If I am a patriot, politically active, working hard to bring up good leadership and policies and bring down bad ones and have not love, I'm just a political activist. If I spend my time fighting for key social issues and campaigning for the marginalized, and if I boldly fight racism and sexism and hate and microaggression and do not have love, I am merely a clanging bell, an irritant for my world.
If I am a diligent parent, working hard to bring my kids up to be responsible adults, to work hard, to be reliable, and have not love, I am a nag and an overlord. If I treat my spouse well, doing the right things, helping out around the house, giving nice gifts on birthdays and anniversaries, and yet do not love, I arrive only at "manipulative" and self-serving rather than "a good spouse".
If I go to church every week and give of my time and money and read my Bible and know all the right doctrines and do not have love, I am a deceived religionist, counting on religion rather than Christ. If I stand up against "gay marriage" and homosexual behavior and other sexual immorality and the seeping of the world into the church and the flesh into Christendom and have not love, I am a Pharisee of the highest order.
Since the command is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37) and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:39) and the aim of our instruction is love (1 Tim 1:5) and the fruit of the Spirit is love (Gal 5:22), any of the "good" that we do that does not include the underlying motive of love for God and His creatures is a waste ... at best.
Thursday, July 06, 2017
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
The Donkey in the Room
We continue to haggle over the Russian hacking of last year's presidential election. By that we do not mean that the Russians hacked into the voting system and modified the actual votes cast or any such thing. Not at all. No such allegation. The "hacking of the election" refers instead to an apparent work by Russians to hack into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and obtain nearly 20,000 emails including some 891 documents and 175 spreadsheets giving information about what the DNC was up to. They released that information through WikiLeaks ... and "the crowd went wild".
What did the hack reveal? It revealed efforts by the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to scuttle Bernie Sanders' campaign and forward Hillary Clinton's. She was forced to resign. There were racist comments, efforts to release false information about Trump, attempts to manipulate the media, efforts toward manufacturing fake protests against the RNC, assaults on Sanders' religion (a Jewish atheist, apparently), collusion with the media (where, for instance, a Politico writer cleared his stories with the DNC before he sent them to his editor), that kind of stuff. It's all pretty seedy although, perhaps, not particular surprising. I mean, it seems like this would be "business as usual" for a lot of campaigns, except, of course, for the "let's shoot down this candidate of ours for that one" thing. That one kind of makes the "Democrats" and "democracy" as distant relations.
Well, of course, none of this will fly. We will not have some foreign government muddling about in our elections. We will find out who did the hack and for whom even if we have to make it up. Heads will roll ... and with any luck, it will be the president's head first ... even though so far no facts have suggested any connection between President Trump himself and the Russians.
Perhaps the Russians did do it. In fact, they apparently hacked the RNC as well. No one is in a snit over that. So everyone is in an uproar over the Russians "hacking our election" by which we mean "the Russians illegally obtained information that made the DNC look bad." I mean, you all know that "interfering with elections" is the norm, right? Government authorities comment all the time about elections in other countries. "We want this guy elected; we don't want that one." "Hey, don't vote for Brexit; it won't do the rest of us any good." That kind of thing. Public figures not part of the election process urging voters to vote the way the public figures want them to -- normal. So it was the releasing of "private information" that was upsetting and we're going to have to hurt someone over that.
Here's the thing that really nags at me, though. While I understand that we're upset that a foreign government illegally obtained and released private information, it appears that the complaint is that they did it and not that the information was false. We are more upset that the information was released; no one is denying that the information is true. "They told everyone" is more upsetting than "The DNC is evil and underhanded in its dealings with its own people and with us." Racist, sexist, even "homophobic" comments from the DNC are not an issue; they're only relevant to the public if they're from the RNC, apparently. So, completely ignoring the elephant in the room (or would it be the donkey?), we are so focused on "those bad Russians" and, obviously, the Republicans that obtained their help (which, again, hasn't been shown) that we're ignoring the facts that no one is refuting. We are so ignoring those facts that it will likely arrive at the point that we will deny them entirely before this is over and focus solely on the messenger, not the message.
We live in an age when "I decide what gender I am and you have no right to use science or anything else to disagree" right alongside "I decide which race you are and you must submit to science or whatever else I choose to use." We live in an age when words don't mean much anymore. They only mean what we decide they mean at the moment we decide and don't you dare conclude otherwise. We live in an age where "fake news" is bad when it's news we don't like and good when it's news we like but never simply bad because it's fake. So why would I be surprised that the country in general and the DNC in particular would ignore the facts that the Democratic National Committee is underhanded and devious and not to be trusted while demanding justice for currently unsubstantiated accusations of Russian hacking and the Republican party? I shouldn't. Doesn't mean I'm not disappointed, though. I'd prefer a world where truth and reason ruled rather than what we have now.
What did the hack reveal? It revealed efforts by the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to scuttle Bernie Sanders' campaign and forward Hillary Clinton's. She was forced to resign. There were racist comments, efforts to release false information about Trump, attempts to manipulate the media, efforts toward manufacturing fake protests against the RNC, assaults on Sanders' religion (a Jewish atheist, apparently), collusion with the media (where, for instance, a Politico writer cleared his stories with the DNC before he sent them to his editor), that kind of stuff. It's all pretty seedy although, perhaps, not particular surprising. I mean, it seems like this would be "business as usual" for a lot of campaigns, except, of course, for the "let's shoot down this candidate of ours for that one" thing. That one kind of makes the "Democrats" and "democracy" as distant relations.
Well, of course, none of this will fly. We will not have some foreign government muddling about in our elections. We will find out who did the hack and for whom even if we have to make it up. Heads will roll ... and with any luck, it will be the president's head first ... even though so far no facts have suggested any connection between President Trump himself and the Russians.
Perhaps the Russians did do it. In fact, they apparently hacked the RNC as well. No one is in a snit over that. So everyone is in an uproar over the Russians "hacking our election" by which we mean "the Russians illegally obtained information that made the DNC look bad." I mean, you all know that "interfering with elections" is the norm, right? Government authorities comment all the time about elections in other countries. "We want this guy elected; we don't want that one." "Hey, don't vote for Brexit; it won't do the rest of us any good." That kind of thing. Public figures not part of the election process urging voters to vote the way the public figures want them to -- normal. So it was the releasing of "private information" that was upsetting and we're going to have to hurt someone over that.
Here's the thing that really nags at me, though. While I understand that we're upset that a foreign government illegally obtained and released private information, it appears that the complaint is that they did it and not that the information was false. We are more upset that the information was released; no one is denying that the information is true. "They told everyone" is more upsetting than "The DNC is evil and underhanded in its dealings with its own people and with us." Racist, sexist, even "homophobic" comments from the DNC are not an issue; they're only relevant to the public if they're from the RNC, apparently. So, completely ignoring the elephant in the room (or would it be the donkey?), we are so focused on "those bad Russians" and, obviously, the Republicans that obtained their help (which, again, hasn't been shown) that we're ignoring the facts that no one is refuting. We are so ignoring those facts that it will likely arrive at the point that we will deny them entirely before this is over and focus solely on the messenger, not the message.
We live in an age when "I decide what gender I am and you have no right to use science or anything else to disagree" right alongside "I decide which race you are and you must submit to science or whatever else I choose to use." We live in an age when words don't mean much anymore. They only mean what we decide they mean at the moment we decide and don't you dare conclude otherwise. We live in an age where "fake news" is bad when it's news we don't like and good when it's news we like but never simply bad because it's fake. So why would I be surprised that the country in general and the DNC in particular would ignore the facts that the Democratic National Committee is underhanded and devious and not to be trusted while demanding justice for currently unsubstantiated accusations of Russian hacking and the Republican party? I shouldn't. Doesn't mean I'm not disappointed, though. I'd prefer a world where truth and reason ruled rather than what we have now.
Tuesday, July 04, 2017
New History
In George Orwell's 1984 the main character, Winston Smith, worked for the Ministry of Truth, the government organization that was constantly in the job of rewriting history in order to control people and thought. One of the Party slogans was, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The Ministry of Truth controlled the past (and, therefore, the present and future) by rewriting it. Turns out, it's not as much of a fiction as we might think. Rewriting history has become more common these days. Some try to tell us the Holocaust never happened. These days people are outraged with Christopher Columbus the conquering warrior seeking riches in India because they've been lied to about Christopher Columbus the missionary. Some are working hard to tell us that America is and has always been a horrible country. There appears to be a concerted effort to rewrite history in order to control people. Like American history.
The Mayflower Compact was the defining document for William Bradford and the Pilgrims as they came into their new land. Written to avoid factions and promote unity, they spoke of their loyalty to the king and indicated their purpose in coming to this new land: "for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country." In fact, most of the early settlers of America were Christians either running from persecution or running toward the "advancement of the Christian faith", viewing America as a mission field. It should come as no surprise, then, that America's roots are deeply Christian.
According to ushistory.org, George Washington's Farewell Address "definitely embodies the core beliefs that Washington hoped would continue to guide the nation." Washington, an Episcopal vestryman, said in that address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports1. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens." He went on to say, "Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Washington was not alone. Many of the Founding Fathers understood good government to be at the top of a pyramid whose base was first religion (and they always meant the Christian religion) that informed morality. Freedom itself was dependent on this base.
Most history scholars believe that the prototype for the U.S. Constitution was the original Connecticut Constitution, known as "The Fundamental Orders." Put in place in 1638 (1639 by today's calendars), the document was the first western-written constitution for establishing their government. It begins this way:
In Isaiah we read, "For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us. " (Isa 33:22) The Founding Fathers believed this to be an explanation of the key components of government -- judicial, legislative, and executive. They believed that the only right way to run a country was the Christian way. They believed that the only way for a country to survive was if its people had a heart for God -- an internal morality predicated on the Word of God. They believed that the only proper education included Christian teaching. (Did you know that Harvard University's original motto was "Veritas Christo Ecclesiae" -- "Truth for Christ and the Church"?) They believed that the farther we got from this religious/moral basis, the less freedoms could be maintained and the more control the government would need to exert.
I would conclude, then, two things. First, we've been lied to by sources intending to control the present by rewriting the past. These are not sources of good. Second, current events seem to be bearing out the claims and fears of our Founding Fathers. We've jettisoned Christianity from the center, removing it as our primary source of morality, leaving us with waning and purely relative moral values, requiring more laws and bigger government until our freedoms are all but gone. Neither of my conclusions are happy thoughts.
________
The Mayflower Compact was the defining document for William Bradford and the Pilgrims as they came into their new land. Written to avoid factions and promote unity, they spoke of their loyalty to the king and indicated their purpose in coming to this new land: "for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country." In fact, most of the early settlers of America were Christians either running from persecution or running toward the "advancement of the Christian faith", viewing America as a mission field. It should come as no surprise, then, that America's roots are deeply Christian.
According to ushistory.org, George Washington's Farewell Address "definitely embodies the core beliefs that Washington hoped would continue to guide the nation." Washington, an Episcopal vestryman, said in that address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports1. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens." He went on to say, "Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Washington was not alone. Many of the Founding Fathers understood good government to be at the top of a pyramid whose base was first religion (and they always meant the Christian religion) that informed morality. Freedom itself was dependent on this base.
Most history scholars believe that the prototype for the U.S. Constitution was the original Connecticut Constitution, known as "The Fundamental Orders." Put in place in 1638 (1639 by today's calendars), the document was the first western-written constitution for establishing their government. It begins this way:
For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:Heavy on the "Almighty God", "his divine providence", and even "the word of God".
In Isaiah we read, "For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us. " (Isa 33:22) The Founding Fathers believed this to be an explanation of the key components of government -- judicial, legislative, and executive. They believed that the only right way to run a country was the Christian way. They believed that the only way for a country to survive was if its people had a heart for God -- an internal morality predicated on the Word of God. They believed that the only proper education included Christian teaching. (Did you know that Harvard University's original motto was "Veritas Christo Ecclesiae" -- "Truth for Christ and the Church"?) They believed that the farther we got from this religious/moral basis, the less freedoms could be maintained and the more control the government would need to exert.
I would conclude, then, two things. First, we've been lied to by sources intending to control the present by rewriting the past. These are not sources of good. Second, current events seem to be bearing out the claims and fears of our Founding Fathers. We've jettisoned Christianity from the center, removing it as our primary source of morality, leaving us with waning and purely relative moral values, requiring more laws and bigger government until our freedoms are all but gone. Neither of my conclusions are happy thoughts.
________
1 Interesting sidenote. When the nation's founding fathers referred to the word "religion" they had only one religion in mind -- Christianity. They recognized others. They spoke about "the Mohammedans" and such, but when it came to religion driving morality, they referred exclusively to Christianity. This was true of all of them. It didn't matter if they were Christian or deist or atheist. In reference to the sole valid basis for morality, they saw religion, whether or not they agreed with that religion, as the only valid source and the only valid source religion as Christianity.
Monday, July 03, 2017
Not What You Want
I saw a young man the other day with a t-shirt that said, "Only God can judge me."
I couldn't help it. I thought of Jesus's words. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)
Now, maybe that makes someone feel better, but I don't think that's what's in mind with that saying. I'm not at all sure that any of us want God's judgment. Better think again.
I couldn't help it. I thought of Jesus's words. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)
Now, maybe that makes someone feel better, but I don't think that's what's in mind with that saying. I'm not at all sure that any of us want God's judgment. Better think again.
Sunday, July 02, 2017
What Do You Really Believe?
There are some marvelous promises for God's people in God's Word.
The question, of course, is, despite all the fawning we might do over them, do we really believe them? You see, if it is true that what we truly believe is displayed in what we actually do, there is a problem here. I mean, we gladly quote and claim that He is greater than the world, and yet we muddle about in the world with anxiety and depression and fear. We boldly sing, "If God is for us, who can be against us?", but we could easily make a list of people and things to answer that question. And, truly, while we love the promise that He will provide if we seek His kingdom, we're still seeking to provide for ourselves in case He doesn't. "We'll get to seeking the kingdom, Lord, when we get a break from making sure we're properly supplied."
Jesus followed up that last promise about "all these things will be added to you" with "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matt 6:34) What, then, are you going to believe? What, then, are you going to do? Will you praise and worship God on Sunday and worry and work the rest of the week to make up for any feared deficiency in God's ability or willingness to provide what He promises? Or will you "overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37)? We like those kinds of promises, but what do we really believe?
Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4)We love promises like these. We really do. We write songs about them. We put them on plaques to hang in our houses. We put them on t-shirts. Really, really great promises.
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? (Rom 8:31)
"Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (Matt 6:33)
The question, of course, is, despite all the fawning we might do over them, do we really believe them? You see, if it is true that what we truly believe is displayed in what we actually do, there is a problem here. I mean, we gladly quote and claim that He is greater than the world, and yet we muddle about in the world with anxiety and depression and fear. We boldly sing, "If God is for us, who can be against us?", but we could easily make a list of people and things to answer that question. And, truly, while we love the promise that He will provide if we seek His kingdom, we're still seeking to provide for ourselves in case He doesn't. "We'll get to seeking the kingdom, Lord, when we get a break from making sure we're properly supplied."
Jesus followed up that last promise about "all these things will be added to you" with "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matt 6:34) What, then, are you going to believe? What, then, are you going to do? Will you praise and worship God on Sunday and worry and work the rest of the week to make up for any feared deficiency in God's ability or willingness to provide what He promises? Or will you "overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37)? We like those kinds of promises, but what do we really believe?
Saturday, July 01, 2017
News Weakly - 7/1/2017
Makes Sense to Me
Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven told SVF that no priests in the church in Sweden should be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples. In his view, if they won't do that, they shouldn't be ordained. He compared it to midwives who refuse to perform abortions. Same thing. Now ... let's see ... killing babies is the same thing as killing marriage. Well, okay, I can sort of see it. That it's a good thing? Oh, no. But you Christians in Sweden ought to be aware. "Religious freedom" is not something that your prime minister favors. And it's not just Sweden.
Yes, this is what we were warning would happen
Given Target's firm "If you think you're a girl you get to go in the girl's rooms" policy, we warned that this would happen. The news is reporting that a woman reported that she was photographed in the ladies' dressing room by a man pushing a stroller. True to Target's policies, no one stopped to help.
This Could Get Interesting
The Supreme Court, after refusing in the past to hear such cases, has decided to hear the appeal of the case of the Christian baker in Denver who stood on his First Amendment right to free expression of religion not to be forced to make a cake for a gay mirage1. He doesn't work on Sundays, won't make Halloween cakes, and won't make cakes with alcohol, all on the basis of his religious views. For none of that has anyone declared him discriminatory or culpable. Now he is. Odd, to me, is that the "American Civil Liberties Union" is working so hard to remove this man's First-Amendment-assured civil rights, but, hey, that's not how they see it, is it? No, they're working on new ones these days -- the right to free sexual expression ... right there in the ... oh, wait ... what Amendment covers that? Oh, yeah, the Amendment of "the Tide of Public Opinion".
Another One Bites the Dust
Due to the supreme tolerance and open-mindedness of the secular folk in the so-called "Bible Belt", a privately-funded Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Arkansas state Capitol was run down less than 24 hours after its unveiling. A 32-year-old man drove his car into it. The ACLU was suing to have it removed and the "Arkansas Society of Freethinkers" (who are not, apparently, free to think that it might be a good thing to honor "the historical moral foundation of law") objected strongly, but, it's all over for now. Haters 1, Morals 0.
________
Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven told SVF that no priests in the church in Sweden should be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples. In his view, if they won't do that, they shouldn't be ordained. He compared it to midwives who refuse to perform abortions. Same thing. Now ... let's see ... killing babies is the same thing as killing marriage. Well, okay, I can sort of see it. That it's a good thing? Oh, no. But you Christians in Sweden ought to be aware. "Religious freedom" is not something that your prime minister favors. And it's not just Sweden.
Yes, this is what we were warning would happen
Given Target's firm "If you think you're a girl you get to go in the girl's rooms" policy, we warned that this would happen. The news is reporting that a woman reported that she was photographed in the ladies' dressing room by a man pushing a stroller. True to Target's policies, no one stopped to help.
This Could Get Interesting
The Supreme Court, after refusing in the past to hear such cases, has decided to hear the appeal of the case of the Christian baker in Denver who stood on his First Amendment right to free expression of religion not to be forced to make a cake for a gay mirage1. He doesn't work on Sundays, won't make Halloween cakes, and won't make cakes with alcohol, all on the basis of his religious views. For none of that has anyone declared him discriminatory or culpable. Now he is. Odd, to me, is that the "American Civil Liberties Union" is working so hard to remove this man's First-Amendment-assured civil rights, but, hey, that's not how they see it, is it? No, they're working on new ones these days -- the right to free sexual expression ... right there in the ... oh, wait ... what Amendment covers that? Oh, yeah, the Amendment of "the Tide of Public Opinion".
Another One Bites the Dust
Due to the supreme tolerance and open-mindedness of the secular folk in the so-called "Bible Belt", a privately-funded Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Arkansas state Capitol was run down less than 24 hours after its unveiling. A 32-year-old man drove his car into it. The ACLU was suing to have it removed and the "Arkansas Society of Freethinkers" (who are not, apparently, free to think that it might be a good thing to honor "the historical moral foundation of law") objected strongly, but, it's all over for now. Haters 1, Morals 0.
________
1 I am not trying to be unkind with the use of the term "gay mirage". I need to continually point out that there is a fundamental difference between "marriage" and what we are calling "marriage" when we put the term "same-sex", "homosexual", or "gay" in front of it. I am not objecting to it on moral grounds. I am objecting because they're not the same thing, and I use "mirage" in its place to call that to your attention.
Friday, June 30, 2017
God Feeds Them
In a recent discussion about the healthcare problem, we ended up in a discussion about ambition and contentment. I just wanted to know how to correlate the American mindset of "got to have things" (whether it's "exorbitant amounts" or just "socially secure") with the biblical context of "contentment" (Phil 4:11) and anti-greed (Col 3:5). I thought I could just leave it at that. Not a lot of answers, but ...
And then I came across this from Jesus in my reading.
You see, I'm not seeking this stuff out. I'm not obsessing here. This is just in my daily reading of Scripture. It's hard to avoid when Jesus really lays it on.
Given this rather wordy and yet completely clear instruction from Christ, what, then, do we do? I mean, sure, we are commanded to work, to earn a living (e.g., Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:10). But are we working to provide for our family, or are we working for something else? How do we put "being prepared for financial difficulties" alongside "life is more than food, and the body more than clothing" and "why are you anxious about the rest?"? How do we put being diligent to make a good living next to "Do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried"? How do we correlate the American Dream with this kind of instruction from our Lord?
Still not clear on this. Not at all. Because it looks like American Christians and, therefore, American Christianity are way off the mark in this regard. And that bothers me.
And then I came across this from Jesus in my reading.
He said to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12:15)"Oh, that doesn't seem too bad," you might think. Although for most of us "covetousness" is our default. We have to have what they have. We have to "keep up with the Joneses". We have to bring down the "1%" because, if we were honest, we want what they have. I remember one of my teenagers asking for a pair of expensive tennis shoes. "Oh," I asked, "what will they do for you? Will they make you run faster or jump higher or something?" "No," he admitted. "So why do you want them?" "Because," he grinned, "they're cool." Covetousness.
You see, I'm not seeking this stuff out. I'm not obsessing here. This is just in my daily reading of Scripture. It's hard to avoid when Jesus really lays it on.
Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:22-34)Wow! Oh, sure, it is a lot of words, but He lays it all out so clearly. God takes care of His own, so why should you be anxious about anything? Conversely, you don't have the power to add an hour to your life, so why worry? God takes care of grass; He can surely take care of you. He knows (better than you do) what you need and will provide.
Given this rather wordy and yet completely clear instruction from Christ, what, then, do we do? I mean, sure, we are commanded to work, to earn a living (e.g., Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:10). But are we working to provide for our family, or are we working for something else? How do we put "being prepared for financial difficulties" alongside "life is more than food, and the body more than clothing" and "why are you anxious about the rest?"? How do we put being diligent to make a good living next to "Do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried"? How do we correlate the American Dream with this kind of instruction from our Lord?
Still not clear on this. Not at all. Because it looks like American Christians and, therefore, American Christianity are way off the mark in this regard. And that bothers me.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Made to Worship
I would argue that one of the universal components for the human design is the drive to worship. We were made to worship.
Now, remember, "worship" is defined as basically "worth-ship", assigning great value to something. That which we worship, then, would be the things to which we assign the highest value. And since we are all about assigning value to things, we appear to be born to it. So, we worship lots of things. We worship cars and money, fame and power, "stuff", even "patriotism". We worship people, too. That might be our favorite politician, our favorite entertainment personality, our favorite sports star, or our favorite pastor. It might even be our spouse ... or our kids.
We are in the habit of putting something at the highest value, you see. Most often, of course, that would be "me". We worship self. Starting from the Garden, when Satan told Eve, "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God." (Gen 3:5) That's it, isn't it? "I will make myself like the Most High." (Isa 14:14) I will be my very own God. Second to that, I suppose, would be the "god in my image" version of God.
We weren't made for that, however. Scripture tells us "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Rom 1:19-20) We were made to worship, and we were made specifically to worship God. Not "god to me" or "whatever I deem to be god". The God revealed in nature and in Scripture; the real God.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that people worship so many strange things. Maybe it's stuff. Maybe it's sex. Maybe it's nonsense. Naturally hostile to God (Rom 8:7), worshiping God goes against the natural Man. So we fill that void with anything else we can. Or, we can fill it with God. He is so much more satisfying than the lies we replace Him with.
Now, remember, "worship" is defined as basically "worth-ship", assigning great value to something. That which we worship, then, would be the things to which we assign the highest value. And since we are all about assigning value to things, we appear to be born to it. So, we worship lots of things. We worship cars and money, fame and power, "stuff", even "patriotism". We worship people, too. That might be our favorite politician, our favorite entertainment personality, our favorite sports star, or our favorite pastor. It might even be our spouse ... or our kids.
We are in the habit of putting something at the highest value, you see. Most often, of course, that would be "me". We worship self. Starting from the Garden, when Satan told Eve, "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God." (Gen 3:5) That's it, isn't it? "I will make myself like the Most High." (Isa 14:14) I will be my very own God. Second to that, I suppose, would be the "god in my image" version of God.
We weren't made for that, however. Scripture tells us "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Rom 1:19-20) We were made to worship, and we were made specifically to worship God. Not "god to me" or "whatever I deem to be god". The God revealed in nature and in Scripture; the real God.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that people worship so many strange things. Maybe it's stuff. Maybe it's sex. Maybe it's nonsense. Naturally hostile to God (Rom 8:7), worshiping God goes against the natural Man. So we fill that void with anything else we can. Or, we can fill it with God. He is so much more satisfying than the lies we replace Him with.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Vulnerable to Attack
In Paul's letter to the church at Philippi, he makes his famous statement, "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." (Phil 4:13) This, of course, is not some lame "name it and claim it" scheme. Paul isn't claiming that Christ gives him power to do anything at all. He is speaking specifically, and he tells us what specifically he is speaking about.
Isn't it odd, though, that Paul includes the "up-side"? He says that Christ empowers him to be content when he abounds, when he has plenty, when he has abundance. Isn't that strange? I mean, "Um, hey, Paul, do we really need special empowerment from Christ to be satisfied when we're doing well?" Yes ... yes we do.
When they asked one of the richest American men who ever lived, "How much is enough?" he answered, "A little bit more." That's because we are born dissatisfied, it seems. But there is another issue here. I would suggest that humans are perhaps the most vulnerable when they are well off.
Think about it. When times are tough, we knuckle under. We work, we struggle, we even seek God. The old "There are no atheists in foxholes" (whether or not the proverb is true) tells that story. When we're in trouble, we look for help. What about when we're not? Oh, well then, we don't need help. We don't think that we need help. "Don't worry, God, I've got this." And it is precisely then that we have our defenses down and are the easiest targets.
Paul had to learn to be content with much. He had to learn both not to long for more and not to rely on the abundance he had. I think we all have the same problem. I think that this is one of the reasons that the American church is so weak. "Don't worry, God," we tend to think even if we don't admit it, "we've got this." And ... we don't.
Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. (Phil 4:11-12)The "all things" that Christ gives Paul the strength to do is to be content whether in poverty or riches, hungry or full. In all situations, Christ enables Paul to be satisfied.
Isn't it odd, though, that Paul includes the "up-side"? He says that Christ empowers him to be content when he abounds, when he has plenty, when he has abundance. Isn't that strange? I mean, "Um, hey, Paul, do we really need special empowerment from Christ to be satisfied when we're doing well?" Yes ... yes we do.
When they asked one of the richest American men who ever lived, "How much is enough?" he answered, "A little bit more." That's because we are born dissatisfied, it seems. But there is another issue here. I would suggest that humans are perhaps the most vulnerable when they are well off.
Think about it. When times are tough, we knuckle under. We work, we struggle, we even seek God. The old "There are no atheists in foxholes" (whether or not the proverb is true) tells that story. When we're in trouble, we look for help. What about when we're not? Oh, well then, we don't need help. We don't think that we need help. "Don't worry, God, I've got this." And it is precisely then that we have our defenses down and are the easiest targets.
Paul had to learn to be content with much. He had to learn both not to long for more and not to rely on the abundance he had. I think we all have the same problem. I think that this is one of the reasons that the American church is so weak. "Don't worry, God," we tend to think even if we don't admit it, "we've got this." And ... we don't.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Fundamentally
The New Republic has a story aptly titled The Silence of the Lambs about a scandalous child sex abuse case in an extremely conservative Baptist missionary organization called the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism (ABWE). It really is horrific. Young girls under the influence of a charismatic leader in the mission field were seduced, drugged, molested, destroyed. The group -- its leadership and its membership -- sought to cover it up and gloss it over. They blamed the girls and told them so. Lives were destroyed. Justice was canceled. It was awful, truly awful.
The article, however, makes an assumption. The core of the problem in the ABWE was not the man doing the deed or the people involved in the cover up, but the beliefs of the system. "Silence and submission make fundamentalist Christians a ripe target," they tell us. "Fundamentalists preach strict obedience to religious authority." As proof that fundamentalism is the core problem, the article lists four "venerated patriarchs" of "fundamentalism" (as if "fundamentalism" is some sort of organization) -- Doug Phillips, Bill Gothard, Josh Duggar (spelled "Dugger" in the article) and Toby Willis -- who were enmeshed at one time or another in massive sexual misconduct cases. Now, we can scratch our heads and say, "Really? Josh Duggar is a 'venerated patriarch' of 'fundamentalism'?", but that's not the point. Apparently authoritarianism is a main part of "fundamentalism" (I keep putting it in quotes because the article seems to think of it as some monolith of beliefs and structure ... it's not.) The article cites "fundamentalist precepts about the nature of sex and women" as the prime reason that the girls, not the perpetrators, were blamed. And the cover-up itself was a "product of the sprawling, disparate world of Christian fundamentalism." At the core, then, very clearly "fundamentalism" is the problem. The reason there is sex abuse in fundamentalist circles is fundamentalism.
I want to say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." "Fundamentalism" is defined as "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles" on the Free Dictionary and as "a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts" at dictionary.com. Probably fairly accurate. Since the root of the word is "fundamental", "fundamentalism" would be a strict adherence to fundamentals. Yeah, that's tough to figure out. In the case of Christianity, it would be strict adherence to the fundamentals of what God says. Hey, this isn't that hard. And, yet, it seems to be nigh unto impossible to avoid "It's a hateful belief that all men are lords and masters and all women are to be used and abused and anyone who disagrees ought to be shot." Not in there. In fact, to arrive at that point would be a denial of ... the fundamentals.
You see, the abuse (which does occur) of people, of Scripture, of authority, of privilege, and all that is abuse, not "proper use". Not all "fundamentalists" believe what this author claimed to be basic "fundamentalist" beliefs (such as "authoritarianism", "silence", "strict obedience", or some strange "precepts about the nature of sex and women" that would have a bearing on this discussion). Scripture doesn't support that pastor who did such horrible things to those girls or the leadership that covered it up or the followers who accused the girls rather than the perpetrator. It's not in there. That some abuse God's Word to make you think it is doesn't make it so. That people do it "in the name of God" doesn't make it so. To lay the accusations, then, at the feet of a belief that calls for adherence to basic biblical principles when those basic biblical principles are ignored and tortured and abused themselves is not rational, reasonable, or right.
But, today we've arrived at "rational, reasonable, or right" as something to be ignored. It doesn't feel right, so we're going to stone it to death. And "fundamentalism" becomes an epithet, a disparaging term all by itself. It's a handy way to marginalize the entire question without actually examining the points. Do not think about what the word means. If you hear it, recognize that the person using it is good and kind and the persons or beliefs about which it is being used are evil and horrible. Just look at Josh Duggar or ISIS and you'll see. Fundamentalism is evil. We know this as a fundamental belief!
The article, however, makes an assumption. The core of the problem in the ABWE was not the man doing the deed or the people involved in the cover up, but the beliefs of the system. "Silence and submission make fundamentalist Christians a ripe target," they tell us. "Fundamentalists preach strict obedience to religious authority." As proof that fundamentalism is the core problem, the article lists four "venerated patriarchs" of "fundamentalism" (as if "fundamentalism" is some sort of organization) -- Doug Phillips, Bill Gothard, Josh Duggar (spelled "Dugger" in the article) and Toby Willis -- who were enmeshed at one time or another in massive sexual misconduct cases. Now, we can scratch our heads and say, "Really? Josh Duggar is a 'venerated patriarch' of 'fundamentalism'?", but that's not the point. Apparently authoritarianism is a main part of "fundamentalism" (I keep putting it in quotes because the article seems to think of it as some monolith of beliefs and structure ... it's not.) The article cites "fundamentalist precepts about the nature of sex and women" as the prime reason that the girls, not the perpetrators, were blamed. And the cover-up itself was a "product of the sprawling, disparate world of Christian fundamentalism." At the core, then, very clearly "fundamentalism" is the problem. The reason there is sex abuse in fundamentalist circles is fundamentalism.
I want to say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." "Fundamentalism" is defined as "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles" on the Free Dictionary and as "a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts" at dictionary.com. Probably fairly accurate. Since the root of the word is "fundamental", "fundamentalism" would be a strict adherence to fundamentals. Yeah, that's tough to figure out. In the case of Christianity, it would be strict adherence to the fundamentals of what God says. Hey, this isn't that hard. And, yet, it seems to be nigh unto impossible to avoid "It's a hateful belief that all men are lords and masters and all women are to be used and abused and anyone who disagrees ought to be shot." Not in there. In fact, to arrive at that point would be a denial of ... the fundamentals.
You see, the abuse (which does occur) of people, of Scripture, of authority, of privilege, and all that is abuse, not "proper use". Not all "fundamentalists" believe what this author claimed to be basic "fundamentalist" beliefs (such as "authoritarianism", "silence", "strict obedience", or some strange "precepts about the nature of sex and women" that would have a bearing on this discussion). Scripture doesn't support that pastor who did such horrible things to those girls or the leadership that covered it up or the followers who accused the girls rather than the perpetrator. It's not in there. That some abuse God's Word to make you think it is doesn't make it so. That people do it "in the name of God" doesn't make it so. To lay the accusations, then, at the feet of a belief that calls for adherence to basic biblical principles when those basic biblical principles are ignored and tortured and abused themselves is not rational, reasonable, or right.
But, today we've arrived at "rational, reasonable, or right" as something to be ignored. It doesn't feel right, so we're going to stone it to death. And "fundamentalism" becomes an epithet, a disparaging term all by itself. It's a handy way to marginalize the entire question without actually examining the points. Do not think about what the word means. If you hear it, recognize that the person using it is good and kind and the persons or beliefs about which it is being used are evil and horrible. Just look at Josh Duggar or ISIS and you'll see. Fundamentalism is evil. We know this as a fundamental belief!
Monday, June 26, 2017
The Psalmist's Progression
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. (Psa 1:1-2)It's a well-known Psalm. Pretty clear, too. It precludes three things ... well, only really one. It looks like three: walk, stand, sit. It is a progression.
You see a progression in the actions. You start out walking along. Eventually you become comfortable enough to stop, to stand. Eventually it is "home", a place you can sit, relax, be comfortable. The instruction is, then, pretty straightforward; don't make the world of sin your home.
You see a progression in the people. There are the "wicked", the ungodly, the morally disinclined. They become "sinners", the guilty, those who have missed the mark, who have crossed the line. These become scoffers, openly hostile and derisive of God and His ways.
It's important to notice what it does not say. It doesn't say "Don't walk with the wicked" or "Don't stand with a sinner" or "Don't sit with a scoffer." These would miss the point. Paul says, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." (1 Cor 5:9-10) You see, not associating with them is not the point. They're everywhere. In fact, our calling is to share the gospel with them.
What's the issue, then? It is their counsel, their way, their seat. It is their worldviews, standards, and positions, their behaviors, their hostility toward God and His Word we are not make our own. We see this clearly presented in the contrast. The one who does not do all those things finds his delight in the "the law of the Lord". The word here -- "law" -- is a specific reference to "torah" and a general reference to God's instructions and precepts ... His Word. This is the defining difference. In this, God's Word, the righteous person "meditates day and night." No, not some mystical chanting. Clearly it is "day and night", meaning continual and habitual. It takes time and effort. And ... well ... why not? It is his "delight". Jesus said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:28) Meditating on it makes it part of life, part of existence, part of practice. It is the one-for-one replacement of "walk", "stand", and "sit" -- becoming familiar, comfortable, at home with God's Word, affecting thought and action.
We, of course, are not there in much of our Christian society today. So many of today's professing Christians regard God's Word with suspicion. "You can't be too certain." "You can't be too careful." "You should question authority, including quite specifically the authority of Scripture." So many are drawing their views and values from the counsel of the wicked, taking their stand with way of the sinners and choosing to sit with the scoffers rather than with God's Word.
The rest of the psalm spells out the results for these two paths. The one who finds delight in the Word prospers (Psa 1:3). Those who pursue the alternative, deriving life perspectives and principles from the opposition to God's Word, "are not so" (Psa 1:4). They can expect judgment and destruction in the end. Your choice.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
A Sunday Hymn
It's Sunday. How about a hymn?
James writes, "Every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from the Father." The hymn writer concurs. He recognizes God as the "Fount of every blessing." We seem to miss that so many times today, thinking we have earned our good fortune. But the hymn credits God with that.
Further, the hymnist sees gratitude as a need of the heart, an attribute to be learned and developed. "Tune my heart to sing Thy grace." We see ourselves as much larger than we are. We think that with Jesus by our side we can do anything. We don't see that we can do nothing if we don't cling closely to Him. There is no good thing in us ... only Christ. It is His work, even to attune us to gratefulness. And giving thanks is one of the pleasing things to God (Eph. 5:20; Col. 1:9-12; 1 Thess. 5:18).
In our lack of gratitude, we have missed the next great truth that the hymn examines. "Streams of mercy." Some believe that Christ had to die for us, that His love for us required it. They place an undue sense of value on themselves. But God's holiness and wrath require judgment. It is mercy that stands between us and the living God. "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:31)
Our culture values self above all else. We refuse to believe that we deserve hell. We, after all, are human beings, valuable in our own existence. We've changed the hymns' references that denigrate our worth (e.g., "At The Cross" and "Beneath The Cross Of Jesus"). But without that bad news, the good news isn't as good. If we are, after all, valuable beings in ourselves, then it was only good economy on God's part to save us - and there is no grace. Grace is defined as unmerited favor. If we have merit, there is no grace.
In 1 Samuel 7, God delivers Israel from the Philistines. The prophet, Samuel, leads the nation in a sacrifice and God confounds the enemy with thunder. When it was done, he declared the place Ebenezer (1 Sam. 7:12), the place where God helped them. It was a symbol of God's faithfulness. Robinson raises his symbol of God's faithfulness on the place he found himself. He saw his very existence as proof of God's intervention. "By Your help and Your help alone I've come this far in life." How far? All the way to salvation.
The hymnist places no trust in his ability to maintain his salvation. "I hope by Thy good pleasure safely to arrive at home." All the glory of salvation and all the success of arrival lands squarely in God's lap. Neither the obtaining nor the sustaining of redemption is possible for a human being alone. But God is immensely capable. He proved it at the cross, at the cost of His shed blood.
The current theory in evangelical churches across America is that to become a Christian, we accept Christ. Robinson states it rather differently. "Jesus sought me when a stranger wandering from the fold of God." Scripture is plain to teach that faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8), and that we fail to seek God (Rom. 3:11). It is solely grace, favor shown without any merit in the receiver, that causes God to seek those who run from Him. Why? "To rescue me from danger." And at what cost? His blood. This, indeed, calls for songs of loudest praise.
We seem to easily forget God's amazing grace. We embrace it, then take it for granted, then demand it. Would that we could maintain the view that this hymn holds. God's goodness to us, the undeserving, should hold us in His debt. It has been said that the ethic of salvation is grace and the ethic of the Christian life is gratitude. "Let Thy goodness, like a fetter, bind my wandering heart to Thee." That kind of slavery ought to be a welcome part of every believer.
Robinson recognized a trait in himself that we all possess and often miss. He saw his tendency to wander. In later life he did walk away from God, failing to be bound to God's goodness. But wandering, in itself, is not the final problem. Great heroes of the Bible strayed into sin. Abraham, whose faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, feared so much for his own life that he passed his wife off as his sister. David, the man after God's own heart, committed adultery and murder. The faith chapter of Hebrews 11 is as much a rogue's gallery as a museum of the faithful, for each hero of faith failed.
What, then, are we to do? Wherein is our hope? Our confidence is in the One who called us, who sought us while we were yet strangers. "It is God who is at work in you," Paul says (Phil. 2:13). What joy to have the assurance that God holds our hearts, sealed for Him (Eph. 1:13, 14)!
Seeing God, His grace, love, mercy and goodness, in this light must necessarily return us to the first verse of the hymn, for there is the proper response. Lord, fountain of every blessing, tune my heart to sing Your grace. The unending stream of Your mercy calls for songs of loudest praise. Teach me to sing as only the angels in heaven can sing of Your wonders. I'm fixed, grounded, rooted, anchored in Your redeeming love.
Come, Thou Fount of Every BlessingWritten in 1758 by Robert Robinson, this old hymn is a favorite of many. It has fallen into the sorry condition of anonymity largely because of the archaic language, but the truths held herein shouldn't be missed.
Come, Thou Fount of every blessing, tune my heart to sing Thy grace.
Streams of mercy, never ceasing, call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet, sung by flaming tongues above;
Praise the mount - I'm fixed upon it - mount of Thy redeeming love.
Here I raise mine Ebenezer - hither by Thy help I'm come;
And I hope by Thy good pleasure safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger wandering from the fold of God;
He to rescue me from danger interposed His precious blood.
O to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness like a fetter bind my wandering heart to Thee:
Prone to wander - Lord, I feel it - prone to leave the God I love;
Here's my heart - O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above.
James writes, "Every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from the Father." The hymn writer concurs. He recognizes God as the "Fount of every blessing." We seem to miss that so many times today, thinking we have earned our good fortune. But the hymn credits God with that.
Further, the hymnist sees gratitude as a need of the heart, an attribute to be learned and developed. "Tune my heart to sing Thy grace." We see ourselves as much larger than we are. We think that with Jesus by our side we can do anything. We don't see that we can do nothing if we don't cling closely to Him. There is no good thing in us ... only Christ. It is His work, even to attune us to gratefulness. And giving thanks is one of the pleasing things to God (Eph. 5:20; Col. 1:9-12; 1 Thess. 5:18).
In our lack of gratitude, we have missed the next great truth that the hymn examines. "Streams of mercy." Some believe that Christ had to die for us, that His love for us required it. They place an undue sense of value on themselves. But God's holiness and wrath require judgment. It is mercy that stands between us and the living God. "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:31)
Our culture values self above all else. We refuse to believe that we deserve hell. We, after all, are human beings, valuable in our own existence. We've changed the hymns' references that denigrate our worth (e.g., "At The Cross" and "Beneath The Cross Of Jesus"). But without that bad news, the good news isn't as good. If we are, after all, valuable beings in ourselves, then it was only good economy on God's part to save us - and there is no grace. Grace is defined as unmerited favor. If we have merit, there is no grace.
In 1 Samuel 7, God delivers Israel from the Philistines. The prophet, Samuel, leads the nation in a sacrifice and God confounds the enemy with thunder. When it was done, he declared the place Ebenezer (1 Sam. 7:12), the place where God helped them. It was a symbol of God's faithfulness. Robinson raises his symbol of God's faithfulness on the place he found himself. He saw his very existence as proof of God's intervention. "By Your help and Your help alone I've come this far in life." How far? All the way to salvation.
The hymnist places no trust in his ability to maintain his salvation. "I hope by Thy good pleasure safely to arrive at home." All the glory of salvation and all the success of arrival lands squarely in God's lap. Neither the obtaining nor the sustaining of redemption is possible for a human being alone. But God is immensely capable. He proved it at the cross, at the cost of His shed blood.
The current theory in evangelical churches across America is that to become a Christian, we accept Christ. Robinson states it rather differently. "Jesus sought me when a stranger wandering from the fold of God." Scripture is plain to teach that faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8), and that we fail to seek God (Rom. 3:11). It is solely grace, favor shown without any merit in the receiver, that causes God to seek those who run from Him. Why? "To rescue me from danger." And at what cost? His blood. This, indeed, calls for songs of loudest praise.
We seem to easily forget God's amazing grace. We embrace it, then take it for granted, then demand it. Would that we could maintain the view that this hymn holds. God's goodness to us, the undeserving, should hold us in His debt. It has been said that the ethic of salvation is grace and the ethic of the Christian life is gratitude. "Let Thy goodness, like a fetter, bind my wandering heart to Thee." That kind of slavery ought to be a welcome part of every believer.
Robinson recognized a trait in himself that we all possess and often miss. He saw his tendency to wander. In later life he did walk away from God, failing to be bound to God's goodness. But wandering, in itself, is not the final problem. Great heroes of the Bible strayed into sin. Abraham, whose faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, feared so much for his own life that he passed his wife off as his sister. David, the man after God's own heart, committed adultery and murder. The faith chapter of Hebrews 11 is as much a rogue's gallery as a museum of the faithful, for each hero of faith failed.
What, then, are we to do? Wherein is our hope? Our confidence is in the One who called us, who sought us while we were yet strangers. "It is God who is at work in you," Paul says (Phil. 2:13). What joy to have the assurance that God holds our hearts, sealed for Him (Eph. 1:13, 14)!
Seeing God, His grace, love, mercy and goodness, in this light must necessarily return us to the first verse of the hymn, for there is the proper response. Lord, fountain of every blessing, tune my heart to sing Your grace. The unending stream of Your mercy calls for songs of loudest praise. Teach me to sing as only the angels in heaven can sing of Your wonders. I'm fixed, grounded, rooted, anchored in Your redeeming love.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
News Weakly - 6/24/2017
Overreach
I don't suppose anyone is particularly paying attention, but I thought it was funny when the New York Times put up the story of how the European Court of Human Rights ruled that "Russia’s ‘Gay Propaganda’ Laws Are Illegal". I was only amused not because I think that Russia is correct in its laws or that it's not. I was amused because a European court of human rights thought they had the authority and power to declare the laws of a sovereign nation "illegal". As if there is some world body that gets to tell nations "You may pass this law and you may not pass that one." I mean, if, for "illegal", they substituted "immoral", "unfair", "unkind", "not in step with other European countries", or even "a violation of human rights as we currently define them", that would be fine. But when did a European Court of Human Rights get to pass ruling on the legality of a Russian law (or the law of any other sovereign nation)? What's next? "Your American 'free exercise of religion' law is no longer legal because we say so" or some other nonsense? (After all, they wouldn't be the first to say that, would they?)
Being Missional
The Diocese of Truro, an Anglican church in the UK, is advertising for a Strategic Programme Manager to lead their missions department. They want someone with an undergraduate degree, good management skills, those kinds of things. What they are not concerned about is whether or not the person is "a practising Christian". No need, as long as they are "sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Church of England." I just ... I don't know ... I don't get it. Are not "the aims and objectives of the Church" to make disciples who follow Christ? But, hey, no need to be a follower of Christ as long as you ... want others to? Nope, not getting it at all.
Human Rights - New Revised Version
Canada has had an epiphany. All those years (read "since the dawn of time") that people thought that male was male and female was female they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Last week the Senate "passed Bill C-16" which makes “gender identity or expression” a protected right and if you discriminate against someone on that basis you are violating Canadian law. Make sure you get that pronoun right or else. Nor should you anticipate that you actually have freedom of speech in Canada, at least in your use of gender-related words. So, in Canada, at least, gender confusion is a human right and ought to be nurtured and supported and anyone attempting to help set them free of their confusion is violating their rights. It used to be that "human rights" were in place to protect; now we're using them to oppress.
While we're on the subject of Canada ...
Also in Canada, "A new Canadian law considers denying a child's gender identity a form of abuse." Ontario legislators have passed Ontario Bill 89 that gives the government the right to take children away from families if the parents or caregivers don't support the child's gender identity. According to the law, "The matters to be considered in determining the best interests of a child are changed." Good parents will give "due weight" to "the child's views and wishes" and will affirm (Remember that definition? That was "celebrate and encourage".) a variety of issues including "sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression." It is not yet clear if they will actually use this law to remove children from homes that have some sort of rational idea that gender is apparent and gender confusion is something to overcome rather than indulge, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Total Surprise
Now this item was a complete surprise. You may not believe it, but apparently an increase in the numbers of drivers who have access to drugs that impair the senses (like legalized marijuana) produce a larger number of traffic accidents. Wow! Didn't see that coming. Oh ... wait ... yes, we did.
On Politics and Weather
In the wake of Republican Karen Handel's victory over Democrat Jon Hossoff for Georgia's 6th Congressional District, the National Weather Service has issued widespread flash flood warnings because of the downpour of liberal tears across America. Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
I don't suppose anyone is particularly paying attention, but I thought it was funny when the New York Times put up the story of how the European Court of Human Rights ruled that "Russia’s ‘Gay Propaganda’ Laws Are Illegal". I was only amused not because I think that Russia is correct in its laws or that it's not. I was amused because a European court of human rights thought they had the authority and power to declare the laws of a sovereign nation "illegal". As if there is some world body that gets to tell nations "You may pass this law and you may not pass that one." I mean, if, for "illegal", they substituted "immoral", "unfair", "unkind", "not in step with other European countries", or even "a violation of human rights as we currently define them", that would be fine. But when did a European Court of Human Rights get to pass ruling on the legality of a Russian law (or the law of any other sovereign nation)? What's next? "Your American 'free exercise of religion' law is no longer legal because we say so" or some other nonsense? (After all, they wouldn't be the first to say that, would they?)
Being Missional
The Diocese of Truro, an Anglican church in the UK, is advertising for a Strategic Programme Manager to lead their missions department. They want someone with an undergraduate degree, good management skills, those kinds of things. What they are not concerned about is whether or not the person is "a practising Christian". No need, as long as they are "sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Church of England." I just ... I don't know ... I don't get it. Are not "the aims and objectives of the Church" to make disciples who follow Christ? But, hey, no need to be a follower of Christ as long as you ... want others to? Nope, not getting it at all.
Human Rights - New Revised Version
Canada has had an epiphany. All those years (read "since the dawn of time") that people thought that male was male and female was female they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Last week the Senate "passed Bill C-16" which makes “gender identity or expression” a protected right and if you discriminate against someone on that basis you are violating Canadian law. Make sure you get that pronoun right or else. Nor should you anticipate that you actually have freedom of speech in Canada, at least in your use of gender-related words. So, in Canada, at least, gender confusion is a human right and ought to be nurtured and supported and anyone attempting to help set them free of their confusion is violating their rights. It used to be that "human rights" were in place to protect; now we're using them to oppress.
While we're on the subject of Canada ...
Also in Canada, "A new Canadian law considers denying a child's gender identity a form of abuse." Ontario legislators have passed Ontario Bill 89 that gives the government the right to take children away from families if the parents or caregivers don't support the child's gender identity. According to the law, "The matters to be considered in determining the best interests of a child are changed." Good parents will give "due weight" to "the child's views and wishes" and will affirm (Remember that definition? That was "celebrate and encourage".) a variety of issues including "sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression." It is not yet clear if they will actually use this law to remove children from homes that have some sort of rational idea that gender is apparent and gender confusion is something to overcome rather than indulge, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Total Surprise
Now this item was a complete surprise. You may not believe it, but apparently an increase in the numbers of drivers who have access to drugs that impair the senses (like legalized marijuana) produce a larger number of traffic accidents. Wow! Didn't see that coming. Oh ... wait ... yes, we did.
On Politics and Weather
In the wake of Republican Karen Handel's victory over Democrat Jon Hossoff for Georgia's 6th Congressional District, the National Weather Service has issued widespread flash flood warnings because of the downpour of liberal tears across America. Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 23, 2017
The Furnace
It has been a hot one here this week. Temperatures near or beyond 120°F. They were grounding aircraft and warning everyone to stay indoors. So, there I was, walking the distance to my afternoon bus that would take me home ... in the heat. And I'm thinking, "This is something new." I've been in 105°, 110°, even 115° heat, but this was something different. It felt like ... a furnace, like I was standing in an actual furnace. Which called to mind some guys who actually did.
You remember those three Jewish boys who refused to bow to the king's golden statue (Dan 3:1-30). The king was mad and said, "Look, guys, it's simple. Just bow down at the next sound of horns or I'll have you thrown into the furnace. Can your god save you from that?" And they answered, "We don't have to answer you, but, yes, He can. However, even if He doesn't, we won't bow." The king was hot under the collar, ordered the fires seven times hotter, and got some of his bravest warriors to toss them in. Mind you, this heat was not like what I was walking through. This heat killed the men who threw them in. Well, you know the rest. They didn't burn. The king called them back out, finding the only thing they lost was the ropes that tied them, and he blessed God.
What I was thinking about was what it was that these three were thinking when they declared "Our God can, but even if He doesn't, we won't bow." You will notice that they did not overstate their case. They spoke to God's ability -- He was able to deliver them. They did not speak of God's will. God's power is easy. We can see His power through what is made (Rom 1:19-20). If He can make all that is, He can do anything at all. But in order for anything to happen, there must be two aspects. There must be ability and there must be willingness. These guys knew what God was capable of; they didn't know what His will was.
So why? Why did they defy the king? It wasn't some grand faith thing -- "Our God will save us, oh king!" It wasn't what they hoped to get out of it. For all they knew, they would get incinerated. What were they expecting? What made it worthwhile?
Well, if God's power is shown in what is made, so is His wisdom, His goodness, His love. David wrote the 23rd Psalm while he was on the run from King Saul and in that piece he said, "I will fear no evil." (Psa 23:4) In that context he wrote, "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life." (Psa 23:6) You see, David was also in on this secret that those three guys had. So was Paul. "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord." (Phil 3:8) Not "what God gives me." Not "what I can get." Not "whatever I can name and claim." These guys understood that we are generally looking at things backward.
How? Well, we tend to think, "This happens and it's bad and that happens and it's good." These guys think, "If God does it it's good ... regardless of my perception." To put it another way, "Whatever God gives me is good." If that's a good job or I'm fired for my faith, it's good. If it's health or cancer, money coming in or a financial setback, a long life with those I love or the loss of a loved one, it's good.. Nothing else is as valuable as simply knowing God. No price is too high for this relationship with the Most High. And those guys were planning on paying the highest price.
I will be honest. I'm not there yet. Oh, I want to be. I long to be. I want to be at the place where nothing gives me as much delight as simply knowing Christ. Nothing. Because where my treasure is, there will my heart be, also (Luke 12:34). So it's a lifelong, time-consuming process of relabeling things. "Oh, I thought that was bad. But You're good, so it's not." "For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." (2 Cor 4:17-18) That's what I need -- an eternal perspective. Then the furnace doesn't seem so hot. And the only thing I'll lose are the things bind me here.
You remember those three Jewish boys who refused to bow to the king's golden statue (Dan 3:1-30). The king was mad and said, "Look, guys, it's simple. Just bow down at the next sound of horns or I'll have you thrown into the furnace. Can your god save you from that?" And they answered, "We don't have to answer you, but, yes, He can. However, even if He doesn't, we won't bow." The king was hot under the collar, ordered the fires seven times hotter, and got some of his bravest warriors to toss them in. Mind you, this heat was not like what I was walking through. This heat killed the men who threw them in. Well, you know the rest. They didn't burn. The king called them back out, finding the only thing they lost was the ropes that tied them, and he blessed God.
What I was thinking about was what it was that these three were thinking when they declared "Our God can, but even if He doesn't, we won't bow." You will notice that they did not overstate their case. They spoke to God's ability -- He was able to deliver them. They did not speak of God's will. God's power is easy. We can see His power through what is made (Rom 1:19-20). If He can make all that is, He can do anything at all. But in order for anything to happen, there must be two aspects. There must be ability and there must be willingness. These guys knew what God was capable of; they didn't know what His will was.
So why? Why did they defy the king? It wasn't some grand faith thing -- "Our God will save us, oh king!" It wasn't what they hoped to get out of it. For all they knew, they would get incinerated. What were they expecting? What made it worthwhile?
Well, if God's power is shown in what is made, so is His wisdom, His goodness, His love. David wrote the 23rd Psalm while he was on the run from King Saul and in that piece he said, "I will fear no evil." (Psa 23:4) In that context he wrote, "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life." (Psa 23:6) You see, David was also in on this secret that those three guys had. So was Paul. "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord." (Phil 3:8) Not "what God gives me." Not "what I can get." Not "whatever I can name and claim." These guys understood that we are generally looking at things backward.
How? Well, we tend to think, "This happens and it's bad and that happens and it's good." These guys think, "If God does it it's good ... regardless of my perception." To put it another way, "Whatever God gives me is good." If that's a good job or I'm fired for my faith, it's good. If it's health or cancer, money coming in or a financial setback, a long life with those I love or the loss of a loved one, it's good.. Nothing else is as valuable as simply knowing God. No price is too high for this relationship with the Most High. And those guys were planning on paying the highest price.
I will be honest. I'm not there yet. Oh, I want to be. I long to be. I want to be at the place where nothing gives me as much delight as simply knowing Christ. Nothing. Because where my treasure is, there will my heart be, also (Luke 12:34). So it's a lifelong, time-consuming process of relabeling things. "Oh, I thought that was bad. But You're good, so it's not." "For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." (2 Cor 4:17-18) That's what I need -- an eternal perspective. Then the furnace doesn't seem so hot. And the only thing I'll lose are the things bind me here.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Pride Goeth Before a Fall
We all know this story. It starts with a lawyer who asks Jesus, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" It ends with the famous Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
When the lawyer asked his question, Jesus answered with a question. "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" (Luke 10:26) And the lawyer answered correctly (Luke 10:28). "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27) So far, so good. The man knows his Scriptures. He has the right answers to what some might consider the hardest of questions -- how do we inherit eternal life? And then ... he stepped in it.
Now, don't miss the point. (The word "justify" may confuse us.) He wanted to demonstrate that he was "all that". He wanted Jesus to confirm for him what he already believed -- that he was a righteous man. He was already just. He had already, all on his own, managed to earn eternal life. The question at the beginning, then, was not for information, not that of a seeker. He was aiming to prove that he had arrived and wanted the teacher to verify it for everyone else.
He asked the right questions and had the right answers. What went wrong? He wasn't interested in either. He was merely interested in himself -- a particularly pernicious form of pride, the pride of religious correctness. Trust me, if and when you and I fall into it, Jesus will have a correction for us like He did for this lawyer. "Who is my neighbor?" Oh, that's a big question and your pride won't be able to support the answer.
When the lawyer asked his question, Jesus answered with a question. "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" (Luke 10:26) And the lawyer answered correctly (Luke 10:28). "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27) So far, so good. The man knows his Scriptures. He has the right answers to what some might consider the hardest of questions -- how do we inherit eternal life? And then ... he stepped in it.
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29)There he was, humming along, asking all the right questions, giving all the right answers, and right out of Scripture. Couldn't go wrong ... right? And, yet, he did. Instead of pursuing the known, he was "desiring to justify himself."
Now, don't miss the point. (The word "justify" may confuse us.) He wanted to demonstrate that he was "all that". He wanted Jesus to confirm for him what he already believed -- that he was a righteous man. He was already just. He had already, all on his own, managed to earn eternal life. The question at the beginning, then, was not for information, not that of a seeker. He was aiming to prove that he had arrived and wanted the teacher to verify it for everyone else.
He asked the right questions and had the right answers. What went wrong? He wasn't interested in either. He was merely interested in himself -- a particularly pernicious form of pride, the pride of religious correctness. Trust me, if and when you and I fall into it, Jesus will have a correction for us like He did for this lawyer. "Who is my neighbor?" Oh, that's a big question and your pride won't be able to support the answer.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Internet Etiquette
Imagine a world that is steeped in make-believe. A world where words mean a variety of things with very little to actually anchor them. A world where "Reality is how you define it" and the same for morality. A world where "I read it on the Internet; it must be true." A world, in short, that believes itself to be firmly rooted in truth but wouldn't be able to pick it out in a lineup with the Marx brothers. That's our world.
When someone posted this quote from Lincoln, people repeated it throughout the Internet ... because so few were able to figure out that Lincoln predated the Internet.
When this picture of Steven Spielberg next to an animatronic dinosaur from his movie, Jurassic Park, Facebook exploded at the cruelty of a hunter killing one of the last dinosaurs.
We think we're pretty solid here, but, to tell the truth, we don't know what the gender of the blonde in the dress is, let alone the gender of the person we're happily chatting with on the Internet. Old? Young? Male? Female? Who knows? Because we're not really solid at all here. And then ... we engage in dialog. We pick up our favorite line of banter -- sex, politics, religion, whatever -- and begin a debate of all things ... without a clear understanding of words, morality, reality, or who we're even talking to. (Funny thing. Sometimes when we are sure who we're talking to we take them the wrong way because we're on the Internet, not face to face.)
No, Lincoln didn't comment on the Internet. No, Spielberg didn't shoot a dinosaur. But, as it turns out, the Bible does talk about Internet interactions. May I suggest a strategy for discussion on the Internet? No, not the Internet -- everywhere. No, not suggest -- offer God's perspective.
When someone posted this quote from Lincoln, people repeated it throughout the Internet ... because so few were able to figure out that Lincoln predated the Internet.
When this picture of Steven Spielberg next to an animatronic dinosaur from his movie, Jurassic Park, Facebook exploded at the cruelty of a hunter killing one of the last dinosaurs.
No, Lincoln didn't comment on the Internet. No, Spielberg didn't shoot a dinosaur. But, as it turns out, the Bible does talk about Internet interactions. May I suggest a strategy for discussion on the Internet? No, not the Internet -- everywhere. No, not suggest -- offer God's perspective.
Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. (James 1:19-20)Now, if you think about it, I think that would go a long way toward calming things down ... in all sorts of places. The fix? Oh, no, of course not. There will always be people that believe that you should not kill animals, but should "buy meat at the grocery store where no animals are hurt." And, let's face it, not everyone is going to be rational. Still, it's a start. Better, it's a command. That should make it worth the Christian's consideration.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Old Cloth and New Wineskins
The parable of the wineskins is not new to us. We all know it. (Is it actually a parable?) "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined." (Luke 5:37) The saying is found in Luke's Gospel as well as Matthew's (Matt 9:17) and Mark's (Mark 2:22).
In context (Matt 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39), the disciples of John the Baptist were asking why it was that the Pharisees fasted and the disciples of John fasted, but Jesus's disciples did not. Jesus's original response was, "You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?" (Luke 5:34)
Then He went into the explanation of new patches on old cloth and new wine in old wineskins. What did He mean?
Several places I've read suggest something like "Organized religious structures are reticent to change with the times." These types go on to argue that we need to change with the times and that trying to stuff "that old time religion" down the throats of new people is pointless. You'll "burst the bag". Is that what Jesus meant? Was Jesus telling His church, "You have to change with the times"? We certainly are hearing this call today from many corners.
I would think that it would be manifestly clear that this is not the case. Jesus wasn't saying, "Change with the times." He was saying, "Times have changed." No, not just "times" -- the one true religion as God sees it. And not actually "changed". More like "corrected" or "clarified". Why do I say that? It was Jesus's explanation: the "Bridegroom" had come. He was there. This was new. Everything would change. Everything would realign to the truth that had always been the case. The Messiah, the Lamb of God, had come.
With the arrival of Jesus, things have changed. We see this in His "Sermon on the Mount" when He says (repeatedly), "You have heard it said ... but I tell you." (Matt 5:17-38) We see this in the very next event after the wineskins comment, when the disciples ate grain on the Sabbath and Jesus informed the Pharisees, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28) We see this in Paul's day on the issue of circumcision, where the real circumcision in view is the circumcision of the heart, not some body part (Col 2:11-12). We see this in Jesus's fulfillment of the sacrificial system, so that the Lamb of God has come to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). It is the contrast of old and new covenant. The old was with Israel; the new is with all who come to Him. And the conditions are changed. The Old Testament saints were saved by faith in the future Messiah. After this, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ who came.
This is not Jesus telling the church "You need to change with the times." This is Jesus telling the world, "Now that I'm here, things have changed. Don't try to fit your 'work hard to be saved' mentality onto what I'm doing. This is a new covenant, a new thing. Planned from the beginning of time, this doesn't fit your old thinking. It's time for something new -- salvation by grace through faith and the works that accompany rather then cause it." Just like in us, "The old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor 5:17) It isn't, in the end, a change in the plan; it is a change in the expression. Since Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6) and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), the truth doesn't change either. The parables of the new cloths on old and new wine in old wineskins were not calls to change the truth; they were calls to align our behavior with the truth, where the coming of the Bridegroom marked the long-awaited correction to mistaken ideas and their resultant attitudes and behaviors.
In context (Matt 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39), the disciples of John the Baptist were asking why it was that the Pharisees fasted and the disciples of John fasted, but Jesus's disciples did not. Jesus's original response was, "You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?" (Luke 5:34)
Then He went into the explanation of new patches on old cloth and new wine in old wineskins. What did He mean?
Several places I've read suggest something like "Organized religious structures are reticent to change with the times." These types go on to argue that we need to change with the times and that trying to stuff "that old time religion" down the throats of new people is pointless. You'll "burst the bag". Is that what Jesus meant? Was Jesus telling His church, "You have to change with the times"? We certainly are hearing this call today from many corners.
I would think that it would be manifestly clear that this is not the case. Jesus wasn't saying, "Change with the times." He was saying, "Times have changed." No, not just "times" -- the one true religion as God sees it. And not actually "changed". More like "corrected" or "clarified". Why do I say that? It was Jesus's explanation: the "Bridegroom" had come. He was there. This was new. Everything would change. Everything would realign to the truth that had always been the case. The Messiah, the Lamb of God, had come.
With the arrival of Jesus, things have changed. We see this in His "Sermon on the Mount" when He says (repeatedly), "You have heard it said ... but I tell you." (Matt 5:17-38) We see this in the very next event after the wineskins comment, when the disciples ate grain on the Sabbath and Jesus informed the Pharisees, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28) We see this in Paul's day on the issue of circumcision, where the real circumcision in view is the circumcision of the heart, not some body part (Col 2:11-12). We see this in Jesus's fulfillment of the sacrificial system, so that the Lamb of God has come to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). It is the contrast of old and new covenant. The old was with Israel; the new is with all who come to Him. And the conditions are changed. The Old Testament saints were saved by faith in the future Messiah. After this, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ who came.
This is not Jesus telling the church "You need to change with the times." This is Jesus telling the world, "Now that I'm here, things have changed. Don't try to fit your 'work hard to be saved' mentality onto what I'm doing. This is a new covenant, a new thing. Planned from the beginning of time, this doesn't fit your old thinking. It's time for something new -- salvation by grace through faith and the works that accompany rather then cause it." Just like in us, "The old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor 5:17) It isn't, in the end, a change in the plan; it is a change in the expression. Since Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6) and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), the truth doesn't change either. The parables of the new cloths on old and new wine in old wineskins were not calls to change the truth; they were calls to align our behavior with the truth, where the coming of the Bridegroom marked the long-awaited correction to mistaken ideas and their resultant attitudes and behaviors.
Monday, June 19, 2017
You Don't Owe Me Nothin'
Yeah, yeah, bad grammar, but it's a line from a song, so don't give me any grief over it; I didn't write it. But there is a point here.
One of the biggest, most difficult complaints offered throughout history about God is "Why do bad things happen to good people?" or "If there is a God, why is there evil?" It's a dilemma. And not merely for Christianity. If there is Allah, why do bad things happen? If there is Jehovah, why do bad things happen? If there is any all-powerful, all-good being, why do bad things happen? The dilemma is obvious. Reasoning from our experience -- there is evil -- either this being is not all-powerful or not all-good.
Now, lots of sound and ink have been expended making good (and bad) defenses on this topic. (Hint: A "bad" defense of God in the face of evil is "Well, it just happens; He can't stop it.") But I'm addressing here an underlying thought, a basic concept here that appears to often be overlooked. The premise behind, "Why would God allow bad things to happen to good people?" is 1) there are good people and 2) God owes us something better. The truth is this mentality harkens all the way back to the Garden:
Here's the thing. God does offer us lots of good. He made us in His image (Gen 1:26; Gen 9:6), loves the world (John 3:16), offers love, joy, peace (Gal 5:22), and so on. He does all that. What we fail to see and, therefore, what we've lost is grace. Paul says that grace is not grace when it's owed (Rom 11:6; Rom 4:4). When we stand on entitlement rather than unmerited favor, we've subverted grace. And the loss of grace is a harsh loss.
I'm not hoping to focus on "You don't owe me nothin'". I'm not trying to point out how bad we are. What I want us to grasp is how big God's unmerited favor towards us actually is. Yes, He shows us kindness, but not because He owes it to us. And that makes it huge. I'm sure you've seen this in microcosm in human life. You buy a child a gift. He or she isn't particularly grateful because, after all, it was their birthday or Christmas or something and ... well ... they had it coming. I don't want to be that. I want to exult in the vast grace of God, His unmerited, unearned, undeserved favor. It is so much bigger when it isn't owed.
One of the biggest, most difficult complaints offered throughout history about God is "Why do bad things happen to good people?" or "If there is a God, why is there evil?" It's a dilemma. And not merely for Christianity. If there is Allah, why do bad things happen? If there is Jehovah, why do bad things happen? If there is any all-powerful, all-good being, why do bad things happen? The dilemma is obvious. Reasoning from our experience -- there is evil -- either this being is not all-powerful or not all-good.
Now, lots of sound and ink have been expended making good (and bad) defenses on this topic. (Hint: A "bad" defense of God in the face of evil is "Well, it just happens; He can't stop it.") But I'm addressing here an underlying thought, a basic concept here that appears to often be overlooked. The premise behind, "Why would God allow bad things to happen to good people?" is 1) there are good people and 2) God owes us something better. The truth is this mentality harkens all the way back to the Garden:
"God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5)It's our core problem -- "I will make myself like the Most High." (Isa 14:14) We have made ourselves into idols. As such, God owes us. He owes us respect, comfort, peace, love, all the good things we think He ought to give us. When these don't come our way or when we lose what we have of it, He's wrong. He has failed to meet His obligations to us. Faith breaks down. Skepticism builds. Opposition replaces submission.
Here's the thing. God does offer us lots of good. He made us in His image (Gen 1:26; Gen 9:6), loves the world (John 3:16), offers love, joy, peace (Gal 5:22), and so on. He does all that. What we fail to see and, therefore, what we've lost is grace. Paul says that grace is not grace when it's owed (Rom 11:6; Rom 4:4). When we stand on entitlement rather than unmerited favor, we've subverted grace. And the loss of grace is a harsh loss.
I'm not hoping to focus on "You don't owe me nothin'". I'm not trying to point out how bad we are. What I want us to grasp is how big God's unmerited favor towards us actually is. Yes, He shows us kindness, but not because He owes it to us. And that makes it huge. I'm sure you've seen this in microcosm in human life. You buy a child a gift. He or she isn't particularly grateful because, after all, it was their birthday or Christmas or something and ... well ... they had it coming. I don't want to be that. I want to exult in the vast grace of God, His unmerited, unearned, undeserved favor. It is so much bigger when it isn't owed.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Father's Day, 2017
We are commanded to "Honor your father and your mother" (Exo 20:12). Paul says it is "the first commandment with a promise" (Eph 6:1-3). Nowhere is there an exception clause. "You only have to honor honorable parents." "Honor good parents, but not bad." "You can stop once you become an adult." It's a simple, straightforward command.
I, thank God, have been blessed with an honorable father. He is a man that loves God, loves his wife and my mother, loves his children. He is a man who has always sought to do what is right whatever the cost. Maybe some of my memories of him will serve best to tell you the kind of man my father is.
My father loves coffee. Always has. Well, to be precise, he loves coffee-flavored cream and sugar. He will drink it any time of day, any opportunity. Rarely will he say "No" to a cup of coffee. I remember on multiple occasions he would get a bowl of vanilla ice cream and pour coffee over it, mixing his own "coffee ice cream". I think it's one of the reasons he's still so healthy at 87. He walks a couple of miles a day to his local Starbucks. Good for you, Dad.
Something else my father has always loved is fishing. I have memories of fishing at a very young age. Our summer vacations would be a family camping trip where there would certainly be fishing. We would take extended weekend trips to Ensenada to go deep sea fishing. We took a 6-week multi-family vacation to Alaska to include some top notch salmon fishing. We'd go to the beach and while we played on the shore or romped in the waves, he'd be surf fishing. I remember a backpacking trip we took, Dad and my brother and I with some of his coworkers, deep into the Sierras. I remember standing by that pristine mountain lake with pole in hand and a line in the water ... when my reel exploded. "Dad!" Of course, his fishing was done; he had to take care of my disaster. Calmly, coolly, without any indication of ire or frustration, he started scooping reel parts out of the lake and trying to put things back together. My younger brother, age 8 at the time, was pulling in trout, begging for help, and forced to do it on his own -- get the fish off the hook and on the stringer, throw the half-eaten worm back in, repeat -- but Dad never wavered, never complained, never raised his voice. Because that was his character. I never really knew which it was -- was fishing his excuse for spending time with his sons, or was time with his sons an excuse to go fishing? I wonder.
I remember when my parents decided to move closer to Dad's work and our new church. (My parents changed churches because they were concerned that we kids were not getting fed at the church we had always attended. I tell you that to demonstrate their priorities.) In the search for a new place, Dad bought a fixer-upper. On weekends he took us boys to the house where he would work and we would play. We hunted gophers in the yard, capturing them and putting them in a special glass cage Dad built so we could watch them tunnel and live. He gave us sledgehammers to help him take out a wall in the house, real fun for preteen boys (and beyond). He fixed it up and sold it, but I remember the time spent with us because he did that a lot.
In retrospect, it was hard to tell if he was doing a lot of what he did for what he did or for time with his boys. He took us fishing. He took us camping. He took us hiking. He took us to men's prayer breakfasts. He took us to skid row. Yeah, that's right. He took us to where he was bringing the Gospel to street people. We helped out in the rescue mission. We went with him on the street where he offered tracts and the Gospel. Because if there was anything that described my dad, it wasn't "camping" or "fishing" or "flipping houses" -- it was a deep and abiding love of the Lord. If the church's doors were open, we were likely there. He took us to Billy Graham events and revivals at church. He saw to it that we went to winter and summer camps with the youth group. (He even used them as additional training techniques where he paid for us to go by having us do work around the house to earn the money.) I remember my father gathering the family in the dining room one day and sitting us all down ... to confess. Yes, to tell us how he had been wrong. He hadn't been serving God as he should. He hadn't been the example he should. He hadn't been loving his family as he should. And through tears he asked if we would forgive him. Because above anything else, my dad loved the Lord. Still does.
There is a lot more. We have discussions about church and worship and the state of things. He's pretty sure my theology is skewed, but that's okay because one thing he has demonstrated time and again is his abiding love for his kids -- even me. I remember, at 18 (or so), leaving home to go live with a girl. I tried to sneak out, leaving a note, but he caught me and stood at the door. "I'm not letting you leave," he said. "Dad," I answered, "you can't stop me. I'm an adult." His answer has been with me ever since. "If you were on a raft in a river and I knew that you were headed for a waterfall, I would do everything I could to pull you off that raft." Because my dad loves me that much.
Today I honor my father. I thank God for him. I rejoice in God's kindness in giving me this father when it seems like so many other fathers fall so short. And I hope that it is not only today that I honor him. He has always served as a shining example of God at work in one of His own children. Thanks, Dad.
I, thank God, have been blessed with an honorable father. He is a man that loves God, loves his wife and my mother, loves his children. He is a man who has always sought to do what is right whatever the cost. Maybe some of my memories of him will serve best to tell you the kind of man my father is.
My father loves coffee. Always has. Well, to be precise, he loves coffee-flavored cream and sugar. He will drink it any time of day, any opportunity. Rarely will he say "No" to a cup of coffee. I remember on multiple occasions he would get a bowl of vanilla ice cream and pour coffee over it, mixing his own "coffee ice cream". I think it's one of the reasons he's still so healthy at 87. He walks a couple of miles a day to his local Starbucks. Good for you, Dad.
Something else my father has always loved is fishing. I have memories of fishing at a very young age. Our summer vacations would be a family camping trip where there would certainly be fishing. We would take extended weekend trips to Ensenada to go deep sea fishing. We took a 6-week multi-family vacation to Alaska to include some top notch salmon fishing. We'd go to the beach and while we played on the shore or romped in the waves, he'd be surf fishing. I remember a backpacking trip we took, Dad and my brother and I with some of his coworkers, deep into the Sierras. I remember standing by that pristine mountain lake with pole in hand and a line in the water ... when my reel exploded. "Dad!" Of course, his fishing was done; he had to take care of my disaster. Calmly, coolly, without any indication of ire or frustration, he started scooping reel parts out of the lake and trying to put things back together. My younger brother, age 8 at the time, was pulling in trout, begging for help, and forced to do it on his own -- get the fish off the hook and on the stringer, throw the half-eaten worm back in, repeat -- but Dad never wavered, never complained, never raised his voice. Because that was his character. I never really knew which it was -- was fishing his excuse for spending time with his sons, or was time with his sons an excuse to go fishing? I wonder.
I remember when my parents decided to move closer to Dad's work and our new church. (My parents changed churches because they were concerned that we kids were not getting fed at the church we had always attended. I tell you that to demonstrate their priorities.) In the search for a new place, Dad bought a fixer-upper. On weekends he took us boys to the house where he would work and we would play. We hunted gophers in the yard, capturing them and putting them in a special glass cage Dad built so we could watch them tunnel and live. He gave us sledgehammers to help him take out a wall in the house, real fun for preteen boys (and beyond). He fixed it up and sold it, but I remember the time spent with us because he did that a lot.
In retrospect, it was hard to tell if he was doing a lot of what he did for what he did or for time with his boys. He took us fishing. He took us camping. He took us hiking. He took us to men's prayer breakfasts. He took us to skid row. Yeah, that's right. He took us to where he was bringing the Gospel to street people. We helped out in the rescue mission. We went with him on the street where he offered tracts and the Gospel. Because if there was anything that described my dad, it wasn't "camping" or "fishing" or "flipping houses" -- it was a deep and abiding love of the Lord. If the church's doors were open, we were likely there. He took us to Billy Graham events and revivals at church. He saw to it that we went to winter and summer camps with the youth group. (He even used them as additional training techniques where he paid for us to go by having us do work around the house to earn the money.) I remember my father gathering the family in the dining room one day and sitting us all down ... to confess. Yes, to tell us how he had been wrong. He hadn't been serving God as he should. He hadn't been the example he should. He hadn't been loving his family as he should. And through tears he asked if we would forgive him. Because above anything else, my dad loved the Lord. Still does.
There is a lot more. We have discussions about church and worship and the state of things. He's pretty sure my theology is skewed, but that's okay because one thing he has demonstrated time and again is his abiding love for his kids -- even me. I remember, at 18 (or so), leaving home to go live with a girl. I tried to sneak out, leaving a note, but he caught me and stood at the door. "I'm not letting you leave," he said. "Dad," I answered, "you can't stop me. I'm an adult." His answer has been with me ever since. "If you were on a raft in a river and I knew that you were headed for a waterfall, I would do everything I could to pull you off that raft." Because my dad loves me that much.
Today I honor my father. I thank God for him. I rejoice in God's kindness in giving me this father when it seems like so many other fathers fall so short. And I hope that it is not only today that I honor him. He has always served as a shining example of God at work in one of His own children. Thanks, Dad.
Saturday, June 17, 2017
News Weakly - 6/17/2017
Just When You Thought It Was Safe
Stories of bakers and florists and photographers and innkeepers and all who didn't want to be forced to violate their religious convictions and thought they were protected by the First Amendment only to find that they weren't were everywhere. We figured, given the ludicrous nature of the whole thing, it would stop. It hasn't.
In Michigan, a Catholic farmer who owns and operates Country Mill Farms and believes that marriage is between a man and a woman opted not to host a gay mirage on his property. He sent the women to a nearby farm where they were wed in 2015. In fact, where he lives, that's perfectly legal. However, in East Lansing they have anti-discrimination laws and, although the farm is not in East Lansing (or even in the same county), the city is banning them from selling produce at their Farmer's Market. (The referenced Forbes article is titled "Government Officials Try To Ban People Who Hold 'Wrong' Beliefs.")
Not to be outdone, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services have adopted "enhanced" policies for foster parents. In order to be a foster parent under these new policies, the foster parents must be "affirming", defined as "Acknowledge and support the individual's rights to self-determination of gender and sexual orientation." Now, at some point in the deep dark past there was this idea that adults were there to help the children grow, mature, and learn to navigate their world. The idea was that kids don't have the knowledge, experience, or maturity to do this and parents/caregivers were supposed to provide this. No longer. Now "It is critical to respect the child/youth's gender expression and self-determination, including the child/youth's choice of clothes, make-up, hairstyle, friends, and activities within appropriate boundaries (e.g. if a caregiver permits a cisgender heterosexual child/youth to date at a certain age, the caregiver may not prohibit a gay or transgender child/youth from dating)." That is, if you're going to let one date, you'll have to let the other (that's the boundaries that are approved), but how they dress, who they're friends with, and what they choose to do is basically outside of your purview and you'll need to be "affirming" by not only acknowledging, but supporting their choices. You can't? You can't be a foster parent in Illinois. "If your beliefs don't align with our insanity, you're out."
I Just Don't Get It
There are a lot of news items that don't make sense -- irrational, you know? I understand them; I just think they're crazy. Every so often there comes a story that I just don't get. This is one. There were protests across the U.S. protesting ... get this ... Sharia law. Now, I know that there are places Dearborn, Michigan that have a large Muslim population and are accused of importing some Sharia aspects, but, seriously, I know of no one who is actually suggesting that anyone could get Sharia into American jurisprudence. But, some of these protests turned violent because of counter protestors, so ...?
I don't get it. Counter protesters had signs like "Stop the Trump agenda of racism, sexism, bigotry and war!" What does Trump have to do with Sharia law, and why is that part of the protest of anti-Sharia protests? Some of the clashes were over the mistreatment of Muslims. The former Seattle Mayor said, "We stand against bigotry, against racism and with our Muslim neighbors in the state and beyond." I get the bigotry part, but what does "Muslim" have to do with "racism"? Muslim is not a race. I tell you, I just don't get it.
Such Hate
So great is the hate for Donald Trump that Los Angeles replaced its "Gay Pride March" with a "Resist Donald Trump March". Now that's something. When hatred for a sitting president overrides personal lust, you've really got something. Because, as we all know, President Trump is out to arrest gays.
Like I Said
You've probably seen this, but I had to point it out because it's the kind of thing I've been talking about. A woman in Plainfield, N.J., was performing the dangerous "distracted walking" maneuver. You know, she was so engrossed in her phone that she tripped over a door and fell into a basement. We know about distracted driving. Our smartphones are producing a new hazard zone called "the sidewalk" for people who can't seem to function without being totally engrossed in their phones. Are smartphones making stupid people? I don't think so.
The Latest and Greatest
You've heard of the old tradition of the "debutante ball" where parents would throw a large party to present their daughters to society. You've heard of the "quincineara", a tradition of the 15th birthday party that marks the transition from childhood to young womanhood. Well, here's the latest. Mr. and Mrs. Murphy of Tampa, FL, hosted their child's "gender reveal party." Everyone was delighted when they revealed "their precious little high schooler to be a gender-fluid possum possibly having kinship with an anime character from popular anime 'Attack on Titan.'” Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Stories of bakers and florists and photographers and innkeepers and all who didn't want to be forced to violate their religious convictions and thought they were protected by the First Amendment only to find that they weren't were everywhere. We figured, given the ludicrous nature of the whole thing, it would stop. It hasn't.
In Michigan, a Catholic farmer who owns and operates Country Mill Farms and believes that marriage is between a man and a woman opted not to host a gay mirage on his property. He sent the women to a nearby farm where they were wed in 2015. In fact, where he lives, that's perfectly legal. However, in East Lansing they have anti-discrimination laws and, although the farm is not in East Lansing (or even in the same county), the city is banning them from selling produce at their Farmer's Market. (The referenced Forbes article is titled "Government Officials Try To Ban People Who Hold 'Wrong' Beliefs.")
Not to be outdone, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services have adopted "enhanced" policies for foster parents. In order to be a foster parent under these new policies, the foster parents must be "affirming", defined as "Acknowledge and support the individual's rights to self-determination of gender and sexual orientation." Now, at some point in the deep dark past there was this idea that adults were there to help the children grow, mature, and learn to navigate their world. The idea was that kids don't have the knowledge, experience, or maturity to do this and parents/caregivers were supposed to provide this. No longer. Now "It is critical to respect the child/youth's gender expression and self-determination, including the child/youth's choice of clothes, make-up, hairstyle, friends, and activities within appropriate boundaries (e.g. if a caregiver permits a cisgender heterosexual child/youth to date at a certain age, the caregiver may not prohibit a gay or transgender child/youth from dating)." That is, if you're going to let one date, you'll have to let the other (that's the boundaries that are approved), but how they dress, who they're friends with, and what they choose to do is basically outside of your purview and you'll need to be "affirming" by not only acknowledging, but supporting their choices. You can't? You can't be a foster parent in Illinois. "If your beliefs don't align with our insanity, you're out."
I Just Don't Get It
There are a lot of news items that don't make sense -- irrational, you know? I understand them; I just think they're crazy. Every so often there comes a story that I just don't get. This is one. There were protests across the U.S. protesting ... get this ... Sharia law. Now, I know that there are places Dearborn, Michigan that have a large Muslim population and are accused of importing some Sharia aspects, but, seriously, I know of no one who is actually suggesting that anyone could get Sharia into American jurisprudence. But, some of these protests turned violent because of counter protestors, so ...?
I don't get it. Counter protesters had signs like "Stop the Trump agenda of racism, sexism, bigotry and war!" What does Trump have to do with Sharia law, and why is that part of the protest of anti-Sharia protests? Some of the clashes were over the mistreatment of Muslims. The former Seattle Mayor said, "We stand against bigotry, against racism and with our Muslim neighbors in the state and beyond." I get the bigotry part, but what does "Muslim" have to do with "racism"? Muslim is not a race. I tell you, I just don't get it.
Such Hate
So great is the hate for Donald Trump that Los Angeles replaced its "Gay Pride March" with a "Resist Donald Trump March". Now that's something. When hatred for a sitting president overrides personal lust, you've really got something. Because, as we all know, President Trump is out to arrest gays.
Like I Said
You've probably seen this, but I had to point it out because it's the kind of thing I've been talking about. A woman in Plainfield, N.J., was performing the dangerous "distracted walking" maneuver. You know, she was so engrossed in her phone that she tripped over a door and fell into a basement. We know about distracted driving. Our smartphones are producing a new hazard zone called "the sidewalk" for people who can't seem to function without being totally engrossed in their phones. Are smartphones making stupid people? I don't think so.
The Latest and Greatest
You've heard of the old tradition of the "debutante ball" where parents would throw a large party to present their daughters to society. You've heard of the "quincineara", a tradition of the 15th birthday party that marks the transition from childhood to young womanhood. Well, here's the latest. Mr. and Mrs. Murphy of Tampa, FL, hosted their child's "gender reveal party." Everyone was delighted when they revealed "their precious little high schooler to be a gender-fluid possum possibly having kinship with an anime character from popular anime 'Attack on Titan.'” Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)