The Problem of Apologetics

Most Christians have heard the term, "apologetics." Hopefully, most understand that it has nothing to do with apologizing for our faith. Instead, it is a reference to defending the faith. The term comes from the Greek apologia meaning "to give an answer." It is the term, in fact, used in 1 Peter 3:15 for "make a defense" or "give a reason". So apologetics is giving reasons for the faith. Indeed, as 1 Peter 3:15 points out, we are called to do it. Jude writes "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). We are not merely wise for analyzing the reasons for why we believe; we are commanded.

The problem with all of this, however, is that we tend to lose sight of the problem. A lot of Christians involved in apologetics tend to think that if we can produce the right answers, we can persuade unbelievers. I need to point out that this just isn't the truth. It is ignoring a fundamental problem.

In Matt. 16, the Pharisees and Sadducees demanded a sign from Jesus. Jesus answered, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah" (Matt. 16:2-4). Notice the interesting term Jesus uses: "... you cannot interpret the signs of the times." Now, Jesus affirms here that their normal reasoning capacities are functioning. They can figure out the weather by looking around. But when it comes to spiritual matters, Jesus uses the term "cannot" to express their ability to reason. It's the same thing Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14 -- "The natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned." People who are dead in sin do not understand because they cannot understand. John writes the same thing in John 12:37-41. They did not believe because they could not believe. So the idea that we might be able to argue people into the kingdom just doesn't take into account the fact that "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). In other words, sin not only produces death; it rots the mind.

Because of this failure of mind found in sinners, a malady from which we all suffer, many today are arguing against arguing. (Never mind the nonsense of such a venture.) They say, "Don't think; just walk by faith!" Oh, they likely never voice that. Instead what you might hear is "lean not on your own understanding." The problem, of course, is that this violates the command to renew our minds, to love God with, among other things, all your mind, to contend for the faith, to give a reason and so many other places that are demanded by Scripture to engage the brain. We seem to be at an impasse. "Not so," says Paul. He writes to Timothy, "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (1 Tim. 2:7). There it is, the perfect combination. Paul tells Timothy, "Your job is to think. God's job is to give you understanding." This should serve as a wake up call to both errors. One side says, "Only through proper thinking can we come to the right answers." No, God gives understanding. The other side says, "Don't use your minds; just walk by faith." No, we are commanded to think. God uses this combination to produce in us a renewed mind which, in turn gives us the "powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil" -- maturity (Heb. 5:14).

Apologetics is good. No, it is commanded. It isn't an option. But neither will it produce believers. That is God's job. It is my conviction that the best function of apologetics is in shoring up the faith of believers. Sometimes in the storm of unbelief on the edge of futility of thinking believers falter. But when we are given the truth -- real reasons to believe -- and that truth is worked by the Spirit in us to produce understanding, it can provide great depth, spiritual maturity, and a bold faith. Oh, and sometimes, maybe, God will use it as His tool to push a non-believer into faith. But that's His job, never ours. So let us not be slack in defending the faith. Let us not waver in contending for the truth. Let's be ready to give a reason for the hope that lies within us, yet always with gentleness and respect.

The Nature of Faith

Reformed theology holds to sola fide; we are saved by faith alone. The idea is that faith apart from works is what saves, not faith plus. Many Christians nod and say, "Yep, that's what I believe." But it begs the question: What is faith? More specifically, what is saving faith?

There are some who would argue that the faith required for salvation is simple mental agreement. They are purporting that modern Christianity has made faith too complicated. It's just "believe", nothing more. I don't think it takes any great mental gymnastics to see the problem with that. Believe ... what? According to James, the demons believe (James 2:19). A lot of good that does them. And in that same passage, James refers to a concept that ought to alert us that saving faith is not merely "believe". He refers to a faith that is dead. So it is possible to have faith, but it is not saving faith.

So what is saving faith? The Reformers outlined three components of saving faith. I won't try to use their Latin terms. I'm not scholar. But I want to get across their three components because I think it's important in today's morass of confusion of terms. So, the first component is the truth. That is, it is the pieces that are believed. Faith can be placed in all sorts of things, but if they aren't true, the faith is useless. So for faith to be saving faith, it must be placed in truth points. The second component is assent. That one is easy. Everyone knows about that one. Assent is simply agreeing with the truth points. The third component is what I will call trust. This component is used heavily in John's gospel in the repeated use of the phrase "believe in". John uses a phrase that suggests "believe into", a leaning on, a placing of complete reliance on. Trust means that I have placed my weight on what I believe. You may have heard the example of the chair. There's a chair over there. It has the ability to hold your weight (truth). Do you believe that (assent)? Is it holding your weight (trust)? You see, until you actually place your weight on that chair, you aren't at the point of saving faith. In this way a person can know the truth about Jesus, and even believe that He lived and died for their sins, but until they place their entire weight of hope on that "chair", it isn't saving faith. Mental assent to the facts is insufficient. We have to "believe into" Christ.

Perhaps you've heard this explanation before. I'm afraid, though, that even this brief explanation of the nature of saving faith will fall short. You see, as we focus on the "trust" aspect, assuring people that they have to "put their weight" on Christ, we often miss the "truth" aspect. What is it that they have to trust in? What truth is required? Let me illustrate the problem with that chair. I'm tired. My back aches. I don't know if I can stand any longer. There is only one chair in the room. You tell me that the chair will hold my weight. Okay, fine. If I don't sit down, I'll fall down, so I assent to the claim that the chair can hold my weight and, to avoid further injury, I sit in the chair. Is that "saving faith"? Is it saving faith when someone latches onto Christ as their "fire escape". "Well, I don't want to go to Hell, and you say this is my only way of escape, so I'll take it. It's awful and lumpy and I don't like it at all, but I'll do it because the alternative is too terrible." Is that saving faith? Is it possible to place one's faith in a Christ whom they despise?

I'm not so sure. I suspect that the "truth" that needs to be believed goes farther than simply "Jesus saves". I think that it also requires embracing the truth of who He is. Paul calls the Gospel "the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4). I think that we must, in the language of John 1:12, receive Christ for who He is, not merely for what He might do for us. And by "embrace" I mean "to receive gladly and willingly." Look, for instance, at the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-20). There is more than just two types of soil in this parable. There is the hard soil where the seed never penetrates. That's not embracing anything. There is the rocky ground and the weedy ground. These two actually accept the seed. In Jesus's explanation, He even says that the rocky ground represents those who "when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy" (Mark 4:16). That's embracing, isn't it? But it's a rootless embrace that is lost as soon as difficulty arises. That's not the embrace of which I speak. The weedy soil is similar, where the seed sprouts but is choked out because of their love of the world. That's not the embrace of which I speak either. No, this embrace is found in the good soil. It is a hear and accept (Mark 4:20). It is a love for the person of Christ that endures hardships and despises the world. (Note: "Despise" in this context means "to consider of no value".) This embrace not only takes Christ as their "fire escape" but as their friend. It sees the sweetness of Christ and revels in it.

I fear that many people live in rocky or thorny soil. While the hard soil types are easy to spot, and we're fairly confident about those good soil types that are bearing fruit all over the place, these other two are much more difficult. They will claim to believe in Jesus. They may even appear to be joyful over it. They will likely know the terms and appear to be functioning plants. Their shallowness or love of the world is hard to spot. But our willingness to accept whatever faith might be found might just make it difficult to correct this error. You see, not all faith is saving faith, and we need to beware of dead faith. Saving faith, ultimately, produces changed lives (Mark 4:20; James 2:18). Each of us needs to be careful to make our calling and election sure by verifying that we are "in the faith" (2 Peter 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4). It's not a trivial question.

Confused

Okay, I'm confused. The Democratic congress is up in arms trying to stop the war in Iraq because it is a "mandate from the people". They believe a majority of Americans want the war to end and claim that as their goal.

Now they're trying to overhaul America's immigration laws by giving the illegal aliens in this country what amounts to amnesty. Now, it is a simple fact that a majority of Americans are against giving illegal aliens amnesty.

So ... why is it that stopping the war is a "mandate from the people", but not giving amnesty to illegal aliens is not? How do the Democrats decide when to do what the majority want and when not to? It looks like a double standard. What am I missing?

Age of the Earth Controversy

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). (Of course, some are pushing it to something more on the order of 16 billion, but who's counting?) How is this determined? Well, they'll tell you it's a bit difficult. There are rocks that have been dated to somewhere around 4 billion years. The dating method if these rocks is radiometric dating. (The rocks don't carry ID with birth dates attached unfortunately.) One method of dating is derived by measuring three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and Pb-208 or Pb-204) and plotting the Pb-206/Pb-204 against the Pb-207/Pb-204. This method, as do most, assumes one core component: The solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios. This approach also requires the dominant perception known as uniformitarianism -- the idea that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. In other words, essentially things in the physical world have always been as they are now. Things decay at the same rate. Light travels at the same speed. Gravity maintains the same pull. Hopefully you get the idea.

So who cares how old the Earth really is? The time required for Evolution to take place is on the order of billions of years. These kinds of things don't happen overnight, you know. To obtain something from nothing, order from chaos, rational from random ... that takes a lot of time. So it must be that the Earth is much older than those stupid Bible-believing Christians think it is. And the debate is on. As a matter of fact many non-believers and a growing number of believers see Genesis as the Achilles heel of Christianity. It doesn't mesh with what we know from science. It ought to. You see, science knows; the Bible just guesses. How can we verify it if it doesn't match up with what science knows?

I'm not here to enter the debate. I'm not going to offer any of the standard arguments "Young-Earthers" offer arguments about what's wrong with Evolution and the "Old-Earth" view. They have their perspectives and their reasons. That's fine. Let them debate them. Me? I'm wondering what exactly I'm supposed to do with my Bible once we move Genesis from fact to fiction. Oh, I know, "Old-Earther" Christians would never use the word "fiction" for their view of Genesis. They prefer other terms. "Poetry." "Metaphor." That kind of thing. One very good paper on the topic suggests that the whole Genesis 1 and 2 thing is about Divine Fiats. The days are simply statements of God, not time periods. The attempt to make them literal or even figurative days isn't the point. They are Fiat Days (Fiat meaning "authoritative decree"), unknown time periods in which God said "Let there be ..." and there was. And to be honest, the author, Hill Roberts, does a decent job of answering his critics while keeping important things in mind (like the importance of Scripture and such). Still, I'm wondering what to do with my Bible if Genesis doesn't mean what Genesis says.

You see, the authors of the Psalms were speaking poetically. All of us know the term, "poetic license." That means that the reader doesn't take it at literal face value. So Psalms is fine. Jesus speaks in parables. Parables are short allegorical stories intended to convey a point. That means that the reader doesn't assume more about these stories than the point they are trying to make. But Genesis isn't written as parable or poetry. It isn't offered as metaphor or myth. It is offered from a historical perspective. Throughout the Bible it is treated as if it was a historical account. And much of our basic theology comes originally from Genesis. The author of Genesis assumes a literal Adam, the first man, who had a wife named Eve. These are assumed to be literal people because they do human things instead of merely illustrating human traits. They name animals. They talk to God. They ... know each other and have children with specific names. And they commit not only sin in general, but the very first sin that Paul says brought death into the world. Try to make that "metaphor". It can't be done. It's not that general mankind sinned; Adam sinned. Adam is paralleled with Christ. If "Adam" refers to a metaphorical "man" who wasn't actual but just a type, what do we infer about "Christ" who is this "man's" parallel? Is "Christ" simply a metaphor as well?

The problem spreads. If Genesis 1 and 2 are not actual, historical narratives, then why would we assume Genesis 3 is? Well-meaning evangelical Old-earthers like Hugh Ross do. Why? Where is the dividing line? When does the metaphor stop and the historical account begin? How do we know? If Adam isn't literal, what about Noah? No, of course Noah isn't. That whole "Great Flood" story is certainly a metaphor. No such actual event took place. So not Noah? What about Abraham? If not Adam or Noah, why would Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be considered actual people? But a real person named Abraham is no small player in the narrative of the Bible. In fact, our salvation is based on his literal offspring. What do we do with that?

You see, the problems start to snowball, and eventually we're stuck with a metaphorical book. Now, there are those who might be reading this and shouting "Amen!" right now because that's exactly the conclusion they've reached, but not me. I want to know what good a Bible is if it cannot be used to actually determine anything. If it's metaphor -- and each of us decides what that metaphor means -- it is certainly not authoritative. And Christianity grinds to a halt. It's just another "religion" now, the kind that tries to make good people out of bad people and whines, "Can't we all just get along?"

I think that perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong direction. I would challenge anyone to read Genesis 1 and 2 without a need to correlate it to "science" as the current god and understand it to mean "metaphor", "poetry", or anything except 6 24-hour days of creation. Agree or disagree with the claim, I think it is pretty clear that any normal reading of the passage begs us to come to that conclusion. If we cannot apply normal rules of reading to this passage, what makes us think we can apply rules of reading to any other? Or let me ask this another way. It has essentially been the Jewish and Christian perspective for thousands of years that Genesis is a literal account of Creation. It is only in the last 200 years or so that anyone has begged to differ, and that from non-believers. So do we conclude that normal reading no longer counts? Do we conclude that God has withheld His understanding of this passage until modern science comes around some 2000 years after Christ to finally explain to us what He meant? Or is it possible that the fundamental beliefs that lead science to conclude that the Bible isn't true might be false? Is it possible that the fundamental positions of science that lead to these conclusions regarding the age of the Earth themselves are a position of faith, not scientific fact? To whom are we going to hand the authority?

Hypocrite!

We'll take another break from hymns for the sake of those who don't find them particularly interesting and think about a few other things for a time.

One of the most common accusations against Christians in general and the church in particular is "I don't want any part of it because it's full of hypocrisy." The charge is that we hold that this and that are bad ... but we do them ourselves. "Hypocrite!"

What is a hypocrite? According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006, hypocrisy is "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess." Take this apart for a moment. Hypocrisy consists of two components. First it requires the espousing of virtue of some sort. That is, if I espouse no virtue, I cannot be a hypocrite. It is only those who affirm virtue that can be hypocritical. There is a second component. Hypocrisy requires espousing virtue "that one does not really possess." Hypocrisy, then, is about the possession of virtue and lying about it.

The accusation is that Christians are hypocrites. The question I ask is, "Is that true?" While it may be true that Christians can be hypocrites, is it necessarily true that they are? You see, Christians extol virtue. Christians claim that there are moral absolutes, and we say that we should keep them. This means that we meet the first requirement of the definition of "hypocrite". The question is do we meet the second?

It is an easy thing to get into most churches, but there are requirements to get into the Church -- the Body of Christ. The very first thing that must occur to get into the Church is the confession that I am a sinner. It is an admission of guilt. Without recognizing that I am guilty, I cannot have any need for a solution, which is what we call "the Gospel". Without the admission that I am a sinner, there is no Gospel. Therefore, there is a sense in which the Church is a "losers' club". There are lots of people with lots of variety, but one of the things this particular group has in common is that we all agree that we are sinners. Fundamentally, then, it would seem that being part of the Church would prevent being a hypocrite. It's not the espousing of virtue that makes a hypocrite nor is it the failure to be virtuous. Instead, it is the claim of being virtuous when you're not.

This is a common attack without merit with teenagers and their parents. "Son, you shouldn't do ____." "Did you do ____ when you were a kid?" "Yes." "Then how can you tell me not to? Hypocrite!" That's not hypocrisy. The fact that you do not possess the virtue you espouse is not hypocrisy. It is only hypocrisy when you claim to have a virtue you don't have. The answer to "How can you tell me not to?" is simple. "Because I did it and I know it's wrong." It is an answer from experience, not from hypocrisy. It is only hypocritical if the answer is something like, "Well, it was okay for me, but it's not for you." When I justify my lack of virtue while demanding it of you, it's hypocrisy. When I admit my lack of virtue while demanding it of you, it's not.

Can Christians be hypocritical? Sure. Anyone who believes in any kind of virtue has that potential. Are Christians hypocritical? I don't doubt it at all. Most of us want to be perceived as good people. Sometimes we seek that by avoiding admitting our failures. But the accusation that we are hypocrites because we call for virtue while we don't necessarily possess it is not an accurate accusation. It is not hypocrisy to say, "I believe that I should never lust ... and I am working on it even though I haven't arrived." Hmmm ... "even though I haven't arrived." Sound familiar? It should. Paul said, "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Phil. 3:12). Paul agreed that there was virtue that he lacked. That's not hypocrisy; that's honesty. Let's not confuse the two.

O, For a Thousand Tongues to Sing

Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise,
The glories of my God and King, the triumphs of His grace!

My gracious Master and my God, assist me to proclaim,
To spread through all the earth abroad the honors of Thy name.

Jesus! The name that charms our fears, that bids our sorrows cease.
'Tis music in the sinner's ears, 'tis life and health and peace.

He breaks the power of canceled sin, He sets the prisoner free.
His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me.

Hear Him, ye deaf; His praise, ye dumb, your loosened tongues employed.
Ye blind, behold your Savior come, and leap, ye lame, for joy.

Charles Wesley wrote this hymn on the occasion of the 11th anniversary of his conversion to Christ. It was inspired, it is believed, by a chance remark by an influential leader in his life who said, "Had I a thousand tongues, I would praise Christ Jesus with all of them." Originally there were 19 verses and it was entitled "For the Anniversary Day of One's Conversion."

How many of us recognize our conversion with such excitement? For that matter, how many of us recognize God with such enthusiasm? Wesley knew God in a way we have lost today. In theologians' terms, God has two aspects: His transcendence and His immanence. Immanence speaks of His immediate presence. We like to think of God as here, among us. And He is. Immanence points to His more personable attributes, like love, grace, and mercy. His transcendence speaks of His being above and beyond us. "Your ways are not My ways," says the Lord. The word that most clearly expresses His transcendence in Scripture is "holy." His holiness is His otherness. It is this aspect that we seem to have lost. David Wells says that the church in America today has "an infatuation with the love of God and an embarrassment at his holiness."¹ We see God in His closeness to us, His love for us. It is His holiness that scares us, because with that holiness comes righteousness, wrath, and judgment. Wesley sees God in His greatness beyond our comprehension.

What aspects of God's greatness does this hymn point to? "Redeemer" is the first description. He is the One who purchased me out of sin's penalty. "My God and King" are the next two. "My God" speaks of His personal nature to me, His immanence. "My God" speaks of His holiness, His otherness, His transcendence. "King" is a descriptive term that people of an earlier time would understand. Americans have little comprehension of the word, having no king of our own and valuing independence as we do. The king was the single ruler of all. His word was law. His judgments were carried out. His choices were final. Jesus is the King of kings, the Ultimate King. He is my King. He is, in that phrase, immanent and transcendent.

"The triumphs of His grace" is the next descriptive phrase. It is on that grace that we wholly lean. There is no place in God's view for my merit. I have earned no rights to attention, love, or mercy. My wages, my earnings, are death (Rom. 6:23). God first demonstrated His grace in the garden of Eden when He spared the lives of Adam and Eve when they sinned. "In the day that you eat it, you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) But they didn't die physically, and that is due solely to God's grace. God is not obligated to maintain the life of one who regularly engages in overthrowing His rulership, yet that is what we do daily. Every breath we take is testimony to His triumphant grace.

"My gracious Master and my God" is the next phrase that illustrates who God is. We've already looked momentarily at His gracious aspect. Master is a term that we don't like in America. We will be free. We will be independent. We will be slave to no man. God doesn't offer that option. It's His game. We can come to Him on His terms, or not at all. His claim is Master. Paul told the Philippian jailer that he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. (Acts 16:31) God requires control in our lives. Paul says we will be slaves, either to righteousness or to sin. (Rom. 6:16) We will have a master. Slavery is not a choice. God gives us the option of masters. To fail to choose God as master is to choose sin as master. There are no other choices, no in betweens. There is no independence.

The single name "Jesus" is next on the descriptive list. Wesley says that name affects our fears, our sorrows, our outlook on life, and our inner thoughts. Paul says that His name will be the name above all names. Many hymns and choruses pick up this same concept. "Jesus, name above all names." "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, there's just something about that name . . ." "Take the name of Jesus with you." Today's world sees His name as an expletive, but God sees that name as the name. A failure to revere that name is a failure to revere the person. What does the name of Jesus do in your thoughts?

More than a name, Jesus carries power. Power to cancel sin. Power to set us free. Power to cleanse. His blood is effective in cleansing. Jesus carries power in name and in presence. For most Christians, it is Jesus that represents God's immanence, His presence with us, His love. It is the Father that represents His transcendence, His holiness. But Jesus is just as holy. ("I and the Father are one.") They are inseparable entities. While we may not comprehend, all of God's transcendence as well as His immanence resides in Christ.

For all that He does, for all that He is, we are called to praise Him. The purpose of man is to glorify God. All of creation was intended to point to God. Wesley says that one tongue is insufficient to point to God's greatness. He calls on God to assist him in glorifying God. If that seems somewhat contradictory, then we are failing to see man's depravity and God's right to our worship. We need God's assistance to do anything for God, including the act of praise. But man has no higher purpose than to point to the awesome and wonderful God who made him.

Do you ever feel inadequate in praise? Do you ever have a sense that one tongue is not enough for glorifying God, that you are incapable of affording Him the adoration He deserves? Do you ever sense that you cannot provide the honor and worship He so richly merits? If not, you don't know God either in His immense holiness or His intimate immanence. That should worry you.

¹ David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland, pp. 114 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)

How Firm A Foundation

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?

"Fear not, I am with thee; O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God, and will still give thee aid.
I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand."

"When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply.
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine."

"The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell shall endeavor to shake,
I'll never, no, never, no, never forsake!"

The actual author of this hymn is unknown. It was published in a book of hymns by Dr. John Rippon in 1787. Dr. Rippon was the pastor of Carters Lane Baptist Church in London, England, for 63 years. The hymn has been called "the unofficial hymn textbook for Baptist Churches." Andrew Jackson requested it near the end of his life, and Robert E. Lee asked that it be sung at his funeral service in tribute to his God.

The hymn is actually a sermon. The first verse states the intent, while the following verses present various promises from Scripture. So what is the premise of this hymn-sermon? We saints stand on a firm foundation laid on God's Word. So complete is it that there is nothing more to be said. This is, on the face of it, not a remarkable view, but when we scratch the surface, there is a depth beneath that we may not have seen.

How complete is God's Word for our lives? The author of this hymn believes that in matters of faith, the Bible is complete, lacking nothing. In fact, God has said to us all He needs to say for our lives. Is that what you believe? Modern critics have arisen that claim otherwise. The Bible is no longer considered the infallible Word of God. Most mainline churches and seminaries have altered their statement of beliefs to varying extent to remove that odious claim. After all, what did the authors of old know about us and our culture? How could they possibly have understood our "no-fault" divorce laws, our concepts of living together before marriage to wisely test the waters, so to speak, or our problems with crime, teenage pregnancy, abortion, drugs, etc.? Times have changed. But the hymn-writer claims otherwise. Perhaps he understood the concept of God's omniscience and immutability. He definitely had a larger view of God than our present day does. And it is on the basis of this concept of God that the inerrancy of Scripture is claimed.

Now, if Scripture is the Word of God (no light claim), it must alter the life of anyone who believes that to be true. The views of our society become radically wrong. Rampant divorce in the Church becomes an affront to God. Premarital sex is no longer an option. It is called "sin." Homosexuality is no longer an alternate lifestyle. It is called "sin." Further, our attention to Scripture would necessarily increase if we actually believed that it was words written from the heart of God. It would drive every facet of our lives, transform every set of choices, and radically revise our thinking. "What more can He say than to you He has said?"

Look next at the passages from which our "sermon" comes. The first reference is Isaiah 41:10. It almost comes word for word from the verse. "Fear not," God says, for "I am with you. I am your God, and I will give you the aid you need. I'll strengthen you, help you, and cause you to stand. You are upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand." Imagine! Our strength is His hand! It is the constant presence of God that makes unbearable circumstances bearable, even joyous. God Himself has promised to walk with us, even in the valley of death. He has the capacity and determination to use our worst experiences for His glory and our best gain. If God is for us, who can be against us?

Verse three refers to 2 Corinthians 12:9. "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness." The hymnist continues with the subject of suffering. (Why do we struggle so much with suffering in our modern world, as if it is a surprise? God has promised it. The writer of this hymn recognized that.) What is God's answer? "My grace is sufficient." It is when we understand the character and intent of God that we can accept this answer. Perfect love casts out fear. When we see that He loves us perfectly, we can begin to see His perfect intentions. He is purifying us, making us lights in a dark world, making us holy, as He is holy. "K" puts it much better than I. "The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine." We cling to the dross, almost missing entirely the gold. But God has better ideas in mind for us!

The hymnist seems to have had training in Greek. He displays a real knowledge of Hebrews 13:5 in the final verse. In most Bibles it reads, "I will never leave you, nor will I ever forsake you." However, we lose something in the translation. "Never," in the Greek, is a double intensified word. It is stressed. More accurately, it should read, "I will never, never leave you." The hymn says, "I will not, I will not . . ." The phrase "nor will I ever" is triple intensified in Greek. Perhaps it would read, "I will never, never, never forsake you." The hymnist writes, "I'll never, no, never, no, never forsake!" Now, the writers of the Bible used repetition in much the same way we do today. It was for emphasis. Jesus, for instance, always spoke truth. He was a rabbi. So when He said, "Verily . . .," it caught the disciples' ear. When He said, "Verily, verily . . .," the disciples would have paid utmost attention. This was ultimate and important Truth. So when the author of Hebrews says, "never, never, never," it is a serious statement.

Think about that. God, the Creator of the universe, has promised to never, with paramount emphasis, leave us alone or stranded. This is too wonderful to comprehend! God is always with me! What does that do to my view of life? How do I perceive the events of my existence when the Sovereign Lord is always at hand? How does that alter my choices knowing I am always in His company? What does that do to fear and worry?

Paul wrote to the Colossians, "Let the peace of God rule in your hearts." The word "rule" means literally "to arbitrate." In other words, let God's peace in your heart be the arbitrator of your well-being. Do you have a sense of God's peace? If not, it is not a failure on God's part. He is with us. He is sufficient. He will never leave us. What room is there for agitation? Why fret? What could possibly bring any distress? Are you anxious? Let God's peace arbitrate. Recognize that anxiety is your refusal to believe God. Reaffirm your faith. The answer to anxiety is not harder work. It is renewed faith. We need to look hard at our failure to trust the God we claim to have trusted. He is, above all, trustworthy.

Happy Mother's Day

It's Mother's Day! I can't think of a better opportunity than this to tell you about my mother?

I have a hard time talking about my mom to any great extent without getting emotional. It's because I love her so much. God was very gracious to me when He selected my parents. My mom is a prime example.

Mom and I have always enjoyed a special relationship. She has always been willing to discuss anything at all with me. I could ask her questions about the Bible or questions about sex and expect answers with equal candor. She never seemed to berate me for my questions when other moms might have. And she never withheld answers like other moms might have. You know the ones. "Why don't you ask your father?" I never got that from my mom unless she actually didn't know the answer. And that wasn't very often.

My mother is quite unique. Generally speaking, women tend to be more emotional and men more logical. (I did say "generally speaking", didn't I?) One of the really obvious places to see this phenomenon is in church. More women go to church than men. More women are excited about church than men. The only difficulty with this is that women tend to not think as deeply as men on the topic of spiritual things. They might be excited. They might be knowledgeable. But digging deep doesn't seem to be a priority. (Again, for any female I may be on the verge of insulting, I know that there are exceptions and I did say "generally speaking".) My mother is an exception, and a wonderful one at that. No one is more "in love" with God than she is. I mean that in the purely worldly sense. She has all the emotions of love toward God that one would expect and hope for. She can't make it through a good worship time in church without pulling out a tissue to dab at tearful eyes. God just moves her. But she has equal depth. She enjoys digging into the Scriptures. "What does that mean?" "How does that work with this?" And she knows her Scripture. So like a "logical male", she is busy figuring things out, tossing contradictions and weaving an intricate truth structure that fits all the scenarios. While many people base their beliefs on how they feel and stand firm despite any evidence to the contrary, she will change what she believes when she is given a perspective that demands it. It provides a great deal of ground for my mom and I to have lengthy and very pleasurable theological discussions. This is one major aspect of our "special relationship" I mentioned before.

Mom shares a deep concern that I have for discipleship. As far back as I can recall, she has been mentoring younger women. She has involved herself in their lives for years and years. She has taught them the Scriptures, modeled for them what she believes, and given them even the hard principles. Teaching someone to seek to be happy at all cost is easy. She has taught them to seek to be everything that God wants them to be, even if it means doing things that are less than pleasurable. Indeed, the greatest advocate of wives submitting to husbands that I have ever known is my mother. While so many today are questioning it, she looks at it, scratches her head, and says, "Well, that's what it clearly says. How can anyone question it?" Today she is mentoring my youngest sister and a friend of hers. That might seem a little odd to some people, but it is grounds for admiration and gratitude from my perspective.

I don't know. As it turns out, as I think of my mom, I don't really have the tools to tell you how much I appreciate her, how much I respect her, or how much I love her. My wife is the only woman in this world that has greater love from me. My mom tells me about how she hasn't yet arrived at perfection. I suspect she knows whereof she speaks ... but those of us out here have a hard time seeing it. Given her history (which I won't go into here), her upbringing, her experiences, she is a stunning model of God at work in a person, a picture of sanctification. When I wonder "What does sanctification look like?", I have only to look at her and see an fine example.

I am grateful for my mother. I hope for all the best for her today and every day. I doubt that any son has a better mom than I do. I thank my God for her in my prayers.

Great Is Thy Faithfulness

Great is Thy faithfulness, O God, my Father.
There is no shadow of turning with Thee.
Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not.
As Thou has been Thou forever wilt be.

Great is Thy faithfulness! Great is Thy faithfulness!
Morning by morning new mercies I see.
All I have needed Thy hand hath provided.
Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me.

The immutable nature of God is a lost attribute to us today. It was easily forgotten in biblical times. Samuel had to remind Saul that God was not like us - not a man who changed His mind. (1 Sam. 15:27-29) In our ever-changing world and our shifting personal viewpoints we see God sometimes as capricious, unpredictable, certainly uncertain. We hardly know what to expect next, and we view each event as an obstacle. But God's faithfulness is a leading topic of Scripture. This hymn dwells on God's unchanging nature.

It is God's immutability that makes Him faithful, trustworthy. What God has purposed He will do. (Jer. 4:28) There is no promise He won't fulfill. God is completely reliable. With God, His immutability is absolute. There isn't a mere sense of faithfulness, but unwavering consistency. It is His unchanging nature that makes Him eternal. His constant nature ties into His omniscience, for God cannot change what He knows, since He knows all. His plans never fail because He is unchanging. The name "Rock" applied to God points to this attribute. (e.g., Isaiah 26:4) God is faithful beyond our comprehension.

God cannot change. That means nothing I do will cause Him to love me less - or more. His compassions never fail (Lam. 3:22,23), nor are they increased. My choices do not surprise Him, nor do my circumstances catch Him off guard. God is changeless.

"Great is Thy faithfulness." So immense is His faithfulness that I could never comprehend it. Every day a new aspect of His changeless perfection can be revealed new to me. He provides all I need, whether I know what that is or not. His constant care for me is part of His constancy. "Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me."

Summer and winter and springtime and harvest,
Sun, moon, and stars in their courses above,
Join with all nature in manifold witness
To Thy great faithfulness, mercy, and love.

Don't let the meter of the poem cause you to lose the meaning of the words. Summer, winter, spring, fall, these join with all nature in witness to God's faithfulness. The consistency of the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars - which operate with such precision as to be standards for accurately keeping time - join with all nature in witness to God's faithfulness. These and more all point to an marvelously faithful God whose attention to detail and our needs despite our sin condition clearly demonstrates His mercy and love, themselves unchanging.

Several hymns point to nature as proof of God's attributes (e.g., "How Great Thou Art", "Fairest Lord Jesus", etc.). Scripture itself concurs. (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20) This particular selection of natural occurrences is used as specific evidence of God's faithfulness. As day goes into day, season into season, as constant as the stars, as consistent as all of nature, so faithful is God. We never question whether the sun will rise tomorrow. It always has. It will again. God is more faithful than the rising of the sun. It is this faithfulness of God that enabled David to fight Goliath. When Saul asked David why he should be able to handle the fight, David pointed back to God's prior faithfulness. (1 Sam. 17:33-37) If God did it before, surely He could do it again. If God has ever cared for my needs, He will always care for my needs because He is faithful. If He has ever enabled me to do His will, He will always do so because He is faithful. Experience proves it. Nature proves it. God is faithful.

(A note of caution here. Two terms often misunderstood that I used in the last paragraph are the terms "my needs" and "God's will." We have an exceedingly skewed view of our needs that God never obligates Himself to meet. And God's will does not conform to our twisted viewpoint. It is an opportunity to revise my thinking when God doesn't meet my "needs," because clearly my idea of needs must have been wrong. God cannot be wrong, nor can He fail to accomplish His will.)

Pardon for sin, and a peace that endureth,
Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide,
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow,
Blessings all mine with ten thousand beside.

Look for a moment at the blessings outlined in this verse. "Pardon for sin . . ." It isn't until we realize our true sin condition that this becomes such a big deal, but when we see God and recognize our utter hopelessness, this suddenly becomes a monumental blessing. My sin is pardoned! ". . . a peace that endureth . . ." God promises peace to those who trust in Him. It is a natural result of being in His Spirit (called the "fruit of the Spirit"). His peace, like His faithfulness, doesn't waver. It endures. Regardless of the turmoil that necessarily surrounds our lives, His peace is there. (John 14:27; Phil. 4:6,7; Gal. 5:22,23) "Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide." Imagine that! God, Himself, is walking beside me. Beyond that, He is within me! That is marvelous! His presence brings real joy ("cheer"), another natural result of being in His Spirit. His constant company serves as a beacon, my source of sure direction. What better guide in life than the Author of life? (For a shining example of joy in turmoil, see 2 Cor. 8:1,2) "Strength for today . . ." God promises us His strength. If God is for us, who can be against us? What cannot be accomplished when operating in the strength of the Omnipotent? (Eph. 6:10) ". . . Bright hope for tomorrow . . ." In a convoluted world of hopelessness and chaos, God provides a hope. God's hope is not mere wishing. His hope is a sure thing. It is only a hope because it is not yet accomplished in our experience, but God is faithful, and it is certain. Someday we will be with Him. What a blessed hope! (Heb. 6:17-20)

God's faithfulness extends to me personally. In fact, the awesome faithfulness of God is the assurance I have of salvation and heaven. The list of blessings provided in my relationship with God is guaranteed in God's faithfulness. Since He is unalterable, He will do them. In Christ, Paul says, God's promises are "yes" (2 Cor. 1:18,19). Pardon for sin. God's unfathomable peace. God's presence in my everyday life. (God's presence in my everyday life! That should give me pause.) Strength, His strength. (It is God who works in you both to will and to do His good works. Phil. 2:13) (I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Phil. 4:13) A hope. (This is no small thing in today's world, but hope brings endurance, the ability to bear difficult circumstances, and knowing God brings that hope.) "Blessings all mine with ten thousand beside." Why would a Christian's life be characterized by anything but joy in view of God's faithfulness and the absolute certainty of His blessings?

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross

When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it Lord that I should boast save in the death of Christ my God.
All the vain things that charm me most I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet, sorrow and love flow mingled down.
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, or thorns compose so rich a crown?

Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were a present far too small.
Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all.

Another Isaac Watts hymn, this one was written in 1707. It was written to be part of the communion service. Most of Watts' hymns were based on various Psalms. This one, however, is extremely personal.

Isaac Watts knew God. His great love for God is evidenced in many of the hymns we have received from him. His secret is out in this one. "When I survey the wondrous cross . . ." Watts knew God because He knew where to look. We are aware of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, but how much time do we spend looking it over? Watts surveyed it . . . often.

There's nothing like a look at the cross to gain perspective in our lives. In that single event all of life comes into focus. We can suddenly see clearly our own sense of pride, our feelings of superiority, our self-righteousness, our self-centeredness. One look at Christ on that tree, and we quickly amount to very little. What can we offer Him in view of His sacrifice? What have we done to deserve such love? The answer, painfully, is nothing. God's love for us is a direct result of His own nature, an event completely outside of our influence.

The human animal is a strange creature. We are logical beings who use our brains to accomplish our ends. We have an amazing capacity, however, to think logically to the wrong conclusion. A prime example of our faulty logic is the almost schizophrenic view we hold of ourselves. Modern psychology tells us that 99% of us suffer from poor self-esteem. We hold an opinion of ourselves that is too low. Generally the church today agrees. However, at the same time, most of us believe ourselves to be better than others. Our outlook is correct while others who disagree are wrong. We aren't as bad as other people. Our thinking drives us from truth - in both directions. We believe we aren't as good as others, but we certainly are better than others. God's view says that we are all good for nothing, worthless sinners facing an angry God. No one is "good." But, He goes on to say, in Christ we have a new identity, His identity, which gives us immense worth because He is in us. Suddenly we are worthwhile, "good" individuals, simply because of the worth and good inherent to Christ and present with Him in us.

Watts points to the answer to self-esteem advocates. "Look at the cross." Do you believe you're good for nothing, useless, of no value, without capabilities? God says otherwise. You are disagreeing with God, and that is arrogance. Look at the cross. See what Christ did. His sacrifice on the tree proves His love in ways we can't comprehend and verifies our worth to Him. A low self-image contradicts His opinion. Do you think you are better than others, accomplishing more, somehow superior? Look at the cross. Christ's death was for you. You needed it, badly. The only value you hold, the only good of which you are capable, comes from that event. The other things Watts terms "vain." We hang our hats on vanity, on acquisitions or accomplishments or abilities. These, he says, are vain. The only thing of any worth is my salvation by His death, and His love for me.

Paul urges us to renew our minds. (Rom. 12:1, 2) He commands us not to conform to the world. The word "conform" indicates an outward shaping of our lives not truly representative of the inward person. We have this crucified and risen Savior in us. The world's view of our worth or lack of it is entirely inconsistent with God's view and our new nature. Instead, he says, we must be transformed by the renewing of the mind. "Transformed" means to change from the inside out. In other words, our outward lives should reflect our inner nature, the nature of God within us. This transformation occurs in renewing the mind. To renew the mind means to make new and different the thinking processes we use every day by viewing God's truth. This must be an ongoing, continuous, process. An easy place to begin that process is by realigning our perspective with a look at the cross.

I can hardly recount the story of the crucifixion, even to myself, without getting misty-eyed. Doctors tell us that Jesus endured every kind of injury known to medicine except for broken bones. Abrasions, contusions, lacerations, punctures, separated joints, etc., etc. ... every kind of physical torment. He was unrecognizable as a man when He hung there, so beaten and bruised was He. Further, He hung naked, an emotional torment that we hardly grasp today because of our cultural outlook. Every breath was torture, every movement agony. But the only record of Him ever crying out was at that moment when the Father withdrew from Him. His suffering is beyond my experience or even imagination. And He did it ... for me! Did ever such love and sorrow meet?

Christ did it because of sin - our sin. Satan's sin was pride. "I will be like the Most High." Eve's sin was pride. "God knows if you eat the fruit you will be like Him." Our sin is pride. We believe we are something. We are not. Still we focus on ourselves, boasting in accomplishments and abilities given liberally by an amazingly loving God. Jeremiah says that if we are going to boast, it should be in this -- that we know God. (Jer. 9:24) The cross points us away from a positive view of us. It points us to our vanity, our self-centeredness, our arrogance in the face of the Almighty.

The hymn also gives the answer to our problem of sin. As Christians we stand forgiven. That's a finished work. Nothing more can be done. Christ's death on the cross was complete. When we sin, then, no amount of penance, no amount of resolve, no amount of effort will make things better. Watts' answer is in the second verse. "Sacrifice them to Thy blood." Confession, agreement with God, is the answer. We agree that God is God and we are not. We agree that He is right and we are wrong. And we agree to go His way. That occurs only by His direct intervention. The sin is covered by the blood of Christ. There is one answer to the Christian's problem of sin -- repentance.

What an amazing thing, this cross of Christ! The depths of His pain on our behalf practically shouts the heights of His love. The perfection of His sacrifice loudly declares the perfection of His forgiveness. And the love He bears for such as we is astounding. Love so amazing, so divine, demands all that I have and am. No less is enough. Nor is that enough. It is simply all I have to give. And "all" is what He requires. How can we, who owe so much, withhold anything from One who loves us so much?

Watts concludes that the love demonstrated by Christ on the cross demands my all. Why? The driving factor of salvation is grace. The driving factor of Christian living is gratitude. It is this sense of gratitude, this love for One who loves us beyond our capacity to understand, that brings about the abundant Christian life. Ours is not meant to be a duty-bound life of moral codes and strict guidelines. Ours is a grateful response to a loving God. Because of all He has done on our behalf, we should want to please Him. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Note that keeping commandments is a response to, a result of loving Him. We don't keep His commandments to love Him. Loving Him causes the natural effect of obedience. How can we, who owe so much, withhold anything from One who loves us so much?

Time at the cross. That's what we need. We need to survey it. Look at the pain He endured. Look at the agony He bore on my account. Look at the love graphically demonstrated there. See the grace, and the completeness of the sacrifice. Recognize your own contribution of sin, and your ongoing struggle with pride that necessitated His death - He who knew no sin. And let gratitude to Him guide your attitudes and actions.

Rock of Ages

I've had some feedback that says, "Do more of those hymns." Besides, Mother's Day is coming, and my mom loves the hymns. So you all get to enjoy them as well.

Rock of Ages
Augustus M. Toplady

Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee.
Let the water and the blood, From Thy wounded side which flowed.
Be for sin the double cure: Save from wrath and make me pure.

Could my tears forever flow, Could my zeal no languor know,
These for sin could not atone - Thou must save and Thou alone.
In my hand no price I bring. Simply to Thy cross I cling.

While I draw this final breath, when my eyes shall close in death,
When I rise to worlds unknown, And behold Thee on Thy throne,
Rock of Ages cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee.

This hymn written by Augustus Toplady in 1776, was part of a debate with John Wesley. Wesley believed it was possible to attain a condition of sinlessness and enter into a perfect rest. Toplady was a follower of John Calvin's teachings and held that there was nothing in man that could make him good enough to enter God's rest in this life. "Rock of Ages", then, points to the completeness of Christ and contrasts it with the complete inadequacy of man.

Verse one designates Christ as the Rock. There is a clear reference to the passage in Exodus 33, 34 where Moses, in the cleft of the rock, saw God. (Exo. 33:18-23) It was only there, in a rock broken for Moses, that he could tolerate the presence of God. So it is today. That broken Rock is Christ.

The verse goes on to cover the efficacy of the sacrifice. The blood represents the payment of death required by God's justice and paid in Christ's death. The water represents the cleansing that follows Christ's payment on my behalf. Toplady called it a "double cure": saved from God's wrath by my vicarious death with Christ, and made pure wholly in His forgiveness, completely apart from my actions or abilities.

Verse two contrasts Man's inadequacy with Christ's adequacy. The best I can do is not good enough. Deep, heartfelt repentance does not atone for sin. Undying zeal for God does not atone for sin. Each of us owes a certificate of debt (Col. 2:14) that cannot be repaid within ourselves. Salvation, payment of my debt, resides solely in God's hands. My only hope is God and His mercy.

Like so many others, his final verse looks to that final, blessed rest. And like so many others, this hymn sees that event rather differently than we do. This view of God carries a reverence and awe largely lacking in today's church. When Isaiah described his vision of God in Isaiah 6, even the sinless angels who attended God covered their faces in His presence. Toplady sees God in a similar light. Though forgiven and purified, there is no cavalier attitude in the presence of God. Our only hope is the Rock of Ages, broken for us, in which we hide.

Footprints

I was all set to start up on the hymns again, but recent events have caused me to think about something, and perhaps it would be a valuable thought process for you as well.

The buzzword of the day is "carbon footprint". What kind of a carbon footprint are you leaving? The idea is to ask yourself how much you are affecting the global environment. Now, if you've read me for very long, you'll know that I'm not deeply concerned about that question. But it begs a similar question. What is your life footprint?

Several years ago my wife's parents celebrated their 50th anniversary. People came from all over the country to celebrate with them. Their children rented a hall to accommodate them all. You see, her parents have a large life footprint, affecting many people in a positive way. Similarly, we celebrated my parents' 50th anniversary four years ago. We had to pare down the list of who to invite among their friends because there were just too many to accommodate. When my parents travel, they have to decide how many of their multitudinous friends and relatives they will visit at any given place because they seem to have a crowd of people they know wherever they go. They have a large life footprint.

After my grandfather's funeral, my brother and I discussed the idea. How large a footprint are we leaving? Whose lives have we touched? How have we impacted those around us? My wife and I joked about making plans for my 50th birthday some time ago. I told her, "You could invite all my friends ... but I'm not sure either would show up." It was good for a laugh, but it wasn't good in terms of a life footprint.

We are called to be a light in the world. Christians are told to "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). There is an old line: "If you were to be arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" We aren't to go quietly here on this earth. We are to be known for our love (John 13:35). We are to be "Good Samaritans" (Luke 10:25-37). We are to have a positive relationship with our Father, to be sure, but we are also supposed to leave a positive footprint in our world.

I don't care much about my carbon footprint. I don't really think much about that. I do care about my life footprint. I do want to make a positive impact. When I go to be Christ, I hope to leave behind people whose lives I've impacted for good and who will, in turn, impact others for good. I want to hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant." I want to properly use that which God has given me to invest in others. Right now I'm not sure I'm achieving that goal. Are you?

Post-Modern?

Post-modernism ... it's the buzzword today. It's the "in thing" to the intellectual elite which, of course, means that it is also the "in thing" for those who value the intellectual elite. On the other hand, it is the "enemy" to the Church. (I don't use the capital "C" there lightly.) It stands in direct opposition to 2000 years of Christianity.

The question for most, of course, is "What is it?" Obviously post-modernism follows on the heels of ... say it with me ... modernism. Therefore, by way of contrast, we can look at modernism and find out a little about post-modernism. Modernism was a product of the Enlightenment, the rosy 19th century movement that held that there is truth, that we can know it, and if we know the truth, life will get better. Science and education reigned in this movement. It flew in the face of Christianity because Christianity held that only through Christ could you personally get better, and the world would never get better. Enter the 20th century and wars on the scale that had never been imagined. Things, it seemed, were not improving. They were deteriorating. Enter post-modernism. Sitting on the back of modernism, post-modernism denies truth. While modernism said that finding the ultimate truths would lead us to paradise, post-modernism says that there are no ultimate truths. First on the hitlist for the post-modern mind is words. Words, they say, have no intrinsic meaning. They mean whatever you want them to mean. If this is true, then it obviously follows that texts have no meaning. Regardless of what the author meant, the texts only mean what you think they mean. The next obvious conclusion is the death of what is called the "metanarrative". A metanarrative is the "grand scheme of things", the "big picture". It is that which explains ... everything. Christianity, for instance, is a metanarrative, explaining the origins of the species, the reason for life, the source of morality, the way we are to live and why we don't, and so on. Well, if words have no intrinsic meaning and texts only mean what you want them to mean, then the metanarrative is a lie. All that is only means whatever you want it to mean. The other fundamental in this post-modern viewpoint is that logic is meaningless. This should be obvious once you start examining the post-modern view ... because all of it flies in the face of logic. They use words (which they claim have no real meaning) to argue for their interpretation of texts (which they claim have no real meaning) to give their own metanarrative (which they claim doesn't exist) that all that is truly is without fundamental meaning ... an argument from logic. (That is, if nothing is true, then I cannot be regarded as false because I hold a differing viewpoint ... and the disagreement disappears in a post-modern puff of logic.)

Christians are largely unaware that this perception is out there. The problem is this. Being unaware, they are also unaware that it is creeping into the church. Let's look at some examples. Have you ever been to a Bible study where you read a verse and ask, "So, what does that mean to you?"? That's a post-modern approach. The Bible is truth, and what it means it means. What it means to you is irrelevant. What we need to find is what it means, not what it means to you. The approach "What does it mean to you?" is a post-modern approach. Or how about the death of certainty? In our world and in growing amounts in our churches there is the perception that it is wrong to believe that you are right. That is perceived as "arrogant". True Christians are humble, and they would never suppose that they were right while everyone else was wrong. Never mind that this is in direct contradiction to the Bible. James says, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (James 1:5-8). You see, Christianity holds that we can know the truth (John 8:32). If God says it and we say, "Well, actually we can't know it", that is arrogant. Yet uncertainty is being heralded as virtue in too many church circles. It's wrong to be exclusive. It's wrong to be sure. The only right, humble thing to do is admit that you could be wrong. And to claim that the Bible is what God says ... that's arrogant.

Evangelicals tried to hold their ground against modernism, and they did for some time. It was only as it passed that they got swept into it. We used to believe that a relationship with Christ informed by the Word of God was what was important. We've come to believe that education and apologetics was the key. If we could just inform people, they'd see the truth. That's modernism, not biblicism. Exit modernism and enter post-modernism. Evangelicals have held their ground ... but as the rush continues, we've started to cave. The Emergent Church tries to argue that Christ certainly saves all who call on Him, but He'll likely save others as well -- certainly not this exclusive claim of Christianity. That's post-modernism. You don't have to go far in the "Christian blog" world to find "Christians" arguing that "There is no reason to think we are right; everyone could be right." That's post-modernism. Without us paying much attention, it is leaching into our churches and our thought processes.

Where does this assault come from? It comes from the same place that modernism and Darwinism and all the other anti-Christian "isms" came from: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field" (Gen. 3:1). You see, Satan has always had the same agenda. His first attack was on Adam's wife. His approach was to question God. "Did God actually say ...?" His approach hasn't changed. After the arrival of the Second Adam on the scene, Satan has shifted his attack to this Adam's wife, but the approach is the same. "Did God actually say ...?" Did God actually create everything (as He claims and as denied by Darwin)? Is God really the focus of all that is (as He claims and as denied by the self-esteem movement)? Is Christ the Truth (as He claimed and as denied by post-modernism)? It's not that Satan can end the truth. God said it. Christ promised to "build My Church." It's not that this will end. But if Satan can mitigate it, mix it up, and put us on the defensive, well, perhaps that will slow it down.

Let's not do this. Let's not allow the shift. We need to be ready to make a defense, but more importantly we need to know the Truth. That includes knowing the truth in a mental way, sure, but more importantly it means having a personal relationship with the Truth -- Christ. We need to be about the process of renewing our minds, but if we focused more on that relationship and what it means in our life and character, and less on the debate, we just might be ahead in this game instead of being "like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind."

Facing the Hard Questions

Last Friday we said goodbye to my last grandparent. It was a difficult time for many of us. And it spawned some thoughts for me.

It seems as if we prefer quite often to avoid the hard questions. "Where was God when that terrible thing happened?" "Why does God send people to Hell?" "What makes you think you're right when everyone else is wrong?" There are a lot of difficult questions that swirl around Christianity, and it seems as if most Christians prefer to avoid them. However, I think there are things in the Bible that might contradict our overwhelming capacity to ignore the tough questions:

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person (Col. 4:6).

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Tim. 4:2).

Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that we are commanded to be ready with answers. Now, I'm not suggesting that we should all have answers that will convince the skeptics. (Hint: No such answers exist.) What I'm suggesting is that each one of us should have researched the questions enough to have answers that satisfy us. We should have answers to give rather than simply spouting responses we've heard and never considered.

Where did this come from? My grandfather was not, by his own admission, a Christian. So, the surviving family show up, among whom was another member of the family who was also not a Christian. I started thinking about that in anticipation of the trip. I wondered if he considered that walking into a funeral for someone who wasn't saved would open him up to interrogations -- well meaning, of course -- about his spiritual condition. "How do you handle this?" "Believing as you do, how do you respond when someone you love dies?" "Is there any way you can make sense out of this senseless death?" I realized, however, that a thinking non-believer would be perfectly able to counter my imagined questions with equally difficult questions. "How do you handle this? You believe that he died without Christ and is damned. How do you ease the pain? How do you answer the question of how God could allow this?" And I was faced with questions that were difficult for me to answer.

Now, I am a person that doesn't like leaving things like that hanging. Some people are perfectly happy with spouting truisms that deflect the question without personally engaging the answers. Some people are perfectly happy never asking the hard questions. But I'm not either of those. I may not be able to convince others, but if I don't have answers that satisfy me, I'm not comfortable. Mind you, sometimes the answer is "God is God and I am not and I won't be able to answer that," but that's perfectly satisfactory in some cases. So I worked through the questions he "asked" me to my own satisfaction. I wonder how many others have done that?

We are commanded to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom. 12:2). We are told that spiritual maturity is "for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil" (Heb. 5:14). Yet too many Christians today wallow about in mediocre thinking processes, unwilling to ask and answer the hard questions, content with letting others do the dirty work. It's not just misguided. It's not merely unwise. It's wrong. We are commanded to give answers, to be ready at all times to make a defense. I suspect that much of the harsh words that come from Christians to their interrogators comes from a position of hidden unease. When you are not sure of your own answer, it is likely that you will react with emotion rather than "gentleness and reverence." Maybe that's something we should work on.

Minding Fences

Fences. They're everywhere. Robert Frost said, "Good fences make good neighbors." Fences are good. They have their purpose. I'm wondering, though, at what point they become a problem. My particular pondering is about children.

We are fencing fiends when it comes to children. There are fences around pools to keep them out. There are fences around yards to keep them in. We put fences on stairs to keep them off. And we use a plethora of devices to control access. There are child-proof bottles (which, as we all know, can only be opened by children) and child-proofed homes. We put locks on drawers and cabinets and anything we don't want them to access. We install child-proofing on our computers to keep them from going places they shouldn't go. We put up fences everywhere to protect our children.

The basic function of a fence, whether it be an actual fence or some of these devices I've mentioned, is to mechanize restrictions. The function is to be there when you aren't and do what you won't (because you're not there). Of course if you're standing there you will prevent the child from running into the street, but what about when you're not? Of course if you're in the kitchen and the child tries to get under the sink and drink Draino you'll stop her, but what about when you're not there? And the problem is that parents are present, but not omnipresent. Turn away for a second and children are quick little beauties. They'll be into that stuff in the blink of an eye ... almost literally. So we construct mechanisms to block them since parents can't be everywhere at once.

And I begin to wonder ... is that good? I'm torn. I see the necessity. It is saving lives -- little lives. That's good. But how much are parents relying on devices to do what they are supposed to do? Think of it this way. Before they came up with handy child locks on door knobs, drawers, and cabinets, what did parents do? How did any kid survive homes like that? I'm thinking that parents weren't any more omnipresent then than now, so how did they manage to get by? Well, it seems that they trained their kids. At a very young age, as these little cuties started to become mobile, parents would keep a close eye on their children and start to train them. They would train them to avoid certain dangerous places. They would train them to obey. This one is of particular importance. They would train them that "No!" meant "Stop now!" and they would count on that child stopping when that command was shouted. It was work, sure. It took early vigilance. It took some inflicting of pain on occasion to seal the point. It wasn't easy. But what they ended up with was a child-proofed ... child. This child would not go places she shouldn't because she was trained not to. This child wouldn't be in the steak knives or the refrigerator while mom's back is turned because he was trained not to. And as Dad talked to a neighbor out front while Johnny toddled around the yard, a barked "Stop!" command would actually stop Johnny steps from the street instead of requiring Dad to sprint madly across the yard to snatch him from the road because he ignored his father's words.

Mechanical protection for children may be a good thing, but this is what I wonder. At what point do they learn to avoid these problems without mechanical devices? At what point do they learn to respect the authority that God has put in their lives? At what point does a parent start developing their character to reduce or eliminate the need for such devices? Maybe it is supposed to happens someplace, but based on the majority of kids I see today in our stores and parking lots and neighborhoods and all, it doesn't seem to be. Instead, we just have to keep inventing better fences. Is that really how we want to equip our children?

Gas Out

The crazies are at it again. I've received this call to attempt to lower our price of gasoline. Here's what they tell me:

NO GAS...On May 15th 2007

Body: Don't pump gas on May 15th
Body: ...in April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.

On May 15th 2007, all Internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.

There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the Internet network, and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up.

If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil company's pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.

If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldn't) resend this to all your contact list. With it saying, "Don't pump gas on May 15th"

Leaving off the poor grammar and all, let's examine the logic for a moment. Here are the primary assumptions of this line of thinking. There are 73 million Americans on the Internet (who, we assume, all drive cars). They will pay a minimum of $30 (the number actually works out to something like $31.40) per tank of gasoline. Presumably May 15th was selected because all 73 million Internet users who drive would normally all go to the gas station that day. (Now, I could be wrong on this point. It may simply be that the assumption is that all 73 million get gas every day, in which case any day would do.) Further, it would appear that there is actually only one oil company, and that single company is "the Middle Eastern oil industry." (You see, if there were more than one, you'd have to divide that $2.292 billion over multiple companies. Further, apparently no company from which those 73 million might buy gas is getting oil from Texas, California, Alaska, or any other American-based oil source.) Oh, and it appears that this oil company, whoever it is, takes all of the money you pay in gasoline. There are no taxes, no fees, no wages paid to employees, nothing at all. It all goes into the pockets of the elite rich leadership of this fictitious oil company.

Further, this $2.292 billion is intended to hurt this company (whichever company that is). That means that 1) the company has no reserves to ride out one day in which people don't buy gas, and 2) none of those 73 million need the gas they didn't buy that day. You see, if they needed that gas, then they would either buy it the day before or the day after and all the money of that single day would be recouped in those other days. And it seems quite obvious that when a single company announces profits (that is, income over and above the cost of doing business) of $10 billion for a quarter, a single day's hiccup of $3 billion that is recovered on either the day before or the day after wouldn't even phase them in the least. Again, this assumes that it is one company. You see, if there are, say, 10 companies involved, then the single loss of any given company would average out to one tenth of that amount (which would also be recovered on the day before and/or the day after), and these accumulated companies would each have stores in the billions of dollars of profits with which to simply ride out that single day. (The other problem I have is that I find it hard to believe that "the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up." Mine doesn't. My wife's doesn't. I filled up my son's truck the other day; that one didn't. I was with my brother when he filled his; that one didn't. What "average car" are they considering?)

Now, I understand the idea. We're mad about gas prices. It seems largely arbitrary. It appears to be some sort of extortion. We cannot do without gasoline, so they will charge us whatever they can get away with. It does seem odd, however, that while the oil companies take perhaps 10% of the dollar you spend on gas, the government is getting closer to 17%. So who is the bigger problem? And while I don't doubt that oil companies are making far more than they should, what would we recommend they do?

Consider reality. If the oil companies are making ten cents on every dollar you spend at the pump for gas, then the impact on them on this fictional one day crusade would be one tenth the amount listed. That amount would be spread out over all companies. Whatever amount that might be, it would be recovered by gas purchases on the day before or the day after. No one would blink an eye.

The claim that "in April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight" is nonsense. It just doesn't make sense. If we wanted to make a dent in a gas company's pocketbook, it would have to look more like this. 1) We would need to select a target. It would have to be one company and all the companies that buy gas from that one company. 2) We would all need to stop buying from that source -- all. 3) We would all need to stop buying from that source for some time. It might take a month or more. It might need to be permanent. (If the Ford Motor company can continue to take annual losses in the millions of dollars and stay in business year after year, how long do you suppose an oil company with billions of dollars of profit built in can survive?) Note that the result of such a move would cause one company to either go out of business or lower its prices. The upshot would be that the employees of that company would lose and we'd all be paying big prices at the pump elsewhere, possibly even higher than before because we've eliminated some competition.

These types of things make us feel better, but they have no effect. We're all a bit upset about the price of gasoline here. It hurts. It really does. And it seems a bit unfair to hear that the companies that are costing us so much to get from here to there are making record profits at our expense. But we live in a free enterprise system. We are capitalists. We don't get the option of saying, "We can be capitalists, but they can't." What we are seeing is the natural result of capitalism without morality. It is the nature of our free society. Until we are ready to end our free society, it's what we have to deal with. A "gas out" won't do what they are suggesting it do. Perhaps people should take a moment and think it through. It feels good ... but it does nothing. That just seems like foolishness.

Looking Out For #1

The normal human mindset is "looking out for #1." By that we mean ... me! In this instance, #1 is me and the rest of you are somewhere down the list. Most people live their lives believing "It's all about me." Of course, this doesn't correlate with a biblical perspective (even though many who purport to follow the biblical perspective also have this erroneous view), and it doesn't correlate with reality. Logically, we can't all be "#1." Some of you have to be in secondary state. We might magnanimously suggest that "You can be #1 to you and I will be #1 to me," but sooner or later our interests are going to clash ... and one of us will not be #1.

Despite Whitney Houston's assurance that "learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all," I would suggest that there is a higher calling, a true #1 that we need to look out for. That would be God Himself.

In Paul's epistle to the church at Ephesus, he outlines an amazing compilation of spiritual blessings with which we are already blessed:

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, ⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love ⁵ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. ⁷ In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, ⁸ which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight ⁹ He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him ¹⁰ with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him ¹¹ also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, ¹² to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. ¹³ In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:3-14).

This is truly an astounding list, and there is a lot to see in there, but what I'm looking at right now is why. Why has He "blessed us with every spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ"? It's a marvelous list of blessings, to be sure, but what is God's motivation? Well, I think He makes it abundantly clear. Repeatedly Paul says that He did it for "the praise of His glory."

The truth is that all that is was designed to magnify God. Creation tells of His glory. His works tell of His glory. Everything revolves around Him. Even history is His story. From the start it was "in the beginning, God" and it has always been thus. God is saying, "It's all about me." Jesus prayed, "Glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You" (John 17:1). That is, even Jesus glorified was intended to glorify God. If there is anyone that exists who is self-centered, it is God.

"Oh, no!" you say. "That's a sin!"

Well, it would be ... if it was a lie. If you, for instance, said, "It's all about me", that would be false. The universe doesn't revolve around you. It's not all about you. You are not the being of supreme importance. God, on the other hand, is! If He were not self-centered, He would be an idolater. If He were not self-centered, He would be telling a lie because He is the center of all things. He created all things. He holds all things together. It is all about Him.

Our inversion of exactly who #1 is often gets in our way. We think that He owes us something. We think that He should be like us. We think that He must meet the same standards that we do. The truth is the opposite. The truth is that He owes us nothing at all and we owe Him everything. Anything He gives us is a gift, not an entitlement. We are in His image, not Him in ours. He is not like us. And He makes the standards. No, let's be clear. He is the standard.

All this to say that I think we really do need to be looking out for #1. However, if we are going to be effective at that worthy task, we need to keep ourselves clear on exactly who that is. It is the Creator, God Himself, and not us. The clearer we keep that in our minds, the better off we will be.

The Job of Parent

Someplace along the way the job description has changed. It used to read, in brief, something like this: "Train up a child in the way he should go" (Prov. 22:6). It used to include things like discipline (Heb. 12:7) and instruction (Eph. 6:4), keeping children under control (1 Tim. 3:4), "exhorting and encouraging and imploring" (1 Thess. 2:11), and correction (Prov. 29:17). Oh, sure, there is the absolutely necessary "love" and the keenly important "do not exasperate", but it seems to me that the job description of the position of "Parent" has changed. Today it is more like "Be a buddy" and "Remove any obstacles that might prevent them from growing into whatever they might want to be." The old "Lines are our friends" has become a laughable concept, and real, loving parents today are required to set their children free without guidance or limitations to be all that they really want to be, regardless of what that may be.

I suppose I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic. "All that they really want to be" -- that's the goal. If that means a mass murderer or drug dealer, so be it. You can't impose guidance or limitations on them. That only prevents them from growing. Did you know that there are some who would even prevent parents today from expressing religious beliefs to their children? They are calling it "child abuse" because parents burden these poor little minds with concepts like this before they even have the chance to develop their own ideas. You beast!

Look around you. Parents everywhere are surrendering their parental duties and seeking desperately to become their child's friend. It is abundantly clear most places you care to go where children and parents are found who it is that runs so many households -- the children. Parents are baffled at how to get them to behave. I was asked when mine were little, "How do you get them to mind you so well?" When I told them it takes love and discipline, they would say, "I spank my child, but it doesn't do any good." I would suggest that's because so many have bought into the "child abuse" line. You don't want to hurt them; you just want to get their attention. A little pat on that diaper-padded behind ought to do. Who's kidding whom?

The Bible disagrees. Solomon, considered a wise man, wrote appalling things like "Do not hold back discipline from the child. Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die" (Prov. 23:13) and "He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently" (Prov. 13:24). Of course, they're only appalling in today's "kids rule" atmosphere. So Christians have to decide. Are they going to side with modern philosophies of child-rearing ... or with God's opinion of how to train the beings He created?

I know where many will immediately go. "Look at the horrible child abuse we see because of this kind of teaching." I'm with you there. But abuse of a concept doesn't nullify the concept. And spanking a child (where their backside actually hurts) -- applying the board of education to the seat of learning, so to speak -- isn't abuse. It's only abuse in today's perceptions. I actually heard a parent say that it is child abuse to take away a toy from a child who is banging a sibling over the head with it. Child abuse? In what sense of the word??

Parents are defecting in grand numbers. They are bugging out of the fight. They refuse to follow God's prescription for raising children and have decided instead that it's better to be nice. Diplomacy is the best approach. You don't "train," "exhort," "discipline," or "correct." These are all too unkind. If you ever hear your child tell you, "I hate you!", you've failed. Use a tool that would actually cause pain on a child???? That's wrong, likely criminal, and surely abusive. But why, oh, why is this new, kinder, gentler set of parents not producing better offspring? Why is it that their "time outs" aren't producing more contemplative, compliant children? Why is it that the only lack of limitations so many kids with this upbringing seem to have is the lack or moral limitations? If the modern perception of how to raise kids is right ... why isn't it working?

Of course, the real question here is not for the general public. The real question here is for parents who are Christians. Are you going to buy into current perceptions or will you choose God's stated concepts? I ask because when you argue, "Oh, spanking that poor little child is abuse", you're arguing, "Oh, God is abusive!" Are we as humans and parents going to tell God, "Yeah, you were okay for awhile, but we've finally figured out a better way. Nice try!"? Or are we going to say, "Yeah, I have been trying to do this by methods that are lies and I need to start doing it the way God intended."? And the Number One job of every parent is teaching our children the truth about God. Handing that off to Sunday School or someone else is an abdication of our God-given responsibility.

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deut. 6:4-9).

Will that make you popular with your kids? Likely not. Will they like it? I doubt it. But if we don't discipline our kids when they need it with the discipline God commands, and teach our kids the truth "when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up," the consequences to them, to you, and to all if us will be dire. The rewards, on the other hand, are grand.

You choose. Parent or buddy. God's way or the world's. You decide.

McDonnell Douglas Warranty Card

Yeah, McDonnell Douglas is no longer around, but this has been circulating for years. I thought it was worth a chuckle at least.

McDonnell Douglas Warranty Registration Card

Thank you for purchasing a McDonnell Douglas military aircraft. In order to protect your new investment, please take a few moments to fill out the warranty registration card below. Answering the survey questions is not required, but the information will help us to develop new products that best meet your needs and desires.

1. Salutation
[_] Mr.
[_] Mrs.
[_] Ms.
[_] Miss
[_] Lt.
[_] Gen.
[_] Comrade
[_] Exalted
[_] Classified
[_] Other
First Name: ________________ Initial: ____ Last Name:________________
Code Name: ________________

2. Which model of aircraft did you purchase?
[_] F-14 Tomcat
[_] F-15 Eagle
[_] F-16 Falcon
[_] F-117A Stealth
[_] Classified

3. Date of purchase (Year/Month/Day): _____/___/___

4. Serial Number: ______________________

5. Please indicate where this product was purchased:
[_] Received as gift / Aid package
[_] Catalog / Showroom
[_] Independent arms broker
[_] Mail order
[_] Discount store
[_] Government surplus
[_] Shop-At-Home Network
[_] Classified
[_] eBay

6. How did you become aware of the product you purchased?
[_] Heard loud noise, looked up
[_] Store display
[_] Espionage
[_] Recommended by friend / relative / ally
[_] Late night cable TV advertising / infomercial
[_] Political lobbying by manufacturer

7. Please indicate the three (3) factors that most influenced your decision to purchase this product:
[_] Style / appearance
[_] Speed / maneuverability
[_] Price / value
[_] Comfort / convenience
[_] Kickback / bribe
[_] Recommended by salesperson
[_] Company reputation
[_] Advanced Weapons Systems
[_] Backroom politics
[_] Negative experience opposing one in combat

8. Please indicate the location(s) where this product will be used:
[_] North America
[_] Iraq
[_] Aircraft carrier
[_] Europe
[_] Middle East (not Iraq)
[_] Africa
[_] Asia / Far East
[_] Misc. Third World countries
[_] Classified

9. Please indicate the products that you currently own or intend to purchase in the near future:
[_] Color TV
[_] VCR
[_] ICBM
[_] Killer Satellite
[_] CD Player
[_] Air-to-Air Missiles
[_] Space Shuttle
[_] Home Computer
[_] Nuclear Weapon

10. How would you describe yourself or your organization? (Indicate all that apply)
[_] Communist / Socialist
[_] Terrorist
[_] Crazed
[_] Neutral
[_] Democratic
[_] Dictatorship
[_] Corrupt
[_] Primitive / Tribal

11. How did you pay for your McDonnell Douglas product?
[_] Deficit spending
[_] Cash
[_] Suitcases of cocaine
[_] Oil revenues
[_] Personal check
[_] Credit card
[_] Ransom money
[_] Traveler's check

12. Your occupation:
[_] Homemaker
[_] Sales / Marketing
[_] Revolutionary
[_] Clerical
[_] Mercenary
[_] Tyrant
[_] Middle management
[_] Eccentric billionaire
[_] Defense Minister / General
[_] Retired
[_] Student

13. To help us better understand our customers, please indicate the interests and activities in which you and your spouse enjoy participating on a regular basis:
[_] Golf
[_] Boating / sailing
[_] Sabotage
[_] Running / jogging
[_] Propaganda / misinformation
[_] Destabilization / overthrow
[_] Default on loans
[_] Gardening
[_] Crafts
[_] Black market / smuggling
[_] Collectibles / collections
[_] Watching sports on TV
[_] Wines
[_] Interrogation / torture
[_] Household pets
[_] Crushing rebellions
[_] Espionage / reconnaissance
[_] Fashion clothing
[_] Border disputes
[_] Mutually Assured Destruction

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your answers will be used in market studies that will help McDonnell Douglas serve you better in the future - as well as allowing you to receive mailings and special offers from other companies, governments, extremist groups, and mysterious consortia. As a bonus for responding to this survey, you will be registered to win a brand new F-117A in our Desert Thunder Sweepstakes!


Comments or suggestions about our fighter planes? Please write to:

McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
Marketing Department Military,
Aerospace Division

IMPORTANT:
This warranty card is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor, or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this warranty card is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. If the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this warranty card, although the sheltie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your equipment you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this warranty card in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.

The Ethanol Puzzler

I'm taking a break for a short time from the hymnody (partly to see if there is any feedback) and will write a few items on things that are on my mind. One that puzzled me recently was this whole ethanol thing.

How does this work? Arizona State University did a study recently to figure out why tortillas were rising in price so drastically in Mexico. As it turns out, the price of the cheapest "bread" in Mexico has steeply risen because of the demand for corn ... in the United States. Yeah, we have this massive demand for ethanol from corn, so we're driving up the price of corn in Mexico to get it. Of course, we're driving up the price of corn in America as well. And this has its ripple effect. Poor people in Mexico find it harder to afford their own cheap food. In the U.S., the corn that would have fed our beef costs more, so beef goes up. The corn that we would have eaten is more expensive. And it doesn't stop at corn or beef.

Since the demand for corn is raising the price of corn, there are more farmers growing corn. Makes sense. But they are doing so at the cost of other crops. So now there is less of these other crops, and the decrease in their supply increases their cost. And then there are those other places that corn is used. They feed corn to pigs. Check your pork prices. They feed corn to chickens. They keep chickens for their eggs. As the cost of feeding chickens go up, so will that chicken breast and dozen eggs. And so on. In our drive to ease our demand on petroleum, we are driving up prices everywhere. And will we become dependent on other countries for corn?

I don't get it, really. There has always been ethanol in gasoline, at least for some time now. For as long as I can remember there has been a sign on the pumps I visit that tell me there is 10%. Now, they're trying to boost that, but it takes a different engine to consume a higher ethanol percentage in the fuel. How many of us have them? And if we did, where would we find the higher ethanol fuel? That's not readily available yet. So here we are, driving up the prices of basic food in countries around us and in our own country, with a demand that doesn't yet exist for a product we can't yet fully use in an attempt to get us off the oil that we will continue to demand anyway. In what world does this make sense?