to remove parents from the equation. Parents don't work with their kids; they drop them off. The content is not up to the parents; it's up to the youth leadership. The progress is not monitored by parents if it's monitored at all. But the Bible holds parents in general and fathers in particular responsible for the spiritual education of their children. Isn't that somewhat problematic?

Indeed, by taking children out of church services and removing youth from their families, parents are relieved of a lot of what should have been their responsibilities. They are no longer required to teach their kids how to behave in church. They don't have to provide spiritual instruction or disciple their children. (When was the last time you heard of parents discipling their children?) They don't really have to involve themselves in their kids' lives hardly at all because, after all, they're going to church! What could be better? And at this point the biblical concept of parental responsibility has eroded in the same direction that "marriage" has. Isn't that a little problematic?

Most of all, family cohesion is cancelled. We've all heard, "The family that prays together stays together." Seriously, how many families today pray together? They don't even eat together. The model of a "good Christian family" would have the kids going to AWANA on Wednesday night and the teens off to their "teen club" (that's probably dated now, too, isn't it?) on Thursday night and Mom is off to Women's Bible Study on Tuesday and Dad does the Men's Breakfast on Saturday and we've got everyone neatly ministered to ... completely separated from each other. That is not cohesion. That's incoherent. Isn't that a little problematic?

I grew up with "youth ministries". My parents changed churches when they saw indications that their kids were losing interest in church. I know the importance of conscientious parents in finding good ministries for their kids and I know the values of youth ministries. I just wonder if, like marriage, we've been sliding this direction so long that we've become accustomed to a dangerous condition and now would find a biblical approach a bad thing. Woe to Christians when we decide that a biblical approach is a bad thing! And woe to the church when our "ministries" encourage the dissolution of God's key component of all society. This seems a bit problematic to me.

Unwanted

I'm sure you've heard the phrase before: "Unwanted children." In India it is a problem of "gender selection" where girl babies are unwanted and, so, aborted. In China it is a population control problem where anything over one child is eliminated. In America, of course, we're much more civilized. "Unwanted" isn't as crass as that. No, for us they're "unwanted" if they have the potential to be abnormal or if they could possibly harm the mother or if they are just not very convenient.

"Unwanted children" -- the phrase -- is gaining in popularity. Oh, not put that way (mostly), but we see the advantage to making "every child a wanted child". It was at the root of Margaret Sanger's birth control movement in the 1920's. Today our society has begun to look askance at people with "too many kids", where most often "too many" seems to be "more than one ... or two at the most".

Margaret Sanger started out as a nurse in New York. She saw too many poor women dying from self-induced abortions and set out to ease their pain by encouraging birth control (her term). She published a magazine called Woman Rebel with the motto, "No Gods, No Masters." She flaunted the law and custom in both her personal life and her crusade to "secure the freedom of the individual woman" whom she viewed as "a brood animal for the masculine civilizations of the world". Eventually others heralded her for providing a way of "coping with the world's staggering population problem." (This is a stunning phrase, since the article I've referenced was written in 1966 and we've still not actually run into "the world's staggering population problem" in the 21st century.) Yet with all her effort it still wasn't until 1965 that the last U.S. state removed its ban of "birth control clinics". The PPLM (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts) tried to get contraception legalized in that state as late as 1942 (because public opinion agreed with contraception) and failed. It wasn't until 1966 that doctors in Massachusetts were allowed to prescribe contraceptives. (Note: I notice a discrepancy here. The Time story says that the last state to lift the ban on birth control clinics was Connecticut in 1965. The PPLM article says that Massachusetts didn't allow contraceptives until 1966. You figure it out. The point is that it wasn't until the mid-'60's that this became "the norm".)

So what? Isn't "every child a wanted child" a good plan? I personally find it staggering in its significance. In this scenario, what is the fundamental basis upon which a child would be born? Clearly, if Sanger and the vast majority of birth control advocates had their way, the basic factor that must be present in order for a child to come into the world would be "wanted". Unwanted children, you see, are not a good idea. They should be prevented from ever being conceived if possible, and, failing that, from ever coming into the world. In contrast to the biblical concept that Man is created in the image of God and, as such, has inherent value, this idea reduces humans to the level of "wantedness". If they are wanted, they are valuable; if not, well, too bad. They're expendable.

Where does that stop? If an unborn child isn't wanted and can, either by abortifacient contraceptives or by actual abortion, be killed, why not a child who has been born? What about "birth" eliminates the primary value of "wanted"? If a family should encounter difficulties and the children become a burden, why shouldn't they be allowed to eliminate them as no longer "wanted"? For that matter, when aging parents become a problem, why not let their children declare them "unwanted" and remove them? No, I'm not making the slippery slope argument. I'm simply wondering, having surrendered the ground of "made in the image of God" that makes all humans valuable to "making every child a wanted child", on what basis do we prevent this slide? Worse, since Christians have bought into the "unwanted child" concept by accepting blindly the use of abortifacient contraception, who will hold the line? Without argument or army, it doesn't seem like the fight over human value has a lot of hope, does it?

The "Christian" Oslo Killer

I know ... this is two posts in one day, something I don't do very often. However, it is driven by current events, so it needs to be now.

Michael Horton does an excellent job of stripping down the rampant media certainty that the Oslo killer, Anders Behring Breivik, is a "rightwing Christian fundamentalist." As an example:

In an on-line manifesto, Breivik makes it clear that he is not a “fundamentalist Christian.” He prefaces one comment with, “If there is a God…” and says that science should always trump religion. So in terms of religious convictions, he sounds more like Richard Dawkins than Jerry Falwell. Yet, unlike Dawkins, Breivik pines for the “good ‘ol days” of Christendom, especially the crusades. “Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe…”

Good stuff from the mouth of the killer. You ought to read it to be informed.

The Sower

You all know the parable of the sower. You know ... the one where the sower sows seeds and some fall on the road and the birds eat them and some fall on the rocky soil and they fry when the sun comes out and some fall on the shallow soil and they are choked by weeds and some fall on good soil and they bear fruit. Easy enough. So easy that Jesus had to explain it.

The sower sows the word. These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them. In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold. (Mark 4:14-20)

Now, I've heard lots of sermons on this passage. They tell us to be careful to have hearts that are cultivated. Okay, good, I suppose. They tell us to sow. Seems obvious, but if a farmer doesn't sow, he cannot expect to harvest. Included in the text is the necessary lesson that you will be wasting "seed" if you sow. Yes, some will end up producing "thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold", but there is only one of four types of soil that produce and the rest is "wasted". There is certainly a sense in which the sower doesn't try to take into account the soil type; he just throws the seed out there. So should we. We shouldn't try to figure out of the field is ready or not; just sow.

These are all valid lessons from this parable. One, however, I've never heard is on the seed itself. In this day and age it has been suggested that we need to be good apologists, defenders of the faith. I, of course, am in favor of defending the faith (since we're commanded to do so), but the perception for many today is that this is "sowing". You need to give it your best shot, present the most persuasive argument, provide the best reason and evidence, give the most cogent and coherent presentation. I'm sure all of those are nice, but when I read the parable of the sower, I don't see anything of the elegance of a rational defense of the Gospel. The seed, it seems, that produces fruit is not a rational defense of the faith. According to Jesus, "the seed" is the word. It is the word that produces fruit. It is the word that is planted and grows. Some tell us today that we ought to avoid the Bible in our presentations of the Gospel because it's not compelling, because people just don't want to hear it. But the "seed" that Jesus wants sown is precisely the Word, that powerful, supernatural source product without which faith is not found.

We need to sow. We will be "wasting" seed, but we need to sow. We shouldn't be evaluating the ground; just sow. But let's not forget in all of our offerings of the Gospel that the word is the primary and powerful point. Best arguments and coherent logic is all well and good, but it's really the power of God that we want in this enterprise. We want to be like the farmer who sows and then wonders in the morning where the fruit came from (Mark 4:26-27). We want to experience the power of God's Word.

The More You Know

The proverbial fact is that knowledge is power, that "the more you know, the better off you are." I have heard from multiple parents multiple times, "Kids these days know so much more than we did when we were their age." But I'm beginning to think that, as in too many other places, we're suffering from a loose definition here, too. What is knowledge?

Knowledge (thanks to our ever so helpful dictionaries) is defined as "that which is known". Okay, so it suggests a familiarity with facts. There are data, points of information. There are lots and lots of data. But until some point is known, it is only information. So knowing it is apprehending it, making it "mine", so to speak. Knowledge is not, then, merely information, but ownership of information.

So a Columbia University study comes out suggesting that "memory works differently in the age of Google." The study indicates that we are no longer putting things to memory if we're confident we can find it on the Internet. We no longer lodge information in our own memory banks; we simply remember how to go about finding the information again. Thus, while more data may be available, knowledge is decreasing because we aren't storing it. We aren't making it ours.

Now, in all honesty, given the glut of information available -- what is commonly referred to as "information overload" -- storing all that is available is not either possible or preferential. I mean, I get it. Why should we memorize the capitals of the 50 states if, with a few deft keystrokes, we can find them all online without error? I'm not suggesting necessarily that this is bad.

I think, though, by the shuffling I'm doing ("I get it", "not suggesting necessarily"), that you might be getting the idea that I do have a concern. And you'd be right. I'm raising my hand here. I'm a bit concerned. You see, there is a fundamental difference between having data available and knowing things. In purely human terms, you have to know things before you can understand them, and you must understand them before you can properly use them. That's some distance. Beyond that, who is not aware that, well, the Internet isn't exactly 100% reliable in its information? I'm sure that there are a few, but we mostly all know that it's a good idea to get a few sources rather than simply trusting the first thing we read online.

Take, for instance, the movie, Loose Change. Started by a film school student setting out to produce a fictional movie about a government conspiracy to blow up the World Trade Center and blame it on terrorists, his movie went viral online and spawned a living conspiracy theory including its own website that it actually was the government that did the job by doing a demolition on the WTC and launching a missile into the Pentagon. Oh, and Flight 93? Yeah, that didn't even crash. It landed safely in Cleveland. How did you guys miss that? The video went up on You Tube and became a sensation. The fact that the government as well as independent researchers, engineers, scientists, and another organization started to combat this mess have pointed out a whole host of errors and impossibilities offered, there are still those who know that it was a government conspiracy. "Don't bother me with facts. I know what I know."

My point? The best way to combat error is to know the truth. Unfortunately, if we are shuffling off our knowledge to what we can find on the Internet, what do we know anymore? Already we've decided that our favorite news network is our best source for political news, regardless of its accuracy (because we all know that "those other guys" are slanted, but "our" side is balanced). So if we don't know the truth, we cannot combat error.

There is a spiritual danger to relegating knowledge to outside sources as well. First, Jesus told us that knowing the truth sets you free. Not knowing it, then ... well, you can figure that out. Proverbs warns of a time when "Then they will call on me [Wisdom], but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently but they will not find me, because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD" (Prov 1:28-29). Indeed, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov 1:7). Biblically, then, failing to know is classified as foolishness, and failing to know results in a failure to choose the fear of the Lord. A failure of knowledge results in a failure of wisdom. Beyond that, we are told "Your word I have hid in my heart, that I may not sin against You" (Psa 119:11). We are to be memorizing God's Word, meditating on it, ruminating on it, chewing it over. That doesn't happen by calling it up easily from your favorite Bible website. It needs to be "in my heart".

There is indeed too much data out there for us to hold in our heads. There are, however, some truths that we would be wise to retain, to know. Some things need to be known. Some needs to be understood. Some needs to be properly applied. Without knowledge we are walking targets for foolishness, easy prey for those who would deceive. The fear of the Lord, on the other hand, is the first thing you should know and it is only knowledge that produces wisdom, something we should treasure.

For a Friend

When I was young I had a whole book on Medal of Honor winners. I have always enjoyed reading the stories of their bravery, made all the better because they were true. These people did heroic acts of selflessness that saved lives and reflected honor themselves. The largest number of Medal of Honor winners did not survive their medal-earning exploits -- most of these medals were awarded posthumously. On those rare occasions when someone survived their ordeal, they were, at times, asked why they did it. Twice that I know of the answer was something like, "I did it for my friends." And that's heartwarming all by itself. I mean, we know "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."

It is, however, stunning to think about if you were to ask One who, like the majority of those honored soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, gave His life in the effort why He did it. Why did He throw Himself on the deadly fury that was intended for others? He could have saved Himself, but didn't. Instead, He stood in the gap and took all of it Himself, dying for His efforts, but saving untold numbers. "Jesus, why'd you do it?"

"I did it for My enemies, the people that scorned Me. I did it for those who hated Me."

Amazing grace!

The Threat

When I was growing up, the whole McCarthyism of the 1950's was over -- before my time -- but the Communist threat was not. We had monthly drills where the sirens would go off and we'd have to get under our desks and cover our eyes and necks in the hopes that the nuclear weapons of the Soviets wouldn't kill us. (What you can't see won't hurt you, right?) I served in the military in the '80's and learned about the Soviet war machine, their weaponry, their danger to us. I was around when the wall fell. You know, the Berlin Wall. Good times. I remember when Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" And two years later they did. I remember the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early '90's when so many republics under their thumb were released and gained their independence. The Soviet Union is no more. The Communist threat is at an end!

Or is it?

Keith Green was a Christian musician. He died in an airplane crash in 1982. One of the songs he wrote was No One Believes In Me Anymore, a song about how Satan is able to get around so much easier now that he has convinced everyone that he no longer exists. I wonder if Communism has taken the same tack. Is Communism really dead? While most of popular thought might say it is, Revolution USA doesn't think so. They still promote the violent overthrow of democracy and capitalism, saying that "Communism is ... necessary." Since Communism stands staunchly and violently opposed to democracy, capitalism, and religion (specifically Christianity) (Leslie Mason, a British Communist, wrote, "No one can be consistently both a Christian and a Communist."), it would be wise not to be lulled into a false sense of peace. Communism is not dead.

When I was growing up, we actually had a different "Communist scare" in mind, however. We were warned that the commies would attack us from within. We were concerned that they would eat us away from the inside and let us fall on our own. It probably sounds paranoid, but it did not originate from us:

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. - Joseph Stalin.

Well, Stalin died in 1953, but his legacy lives on. His successor, Nikita Crushchev, said, "We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." "Small doses of socialism."

Now, of course it's mere paranoia, but one has to wonder anyway. For 50 years now we've seen an erosion of patriotism in America. In the 1940's, no one blinked an eye when they were called to send troops and make sacrifices for the country. Today, it's considered almost immoral. Lindsey Williams was appalled at the decline in patriotism in the '60's. But where the Americans of the 1950's were proud patriots, so many Americans today view their country with shame. Look what we did to the slaves! Look what we did to the native Americans! Look what we did to Iraq! Oh, we're awful! (Note that recognizing mistakes of the past does not require that we have no patriotism in the present, a fact that seems to escape a lot of people.)

Nor can it really be denied that there has been an erosion of morality in this country. We all know the quaint world of the '50's where housewives took care of their homes and kids listened to their parents, where divorce was rare and ugly and sex was clearly a function of marriage. Today the television assures us that "There's no reason to get married to have a family" and it is the norm in "The Secret Life of The American Teenager" to have sex with whomever and get pregnant and maybe even kill that baby before its birth becomes a problem. What was shameful to the adults of the 60's is recommended by the adults of our time.

The decline of America's spiritual life has been interesting. In some ways, Americans are just as spiritual as ever. "Spiritualism" is everywhere. People like spiritualism. Religion? No, not so much. "I just feel like I'm one with the universe." Christianity? No, certainly not. And while the numbers still hold that some 75% of Americans classify themselves in some sense as "Christian", since only 5% of them claim it makes any difference in their lives, I'd have to question that claim to Christianity. No, we've surrendered any sort of "Christian America" to a warm feeling about spirituality and a large animosity to anything genuinely Christian.

In other words, the threats of Stalin long since dead are working their way through America as we speak. We largely just nod and think, "Hey, change is a good thing. At least we're not racists anymore." And while I can certainly agree that this is a good thing (even if it's not entirely true), I have to wonder how long before Revolution has their way and America goes down for good. To me the parallels of American direction with Stalin's suggestion is chilling. One thing I know for sure. If it does happen, it will be when the Lord commands.

Gays and the Military

Okay, the title is intentionally (and playfully) misleading. I will discuss, though, homosexual behavior and the military, so it's not entirely misleading ... right?

In some of these posts and in discussions with folks I've registered my concern that people who continue in sin (specifically the sin of homosexual behavior) (specifically not "same-sex marriage", a different issue) are very likely hell-bound and in need of salvation. One person questioned that and brought up a similar concern (that is, one that wasn't mine, but was his). "What if a Christian was a general in the Army and it turned out that serving in the military was a sin?" Of course, the dialog broke down before long and I don't intend to use this space to continue it, but I did think it might be helpful to compare the two ideas, not so much for their ideas as much as the approaches by which we might determine what is and isn't "sin".

First, I conclude that homosexual behavior is a sin because of what I read in the Bible. The passages are unavoidable. In chronological order, they would be things like "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Lev 20:13) and "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27). These are explicit texts that say explicit things. They make no exceptions or offer any variations. Further, their contexts seems to require precisely the meaning that the texts seem to indicate. The first, for instance, is followed immediately by "And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion" (Lev 18:23). So if Lev 18:22 has exceptions or conditions not obvious, so should Lev 18:23. And we'd have to conclude that, like homosexual behavior, bestiality is only a "perversion" (the text's word) under certain circumstances, not necessarily all circumstances. For instance, "If a cult of zoophiles wanted to involve you in idolatry by means of bestiality, then, by all means it's sin. Otherwise, why not?" Nope, not seeing that. Further, there is no contradiction from the rest of Scripture. There isn't a single passage that references same-sex relations in a positive light. Nothing in Scripture offers any support for the notion. The text, the context, and the entirety of Scripture agree. So people who read the texts for what they are saying come to the same conclusion that I do.

"But," the anti-Christians-in-the-military crowd would object, "we get our view from Scripture as well." Okay, let's look. Lew Rockwell argues that being in the military violates each of the 10 Commandments. Of course, in his piece on the subject he does point out that "If it limited itself to controlling our borders, patrolling our coasts, and protecting our citizens instead of intervening around the globe and leaving death and destruction in its wake then perhaps it might be a noble occupation for a Christian." Thus, apparently from his perspective it's wrong to be in the military now, but not as a matter of principle. Greg Boyd argues that the command is to "love your enemies" and "do good to them", not kill them. There is, according to Boyd, only one reason that we think otherwise. "Universal 'common sense' tells us that people ought to kill, if necessary, to protect themselves, their families, and their country." And that's not a good reason. Plow Creek Mennonite Church offers a piece that assures us that "Christian Pacifism is the Scriptural Position". While many of the references are not in support of the argument per se, there are several offered in direct connection. We have Jesus's words, "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44), "Do not use force against an evil man" (Matt 5:39), "Forgive and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:37), "Do not be anxious about your life" (Luke 12:22), "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" (Matt 26:52), "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matt 7:12), "Do not return evil for evil" (1 Peter 3:9), "Never avenge yourselves" (Rom 12:19), and "Overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21). (I'm trying to offer a fair listing.) Plenty of Scripture there.

So, using the same rationale as the first paragraph, how does this work? Well, first, there isn't one explicit text that says that serving in the military is sin. Not one. Okay, so perhaps the explicit text doesn't work, but the context does, right? Well, nothing about the context coincides with "military". So maybe not. Still, the entire sense of it is there, right? Well, there is reason to see the entire sense of it. However, when compared with all of Scripture, there's a problem. Assuming that there is a universal biblical principle that says that "use of force is evil" or some such, we have lots of problems, in fact. Jesus made a whip to use in the Temple. He told His disciples to take their swords. The suggestion (that some make) that He didn't use the whip on people and He certainly prevented them from using their swords is a good thing or we'd have a sinning Savior. But the problems don't stop there. Why, when dealing with the centurion, did Jesus remain silent about his sin? Well, that could be a matter of context. Certainly it's an argument from silence. We don't know all that He said to the centurion. On the other hand, we have explicit texts elsewhere. We know, for instance, that God commanded warfare of His people. Regardless of your views on the incident of the Amalekites and such, we all agree that God promised the land of Canaan to Israel, took them to it from Egypt, and punished them for failing to take it. Now, what have we here? We have a "righteous God" commanding His people to violate His commandments (see Lew Rockwell) against using force and punishing them (40 years in the desert) for failing to obey His command to violate His commands. Now that is a problem. And then there's the whole return of Christ thing where Jesus returns with a sword in His mouth killing all unbelievers. You may see that as "nonviolent", but I can't begin to see it as such.

So let's look at how the two stack up. The first has explicit texts. The immediate context agrees with the plain reading. There is nothing in all of Scripture to counter that straightforward reading. All indications are that homosexual behavior is a sin, and changing that conclusion requires altering texts, contexts, and the entirety of Scripture. As for "Christian pacifism", there are some texts that suggest it. However, there isn't one that is explicit. Further, the context is never about "Christian pacifism". Worse, if we conclude that the universal biblical principle is pacifism, we make God the Father and God the Son out to be sinners, violators of their own principles.

I am not here trying to dismiss the concerns raised by the passages on Christian pacifism. We must wrestle with those texts. Is is possible to "love your enemy" and be in the military? Is it possible to "not use force against an evil man" and defend your home against intruders? Is it possible to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and still be part of the armed forces? It's something we ought to think through. I'm not saying there is no question here. All I'm trying to point out is that on some issues there is apparent certainty and on some there is not. So be sure you're not questioning the obvious and standing for the unclear -- or upbraiding those who do the opposite.

Marriage Equity

A parable from history. (Cue cute "birds singing, tra-la-la music")

Before the first European arrived on the North American continent, there were those to whom we now refer as "native Americans". (Generally, the term refers to the people indigenous to the United States.) These people groups lived here a long time before anyone arrived from the "old world". They had tribes, communities, property, their own civilization. They hunted and farmed and even had their own kind of industries.

The Spanish settled here in 1519 and the English arrived and established Jamestown and Plymouth while the French set up their first settlements in what is now Canada in the early 17th century. At first, we all got along pretty well. We had our small colonies and they had ... the rest of the continent. Then the European settlers got it in their heads that they needed to educate the natives, to "civilize" them. When frictions arose from this effort, it became a war. Some of the fighting was in self-defense -- the settlers were defending themselves. Some was in aggression for expansion and pacification.

When the European settlers pushed into the plains hunting buffalo and beavers, the Great Plains tribes took offense. Now, all these settlers wanted was "hunting equity", to share the land, to simply have what was theirs. But these unreasonable, backward, traditionalist native Americans felt that they had lived there all this time and that the plains had always been theirs. The settlers used a variety of tactics, from open war to "education" to "improving the lives of the natives" via things like the railroad. It was all with the best of intentions, and while I'm sure the indigenous people didn't understand, being too narrow-minded and all, the settlers eventually achieved their "equity" by simply stripping from the tribes what had always been theirs and taking it for themselves. Of course, by the time they got done with it, the hunting and the territories didn't look anything at all like it used to, but it's okay because equity was what was important, and those old, right-wing native Americans ended up in a much better place, I'm sure.

Moral of the Story: Taking what isn't yours to convert it to what you want it to be does not fall in the category of "equity".

Good for Nothing

I have, for most of my life, suffered from the delusion that I'm good for nothing. Okay, so most of the time it wasn't "good for nothing", but certainly inferior. I've never been "best" at anything. At those rare moments when I started to think I wasn't completely worthless, something would happen to remind me that I was ... inferior. Fed by a faulty measure of "worth", I have often had to fight a tendency to think little of myself. It's an ongoing thing for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in it.

God has some interesting things to say about folks like me.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God (1 Cor 1:26-29).

As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another (1 Cor 12:25).

I find these two passages interesting and helpful. First, note that they do not say, "Oh, stop thinking of yourself that way. It's not true!" On the contrary, the claim is that we are indeed the "foolish", the "weak", the "low". Even in the Body of Christ there are "unpresentable parts", parts that are "less honorable". I am fascinated by this because there are many times in my struggles with this problem that I think, "But ... I'm not being unreasonable. Much of how I view myself is wholly accurate." And God, here, is saying, "Yes, I have certainly called many foolish, weak, despicable, unpresentable people." Because telling a pig that he's a dove doesn't help the pig.

The other thing, though, is the conclusions God comes to regarding these "inferior" people. God uses them. He doesn't use them in spite of their inferiority. He uses them because of it. He uses the foolish to shame the wise, the powerless to shame the powerful, the weak to shame the strong. He uses parts of the Body of Christ deemed "less honorable" with greater honor. As Paul writes elsewhere, "He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Cor 12:9). It is not simply in spite of weakness, but because of weakness that God is glorified in us. Therefore, it is not in spite of weakness, but because of weakness that Paul boasts, recognizing that the power of Christ is at work.

The fact is that many people are "inferior" by human standards. Denying it doesn't make it go away. Thanks be to God that this isn't the final conclusion. The next fact is that God uses the weak, the foolish, the powerless, the unpresentable for His greater glory. It's not about us. It's about Him. In these people God's greater work can be seen and, in these, God's greater glory is shown. And that's always a good thing, not "good for nothing".

Enemy at the Gates

We are all aware of the enemy all around us. We see that evil "head banging music" and know that can't be right. We hear the rappers who glorify killing and abusing women and we know that can't be right. And there's that whole "porn industry" thing that no moral person really doubts is evil at its core. We hear the voices of the far left telling us to exterminate humans and give animals human rights and to steal from the rich and give to the poor and we know that can't be right. The enemy is quite clear. Or is it?

My suspicion is that the most intrusive and destructive messages are coming to us unfiltered. We let them in our homes, our heads, our hearts. We don't evaluate them or examine them because they're coming to us from either friendly or at least non-hostile sources. How could they be bad?

Pop music teaches us that sex is fun and commitment and marriage are irrelevant.

Pop TV asks, "Why do you need to get married to have a family?"

Pop media rephrases the question from "What is marriage?" to "Marriage Equality".

Pop politics teaches us that the real solution to our problems is found in voting their way.

Pop education holds that education is king, that science is God, and that anyone who thinks differently ought not be heard at all.

Pop culture suggests that fathers are the most stupid, most evil, most redundant creatures on the planet and if we could figure out how to do without their sperm, we would do well to lose them entirely.

Unfiltered messages provided to us via our sitcoms and cop dramas, our entertainment, our musical friends and our political allies. We take them in because we don't see the threat. We don't really agree with David who wrote, "I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless" (Psa 101:3). We think Paul was a bit extreme when he suggested that we "take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). Satan a "roaring lion" (1 Peter 5:8)? Too over the top, Peter. We're in favor of our "angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14). Nor do we see the damage.

A Limited Exchange

Just about anyone who is a Christian has read about the exchange between Nicodemus and Christ in the Gospel of John. It starts out like this:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:1).

Does that opening conversation strike anyone as a bit odd? It does me.

Here's Nicodemus saying "We know you're from God because of the miracles you've done" and Jesus replies "You can't see the kingdom of God unless you're born again." Where's the connection? Where's the continuity? Was Jesus merely being obscure and random, or was there a reason that He answered Nicodemus's opening statement with that particular remark? I think that Jesus was not random or illogical, so I would want to look for that reason. I would want to make that connection because it indicates the meaning behind Jesus's words.

In this exchange, Nicodemus claims to know something: "You are a teacher come from God." It appears, then, that Jesus is letting him know at the outset that he's missing the point. "You think you see something in me, but, in truth, you're blind." It seems to me that Jesus was saying, "You're looking at things from a physical world, a world of flesh, but in order to actually see what's going on here, you need to come from the spiritual world, the world of the Spirit." Jesus says a moment later, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:5-6). He is saying, "Nicodemus, you are a teacher of the Jews and you think you understand what's going on, but you can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. You can't recognize it nor arrive at it. You're lacking a key event -- spiritual birth."

While there is no indication in this exchange that Nicodemus ever caught on, there are indications later that he did receive that "born again" event, that he did "see the kingdom of God." But the statement from Christ begs the question. If we are giving people today less than signs from heaven, if we are giving them good arguments and ardent calls and good presentations of the Gospel, and they're not yet born again, on what would we base the idea that our arguments and calls and presentations would succeed in making them see the kingdom and come to Christ? Doesn't Jesus's statement require that "born again" must precede "see the kingdom"? It seems to me that Jesus here is clearly saying that in order to truly recognize the truth of who Christ is, you must first be born again, that regeneration precedes faith.

If not, what else is Jesus saying?

Quotes on Worship

Worship is the highest act of which man is capable. It not only stretches him beyond all the limits of his finite self to affirm the divine depth of mystery and holiness in the living and eternal God, but it opens him at the deepest level of his being to an act which unites him most realistically with his fellow man. - Samuel H. Miller

The heart of the issue in worship is this: My life needs God's presence to work God's purpose in my life. - Jack Hayford

Worship is not about us and how we feel; it is about giving God the honour due to His Name. His Word, not our feelings, define that 'honour', which is due to Him. - Dean G. Thomas

Worship changes the worshiper into the image of the One worshiped. - Jack Hayford

Identification

A couple of weeks ago my son lost his wallet. He immediately set about canceling cards and ordering new ones. He had to wait for replacements, so he went to the bank to deposit his latest check and get cash. They wouldn't give it to him. You see, he had no picture ID. They wouldn't give him cash if he didn't prove who he was. Getting picture ID was a week-long wait, so the suggestion was that he'd have to go without any money at all for a week. And that wasn't going to work for him. He had no ID. He was lost. It all worked out for him, but he found out that identification is important.

In the movie, Surrogates, people live in the future in surrogate bodies, automatons controlled by the individuals. The individuals don't actually go out in the world; they live out their lives through the robots they have out there. The movie starts out with a murder of two of these surrogates, a guy and a girl making out in a back alley. When the police seek out the actual users to find out what they know, it turns out that the voluptuous blonde victim was actually an oversize male user. His surrogate identity didn't come close to matching his real identity.

A quite common concept is the notion of self-identification. We self-identify in a myriad of ways. We identify ourselves as citizens of our nation and residents of the place we live. We identify ourselves as Christians or atheists as part of our own definition. We are what we do for a living or what we like. Popular today is the self-identification of sexual attraction, as if that defines who we are. (Oddly enough, I don't know too many heterosexuals who define themselves as heterosexuals except in contradistinction to homosexuals, but there is a "gay community" of self-identified folk defined by their attraction to others of the same gender.) We have lots of ways we identify ourselves.

Like my son without picture ID, however, these identities also seem suspect. We say we are X, but does that actually define who we are? And is it accurate? Does saying, "I'm a Christian", for instance, actually mean that you are? We know that Internet identifications are highly suspect. Like the fat man in Surrogates, you never really know if the person with whom you are interacting online is a female or a male, young or old, attractive or homely. And we seem to be slipping down this path with vigor. The social network has made it perfectly acceptable to be anonymous online. Role-playing games are designed to let you self-identify as something you are not. The fantasy self of gaming and chat rooms and the popularity of the Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) playgrounds have allowed us to set aside who we really are and identify ourselves as something we are not. Perhaps its something we want to be. Perhaps it's something we wish we were. Perhaps, in the anonymity of the environment, we can indulge things we'd never do in real life. And so it goes with so much of our own self-identification.

Whatever the cause, we are in the process today of losing our wallets. We've bought the notion that you are what you desire. We've embraced the idea that you can be whatever you dream. The distance between reality and fantasy is widening thanks to the digital world in which we live. Pretty soon we will lose all sense of a real identity. Then where will we get the funds on which to live?

Truth by Consensus

Remember that little "global warming" thing? You know, the one that today drives policies and politics around the world as we seek to save the planet from mankind. The original (audible) alarm was sounded by the well-known expert, Al Gore. Yes, Al Gore ... politician, Harvard graduate with a bachelor's degree in government, didn't do well in science or math, oh, and invented the Internet. Okay, let's not get hostile. Still, the question remains, "Now how did Al Gore earn the right to warn us all about global warming?" Well, it's simple. Al Gore had a consensus of scientists, and, as everyone knows, a consensus is the same thing as the truth.

You might protest that last statement. I mean, there was a consensus among many white people that black people were inferior, and that wasn't the truth. There have been lots of consensus on things that turned out to be false. Yet, do a search on "global warming consensus" and you'll find lots of folks arguing that consensus makes it true.

The global warming controversy is not my point here. Truth by consensus is. Take, for instance, the story about the Gallup poll finding that 53% of Americans think that "same-sex marriage" is a good idea. I pointed out then that a consensus does not make a fact. Still, most people will tell you that if the majority want it, it must be. That is, "Don't bother me with truth; we're all in agreement here."

It is, I believe, an understandable position. The Internet phenomenon called "the wiki" is all the rage. A wiki is a piece of web-based software that allows users of all sorts to edit web content. The most famous is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that boasts over 3.5 million articles from 8,000 editors. "Editors" is misleading. Wikis operate on the concept of truth by consensus. If I see what I believe to be a mistake in an article, I can edit it. If someone else thinks my correction is wrong, they can edit it. Eventually articles settle into a consensus and that, in the wiki mind, constitutes truth. Truth by consensus.

By democratizing information and then using that vote as a measure of truth, we've managed to create "truth by consensus". In so doing, we've countered such values as "authority" or "expert" and bypassed such safeguards as "fact checking" and editorial control. We've created a world where "Facebook said it so it must be true." In a society whose primary reference for political perceptions is the sound bite, whose best information is derived from the commercial, and whose best source of reality is "how I feel", it is little wonder that we would surrender "truth" to "consensus". I need to point out, however, that consensus can be wrong, and I think I can get a consensus on that.

Pilate asked, "What is truth?" He asked it of the Son of God who said, "I am ... the Truth." Truth, to Christians, is God. That is, truth is defined as that which conforms to reality, and reality is defined as "How God sees things". It is not a function of consensus. Truth issues from the nature of God. It is a "top-down" truth rather than that which drifts up out of the masses. But try to put that in a wiki. Still, if you're a Christian, you would do well to keep it in mind. God's truth is all truth. Settle that and you'll be much better off; according to Jesus, you'll be free.