Asking the Right Questions

Children ask the funniest questions.

"Why is the sky blue?"

"Why doesn't the water on the bottom side of the world fall off?"

"How long can a fish hold its breath?"

"Who made God?"

"Why isn't God married?"

Despite the current culture, the media hype, and the view of so many, children are not the best source for wisdom these days. Amend that. Ever. Oh, every so often they accidently come out with something that might surprise you, but children aren't your best option for advice.

You know who else is really bad at asking reasonable questions? Dead people. Dead people do not ask good questions. And they're bad at asking good questions for the same reason that children are. They don't know what they don't know. Now, fortunately, for the most part we don't get too many of these nonsense questions from dead people. That is, not from the ones in the cemetery. On the other hand, we actually get quite a few from dead ones not in the cemetery. In fact, as it turns out, a lot of people seem to spend a lot of time answering questions from these dead people.

Who am I talking about? I'm talking about those who are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). You know, "Natural Man", the one who Paul said "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them" (1 Cor 2:14). Now, many of us spend a lot of time answering questions from these dead people.

"Who made God?"

"Is God so powerful that He could make a rock so big that He couldn't pick it up?"

"If God is so good, why is there evil?"

Now, look, some of these aren't simply stupid questions. That's not what I mean to imply. What I'm saying is that most dead people (unbelievers) don't know how to ask the right questions. "Who made God?" is pointless if you don't know God. A question about the power of God is mindless if the goal is not to be aware of the power of God. Questions about evil and God have their place, but the real question is your evil and what you need to do about it. Rarely do we hear good questions from dead people like "What must I do to be saved?" Now that is a good question!

Should we be answering these questions from skeptics and unbelievers? Sure. But don't be confused. Very few of them (biblically, zero) are asking questions to arrive at the truth about God. The human condition is not one of ignorance as much as the suppression of truth. The need is not so much the answers to philosophical questions as much as the birth of a new heart. Answering some of these questions can be helpful in pursuing the important matters. I'm not saying not to answer them. I'm just pointing out that it's easy to lose sight of the goal when you're busy explaining matters to dead people who we know cannot understand the things of God. They don't need clarification. They need Christ.

Wronged

Have you ever been wronged? Have you been falsely accused? Have you been unfairly treated? Well, welcome to the club.

Now that is an unhelpful response, isn't it? "Haven't we all?" may be true, but it doesn't make you feel any better. Being wrongfully treated is not a pleasant thing. It's not fair, it's not right, and no one likes it. "Welcome to the club" is not a suitable answer. We can do better than that!

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider Him who endured from sinners such hostility against Himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted (Heb 12:1-3).

"Consider Him who endured from sinners such hostility ..." Now there's a better answer.

The text begins with a "therefore" and refers to "so great a cloud of witnesses." Do you know who the great cloud of witnesses is? It refers to those who went before (Heb 11). Of these it says, "And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect" (Heb 11:39-40). "Did not receive what was promised." Oh, there is more. They are also described as those "of whom the world was not worthy" (Heb 11:38). These are our "cloud of witnesses." These enable us to "lay aside every weight and sin". These stand by us while we "run with endurance the race set before us."

Have you ever thought about that phrase -- "the race set before us"? What do we know about these races? Well, we know that entry was voluntary ... and that's it. The racers don't set the course. The racers don't set the goal. The racers don't make the rules. The racers simply run the course that was set for them in advance. That's the race we're running.

If the "cloud of witnesses" are an assistance to us, what is the ultimate motivator? "Looking unto Jesus." That's how you race, you know. You set aside encumbrances and concerns and problems and pains and you look toward the finish line. Jesus is "the author and finisher of our faith." He started it. He finished it. He will perfect it in us. And how does He operate as our ultimate motivator? Not only does He motivate us to run because He both started and finishes our faith, but because He "endured the cross, despising the shame." "Despising the shame." What does that mean? I mean, don't we all hate shame? Well, that's not quite the intent here. The word means "to think against" or to "disesteem". It is not so much to hate as it is to discount. It is not to "dislike intensely" as much as "to consider of no value." That's the idea. "Shame? Who cares?! That doesn't matter." And how did Jesus, our example and motivator, do that? He kept His eye on "the joy that was set before Him."

Jesus is our example. "Consider Him." Jesus endured hatred, hostility, shame. He didn't run from it. Like a lamb to a slaughter, He remained silent. He didn't protest. He didn't raise His hand and say, "Not fair!!" What else do we know about what Jesus endured? Among other things, we know this:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:27-28).

Whatever Jesus endured, it was by God's plan. He predestined it. It was by His hand. Isaiah said, "It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief" (Isa 53:10).

Have you ever been wronged? Have you ever been unfairly treated? Consider Him, Jesus, the Author and Finisher of your faith. He endured much more. He endured it for the joy set before Him. He endured it not merely at the hands of evil men, but from the hand of His Father. And while that may sound a bit unsettling, it turns out it can be the most comforting thing in the world. If we know that our Father is operating as a refiner, turning up the heat just enough to refine and not enough to harm, then it's not merely painful; it's profitable. We, too, can endure for the sake of the joy set before us. We, too, "may not grow weary or fainthearted." It is much better to be crushed in the hands of the loving Father than comfortable in the company of Satan.

There is no try

In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda delivered that memorable line. He had told Luke to do something "impossible" using the Force. Luke said, "Okay, I'll try." And Yoda answered, "No. Try not. Do ... or do not. There is no try."

It's contrary, of course, to what my junior high coach told me. "There is no 'can't'! 'Can't' means 'didn't try!" No, coach, sometimes "can't" means "don't have the ability". And Yoda is mistaken as well. Sometimes there is "try" without "do". But you get the idea. Don't approach it with a "maybe". Do it! You know ... positive thinking ... that kind of thing.

This positive thinking thing only goes so far. It's good as far as it goes. It can move you from despair to hope, from not trying to trying. It can get you past unrealistic fears and motivate you to proceed where you should. It does not, however, produce results. Take, for instance, the recent ad I saw for the Susan G. Komen 3-Day walk for the cure. What they told me was "We can cure breast cancer if we can walk 60 miles in 3 days." Well, that's a nice sentiment and it is certainly positive thinking, but walking does not cure cancer. In fact, they've had these 3-day walks for some time now and cancer has not been cured. No, curing breast cancer requires research, time, knowledge we don't yet have (which suggests that it's hard to come by) and so on. Raising money for this effort makes securing the cure more possible, but it does not cure cancer. Thus, positive thinking only works as a motivator, not as an accomplishment.

Meet God. He's the ultimate positive thinker. As we all know, God sent His Son to save the world from sin. His will, apparently, is that all should be come to repentance. He has worked hard to accomplish this goal. And if anyone would be positive, it would be the Omnipotent God. Since He works all things after the counsel of His will, this is a goal that He should reach. God is trying to save everyone. Unfortunately for Him, He didn't get Yoda's message. "No. Try not. Do ... or do not. There is no try."

Isn't this a problem for some Christians? Isn't this a conundrum? Or is this just one of those things you chalk up to cognitive dissonance and forget about it?

The Effective Warning

Near the end of the book of Acts, Luke tells the story of Paul's trip to Rome. It isn't a happy story, exactly. Paul was arrested in Jerusalem on false charges. They would have let him go, but he appealed to Caesar. So they sent him to Rome. The trip was via boat, and it wasn't a good time for a boat trip. In Acts 27, Paul gives his opinion: "Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives" (Acts 27:10). They didn't listen to him, but that's okay because it turns out that Paul was wrong. Well, he was wrong about the loss of life. During a particularly bad storm "when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days" (that's a bad storm), most everyone despaired of living. But Paul got a word from God.

"This very night there stood before me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, and he said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you.' So take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told" (Acts 27:23-25).

So there you have it. A direct promise from God. No one was going to die in this storm. How nice! Well, things didn't get better. For two weeks they endured this storm. As they neared an unknown shore, the crew decided to secretly abandon ship. They lowered the lifeboat with the pretense of setting anchors. And Paul told the centurion the strangest thing.

Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved" (Act 27:31).

Now think about that. Didn't Paul just get a visit from an angel that told him that all would be saved? What was wrong with Paul?

This is an example of an effective warning under the Sovereign hand of God. We see several things in this event. First, as it turned out, God was right. The ship was completely lost, but all hands made it to shore safely (Acts 27:43-44). The initial promise was kept. God told Paul that all would live through this and they did. Front to back, it worked.

Second, however, is the stuff in the middle. God knew the end from the beginning. God accomplished what He intended. However, in the middle God used means. What means? The sailors were planning to deviate from God's plans for them which would result in the loss of life, not God's plan or promise. So God used Paul's warning as the means to accomplish His ends. That was a very effective warning.

Now here's the question. Paul knew from God that no one would die. When he told the centurion, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved", was he telling the truth? I mean, he knew that no one would die. He knew what the outcome would be -- no one would die. Yet he warned that people would die if they deviated from the plan. Was that the truth?

Here we find the difficult dichotomy of Sovereignty and free will. I think you'd have to conclude that Paul was accurate in his warning. On the other hand, God knew in advance that the warning would be effective and the sailors wouldn't have abandoned ship after Paul warned them not to. (Well, the soldiers prevented it -- same end result.) So we see 1) free will at work (the soldiers listened to Paul and cut away the lifeboat) and 2) Sovereignty (God promised no one would die and no one died). And you see the concept of the effective warning. Here's the question (again). If God promises X and warned about not X if we deviate, is the warning genuine? Or is the warning simply effective? (Now think about that in terms of biblical statements on losing salvation ...)

A Bruised Reed

If Christianity is a true religion, there should be some telltale signs. One of those signs should be that it's not ... quite ... human. Or, more to the point, it's something beyond human. That is, if this is the truth from God, then it must be from God, not merely from Man. And, if you look very far, you'll find that it is just that.

You'll find that we are not saved by works ... but works are not unimportant. You'll find that we are to work out our salvation ... because it is God who gives us the ability and will to do so. And this passage is one of those remarkable contrasts.

"Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry out or raise His voice, Nor make His voice heard in the street. A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice" (Isa 42:1-3).

You remember this God. He's the one who says that the man who lies with a man is an abomination. He's the one who says that those caught in adultery were to be stoned at the gates. This Jesus we all know and love is the one that speaks more of eternal torment than eternal bliss. And then we read this passage. "A bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish."

There are times in which Christianity can seem like a harsh task master. "Do this! Don't do that! Watch out! There are harsh penalties for failure!" But, of course, those are aimed not at the bruised reeds. They are aimed at the "stiff-necked". They are not aimed at the repentant, but the hard-hearted. To those of you who can barely stand in the face of who you are and who Christ is, "A bruised reed He will not break." Those difficult warnings aren't aimed at those of you who with barely lit lamps. They're not about you who know that you just don't have what it takes to change the world with the message of the Gospel, but you'll do whatever you can in all your weakness. "A dimly burning wick He will not extinguish."

It is these kinds of apparent contradictions that tell me that Christianity is not a human religion, but a God thing. Now I just need to be careful myself not to break the bruised reeds or extinguish the dimly burning wicks.

Happy Anniversary, 2012

For most of you, today begins another new year. For me, it's an actual anniversary.

Nineteen years. This is our 19th anniversary today. Marrying my wife is one of those rare things you do in life that you never, ever regret. And 19 years seems both like an eternity and a mere start. When, as I am too often prone to do, I start feeling bad about myself, I simply look at my wife and realize how dearly I have been blessed. And 19 years hasn't diminished a thing. If anything, I find her more attractive, I want to spend more time with her, I love her more than the day we married.

Happy anniversary, my beloved wife. You are a sweet gift from God. I love you.

Old Year's Thoughts

If the New Year is the time for making resolutions on how to improve, I wonder if New Year's Eve wouldn't be a good time to reflect on the last year. More to the point, I wonder if, in order to make useful, profitable, and viable resolutions, it might not be a good time to reflect on ... failures. If we are going to make resolutions to improve ourselves, shouldn't we first examine our shortcomings? And, look, we all know that "confession is good for the soul" or, if you prefer, we know that the Bible commands, "Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (James 5:16). Therefore, in light of the biblical command, I'll start. You can go next.

I don't doubt that some of what I write appears to be finger-pointing. "You are doing this wrong and you need to correct that!" Some of it is actually pointed outward. The truth is that more of it is inward. I, for instance, do not have a problem with the sin of homosexual behavior. On the other hand, I can be ungrateful, unkind, combatitve, too friendly with the world, too set in my ways (as opposed to God's ways) ... lots of things I've pointed out in these articles. It's me, you see. It's me, O Lord, standing in the need of prayer.

But it's worse than that. The single command -- the big one, the one that forms all others -- is one in which I lack. I am to love God with all that I am and have and I tend to love so many other things. The ramifications are many, of course, but the most obvious is that I would also fail to love others as I should -- Command #2. It's me, O Lord, standing in the need of prayer.

I will continue to rail against the suppression of truth in ungodliness and unrighteousness. That problem rates up there with most anything else you'd care to name, a source problem. But I struggle with that problem myself. I don't tell myself the truth. I ignore the truth. Sometimes I find that I'm just way too close to the world, standing dangerously close to the warning of 1 John 2:15. Like so many, I struggle with the pain and death of the world, the sadness of those who "died too young", even the perplexity of eternal damnation. Why? Because I'm closer to the world than I am to God and His truth. Too often I am more conformed to the world than transformed in the mind.

You know, at some point I begin to realize that "a New Year's Resolution" isn't going to solve these problems. Perhaps I should just seek the Lord while He may be found. That, and walk by the Spirit, because "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-25).

Economics and Politics

Words have meanings. Sometimes, however, we lose sight of what they mean. If you're like me, sometimes we operate on what we think a word means without actually knowing what it means. As you can imagine, this might cause no end of confusion. In this time of economic unrest and political wrangling, I thought it might be a good idea to ... figure out what the terms "economic" and "political" mean. I suspect that 1) we're often operating off of what we think they mean and 2) we're wrong. I also suspect that figuring out what they really mean might help us in our current conditions and views.

The first I'll examine (simply because it fell first in the sentence above) is the concept of economics. Economics is the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind. We understand that "the economy" is "bad" and that it has something to do with money. That's only partially correct. Think about the word for a moment. When we "economize", we practice being frugal. Words you will hear in this concept is to "avoid waste" and "reduce expenditures". Why? Because we are operating on a set of limited resources. (Think about it. If you had unlimited resources, you would have no need to "economize".) Economics, then, is the management of limited resources. When I realized that, it helped me understand the concept of "the economy", an "economic crisis", and other uses of the term. We are running up against the limits of our resources. There is not an infinite amount. We can't all have everything we want. It is limited. The question then becomes, "Am I going to be satisfied with the limited amount of goods and services I have, or am I going to require someone else to be satisfied with less?" You see, all of the sudden "economics" becomes a heart problem, not a resource problem ... because resources are always limited.

Next up is "politics". We most often think about politics as something to do with partisan governmental entities. That's an extremely narrow view. Politics is the aggregate of relationships of people in society, especially those relationships involving authority or power. It is the process by which a group of people make decisions. Here, try this. What kind of politics go on in a party of one? None, right? That's because "politics" requires "group". And, of course, in any group there is a competing set of concerns, goals, and values. Thus, politics is the give-and-take, push-and-pull, of a body of people. This would, obviously, include a government (as long as that government is not a party of one). But it also includes any group dynamic. You know that it happens in churches. You know that there are "office politics". Politics occurs anywhere there is a group. (Thus, a dictator doesn't worry about politics.) So how does politics work? Well, in a group of two -- you and me -- we look at what you want in Situation X and we look at what I want in Situation X and we come to some sort of compromise. You want Y and I want W and you're bigger than me, so Y it is. Nice compromise! That's politics.

Oh, now wait a minute. Look at "economics" and now back at "politics". Do you see a parallel, a connection? Economics is the management of limited resources. Politics is the management of power. Oh, now that's interesting. So the question becomes "Am I going to look out for my own best interests or for the interests of others? Am I going to be most important, or am I going to consider others as more important than myself?" Those questions work in either the use of limited resources (economics) or the management of power (politics). I would suggest that Christians would find that answer in Philippians 2. I would also hope that you would see that both economics and politics at this point cease to be mere principles and means, but an indication of heart. The problems in both are not resolved by policy or force, but by changed hearts. And that is a job bigger than my vote or your dollar.

(Thanks, Danny.)

The Christmas Gift

Yes, I know, Christmas is over. Yes, I know, Christmas is not about "gifts". Yes, I know, this is entirely too late. And, yet, I'd beg to differ.

Everyone has heard the advertising phrase, "The gift that keeps on giving." It has been used from the early days of the Victrola through Kodak's cameras and, of course, into less savory "gifts". Well, how about this one?

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now, that is a gift that keeps on giving. It is eternal life. It is given eternally in Christ. And then you cross reference "eternal life" with Jesus's definition.

"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

Oh, now this gift gets even bigger. Not only is it life eternal, but it is an eternal relationship with God the Father and God the Son.

Now, that is a gift that keeps on giving. That is a gift that gives eternally. That is a gift you keep on getting. Well, well, I guess it's still a merry Christmas, eh?

Sovereignty and Free Will

I recently wrote about God having to "play the hand He's dealt". In that article I stood firm on God's Sovereignty. To me, God's Sovereignty is both absolutely paramount and sadly misunderstood. I'd venture to guess that I don't even understand it well enough. I'm certain that a good number of Christians have a minimalist view on the topic.

The problem with the Sovereignty (I keep using that uppercase "S" for a reason) is that many (most) believe that it makes God responsible for our problems, and that just can't be. Now, the concept of "our problems" has two sides to it. First there is the "natural" side. Those are things like illnesses or disasters, layoffs or traffic accidents, those kinds of things. "Those might be caused by God," some admit, but they aren't really comfortable with that admission. The other side is the problem of sin. If God is responsible for our problems ("Sovereign") and we have a problem of sin, then doesn't that make God responsible for our sin? And while we might be uncomfortable with allowing God to be responsible for natural problems, we cannot allow Him to be responsible for sin problems. I mean, we know "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). As the commenter in that article said,

Complete sovereignty entails complete responsibility. If scripture says that humans are miserable sinners, and if scripture also says God is absolutely sovereign over us non-sovereign sinners, then whatever we do that wins us the label “sinner” is ultimately done by God, and so He is responsible for it in the final analysis.

So we will tend to back off of Sovereignty in favor of sovereignty, and that extremely limited. It may be limited in Middle Knowledge sense where God knows "all possible worlds" and works to achieve it while being unable to do what He really wants all the way to the Open Theism sense where God cannot know what humans will choose to do, so He is really limited by Human Free Will (again, not a frivolous use of uppercase letters).

I am not here to clear it all up for you. I'm here to make a couple of suggestions. First, there is a difference between "Hard Determinism" and "Soft Determinism". These are two viewpoints out there regarding predestination. (Please note that "predestination" does not require a theistic view.) The first, also known as fatalism, is the one offered by our good commenter above. All things are caused; free will is a myth. I say that theism isn't required for this because it happens to be the view of some atheists like Richard Dawkins who argue that biology and chemistry -- materialism -- determine all our choices without our "free will" being involved. You choose what you choose because your body makes you. Of course, in a theistic fatalism, it wouldn't be your body; it would be God. In either case, this is the elimination of free will.

Soft Determinism is also called compatibilism. Compatibilism has some nuances and variations, but the basic idea is the suggestion that people could make a choice. The choice is real. Compatibilism concludes that the choice is caused by the chooser, not by an external coercion. That the choice was preknown or even influenced doesn't nullify that the choice was made without coercion. In other words, a compatibilist defines "free will" as the uncoerced freedom to act. Whether or not a person would have chosen differently in the identical situation is irrelevant as long as the person does choose. Thus, critics complain that the definition of "free will" is incorrect. "Free will", to the incompatibilist, requires genuine alternative possiblities, while the compatibilist requires only the possiblity of alternatives without them being actual. Compatibilism looks like this. I hand you a box and tell you it could or could not have a cat in it. The fact that there is only one real answer doesn't change the fact that there are two possibilities. Similarly, while you have real options, there is only one actual option you will choose. (Oh, and the other alternative to fatalism or compatibilism is indeterminism -- Human Free Will as Sovereign.)

So, the first point I would suggest is that it is possible logically and philosophically to hold to determinism (compatibilism) without eliminating free will (fatalism). The second point, however, is more important to the Christian. This point is that the Bible teaches both the absolute Sovereignty of God and free will. The biblical view is not either Divine Sovereignty or Human Free Will as we are often offered, but Sovereignty and free will -- "both/and". We know, for instance, that God claims Sovereignty for Himself both in the realm of the natural and the moral.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things" (Isa 45:6-7).

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom 9:21).

The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps (Prov 16:9).

"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" (Lam 3:37).

But it doesn't stop there. We also know that God holds His creation responsible for their choices. So while we know, for instance, that God knew Adam would sin at the beginning and that all would sin and fall short of the glory of God, we also know that He put that plan into place -- He went ahead with His project. So while we are morally responsible for our choices, we also know that "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." An absolutely clear picture of this is found in Luke 22:22. Jesus was speaking during the Last Supper: "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" Both are there. Judas's betrayal of Christ "has been determined", and he would be held responsible for his choice. Another prime example is in the Crucifixion. It is clear in Scripture that Herod and Pilate made their choices and were responsible for them. Even Pilate knew that he was convicting an innocent man and sought to distance himself from the guilt. And then we read the prayer in Acts 4 that includes this: "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28). So, which was it? Were they culpable for their choices or did they act in accordance with what God predestined? The answer is "Yes!"

I'm stuck with this position, personally. I'm stuck with it because I can't avoid it biblically. The Scriptures all point to both God's Absolute Sovereignty and Man's Moral Responsibility. The Bible embraces both God's predestination of all that occurs and Man's free will. I have to reject indeterminism because God works all things after the counsel of His will. I have to reject fatalism because God holds humans responsible for their moral choices. Fortunately for me, I like this position that holds to "both/and". I like that it is compatible with Scripture. I like that it leaves God as Sovereign. I'm not delighted with the fact that it leaves me culpable, but I have the comfort of being a forgiven child of God, so that works for me as well. You'll have to figure out your own view.

A Tragic Act of Kindness

Meet Kaley Mitchell. Kaley is a remarkable 9-year-old. For her birthday she received money. When she went to the store to buy things, she made an amazing choice. Instead of buying stuff for herself, she decided to buy toys for needy children. Quite a story, truly. Touches your heart.

In the version I saw, the talking head said, "The most amazing part of the story is that Kaley's mom received gifts the year before from the same organization that Kaley donated to this year, and Kaley didn't know it." Yes, that's quite a coincidence. To me, the most amazing part of the story was Kaley. "I thought it would be sad to get up Christmas morning and not have any gifts," she said empathetically. Then, looking completely confused, "I don't understand why Santa doesn't bring them gifts."

What a twist! Santa is a failure, so Kaley needs to step in and fix it. Either these kids were bad kids and aren't receiving gifts because they don't deserve them (and Kaley is circumventing that), or Santa is just incompetent (and Kaley is fixing that). I'm wondering, then, where it goes from there. I mean, Santa can only mess things up once a year. What about God? From Kaley's perspective (and, quite obviously, the perspective of a lot of cynics), there is a "right thing" and the powers that be (God or Santa) will not be able to do "the right thing", so we have to. This is the glorious truth that Kaley (et. al.) is learning from this wonderful story of Satan Claus. Oh, look ... I spelled that wrong, didn't I?

I think it's wonderful that a little girl thought enough of others to give her own gift opportunity to them. I think it's amazing that parents teach their kids lies like that on purpose. I think it's sad that an act of kindness can be subverted like that because of a lie like that. But, I suppose I should expect it.

Love and Respect

In summing up one of the most controversial passages in Scripture, Paul says, "Let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband" (Eph 5:33). Now, I'm not going to address the "controversy" regarding wives submitting to husbands here. (I mean, that is what it says, so what's to address?) It's this summation I'm wondering about.

Have you ever wondered why? Why did Paul focus on these two factors? Why did he tell husbands to love their wives without mentioning respect? Why did he tell wives to respect their husbands without mentioning love? I mean, it is true, for instance, that wives are to love their husbands (Titus 2:4). And husbands are to live with their wives in an understanding way and give them honor (1 Peter 3:7). So why did Paul pick these two factors for husbands and wives?

Obviously, Paul didn't tell us why. That means that you're just going to get my opinion. Take it for whatever it's worth. I think that the answer is twofold. First, these two characteristics seem to be the first to go in a marriage. Husbands tend to express less affection and wives tend to show less respect. These, then, are not natural. It is, for instance, in the nature of women to be nurturing. Loving their husbands, then, is part of their nature. You can see this in the women who love men they shouldn't. So commanding women to love their husbands could be, in a sense, like commanding them to breathe. It's generally second nature. So Paul was pressing to have wives submit when submission wasn't natural -- to respect when respect wasn't a given -- and He was urging husbands to love when love wasn't a given.

I think, however, that there was a second reason for these two characteristics. It seems to me that these are the very two items on which each gender thrives. Women typically function best when they feel secure in love. If they are confident that their husbands love them, most of the rest of life runs much more smoothly. And husbands desperately need respect -- far more than than they need to feel loved. Men need to feel significant, the upshot of respect.

Marriage is a complex relationship requiring real though rewarding work. Read through Proverbs 31:10-31 to read a biblical version of "an excellent wife". It's not simple or easy. And the biblical version of a godly husband is much tougher and complicated than most men realize. Both are roles assigned by God. Both have a host of requirements including love and respect. I would just like to urge you husbands to love your wives because love is the nutrient-enriched soil in which they grow and I would beg you wives to respect your husbands because respect is the solid footing on which they can be what God calls them to be. Or, here, let me put it this way. "Let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband." Yeah, like that.

The Real Christmas

What is Christmas really all about? It's about white. You know, "white Christmas", like the one I'm dreaming about.

Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Psa 51:7).

Yeah, white ... like snow.

Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without trees. Trees symbolize Christmas.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" (Gal 3:13).

The tree is an important component of Christmas.

It's not possible to think of Christmas without thinking of Christmas lights. They sparkle and shine and light up the darkness.

Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life" (John 8:12).

Lots of lights.

"There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man" (John 1:6-9).

Lights are a key part of Christmas.

And, as the commercials are quick to remind us from way back in October, Christmas is very much about gifts.

Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water" (John 4:10).

More gifts.

The free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many" (Rom 5:15).

Lots of gifts.

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:10).

Oh, yeah, very much about gifts.

Of course, the real reason for the season is Christ, His birth, His coming.

While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:6-7).

There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:9-13).

⁵ Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. ⁸ Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ⁹ For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, ¹⁰ so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:5-10).

Yes, that's Christmas, in the end. It's the coming of Christ, His adoration "to the glory of God the Father". It's the gift of God's Son, the gifts He gives, the Light of the World who became a curse for us on the tree so that our sins can be made white as snow. I love that Christmas. Merry Christmas to all!

The Message of Christmas

What messages do we get from Christmas? There is, I would surmise, more than one. In fact, I think there are quite a few.

There's that whole thing about the real meaning of Christmas -- Santa Claus. The biggest thing about Santa is that we know Santa is watching you ... but he doesn't really care what you do. You see, he knows if you've been bad or good, but there is no justice because bad kids certainly get good gifts. Idle threats. You deserve good things all the time.

Beyond (but certainly part of) Santa is the fundamental principle that bigger is better. A Christmas card is nice, but where's the gift? A gift is nice, but is that all you're going to give me? He/she got more than me. I deserve more.

Underlying all of this, of course, is that it's all about me. We don't (typically) teach our kids that Christmas is about giving because we don't expect kids to give. Instead, we teach them that it's about getting, and we cater to them. It's all well and good, you see, because we love our kids and want to please them. But they're take-away lesson is, "It's all about me." (Doubt that? How hard is it to teach a kid to be grateful for the gifts they get?)

More generally, one thing we can see as a fundamental truth for all of life is that colorful decorations make for cheerful people. The more colorful, the more cheerful. Lots of lights and bright colors. I think, in fact, that if we think about it we can probably see that genuine happiness comes from pretty, shiny things. I'm sure we can see that in the rest of life as well.

Now, of course, I'm being a little too simplistic (and perhaps pessimistic). Since Christmas is about so much getting, it is equally about giving. I mean, if someone gets, someone gives, right? But, given the amount of debt that people tend to go into at Christmas and the stress levels that people encounter in obtaining those gifts, I would think that another obvious message is that it is good to mandate the giving of others. I mean, look, what kind of person would not give at Christmas? Would not give whatever he/she/it wants? As much as they want? Could you really face the anger of that one that didn't receive what was demanded? Extortion works.

Of course, Christmas isn't simply about all that stuff. We're Christians. Christmas is about Christ, about our celebration of His birth. The public does not have the right to change the name to "holiday trees" or to strip "Christ" off "Christmas" and make it "Xmas" or to prevent our kids from recognizing it in school or to suggest that Christmas is about materialism. It's our holiday. We have the right to require you all to recognize our religious celebration that is not biblically commanded. That is indeed an important Christmas message.

I know, I know, that's not what Christmas is about. But it sure is hard to avoid these messages, even if they're not explicit. On the other hand, finding the real message of Christmas seems really difficult these days. It's not about being nice to people or being good or about love and joy for all. It's not about giving or even feeding the hungry. It's not about turning over a new leaf like Scrooge or the Grinch did or helping Santa keep Christmas alive. They may be good lessons, but that's not what Christmas is about. They're just trappings, decorations, sufficient amounts of wrapping to end up obscuring the real message of Christmas. The message is that God the Father, sent His only child, God the Son, to take on human form, live a perfect life, and take on God's curse on our behalf so that we can be restored to a relationship with God. Seriously, that is so much better than bright lights, cheerful songs, and an imaginary pot-bellied man with toys.

The Bible on Sex

Mark Driscoll and his wife, Grace, have just published a book entitled Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. Their goal was to help people with the seemingly endless questions Christians have about sex, friendship, and life together. One chapter is devoted to "Can we ___?", the burning question in many Christian bedrooms where believers are torn between the porn they've seen (or whatever other sources they may have for a host of bizarre sex acts) and the sense they have that the Bible is really opposed to sex. Now, not having read the book, I will make no attempt to review it. (Makes sense, I think.) But being a husband and a father and a brother in Christ and a Christian who is deeply interested in all things biblical, I thought it might be interesting to look very briefly at what the Bible does say about sex. You might be surprised.

First, let's start with the easy stuff ... the stuff that won't surprise you. Despite various sources who are trying to tell us that the Bible isn't clear on the topic, I think most can agree that there are some pretty clear guidelines in the Scriptures. Who, for instance, doesn't know the popular biblical term, "fornication"? And it doesn't even take a Christian to guess what God's view of fornication is. It's bad. Or how about adultery? Yeah, bad. Bestiality? Bad. There are some things that the Bible is not silent on in the realm of sexual relations and there is no ambiguity. Simply put, sexual relations of any kind outside of the sanction of marriage is biblically forbidden. That would include unmarried-unmarried, married-unmarried, human-animal, and, of course, same-sex. These things are explicitly stated as overt sin in the Scriptures. No surprise, right?

"Fine," you say, "but we are married. So, what does the Bible have to say about sex in marriage?"

First, despite false ideas about the Puritans and the ridiculous notions perpetrated by the likes of the Victorian Era, God is in favor of sex in marriage. I wonder how many people find that surprising. There are things in Scripture that God tolerates, like divorce or some forms of slavery. Sex is not in this list of "God tolerates". No, if you read through the Song of Solomon, for instance, you will see that it is not merely tolerated, but indulged exuberantly. It's a good thing. Beyond being a delightful gift that, from all appearances, was only given to God's human creations, it is biblically mandated. Did you get that? The Bible requires it of married people. I would guess that this one might be a bigger shock, so I might need to give you the text to show it.

¹ Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. ² But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. ³ Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵ Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor 7:1-5).

It doesn't take a scholar to see that 1) sex outside of marriage is a sin (v 1), that God endorses marriage partly because of the joy of sex (v 2), and that sexual relations between married couples is the duty of husbands and wives (v 3) (since the topic was avoiding immoralities and physical contact between males and females). Plain as day. "Stop depriving one another."

The question, then, becomes, "So ... what can we do?" Some will even cite 1 Corinthians 6:12 -- "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." "See?" they will finish, "We can do anything we want in the bedroom, right?" (where "in the bedroom" is used as a euphemism to mean "when we engage in sexual relations ... wherever that might be"). Is that true? Can we do anything? I'd be careful about that.

First, there is the obvious. The biblical requirement for moral sexual relations is that it be between a husband and a wife. Therefore, it cannot include anyone else. That should include anyone else in video (for instance). (If you need the rationale for that, ask.) So we are not free to do anything we want. And the Bible says more about it. Paul's statement is "Not all things are profitable." We ought to ask if it's profitable. Paul's statement is "I will not be mastered by anything." We ought to ask, "Will it 'enslave' us in some way?" There are things that can go on "in the bedroom" that are not profitable in any way and that could enslave you. Avoid them. Indeed, the question should not be "What can we do?", but "Why should we do that?" Profitable, you see?

The other passage carries a little more insight that I believe is seriously lost today in the Christian bedroom. Paul states, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." What does that mean? Well, as we all know, men are pigs. They want their own satisfaction and they expect their wives to give it to them. (I'm overgeneralizing; don't miss the point.) Husbands, your body is not your own. Your purpose in the bedroom is to please your wife with your body, not acquire your own pleasure. That is a mistake. And we're all aware of that to an extent. But notice that Paul didn't start there. "The wife does not have authority over her own body." This is a biblical mandate for wives to use their bodies in ways to bring pleasure to their husbands. So while it is wrong for Christian husbands to approach the bedroom expecting pleasure from their wives, it is wrong for wives to withhold it from their husbands.

So, let's see where we are. God forbids sex outside of marriage. Of course, we all knew that, didn't we? I mean, sure, society finds it acceptable, even recommended, but Scripture says something different. On the other hand, God celebrates sex inside of marriage. It is a gift of God, even commanded. Each is required to give himself or herself to the pleasure of his or her spouse. And, really, when you think about it, isn't that really the best way? See? The Bible isn't as much of a killjoy as you might have thought.

Solving Problems

Good news! Unemployment is dropping! Well, that's what they said. Of course, figuring out exactly what "unemployment rates" are is really tricky because you have to figure out who the employed are, who the unemployed are, who is in the labor force, and who doesn't count. I mean, clearly your 10-year-old is not employed, but also not counted in the unemployment figures, right? And that was an easy one. And, of course, actually getting the data is not easy, either. It's not a hard number. It's a survey the government uses of about 60,000 households from which they derive their numbers for "employed", "unemployed", and "not in the labor force". Very tricky stuff.

But, hey, the government is going to fix that for you. Don't you worry about it. The current president or the next one is going to get right on that. Because, you see, it's one of our biggest concerns these days and so they need to get that moving. Have you ever asked yourself how, exactly, they would do that? You see, it's far more complicated to create jobs than it is to calculate unemployment rates. That's because employment is a complicated thing.

What causes unemployment? "Job losses, dummy" might be the snarky reply, but hang on. What causes job losses? Job losses in the private sector occur when companies aren't making enough money to employ people. And what causes that? Well, the demand for their product drops off. And what causes that? Oh, that's a tough one. Look at this latest crisis.

We have the housing crash where lenders loaned money stupidly. No, not merely ignorantly or unwisely. It was plain stupid. Lend it to people who cannot pay it back and guess what happened? They couldn't pay it back! Go figure! Now the lenders are in trouble. Wall Street bankers don't help. There is a scare, the government jumps in with a "rescue plan", and what happens? People realize there is a problem and stop buying. Well, of course, there were already problems with products like American automobiles. So they had to be bailed out, too. And now the public is more frightened. Buying drops off. As demand for goods drops, jobs begin to shed. As jobs begin to shed, the public gets more frightened. Well, you see where this is going, and it's not good. And it's not even that simple. There is the problem of minimum wage. A company will pay to hire someone to do a job that is worth X, and if X is less than the minimum wage, that job won't exist. There is the cost of taxes, where employers have to decide whether hiring people is worth the taxes they have to pay to do it. There are all the regulations and licensing laws added to the cost of business, money that can go to an employee ... or not. The more employees, the more regulations. Thus, limiting the number of employees can save a company money. And, of course, there is the problem of "corporate greed". No, not that evil kind. The normal kind. Any business at all is in business to make money. No profit, no business. No business, no jobs. It's that simple.

The problem, then, is much larger than a bailout. It's much larger than stupid banks or government taxes or Wall Street big wigs. It's a human problem. It includes fear and greed, want and need, regulation and deregulation, wise practices and self-centered efforts. It's about the need for income versus the attitude of entitlement. And this is where the bad news is found. The way to fix the economy, you see, is to change the hearts of the people. The way to solve this mess is to stop theft, eliminate greed, and correct self-centeredness. How much money, for instance, would go back into the economy if doctor's weren't required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in malpractice insurance? Why do they pay so much? Two reasons. On one hand there are greedy doctors without conscience who don't do their jobs right. On the other hand there are greedy patients or their surrogates who believe they have the right to perfection or payment. People. That's the problem.

I hate to break it to you, but a Republican president will not be able to solve this problem. The problem is not a government problem. It's a people problem. Changed hearts. That's what's necessary. Changed lives. That's the solution. And the government is not in the business of changing hearts. The good news is that we know Who is. I would think that we'd want to be putting more effort into that solution. That one is an eternal solution.

Harmony

The dictionary defines "harmony" as "a consistent, orderly, or pleasing arrangement of parts". That probably is as good of a definition as any. Whether the parts are musical notes or various people, it is when these parts are structured in an orderly, pleasing arrangement that we call it "harmony".

There is a fairly recent addition to the contest shows that are so popular these days like American Idol and the like. The show, The Sing Off, is a music competition, just like that other one, but it has a couple of different components that make it interesting. First, it is not a competition between individual singers, but a competition between singing groups. Second, it is a cappella. That's right. No instruments, musicians, or bands. It is just a group of people using their own voices. And since I like music and I like a cappella music, I have enjoyed some of what has come out of that competition. The competition is about ... harmony.

It's interesting, when you think about it, what harmony requires to exist. First, harmony is not unison. Harmony is not "everyone doing the same thing". In fact, if everyone is doing the same thing, it is not harmony. On the other hand, harmony is not everyone doing their own thing, either. That wouldn't work. No, the parts of harmony are doing something different, yet they are working on the same thing toward the same goal. That is harmony.

When you think of a choir (which uses harmony to obtain its effect), it expands the concept a little. I mean, sure, you can have a barbershop quartet and each person sings their own part, but when a choir sings, it takes on a different sound. You might have the same four parts, but you have a group of people singing in unison on each part. The effect of this unison, however, is not sameness, but richness. That's because, while each voice is singing the same note, the tone quality of each voice varies and the result is a harmony of tone qualities around a harmony of parts.

In The Sing Off recently there was one group that was formed just for the competition. They gathered several solo singers together to form this a cappella group. It was interesting how difficult it was for them to do their job. Why? Well, in order for there to be harmony, there is one other key component required. For harmony to exist, the participants must not be interested primarily in their own glory. In a good harmony, you might hear various parts, but sometimes you're wondering, "So, who is that voice?" because good harmony is not about the individual. It's about the group. It won't work when the individuals are all aiming at being heard above the rest. It's called "blending", and it's key to good harmony.

Harmony, then, acts as a wonderful lesson in Christian living. We are not called to be the same. We are each given our own tasks to perform. Neither are we to operate in a vacuum. We are part of a whole, working toward a common goal. You know, kind of like a body. Sometimes we work with others on the same tasks. Sometimes we work alone. Always we are arranged in an "orderly, pleasing arrangement". And it's not about us. It's about the whole, the group, the overall effort, and, ultimately, about the One for whom and through whom we work. "To sum up," Peter writes, "let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit" (1 Peter 3:8).

The Birthday Party

Some of my closest friends came by one day and told me, "We've decided to celebrate your birthday." I was a bit baffled for the moment, but they explained further. "Well, you never told us when your birthday actually was, but we are very grateful for your friendship. Therefore, we've agreed -- your friends -- to mark May 3rd as your birthday and celebrate your arrival on this planet. We'd love it if you came."

Well, I was touched, really. It was such a kind gesture. Such a warm sentiment. So I arrived on May 3rd as previously arranged. Several people noticed me and wished me a happy birthday. Most were caught up in the experience, but that was okay. It was really quite a crowd, and that indeed seemed like a real statement of gratitude. They had some good food and a nice cake (no candles) and they sang some songs and then came the gifts. I looked around the room and it looked like just about everyone was holding something. "Oh, my," I thought, "this is amazing." I had no idea just how amazing it was. One by one they came up with their gifts ... and handed them to one another. "We do this in remembrance of your birthday," they told me warmly.

This went on for a few years. I was torn between being flattered that they would gather every year just for my birthday and being confused about the gifts they gave each other without a single though to me. But, okay, that was how they chose to do it. Fine. It wasn't my celebration; it was theirs. They liked party hats, so party hats became part of the event. A bunch of them enjoyed horses, and horses liked sugar cubes and apples, so sugar cubes and apples became part of the event. An extremely popular fictional character on a TV show loved balloons at his birthday, so they became part of the event. Eventually, they couldn't even imagine my birthday celebration without sugar cubes and balloons, even though I've never expressed favor for any of it. It was their celebration.

One year, however, I invited them all to my house on May 3rd. "Hey, everyone," I said, "why not come over to my house? I have the room. I'm naturally there. Seems like it would be a natural place to celebrate my birthday." Well, they hemmed and hawed. Several said they'd come, but most kicked at the ground a bit and complained that if they came to my house, they wouldn't be able to meet with their friends and family. No, it would be better if they celebrated where they wished because, after all, getting together with friends and family and exchanging gifts like that was really what celebrating my birthday was all about, wasn't it?

You know, it has been years and I still haven't figured out this "birthday celebration" thing yet. It gets more and more elaborate. Sometimes I don't bother showing up at all. Doesn't seem to disturb them, though. They still say, "Happy Birthday!" to each other and give each other nice things. I frankly don't get it.

God is Dead

The story is told of a pastor who was in a deep depression for days over a difficult circumstance in his life. Finally his wife went into her room and came out in funeral attire.

"Are you going to a funeral?" he asked.

"I'm in mourning," she answered.

"Who died?" he asked.

"God is dead," she replied.

"No, He's not! Don't be ridiculous!" the pastor asserted.

"Well," she said, "I know that but you don't appear to, so I thought I'd mourn with you."

He got the point.

Worship as a Gift

I love my wife. She may not be "God's gift to mankind", but there is no doubt that she is God's gift to me. She is suited to me. We talk about just about everything, enjoy each other's company, share with each other, appreciate each other. We don't seem to suffer from the same maladies that so many others endure like conflict over finances or sex. We are just right for each other. I love her dearly.

Sometimes when I'm away from her I'll find myself pining for her. Perhaps that's not the right word, but that's how it feels. I long to be with her. I just want to be in her presence. I want to touch her hand and tell her that I love her. It engrosses my thoughts, almost mandating that I do so. You see, my love for my wife is not complete, not fulfilled, until it is expressed. I need to let her know that I love her to satisfy a necessary part of my love for her. And it's not that she doesn't know if I don't tell her or show her. It's not "news". It is something in me that requires it. I have to tell her.

God demands that His creation praise Him. To many, that sounds like egomania. Even believers sometimes struggle with this idea that God demands worship. At least we, as believers, do worship Him, but there can be this nagging question in the back of our heads, "Why does God demand worship? Isn't it some sort of megalomania? Is God really the ultimate egomaniac?" According to the dictionary, megalomania is a mental illness marked by delusions of grandeur. Egomania is an obsessive love for oneself and regard for one's own needs. God, then, cannot be a megalomaniac because, well, His grandeur is no delusion. He is an egomaniac in a sense because His love for Himself is well documented. That is, God is indeed self-centered because He is the center of all that is. We are not, so we must not be. He is, so He must be. We are to be God-centered because He is the center. So in Him and in Him alone is egomania accurate and correct.

But I don't think that's the end of the story. If we are His creatures created to bring Him glory, then isn't it in our best interest that we ... bring Him glory? If He is rightly God-centered, ought not we also to be God-centered? And if, as in the example of loving my wife, I am not fully satisfied until I express my love, is it not in my best interest to do so? As such, isn't our act of worship, commanded by God, an act of satisfaction for us? Isn't that command, then, a loving command to give us the best? Doesn't that make the worship of God a gift to us as well as to Him? Well, I'll tell you what. Try that out in church today. See if worshiping God doesn't bring you a deep sense of joy. Then you think about these questions.