The State of the Union

The President talked about a variety of issues last night. He congratulated Nancy Pelosi on being the first Madam Chairman, and the crowd applauded. He called for a balanced budget, and the crowd applauded. He encouraged Congress to do more about education, and the crowd applauded. He suggested health insurance initiatives, and the crowd applauded. He called for immigration reform, and the crowd applauded. He called for real change to our environmental approach, and the crowd applauded. Then he talked about Iraq. He didn't try to get their response on his decision to send more troops. He just told them he had done it. But he did try to explain why:

It would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

There was applause, but it was starkly obvious that the Democrats in general and the outspoken opponents of President Bush in particular did not applaud.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by Al-Qaida and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country — and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens ... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

Again, the applause was light, and his opponents were outspoken in their silence. With arms folded, the Pelosis and Obamas and Clintons made their statements. "No, Mr. President, we disagree. We do not believe that it is necessary to keep our promises or stick with our friends. We do not care about future security. We are not concerned about Iraq, its struggle, or the chaos that we all know would follow if we withdrew now. All we care about is getting our people out now. Let someone else deal with the results of that move."

Perhaps I read too much into their silence. But when Katie Couric interviewed Hillary Clinton after her declaration that she would run for president, Hillary stated that her plan was "phased redeployment". Now, that sounds like she plans to simply move troops around with some plan, but she explained in the following sentences that by "redeployment" she simply meant "bring them home". They would be redeployed ... the the U.S. And in his response to the President's speech, Senator Webb had a similar suggestion:

Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

The suggestion is "Get our troops out of there and let's just talk to them." Substitute forces with "strong regionally-based diplomacy". You know, if we would only start a dialog with these people, they'd see the error of their killing ways and leap onto the democracy bandwagon. We don't need forces over there. We just need good talkers.

I have asked on more than one occasion what the alternative is to the President's plan(s). It seemed to me at those times that the only alternative being offered is "pull out". It would appear that my assessment was correct. According to polls and to Senator Webb's response, "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military." The conclusion is that we must, therefore, put an end to the war and withdraw our troops. This is because, you see, the majority rules in America. Instead, what we have is a Commander in Chief who was duly elected by the people and is operating on his pre-stated principles. What the majority of America has done is decide that his principles are irrelevant, that the notion of a "republic" is nonsense, and that we are not willing to bear up under difficult times in order to achieve what we set out to achieve. The majority of Americans have become ... the stereotypical American. Delayed gratification is a meaningless term. Hard work and effort is pointless. Democracy isn't really worth anything if it doesn't benefit me immediately. And those other countries ... well, they can just handle their own problems because we don't care.

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be called an American.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

The human brain weighs approximately 3 pounds, about 2% of the total body weight. It contains over 100 billion neurons. These neurons transmit thought via electro-chemical activity. The brain is 70% water, but capable of more ideas than there are atoms in the known universe. A modern computer can handle perhaps 100 million instructions per second, but the human brain is estimated to be able to handle 10 quadrillion instructions per second. And with all of our advances, we still don't really know how the human brain works.

When you think about it, it is astounding to think about what goes on without thinking about it. Without your conscious thought, your brain does an amazing number of things. It regulates your heart and respiration. It maintains your body temperature. It manages the astounding flood of sensory information that deluges your system every moment of every day. You don't have to think about how to walk. You just do it. You don't have to analyze language. You just know it. There is no conscious effort involved when your nose itches and your hand scratches it. Your brain monitors all of the nerve inputs from every inch of skin, all of the smell inputs from your nose, all of the visual inputs from you eyes, all of the sounds entering your ears. It determines, without you even being aware, what is worth bringing to your attention and what to ignore. "Excuse me. It's getting cold here on the skin. How about getting some heat?" "That's a painful pressure on the bottom of your foot. Perhaps you ought to stop stepping on that rock before it ruptures your skin." "That sound is nearing dangerous levels. You need to cover your ears."

We know things without thinking about them. That facial expression she just made means something. We don't analyze it; we just know it. This surface would be useful for rubbing my itchy back; that one would be useless. The word he just used has 14 different meanings, but I know exactly which one he meant without giving it a single thought. And while we make mistakes -- we are, after all, only human -- the sheer numbers of stuff that pours through the brain untouched and error free would put the post office to shame.

Let me give a practical example. One day I typed into Google, "How long does a budgie live?" The question is about lifespan; the question is about how long the bird will "live". Now, you readers have no problems determining what is meant by "live". You know how to pronounce it. You know that I'm not asking about whether it's "live or videotaped". That's a different "live". It's like the word "invalid". If I looked for "invalid argument", I might find articles on logical arguments that are not valid, or I might find arguments about whether or not there should be handicapped parking, because "invalid" can refer to the validity of something or it can refer to an infirmed or sickly person. You know from the context which I mean. Software would have a very difficult time figuring out context and nuance to determine which it is. So when I google "How long does a budgie live?", I can found out where they live, how long they live, the survival rate of budgie cells, and where I can see the rock band "Budgie" live. The software cannot tell the difference for all these uses. Your brain understands the question without giving it a moment's thought, while our software can't figure it out for all of the possible variations. The brain, it seems, is a marvelous thing.

I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well (Psa. 139:14).

Perhaps there are many, many reasons of which we're not really aware that we are told "in everything give thanks".

Jefferson's Koran

When Keith Ellison did his ceremonial "swearing in", he did it as promised ... on the Koran. It wasn't just any Koran. It was the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Ellison wanted to show that he was the same sort of visionary as Jefferson, and that Jefferson believed there was wisdom in the Koran.

Congressman Ellison either displayed his own ignorance or intentionally played off the ignorance of Americans, because the story doesn't quite match up to the facts. Everyone knows the Marine Hymn. "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" the song begins. To what is it referring? The reference to "the shores of Tripoli" is a reference to one of the very first official actions of the United States Marines. This was the First Barbary War of 1801-1805. In this conflict, Marines marched on Tripoli. Thus the reference. But ... why Tripoli?

Muslim pirates had reigned along the North African Mediterranean for hundreds of years. Treaties with France and England kept them safe, but when America cast off its connections with Britian, she was on her own. In 1785, two American merchant vessels were taken hostage. The new American government decided to pay the ransom against Ambassador Thomas Jefferson's recommendation. But the attacks kept coming and America kept paying. The ambassador asked Tripoli's envoy why they had such animosity toward the United States. He reported that their answer was as follows:

The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

What wisdom did Thomas Jefferson wish to glean from the Koran? He wanted to know the reasons for the fighting and animosity. He wanted to know the thinking of these people. And he wanted to know the source book of the ones he would declare war on when he became president in 1801 and sent the navy and Marines to put an end to the piracy.

I have to wonder which part of this Keith Ellison had in mind when he intentionally tossed out the traditional root of American government and replaced it with Jefferson's source book for what was wrong with Islam. Was it ignorance? Or did he simply expect that Americans don't really know their history? I am pretty sure that the latter is valid. So many Americans are still thinking of this whole thing in Iraq as a "police action" and can't figure out why we're not "getting the criminal Osama Bin Laden" instead of fighting a war on terrorism. If Americans can't remember yesterday's history, why would they have the slightest sense of the previous centuries? I'm fairly confident, however, that Ellison hasn't a clue that the book on which he swore his oath was intended to be a helpful tool for killing Muslims in the 1800's.

Right and Real Answers

Have you ever noticed that many times there is a "right answer" and a "real answer" to certain questions? It's interesting to me how often we lead people into a lie by asking these types of questions.

The first example of this that springs to mind is the horrible question wives ask their husbands: "Does this dress make me look fat?" The possible answers are diverse and range from flattering to potentially fatal. But no husband in his right mind would offer a truthful answer if the answer was "yes". That's the "real answer", but it's not the "right answer".

These questions abound. When there is a major connection of a person's feelings to the question, the likelihood of a divergence between "right" and "real" answers increases. A newlywed husband is tasting his young wife's first attempt at meatloaf, and it resembles sawdust. She looks at him with anticipation. "Well?" Will he offer the real answer or will he offer the right answer? You tell your son, "Take out the trash." He may respond with "No way" or "Yes!", but you don't know which is the real answer until he either acts on it or does not.

Our Christian circles also lend themselves to this problem. Ask a friend at church, "Do you know Jesus?" and they really have no choice but to answer in the affirmative. That's the "right answer". The truth may be that they're having doubts. The truth may be that they don't know Jesus very well or maybe not at all. The truth may be that they only know about Him and the truth may even be that they're painfully aware of the difference. But admitting that the truthful answer to the question is "No" would be too difficult. So we ask and receive an answer that we expect and think we've actually received the truth.

We are commanded to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Somehow we need to learn how to 1) answer with the real answers rather than the expected ones and 2) encourage others to do the same. Perhaps we ought to ask better questions. Perhaps we need to convey love better, wherein we don't condition our love for others on their answers. And whatever else we do, we should keep in mind that sometimes you will get the right answer, and sometimes that's not the real answer.

Equally Abominable

Back on January 10, I wrote a piece on Abomination. A friend commented on it and asked for help evaluating further such "abominations". She sent me the "icon" in question. Here it is.







Let me spell it out so you can see the claims:

Equal abominations before the Lord:
1. Shaving Lev. 19:27
2. Shrimp Lev. 11:10
3. Tattoos Lev. 19:28
4. Work on Saturday Lev. 19:30
5. Polyester Lev. 19:19
6. Bunnies Lev. 11:6
7. Hamburger Lev. 17:10
8. Vegetable Gardens Lev. 19:19

Now, let's look at them individually:

1. Shaving is an abomination before the Lord. Proof -- "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." There you have it. God hates shaving. Wait! I'm looking, I'm looking ... no, nowhere do I see anything in this passage that says God detests ... anything. Leviticus 19 does not address abominations; it addresses laws. This, of course, will have a ripple effect on many of the following assertions. The claims regarding tattoos, working on Saturday, polyester, and vegetable gardens are all referenced to Leviticus 19 which does not once contain the term "abomination". Further, it is not "shaving" in reference here, but a particular look -- rounding off the hair at the temples or beard. This, according to many biblical scholars, is a reference to something we no longer understand. It is believed to have been a particular look intended as a worship to a particular idol of the day. It is suggested that Israel knew what it was because of their years of slavery in Egypt. Thus, it was idolatry that was forbidden and, by no stretch of the imagination, a blanket law against "shaving".

2. Shrimp is an abomination before the Lord. I will attempt to be fair and conclude that the intent was "eating shrimp" as opposed to merely "shrimp". First, it is true that Leviticus forbids Israel from eating shellfish. We'll all agree on that point. From there we spiral into a crash on this point. The "abomination" in Leviticus 11 is not "to the Lord", but to Israel. Israel should detest it, not God. And the New Testament declares all food clean, removing entirely the problem of "unclean food". And there it hits bottom. Throw this one from the train.

3. Tattoos are an abomination before the Lord. Referring back to Item 1, nowhere in Leviticus 19 do we find a reference to "abomination". Please delete this claim, then, from the list in your mind. Further, the notion of adorning oneself with tattoos was unknown at the time. Tattoos were performed as a ritual for idolatry, a body mark for worship. It is not general "tattoos" in mind here, but the acoutrements of idolatry being forbidden.

4. Working on Saturday is an abomination before the Lord. Again, the term "abomination" doesn't appear in this passage. Further, it is not "Saturday" in view, but "Sabbath". There is no doubt that God commands no work on the Sabbath, but there is nothing in the command that links it to an "abomination".

5. Polyester is an abomination before the Lord. I'm hoping that people are laughing at this, since polyester didn't exist at the time. Further, we're still in Lev. 19 which carries no reference to "abomination". And, finally, what was meant by the term "mixed material" is not really known. The original Hebrew word is obscure. The intent is equally obscure. Most believe it is a reference to a particular type of material that is showy, such as Joseph's "coat of many colors".

6. Bunnies are an abomination before the Lord. I like this. Bunnies are detestable to the Lord. Good stuff. Of course, I'm sure it's a reference, again, to eating bunnies, not bunnies themselves. And, of course, it's a lie. What does Leviticus 11:6 actually say? It says that eating rabbits is not to be done because they are among the "unclean" animals. Further, this, according to Lev. 11:10, is not a matter of being an abomination to the Lord, but something that Israel should detest. And, again, the New Testament declares all foods clean, so this requirement from the Old Testament was no longer in effect in the New, and the point is moot.

7. Hamburger is an abomination before the Lord. The prohibition of Lev. 17:10 is a rule against eating blood. I would guess that, providing the broadest amount of charity to the argument, the suggestion is that there is blood in hamburger. Now, since there is no more blood in hamburger than there is in any other meat, this seems ludicrous. God allowed, nay, commanded the priests to eat meat. It had to be cooked. So, we might allow the stretch of going so far as saying it is a sin to eat raw hamburger, but we should all agree that it's not only a sin -- it's stupid. But the claim here is that eating a hamburger is an abomination before the Lord. Odd thing ... I find no reference to any such thing. Eating blood is forbidden, but nothing in the passage says "abomination". Unless we simply conclude that all sin of all variety is an abomination to God, we would be wise to avoid making such claims on an individual topic recklessly.

8. Vegetable gardens are an abomination before the Lord. This argument belies the arguer's intent. The goal here is not to offer a valid argument. The goal here is to offer a foolish argument. It is intended to be an emotional argument, not a rational one. The real hope here is that no one actually looks at the claim, but simply reacts. To deny this is a violation, according to the argument, of "common sense". And with only the briefest of examinations, one sees that this claim is devoid of common sense. The prohibition here in Lev. 19:19 is not against vegetable gardens. The prohibition is against mixing seeds. Indeed, this is common sense. Trying to grow two different kinds of crops in the same field is foolishness. It is suggested by many that the entire context of the verse is not in reference to specifics, but the general idea that "My people will be set apart." They suggest that the intent of this prohibition is specific to Israel for the purpose of living lives that demonstrate purity, without mixture. Whatever the intent, there is, again, no mention in Leviticus 19 that any of this falls to the category of "abomination to the Lord".

In contrast to all of the above, we find Leviticus 20 with a series of rules about sexual sin. Adultery is punishable by death. Incest is punishable by death. Bestiality is punishable by death. There is a list of sexual sins they were commanded to avoid and the penalty for committing them. And then we get to Lev. 20:13 -- If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. None of the previous sexual sins in this passage are referred to as "an abomination". None of the sexual sins that follow it are referred to as "an abomination". Only this one. Why is that? Could it be that this one falls in a category of its own in God's perception?

The Interpreter

¹⁸ For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³ And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. ²⁴ For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

²⁶ And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; ²⁷ and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. ²⁸ And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; ³⁰ and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Rom. 8:18-30).

(I needed the whole passage for context.)

We all know this section. It's often a favorite among Christians. There's that wonderful part about "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God." It's even more wonderful to people who are willing to put a period (in principle) behind "good" and not limit God's goodness to "those who love God." Calvinists love this passage because of the unbroken chain from "predestined" to "glorified" with nothing in the middle about "what I do". One of the popular ideas from this passage is the notion of a "prayer language" in which the Spirit helps us to pray when we don't know how.

That's the one. Funny thing is ... I don't see it. Paul doesn't say, "When we don't know how to pray as we should." Paul says, "We do not know how to pray as we should." There doesn't appear to be any occasion to the statement. It doesn't appear to be "sometimes". Paul seems to say that we never really know how to pray as we ought to pray. According to this passage, all of our prayer is filtered through the Holy Spirit who operates on our behalf in a language too deep for words. It appears that, just as creation suffers from the Curse, we suffer from an inherent weakness -- the inability to know how to pray.

Imagine, then, how delightful, how marvelous it is to have the Holy Spirit as our eternal interpreter. We pray -- wrong -- and He intercedes perfectly. He knows what is on the mind of God and connects what we are praying with God's thinking. I picture it something like this. "Father, I know he asked for this, but what he really meant was that." Of course, that's way too simplified, since it's "too deep for words", but the idea that the Spirit is always interceding my behalf makes my prayers so much more effective even when I don't think a single one is heard or answered. I like that.

I Had A Dream

Following up on the post on Discipleship from the other day, I had a dream of possibility that was just fun to think about. I think I'll share it with you.

Imagine your pastor, Pastor Bob. Pastor Bob is in his late 40's and is a beloved pastor. So Pastor Bob reads my comments on discipleship and takes them to heart. He goes to the junior high group and asks who among them believe they might be led to be a pastor when they grow up. A few raise their hands. So he takes these under his wing.

Pastor Bob undertakes a serious discipleship project with these three guys. He spends time with them during the week. He teaches them the Word. When he goes to visit someone in the hospital, he always has at least one of them with him. When he officiates at a funeral or performs a wedding, at least one of them is on hand as well. He has them sit in on some of the less personal counseling sessions, such as premarital counseling and the like. He has them attend board meetings with him. He's serious about this project.

As they grow, they start doing their own teaching. As high schoolers, they help out with the younger kids. As they get to be seniors, they help out with junior high kids. They attend college locally for a couple of years and help out with the high school group. The church helps fund those who want to go to Bible School or seminary. Of course, of the original three, not all continue. Some drop out. But one, at least, continues forward. He comes back after seminary, is ordained in your church, and starts to work as an assistant pastor. He preached on occasion when he was in seminary, but now he preaches when Pastor Bob is away on vacation or out for other reasons. He is more involved in the ministry, being a pastor now. And when Pastor Bob decides it's time to retire, there is no need for a pastoral search committee. Everyone knows that our young pastor who has been discipled by their beloved Pastor Bob and been a part of the ministry all this time will be the next pastor. The change will be nearly seamless, since Pastor Bob has invested so much of who he is into this young man. His doctrines are the same. His goals and visions are the same. His love for the church is the same. And his love for discipleship is the same. He will perpetuate this approach. A perfect arrangement.

I know. It's a dream. But it isn't so far fetched, is it? And why wouldn't it work in other settings as well? Why can't an elder train young men to be elders? Why can't teachers teach others to be teachers? I know. It's a dream -- a wild one at that. But imagine a church where the leadership takes individuals under their wing to teach to be leaders, and where the older men teach the younger men how they ought to be, and where the older women teach the younger women how they ought to be ... oh, wait, that's biblical, isn't it? If it is a pipe dream, it's a biblical one.

Discipleship

"Disciples" -- we know the term. It refers to the twelve followers of Jesus, right? Well, actually, only if we let it. The Greek word is mathetes and references "a learner". It refers to a person who claims to have learned particular principles from someone and holds to those principles on the basis of the authority of that other person. Greek has another word for teaching: didaskalos. This word primarily refers to the transfer of information. Mathetes, on the other hand, carries with it the idea of learning and endeavor, the idea of actually following the teaching (didaskalos) of another. In other words, disciples are not only pupils; they are followers.

Paul warns against being followers of particular leaders. He writes, "I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ.' Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?: (1 Cor. 1:11-13). Oh, good. So we're off the hook. No one needs to be "discipling" others, right? We're all just supposed to be disciples of Christ. Not hardly.

Most Christians have heard the term, "The Great Commission", referring to Jesus's command to His disciples that they share the gospel. Of course, that's not what the command actually contains:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20).

"Make disciples" ... that's the command -- matheeteúsate. That's not the same thing as "spread the gospel". The gospel, in this case, would be only the beginning. Where does it end? "Teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." Notice, in fact, that it isn't simply "teaching them all that I commanded you." It includes being disciples. They are to learn what was commanded and observe it. The Great Commission is a command of Christ that His followers make disciples of others.

Paul tells Timothy to do the same. "The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:2). This is a primary function of believers in the Body of Christ. It is part of the process that God has built into the Church with the overall goal of "the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ" (Eph. 4:12-13).

There are, of course, problems with this notion. The primary problem is ... we almost never do it. It is the Great Commission of Christ, but we ignore it, preferring our hit-and-run "spread the gospel" instead of actually discipling ("teaching to observe all things"). Our refusal to follow a direct command of Christ is rooted in the other types of problems with this notion. One is the American notion of "independence". No one can tell me what to do. I need no one. We are all equal. You're no better than me. That all works fine in certain applications and under particular conditions, but it doesn't work at all when it is in direct contradiction to Christ's command. But American independence works well because of human pride. It feeds the notion that I'm the really important person and the rest of you are not. It's a lie. This problem, then, is our natural wish to make it on our own rather than have someone else help us or admit that someone else can help us.

The other problem, apart from this sinful aspect, is the work it takes. "Hi, here's a tract, you need Jesus, have a nice day" is easy. "Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" is hard. Look through the Christian bookstore or search for "discipleship" on the Internet and you'll find lots of helpful stuff on discipling ... but it's all "once removed". Real discipleship is a day-to-day walk-alongside relationship. It engages in real time and gets to know the person. It doesn't plop a set of principles on the table and say, "There, run with that." It says, "How does this work in your life? How do you observe this?" It is work. And it is time consuming. Since it encompasses "all that I have commanded you", it isn't finished in a 6-week course covering this nice little book on being a godly parent or how to have a healthy marriage.

There is, I have noticed, another little problem with the concept. It's the word, "disciple". We are all aware that we are to be disciples of Christ. So if I ask, "Are you discipling anyone?", it is uncomfortable. "No, I'm teaching them to follow Christ." That's discipling. "No, but I'm mentoring some people." That's discipling. "No, I'm not doing any such thing." That's sin.

Christianity is a relational religion. (Don't choke on that word; it's biblical.) We are to know God. We are to be known by God. And we are to love one another. We have decided, it seems, to do so at a distance. Throw a good book at it. Let's meet on the Internet and I'll post some nice things for you to read. We are commanded to walk alongside and teach them to observe all that He commands. Of books, Solomon writes, "The writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body" (Eccl 12:12). Perhaps we need to stop sinning on this count and start developing discipleship relationships.

Other Options?

You may not like the President's views, but you have to admire his tenacity. He sticks to his principles no matter what.

The Washington Post says that the White House has little support for his new plan from either the Democrats (no surprise to anyone) or the Republicans. But the Post reports this:

"We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical," Bush said in his radio address yesterday, adding: "Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

Many Democrats, in fact, have proposed alternatives centered around pulling out troops, an idea Bush flatly rejects.

There you have it, folks. We now have three alternatives. 1) Continue as we have been. 2) Try something new like amending the rules of engagement and adding troops. 3) Pull our people out of there and let Iraq fall as it may. Everyone, the President included, rejects the first option. It clearly hasn't worked, and he admits it. Judging by the loudest public voices, it appears that the second one is not acceptable either. The only acceptable option is defeat and shame. Cleaning up the mess that is Iraq is not an option. Assisting the people there is not an option. Trying to do something to put an end to the sectarian violence is not an option. What all true, God-loving, warm-hearted Americans want is a complete withdrawal. Those men and women who have given their lives thus far? Too bad for them -- it's for nothing. The people of Iraq who will undoubtedly succumb to bloody civil war? Not our problem. Forget about them. And to the world looking on at the "superpower" that we once were? Let 'em laugh. we still think we're tough ... as long as you don't look cross-eyed at us or call us mean names or threaten us with violence. No, no, we're just as tough as the French are reputed to be.

It's the same question I asked way back here, and I still haven't heard an answer. Apparently the President hasn't either. What are the other options?

Add more troops or pull out entirely. Those seem to be the only current options on the table. Is that it? Is that the best we have? Are the White House's bitter antagonists really going to sit back and say, "Yes, 'withdraw in defeat' is our best option"? As a kid I always wondered why the United States didn't seem to be figured in endtimes scenarios. I suppose when America has become the paper tiger its people have made it to be, there is no wonder.

The Gospel at the Door

A missionary came to my door Saturday morning. He wanted to tell me about the peaceful life to come. He wanted to assure me that in this troubled world, Jesus could eventually bring a peaceful kingdom. Look, here in Revelation 21. He shall wipe away our tears. How nice. He was not invasive. He didn't ask to come in and talk to me. Nor was he connective. He didn't ask my name. At no point did he ask how I was, what I thought, anything at all about me. He didn't know if I had my own beliefs or even if I was married. He was there to shed light on his beliefs and then leave.

From the day of his visit and the tract he left I knew he was a Jehovah's Witness, but that was irrelevant. I thought, "Is this any way to spread the good news?" I thought back over other encounters with missionaries from all faiths and thought, "Is this any way to spread the good news?" I can't recall a single one who cared about the person to whom they were speaking. I can't recall a single one who wanted to know me, who gave even a hint about concern for my condition, state of mind, or well-being. Despite the fact that we all know that the singular tell-tale sign of being a disciple of Christ is our love for one another, I can't recall a single missionary I've encountered (I mean the ones who have come to my door) that gave a hint of love for one another. Is this any way to spread the good news?

I don't wish to design techniques or diminish approaches. I'm sure that God has the ability to use a whole variety of methods. I'm sure that there are actually people who are saved at a crusade surrounded by thousands of people intent only on making converts. I'm sure that there are people who come to Christ because someone knocked on the door of a stranger and handed them a tract. I'm not saying, "Don't!" I'm asking, "Is this the best way?"

I think that the best way to share the good news is to earn the right. When Jesus met the woman at the well, He didn't start with "Woman, you're in need of living water." He started with a conversation. He engaged her. She didn't believe because He told her what she needed. She believed Him because He knew her. In fact, one of the prime differences between Christianity and other religions is its relational aspect. According to Jesus, eternal life is defined as knowing God (John 17:3). According to Paul a Christian is one who is known by God (Gal. 4:9). The problem the false prophets had in Matt. 7:15-25 was "I never knew you." And yet, the good news we try to offer is so often devoid of relationship. We want to impart information and run rather than engage in relationship.

It's a lot harder to earn the right than to throw a tract and a canny line. It's work. The result, however, is discipleship rather than conversion. And we are not called to make converts; we are called to make disciples. I'm sure that God can use a variety of methods to achieve His goal. Paul spoke of people who were sharing the gospel in Rome. "Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice" (Phil. 1:15-18). And so will I rejoice when Christ is proclaimed, even with less than good methods. But shouldn't we be aiming at the good rather than "envy and strife" or "selfish ambition" or any other technique that falls short of good?

Wait on the Lord

Those who wait for the LORD will gain new strength. They will mount up with wings like eagles. They will run and not get tired. They will walk and not become weary (Isa. 40:31).

We all know that one. It's a heart-warming thrill to think about. "They will mount up with wings like eagles." We've seen the pictures or maybe even seen the real thing. There is very little that is as inspiring and majestic as eagles on the wing.

But ... what does it mean to "wait for the Lord"? When was the last time you waited on the Lord? Do we even think at all about what that entails? What is that waiting like? What are we waiting for? What exactly is in mind here?

There are many references in Scripture to waiting on the Lord. As early as Genesis we read, "For Your salvation I wait, O LORD" (Gen. 49:18). Waiting on the Lord is in the New Testament, such as Paul's remarkable statement "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:20). It is not a small biblical concept. What can we learn about waiting on the Lord?

There appears to be two aspects to waiting. One is immediate and the other is long term. There appears to be times in which people wait on the Lord for immediate circumstances and immediate answers, and there are other times in which it is a continuous, ongoing process. In several places in Scripture the people of God would come to Him with a problem and wait for His response. In Psa. 69, David cries out to the Lord in a particular circumstance. He says, "I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched. My eyes fail while I wait for my God" (Psa. 69:3). This is clearly a specific event and a short term "waiting", at the end of which he expects an answer and can stop crying. In the time of Jeremiah's grief that is the book of Lamentations he writes, "The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the person who seeks Him" (Lam. 3:25). Often waiting on the Lord is an event that is due to singular circumstances and has a limited time frame.

More often, however, waiting is described in terms of a longer time frame. Psalm 25 is an entire psalm that appears to be devoted to the concept of waiting on the Lord as a lifestyle.

O my God, in You I trust; let me not be put to shame; let not my enemies exult over me. Indeed, none who wait for You shall be put to shame; they shall be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous. Make me to know Your ways, O LORD; teach me your paths (Psa. 25:2-4).

Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; for You I wait all the day (Psa. 25:5).

Let integrity and uprightness preserve me, for I wait for You (Psa. 25:21).

This version of waiting appears to be at all times. It includes a trust in God in difficult circumstances. It includes salvation. It includes the process of learning God's ways and walking God's paths. It includes a lifestyle of integrity and uprightness. And it produces peace.

Hosea writes, "Observe kindness and justice and wait for your God continually" (Hos. 12:6). The psalmist says, "I will give You thanks forever, because You have done it, and I will wait on Your name, for it is good, in the presence of Your godly ones (Psa. 52:9).

How do we wait for the Lord? Scripture isn't very clear on this point. That is, there doesn't appear to be a "formula", a "12-step program". There doesn't appear to be an outline of the process. Sometimes it is in private. Sometimes it is in a group. Sometimes it is at home and sometimes it is in a gathering. Sometimes it is an event and sometimes it is a lifestyle. It appears to be linked to trusting the Lord. God can be trusted, so we're trusting Him for ... whatever is at hand and whatever is to come. The idea, then, is that there is the unknown, either tomorrow or the murky future, and we are going to lay this unknown at the feet of the Omniscient One, the Omnipotent One, the One who can handle it all and who can save us, both from sin and from difficult circumstances. Whatever comes our way, we are going to lay it at His feet and wait for His response.

What are we waiting for? What is the product? Well, Isaiah has already told us that waiting on the Lord produces "strength". Psalm 27 says, "Wait for the LORD; Be strong and let your heart take courage; yes, wait for the LORD" (Psa. 27:14) -- courage. Waiting is often linked to resting, as in Psa. 37:7, suggesting peace and rest.

Are you waiting on the Lord? When difficult circumstances arise, do you set aside time to simply listen, to simply lay it at His feet and see what He will do with it? Is your life marked by waiting on Him? Or are you one who tries to handle everything? "Don't worry, God. I have this one. If something really big comes up, I'll give You a call." Many Christians complain of weariness, worry, exhaustion. Could it be that we aren't waiting on the Lord? "Teach me, Lord, to wait."

The Crazy Factory

Turn on the TV or the radio or pick up a newspaper and start looking at what's going on in the world. It doesn't take long to wonder about the sanity of the world. The craziness is graduated, of course. There are levels of crazy. A woman went shopping twice in one week and left her Lexus with her baby inside to the parking attendant while she took her dog in to shop at Macy's. Insane. But, of course, it gets worse. On the day after Christmas in Scottsdale, a step-father walked into his home and shot his wife and children. The oldest son survived and managed to stab his step-father to death. He was unable to save his 17-year-old sister or his mother. Crazy. And, of course, it gets worse. Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Day after day they blow each other up in market places or walk into cafes with bombs strapped to themselves or just start shooting at people in the street. Crazy. In Sudan, groups are trying to eradicate groups. Genocide. Their differences are minimal. "It's a Sudan thing; you wouldn't understand." Absolutely insane. One has to wonder when a trial lawyer tries to get his client off by reason of insanity. What was originally sane about anyone who ruthlessly takes the life of another? What is potentially sane about a person who rapes someone?

I know, I know, this "sanity" of which they speak is a particular type. We'll let it go. But you get the idea. People are crazy. And we don't need the extremes of the news to see it. Each of us suffers from insanity to some degree. He knows that driving while drunk is a bad idea, but he does it and gets arrested for it. She knows that the soap operas she is watching are fiction, but she's still all caught up in them and wants to know why she can't find a guy like that. Everyone has heard "Honesty is the best policy", but all of us lie. Each of us, at some time or another, consciously does something that they know is wrong and stupid. It's crazy.

Where does this rampant, universal insanity come from? I'm not talking about those more specific types of insanity from which a few individuals suffer. I'm talking about this universal insanity that everyone seems to indulge. All of us do what we know to be wrong. All of us suffer to some degree or another from being crazy. Why?

I believe there is an answer. In Paul's letter to the Romans, he lays out the need for the Gospel pretty clearly by pounding them with nearly three complete chapters of bad news. The bad news is that humans are sinners, and that all have sinned and deserve damnation. He says that the basic problem is the suppression of truth (Rom. 1:18). He tells us that there is a core problem of ingratitude (Rom. 1:21). And the real problem: We do not acknowledge God (Rom. 1:21-25). In answer to my quandry, Paul makes this statement: "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done" (Rom. 1:28).

It is my belief that sin rots the brain. When humans indulge in sin, their reasoning capacities, at least in the area of morality, are diminshed. And the longer one indulges in sin, the more incapacitated one becomes. That which is morally questionable becomes "good". That which is clearly immoral becomes acceptable. People suffer from what Paul terms a "seared conscience" (1 Tim. 4:1-2). And insanity sets in. And since we are all sinners, we all suffer, to varying degrees, from this insanity.

What's my point? If we who know that the God of the universe hates sin (Psa. 5:5) can begin to see this insanity in ourselves, we can begin to face it. We can begin to hate it in ourselves. We can get "therapy", that "renewing of the mind" that Paul writes about (Rom. 12:2). And we can begin to see the urgency of it. We need to seek treatment right away. Don't delay!

Another Vietnam

That's the perception of many when it comes to the Iraq conflict. What is meant by the phrase, "another Vietnam"?

The 2nd Indochina War (probably the best name for the conflict) took place from 1959 to 1975. America originally sent military advisors, but in 1965 started sending large numbers of American troops to attempt to defend South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam. The attempt failed. America's leadership favored the philosophy of a "limited war". They restricted targets and denied the military leadership the option of prosecuting this war as they saw fit. As a result, the Vietnam Conflict became America's miserable failure. After 10 years of battle both in Indochina and at home and after losing the lives of more than 50,000 American soldiers, America retreated with her tail between her legs. The Communists of North Vietnam swallowed the Republic of South Vietnam. And America lost her first war.

So what is meant by "another Vietnam"? It may mean "an ill-conceived conflict". It may mean "a war that the military could win if its hands weren't tied by the government." It may mean "the foolish concept of a 'limited war'." I suppose these are all saying the same thing. What made Vietnam an "ill-conceived conflict"? The government decided to dictate military strategy. The government decided that 1) strategy was secondary to political correctness, and 2) the will of the people ultimately decides the military's approach and will. Why? Because the goal was too obscure. The original goal in the conflict in Vietnam was to save South Vietnam from Communism because of what was called "the domino theory". The belief was that if one country in Indochina fell to Communism, more of Asia would fall.

So, here we are again. Congress is aiming at derailing the funding for the war in Iraq. A growing number of Americans are calling for withdrawal. The original goal for going there and staying there is moot. Who cares if democracy gets a foothold in the Middle East? Who gives a plugged nickel about those day-to-day Iraqis and their problems? Saddam is dead. Bring home the troops. Forget about democracy, at least for other nations. Forget about Arabs. Let them kill each other for all we care. It's not our problem. We're Americans, and the only thing we really care about is Americans. No, check that. The only thing we really care about is ourselves. Let's spread that concept to the rest of the world and call it "caring".

Mathematically Just

I have a friend (Hey, yes I do! I know it may be hard to believe ... but I digress.) who is stationed outside the country and, therefore, unable to review my blogs. He asked for an update and I sent him the month of December. Since then he has been responding to various blogs. I wanted to post this response to my blog of Dec. 7, 2006 entitled Is God Just? because I think he made some very interesting points. Here it is in its entirety.

I just finished reading December 7th's post, and I don't know if I quite agree with the entirety of your approach. I think you were right on until your third point. Now, before I get too far into it, I do agree that humans are guilty of cosmic treason, but... I don't think it is because of the reasons that you stated.

The United States is a government that God has instituted on this earth (like every other government), and has imparted authority to it to execute justice. Therefore, by transgressing the laws of our country that are within our country's right to legislate we are defying God Himself. It's the same mentality that was used in Europe for a long time. An assault on the king's soldiers is an assault on the king himself because they are his agents.

However, drug trafficking or counterfeiting is not treason. Not in any way. Choosing to not obey or remain under law is not the same is trying to overthrow the government which is what treason actually is. But with the way you have handled it in your blog, we have no other way to interpret transgression than as treason. The line becomes too blurred with your approach.

Like I said earlier though... I do believe we are indeed guilty of treason because when we were unregenerate, we were lending aid to the forces of darkness. We worked with the enemy to undermine and overthrow God's governance. We literally made war with God who is the rightful sovereign. That is why we are guilty of treason.

The other weakness I see in your argument is that you did not address the issue of annihilation. After all, our country ends the life of the offender for treason, but God does not. He tortures him for eternity. Now, I don't think the eternity part of it should be addressed, but whether or not we would be right in torturing those who have engaged in treason as long we possibly can.

Granted, we could argue that by the OT punishments, God has shown us the extent to which we should punish such people, but is that because they don't deserve it or is that God's wisdom acting to keep man's governance in check? Either is a perfectly valid argument since it can be demonstrated that it is God's habit to make rulings in the law for those reasons since the OT law is more like Israel's constitution. But the side of torture does have the advantage of God's example in how He handles treason.

Now, Annihilation would not adequately punish all sins. For example, let's say that it would be warranted for treason, but not for lying (hypothetically). But simply Annihilating the person, the lie is not really punished, only the treason. And so it goes for all sin... if all sin is worthy of annihilation, unless God recreates and reannihilates sinners until their sin is paid for, justice is not served.

So I am still left to the conclusion that a temporal sin committed against even an eternal country does not by necessity merit eternal death. Now, I know that this is a point where our doctrine's diverge a bit. I believe that sinful man's mere existence is a repugnant offense to God, and that is the root of our punishment. Our actions are merely evidence in court to prove that so that our mouth's might be stopped (one of the law's purposes so says Paul). So unless our nature is made new, we will always be deserving of divine wrath and are constantly indebted to receive it.
Annihilation in this case would be mercy, not justice.

Let's look at it from a math standpoint.

t = time
Tp = Time of punishment
To = Time of the offense
Tw = Total Wrath

Tp > To - Your first point in your post.
Therefore: Tp = f(To) = kTo, where k is some constant of proportionality > 1 associated with the severity of the sin.
Every moment of man's existence earns him wrath: { t | t = To }
If we integrate f(t) (giving us the total amount owed, since the current function only describes how much wrath man is earning at each point in time) we get:

Tw = F(to) = [k(t)^2]/2

Plotting it on a graph, with time being the x-axis and Tw on the y-axis, we can see that as time approaches infinity (eternity) so does Tw, but at a much faster rate. Therefore, man can never exhaust his punishment, and God's wrath is never fully satiated, ergo.... punishment is eternal.

Anyway.... that's my take on it. I do believe that for example, that if Christ had not paid for the sin of someone who was regenerate that that person would be able to in a temporal sense pay for his sin by taking his "lickings" for it, since the influx of sin would be stopped by regeneration. But that's a moot point because we have a Father and a Husband that couldn't stand by and let that happen.

First, I thought the math approach was fascinating. Frankly, I didn't understand all of it. (I'm sure you readers could figure that if I did have a friend, he'd likely be smarter than I.) But he managed to show mathematically that finite sin requires infinite punishment.

I thought his point about annihilation was a good one. My question was "Is God just?" He said, "Annihilation ... would be mercy, not justice."

I did want to address his objection, not because he's wrong, but because someone else may have thought the same thing because I wasn't clear enough. He said that violating the law of the land is not necessarily treason, so my parallel didn't work. He's right. Violating God's laws isn't treason. But that wasn't my parallel. Treason is defined as a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. The reason we break God's laws is because human beings have decided to give their support to His enemy, Satan, and have agreed to usurp God's rightful authority in their lives. Humans say, with Satan, "I will be like the Most High." This is why they violate specific laws of God, and this is treason on the cosmic level.

I will have to wait for my friend to read this and see if it clears anything up for him (or if he still disagrees). In the meantime, I thought some of you might enjoy the math approach. I liked it.

Abomination?

"Abomination" ... what a stunning word. I speaks of more than "dislike." It is an intense loathing. An abomination is something detestable, abhorrent, vile, shameful.

The Old Testament is full of "abominations".

The carved images of their gods you shall burn with fire. You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God (Deut. 7:25).

If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God is giving you to dwell there, that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword (Deut. 13:12-15). (See also Deut. 17.)

You shall not eat any abomination (Deut. 14:3).

You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God (Deut. 17:1).

When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a wizard or a necromancer, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you" (Deut. 18:9-12).

A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God (Deut. 22:5).

You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God (Deut. 23:18).

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance (Deut. 24:1-4).

You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God (Deut. 25:13-16). (See also Prov. 11:1; 20:10, 23.)

Cursed be the man who makes a carved or cast metal image, an abomination to the LORD, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret (Deut. 27:15).

The devious person is an abomination to the LORD, but the upright are in his confidence (Prov. 3:32).

There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers (Prov. 6:16-19).

Those of crooked heart are an abomination to the LORD, but those of blameless ways are his delight (Prov. 11:20).

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him (Prov. 15:8). (See also Prov. 21:27.)

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD (Prov. 17:15).

A quick list:
* Idolatry
* Eating "unclean" food
* Sacrifice with blemishes
* "Divination" (any of a variety of things considered "magic" related)
* Cross-dressing
* The fee of a prostitute given to God
* Remarrying a spouse who remarried
* Dishonest business practices
* False judgment

Interestingly, most Christians would still agree to this day with many on that list, even though it's "Old Testament". Oh, sure, we might question the "unclean food". Some might question "cross-dressing". And, of course, very few are concerned anymore about divorce and remarriage.

Some are questioning some of the things God says are "abominable" these days. One of the primary reasons is the "Old Testament" nature of it. A lot of Christians have bought a wholesale dismissal of "Old Testament", as if God changed His mind. Without really fighting that fight, I have to ask the rationale when it comes to this shortlist of "abominations".

Here's the suggestion, even though it's never voiced. "God hated those things back then, but He feels a lot better about them now." Now, I can see that some things might change. An extremely obvious example would be the command against sacrifices with blemishes. Clearly our current sacrifice, Christ Himself, was without blemish and, therefore, we don't make sacrifices with blemishes. Does that mean that God likes blemished sacrifices now? Obviously not.

The question I'm asking is how it is that God would change? The idea is that He found some things beyond wrong in times past; He found them detestable. They weren't merely a violation of His commands; they were abominable. What would make us think that has changed?

Still, Christians are uncomfortable when it comes to these passages:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22).

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them (Lev. 20:13).

When you see Christians trying to discuss why they think homosexual behavior is a sin, they will mention these in passing. It's "Old Testament". It doesn't matter to us anymore. Even the president in the series The West Wing used this to lambaste a Christian. "Oh," he chided, "should we get rid of footballs because pigs are unclean?"

I think the point is missed. I'm not talking about bringing back Old Testament Law. I'm not talking about restoring the command to avoid having sex with your wife when she's menstruating or outlawing pork. That debate isn't necessary here. The Bible says that it isn't merely immoral; it's detestable. It's not merely the wrong thing to do; it's abhorrent to God. We can debate all day whether or not the Old Testament Law is still in effect for Christians, but can we even start to suggest that somehow God changed His mind about what He likes and abhors? I'm not getting it.

Stagnation through Pride

Independence and dependence, two of the hardest-to-navigate straits in the day-to-day walk of humans. On the one side, it takes little thought to realize the pitfalls that dot the entire landscape of the dependent individual and I don't intend to get into them. So what about independence? Especially in western civilization, (even more so here in the US) independence is one of the first building blocks upon which our youth are raised. Go to school, get a job, move from home, start your own family. Necessary tenets for every household. Of course, as in most things, there is merit to be found in such principles, but the soft fall to destruction is hard to spot and difficult to avoid. It is not so much the independence that is the problem, but its terrible offspring, Pride. It is a short stride from standing on your own two feet to thinking that you stand on your own two feet without even making use of the ground underfoot. No matter how hard one tries or how well one succeeds on their own, it is simply a matter of time before the realization comes that all their independence and all their pride does not bring the entire world to them on a silver platter. And once that happens, the time comes for depression, loss of motivation, stagnation. As amazing creations as we are, self-sustaining is not one of our characteristics. We are designed dependent from birth. To our parents, to our circumstances, to our surroundings, but most of all (whether we admit it or not) to our God. All the other things we might depend on have the possibility of failing or hurting us, leading us to desire more independence, but only through depending on God can we ever be free; free from our own fears and failures.

Grease is the Word

All good Christians know the evils of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. All good Christians know that heavy metal music is of the devil and R-rated movies are wrong. All good Christians know these things. So what's wrong with me?

To me, the real threat to the Christian mind is not the obvious evil, but the "hidden" one. Sing a song about "Satan rules" and nothing gets by us -- it's evil. Sing a song about "spending the night together", and it's a love song -- what's wrong with that? Rarely do we examine our church song content for errors because they're ... church songs. And the G or PG rated movie should be no problem at all, right?

Last night my wife watched the new NBC show, "Grease - You're the One that I Want", and I was reminded all over again how much I despise this show. My wife loves it, but to me it represents this same creeping evil that so few bother to evaluate because it's a "harmless" little ditty about high school life in the 50's. What could be wrong with that?

Meet Rizzo, the leader of the Pink Ladies, a group of tough girls that hang out with the T-Birds, a group of tough guys at Rydell High. Near the beginning, Rizzo, a high school senior, believes she is pregnant. Well, now, I wonder how that happened? Her boyfriend, Kenickie, tries to "do the right thing" as the father of her child, but Rizzo assures him he's not the father. Hmmm ... I wonder what that says about Rizzo? And, of course, there is Rizzo's popular solo. To Rizzo, being good is "the worst thing I could do." Amen, sister! Preach it!

Meet Danny and Sandra. Danny Zuko is more or less the leader of the T-Birds, a high school ruffian, who meets Sandy Olsson over the summer. Sandy is a good girl who genuinely falls in love with Danny. Both are surprised, however, when they end up in the same school for their senior year. Sandy is stuck. She's a genuinely good girl in love with a genuinely bad boy, but she doesn't know he's bad. Danny is a bad boy trying to become good against the flow because he really does care about Sandy. So Danny makes some changes. He takes up track, earns a letter, and actually graduates from high school. So this is the warm and heartening "bad boy turned good" story, right? No. In the end, it is Sandy who changes. She turns slutty, Danny tosses his letter jacket, and Sandy sings, "If you're filled with affection you're too shy to convey, meditate in my direction. Feel your way." Instead of turning into a good guy, we take the genuinely good "Sandra Dee" and make her just as bad as the rest, dropping any advances Danny made in the process.

The message is clear. Don't try to be good. It's boring. Just do whatever you want. In the words of Rizzo, "Even though the neighborhood thinks I'm trashy and no good, I suppose it could be true, but there are worse things I could do."

And we smile and snap our fingers to the catchy 50's-style music and enjoy the romp through memory lane (or something like it) and miss entirely that this "fun" little "harmless" piece is exactly what Paul was talking about in Romans 1 when he said, "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Rom. 1:32). Now, maybe approving of Grease isn't all that bad, but when we accept this kind of message without evaluation, that is the worst thing we could do.

Jabberwocky

by Lewis Carroll
(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

I really enjoy this poem, but I can't tell you why. It's amazing to me that you get a sense of fear, of suspense, of joy ... all from a nonsense poem. None of it makes real sense, but you get the sense of it. Now, that's talent. Thanks, Mr. Carroll.

No Ground to Stand On

Extreme Islamic fundamentalism has ignited a fear under the feet of many people in America. They have begun to think that fundamentalism of any sort is dangerous. As a result, Christians who believe that the Bible is God's Word are being viewed more and more as dangerous. And it's not merely those who fear fundamentalism. There are many in the Church who are starting to toss out their Bibles in favor of a "kinder, gentler Christianity". They are complaining that "fundamentalism", the belief that the Bible lays out our beliefs and practices, is too narrow and doesn't take into account interpersonal relationships and social issues. It's book knowledge, not practical. How relevant can a 2000-year-old book be? The question resounds both outside and inside Christianity.

What happens when we remove the Bible as our basis? In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, there is very little shift. Tradition and the Church are the final say on matters of faith and practice. They can keep those up just fine, although on what they will base those decisions is now in question. The rest of Christianity is in trouble. On one hand it may seem to be a good thing. We've seen thousands of years of disagreeing about what Scripture means, and that would be gone. It would be irrelevant.

Let's proceed, for a moment, down the path without Scripture. We'll move it, for the sake of this discussion, from primary source to a nice book with some good ideas but certainly not The Word of God. There are mistakes. It is the ideas of men -- some good, some not. Where would we stand?

This position carefully undercuts the discussion. Without authority to which we can appeal, there is no ground of common truth. We would normally say, "Well, the Bible says ...", but we have removed that. The Bible is now only as valid as we wish it to be, not an absolute authority. Jesus's "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me" is an idea, not a truth. You Christians ... you're so narrow. Surely God isn't that narrow. All those presumptions about homosexual behavior being a sin ... toss those out. Now it's purely your opinion without basis. Indeed, we now have no real basis for any of what is considered "Christian morality". We could point to chapter and verse to tell why this, that, or the other ought or ought not be done, but now it's mere speculation, simple opinion.

Is that bad? Well, Christianity is unique among religions. While all other religions focus almost exclusively on morality, Christianity is focused on the Gospel, "the Good News". What is the Gospel? This good news has two components. The first is the bad news: Human beings are in real trouble. Without the bad news, there is no good news. This is why Paul, in writing to Christians he hadn't met, focused the first three chapters of his letter to the Romans on bad news. What is the bad news upon which the good news is founded? Man has violated God's Laws and stands condemned. But wait! We've just tossed that stuff out as pure conjecture, mere opinion. I mean, even the simplest of rules -- the 10 Commandments -- are not true for everyone, right? Most of those in the world have set aside any concern about the morality of "other gods", the proper use of God's Name, keeping some "Sabbath", or honoring parents. Those are limited rules to limited people. No, I think that "bad news" isn't so bad after all. Like the rich young ruler, I've kept the law. So ... what's your good news? Oh ... well ... the good news is that since you stand in violation of God's law ... which you don't appear to anymore since we've tossed that ... then God has provided a way of escape ... which, it appears, isn't necessarily true either. Okay. Never mind.

You see, without the basis of a God-breathed Word of God, Christianity becomes meaningless. There is no "bad news" of sin and no "good news" of salvation. Christianity simply melts into the background of countless other morality religions that urges us to be good for unknown reasons and with unrealistic standards and is terribly arrogant for agreeing with its founder, Christ, when He claimed exclusivity.

Many Christians today are trying to "ease off" the Bible. They are aiming toward a more "relational Christianity". Be more inclusive. Be less stringent. I mean, seriously, how relevant can a book written 2000 years ago be? But the truth is that it is either absolutely relevant and provides us with the real Gospel or it is completely irrelevant and even those Christians who are easing off the Bible have nowhere to stand. If the Bible is not the basis for Christianity, then we have none and it would be nonsensical to stand for a faith without reason.

Extreme Truth

It is possible, I think, to take just about anything true to an extreme that as absolutely false. When the Reformers argued that God would keep His own from finally falling away ("Perseverance of the Saints"), the Roman Catholic Church argued that this would lead to rampant sin without consequences. Therefore, it cannot be true. There are hyper-Calvinists, hyper-Dispensationalists, oh, likely hyper-just-about-anything-you-can-think-of-ists. There is likely someone for every right, biblical truth that will take each and every one to a place they were never intended to go. Human beings, it seems, can think logically and rationally, step by step to the wrong conclusion.

The problem, of course, is that when folks take truth to a false extreme, the onlookers tend to then question the truth. "Well, that's obviously wrong ... so this is likely wrong as well." And this is the very same problem. The truth in this case is that the extreme was wrong, so the next extreme would be to call the truth wrong.

It's an easy mistake. Dismiss Calvinism because we've talked to hyper-Calvinists and we know they're wrong. Dismiss spiritual gifts because we've talked to extreme Pentecostals and we know they're wrong. Dismiss Christianity because we've talked to bizarre, extreme Christians and we know they're wrong.

I am convinced that the truth that is biblical Christianity is a thin line. Okay, it doesn't take real convincing. Jesus talked about the narrow gate that leads to everlasting life, and we're all pretty clear on that, but He also spoke of the narrow way. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matt. 7:13-14). The truth that is biblical Christianity is a thin line. I am also convinced that it is a "middle of the road" sort of thin line. It avoids the extremes. Pick an extreme, and you're likely to find that it is outside of biblical Christianity. God wants everyone to be rich? Not in there. God wants everyone to be poor? Not in there. God wants us to all be healthy? Not in there. God wants us all to be sick? Not there either. Extremely inclusive or extremely exclusive is not likely to be found in the pages of Scripture.

So let's be careful. Any truth can be taken to a false extreme. Let's not do that. Neither let us dismiss something that is true because someone has taken it somewhere it shouldn't go.

Have you ever noticed?

Have you ever noticed that the people who like to complain about rude, overbearing Christians tend to be rude and overbearing in their complaints? Have you ever noticed that people who complain that Christians are intolerant and judgmental typically do so with intolerance and judgment? Why do you suppose that is? (I could cite examples, but doing so typically tends to draw fire and leads to more caustic, rude, overbearing, intolerant judgment.)

I'd like to say I find it amusing, and, I suppose, in one sense I do. On the other hand it just seems so sad. "You rotten conservatives! You stink to high heaven! I will be rude, unkind, acerbic, and sarcastic to you to show how rude, unkind, acerbic, and sarcastic you are. I will be high and mighty in my rant against you being high and mighty." What's wrong with us?! What makes people do that?

There are, of course, several possible answers. Sometimes people are more attuned to certain evils because they suffer from them. A person with a problem with a foul mouth, as an example, might be more sensitive to other people using foul language. But that's typically only true if they are either consciously or unconsciously aware that they have a problem with it. If not, they won't even notice. Sometimes people are feeling guilty about their own problems and failures so they seek to impugn others. Or there is the one we all know. It's the "bully syndrome". Someone suffers from feelings of inferiority or impotence, so they pick on the one we think most obvious and least capable of defending themselves. Oh, there are lots of reasons. These are just a few.

The unfortunate thing is that none of them should be the case in Christian dialog. I knew a lady who was a fine Christian. She was quick to tell people how bad they were for going to R-rated movies or for smoking cigarettes (things that can't be found in the Bible) but simply refused to submit to her husband or love her neighbor (things found explicitly in the Bible). It created such unnecessary division and tension. It was not marked by love, but by self-defense, Pharisaical superiority, and blindness to issues.

We don't need that. We don't need to fight fire with fire. We need to speak the truth, but we need to do it in love (Eph. 4:15). We need to stand for what is right, but we need to do it with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15). We are to stand firm, but let's not do it by being caustic, rude, overbearing, intolerant, or judgmental. There may be a point where a parody or sarcasm is the most effective means of getting across the truth in love, but surely that is a rarity. The Bible says the Gospel is foolish and offensive to non-believers (1 Cor. 1:23). We don't need to be more foolish or offensive than that.

Hard Sayings - "Turn the Other Cheek"

³⁸ "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' ³⁹ "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰ "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. ⁴¹ "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. ⁴² "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matt. 5:38-42).

What could be clearer than that? Obviously Jesus is commanding complete pacifism. All Christians must, if they are to follow the teachings of Christ, be pacifists. They cannot join the military. They cannot engage in legal battles. They cannot defend themselves and their families and homes. In short, Christians, if they are to follow the clear teaching of Christ, are to be doormats.

If there was no more information present in Scripture, we would be forced to conclude that this is what Jesus is commanding here. Further, we would be forced to do it or actually stand in opposition to the Lord. Many Christians have held this position. Historically, much of the early church believed that it was a sin to be in the military. Even today there are such churches as the Quakers, the Amish, and the Mennonites that believe that the only Christian choice is pacifism. The position is not new nor is it untenable. But there is more information, and when we look at it, we will find we have a problem with this view.

God's original design included the military and self-defense. God routinely commanded and blessed war in the Old Testament (assuring us that the concept of a "just war" is real). God commanded that a new husband was not required to go to war (Deut. 24:5). David wrote, "He trains my hands for battle, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze" (2 Sam. 22:35). Face it; war was part of the Old Testament. And if we try to argue that the old was done away with, we have new questions to face in the New Testament. If pacifism is Christ's command, how do we explain the events in the Temple when He used a whip to clear it? Why would He command His disciples to buy weapons (Luke 22:36)? We find Cornelius, a centurion, who comes to Christ and nothing is mentioned about needing to leave the military. Paul says the the authorities bear the sword for good reason (Rom. 13:4). And if the command of Christ meant not to defend oneself at all, then Paul was a real mess when he defended himself against the Jews ... more than once (Acts 22; 24:10-21; 26). The argument is that Jesus clearly commands pacifism in Matt. 5, but if this is the case, He commands it against God's rules in the Old Testament and He and His apostles violate it. I would suggest that pacifism cannot be in view here, else we make Christ a sinner. Apparently we need to revisit Jesus's words here and find out what He did mean when He said, "Do not resist him who is evil." If Jesus did not mean that Christians must be pacifist doormats, what did He mean?

A lot of people have examined this question and come up with a lot of answers. Quite a few assure us that a strike on the right cheek from a right-handed person is a backhand insult, and this is a very specific instance. They conclude from this that turning the other cheek is either a demand for equality or allowing an insult and not at all about self-defense. That seems a bit obtuse to me. Let's try something simpler. What was the context?

Jesus starts in Matt. 5:17 by stating His overall direction in the things He is about to say. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Okay, clear enough. His goal is now to illustrate ways of fulfilling the Law. He does this in a series of statements that begin with "You have heard it said" followed by "But I say". He goes on in this manner to talk about murder and what it really includes, adultery and divorce, keeping promises, and this topic. What is this topic? What is He contrasting here with "You have heard it said"? "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you ..." (Matt 5:38-39). Now, the rule "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" represents a drastic reduction in acceptable response to evil from the world around them. As an example, a thief could have his hand cut off in the world around them, but God commands a more proportional response to a thief, including repayment of that which is stolen. The idea here is in regards to vengeance and justice. What should I do in retaliation to an injustice?

Hopefully I've planted a seed here, and you can begin to see where the rest is going, but let's look together. Note that Jesus did not speak of "whoever is going to slap you on your right cheek". The event occurred. He speaks about one who has already been forced to walk a mile. He is speaking of evil that already exists, not evil that might occur. He is speaking of the right retaliation to evil. In other words, Jesus is saying what Paul echoes when he says, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19).

I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage as saying "Never do any violence" because Jesus did violence. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Never defend yourself" because Paul defended himself. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Keep quiet about sin" because Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles all spoke out against sin. The New Testament is full of the notion of the militant Christian, standing firm (often using the same term, by the way, that Jesus used when He said "Do not resist evil"). I think the only possible conclusion here is that Jesus was speaking out against retaliation for evil -- vengeance. To contort this into the place where a husband, for instance, tells his wife, "You can't protect yourself from me because Jesus said not to" is a lie. To twist this to say we cannot defend ourselves is simply to ignore Jesus, His words, His life, and the rest of Scripture.

The Sadness We Call "Divorce"

It doesn't take long. Just peruse the blogs on the list of Christian bloggers and you'll find more than one in the midst of a divorce. Keep looking. Others are being abused by their husbands. Some actually think that's okay. And, of course, if you don't limit yourself to that shortlist, almost everyone will likely know at least one person who is 1) a Christian 2) getting or contemplating or recently divorced.

It makes me sad. No, that's not accurate. It grieves me. Why are there so many who call themselves Christians with so little regard for what God says about marriage? Now, before anyone leaps on that question, it was intended to be quite general. Why are there so many men who call themselves Christians and abuse -- physically, emotionally, even spiritually -- their wives? Why are there so many men who call themselves Christians and refuse to even attempt to be the husbands Christ commands? Why are there so many women who call themselves Christians and refuse to be the wives clearly spelled out in the pages of the Bible? Why are there so many couples who consider themselves to be Christians who think nothing of divorce?

¹ And it came about that when Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee, and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; ² and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

³ And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" ⁴ And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said,' For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? ⁶ "Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." ⁷ They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" ⁸ He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. ⁹ "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." ¹⁰ The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." ¹¹ But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. ¹² "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matt 19:1-12)

There are those who argue that there is no biblical reason for divorce -- period, end of sentence, nothing more need be said. I think that they have some pretty good arguments. I fall short of "no biblical reason for divorce" for a couple of reasons, but I think it is indisputable that Scripture in general and Jesus in particular would view divorce as something that ought to be rare among His followers. Today, we wink at it and consider it normal, advisable, likely a good thing in many instances.

What was Jesus's "opinion"? The Pharisees tested Him by asking a simple question: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" Historians will tell us that the question arises out of two schools of thought at the time. One side believed that a husband could only divorce his wife in extreme cases, while the other believed that if she burned his toast he could divorce her if he wished. But we aren't actually given the benefit of this background in the question. The question is, "Is there any cause allowed for a man to divorce his wife?"Jesus's first answer is not vague. "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." There is no ambivalence, no equivocation. "What God has joined together let no man separate." In other words, "Don't do it!"

Like today's Christians, the Pharisees don't buy that one. "Oh, yeah? Then why is there stuff about divorce in the Mosaic Law?" Jesus's response is again clear: "Because of your hardness of heart." Some have argued that Jesus is saying that Moses put that in there but God never intended it. To me that's problematic. What other laws did Moses insert that God never intended? And what can we conclude about inerrancy and infallibility if Moses was inserting laws willy-nilly in the name of God that God never intended and of which we have no indication? Maybe that whole "Don't eat pork" thing was Moses's idea, not God's? No, let's not go there. Jesus says that Moses inserted information on divorce because of Man's hard-heartedness. I can only conclude that he did so at God's behest.

Today those who call themselves Christians are flocking to divorce court at rates equal to or even exceeding that of non-Christians. As they do so, they flood past Christ who says, "Don't do it! If you do, you do so out of hardheartedness!" And they beam and say, "It's the best thing we can do." "He didn't give me what I wanted." "She wasn't the wife I expected her to be." "I lost too much of myself." "I wasn't free to do whatever I wanted." "Single is so much better; I can watch whatever I want to now." And all heaven weeps.

Marriage is a sacred institution. Paul calls it a mystery, the image of the relationship of Son to His followers (Eph. 5:32). And if you ask Moses, you'll find that God doesn't like it when images He has set up are disturbed. In Numbers 20 Moses was told to speak to the rock which he had struck earlier. In his anger at the people he struck it instead, ruining the picture God intended of a Savior who is struck for us and ever after provides living water when He is spoken to. For this "infraction", Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. Yet Christians blaze past Christ into divorce court without blinking an eye and declare an end to a relationship that God put together and God uses as an image of His Son's relationship to the Church.

So it grieves me. I weep when I read how she's divorcing him because he wasn't nice to her or he didn't give her what she hoped for. I weep when I read that he's divorcing her because she wasn't what she should be. It grieves me when I see men who call themselves Christians refusing to love their wives, to surrender themselves sacrificially, and think that it is their right to be possessive, cruel, untrusting, and unloving ... and pass that on to their children. I cannot fathom the notion that the way he squeezes the toothpaste tube or hangs the toilet paper or fails to clean up properly after himself is grounds to hurl insult in the face of Christ who commanded, "What God has joined together let no man separate." It grieves me that people who call themselves Christians care so little for what Christ commanded, for what God says in His Word about how we should relate to one another in a marriage. Like James I say, "My brethren, these things ought not to be this way" (James 3:10).

Way Too Easy

It doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge or experience to recognize that the world is in a constant state of degeneration. Now, I believe the degree of that corruption to be sloping at a much smoother angle than most people like to think, but the breakdown does remain quite tangible. Just looking at the pattern of everyday life is evidence enough of that. At my work, I am heralded as an exceptional employee beyond the scope of any of my peers. Yet, for all the credit I am given (and in some rights have earned), my value as an employee is not so much determined by what I accomplish as by what others do not. To be an above average worker these days requires simply that you show up on time on a semi-regular basis. The actual efficiency and intelligence lent to the job are merely peripheral to the fact that you are PHYSICALLY there. This watering down of the workplace I have learned to accept and plan to glean the benefits for as long as I may.

Now, the question is not whether the degeneration exists, but whether it is within the realm of possibility for humanity to alter its state. What makes me think of such a question is because of people that I have known over the years who must be much more intelligent than the appear, people that just could not possibly survive in life if they were as ignorant as they seem. I think we have all known a few like that. Usually it is a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy where either someone close to them or they themselves downplay their own potential for so long that the litany no longer becomes a joke, no longer becomes a chastisement, but a reality of their being. So can man derail from the ever-descending tracks laid out before him? Without Christ, I must say whole-heartedly, "No!", and I weep for those that try.

Happy

Happy New Year to you all ...


... and most importantly, happy anniversary to my beloved wife.