The Glory of Christ

There is a fascinating phrase in 2 Cor. 4:4 -- "in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." I've often pointed to the fact that the unregenerate are blind and can't see the gospel, but right now I'm looking at that fascinating phrase, "the gospel of the glory of Christ". Apparently Paul believes that the Gospel that we preach is all about the glory of Christ.

To unpack this concept it is necessary to revisit the Gospel. A lot of "Christians" have forgotten what it is exactly. Let's review. I prefer Paul's clearest, most straightforward explanation of the Gospel:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor. 15:1-8).

There it is; the gospel in unvarnished form. Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Now, we can debate until the cows come home (which would be a long time for me since I have no cows) whether or not the "essentials" include the doctrine of the Trinity, belief in the Virgin Birth, an inerrant Bible, or a myriad of other things. My focus here is, first, "the gospel of the glory of Christ" and, second, exactly how that gospel is "the glory of Christ."

Paul embellishes his account with lots of important stuff. The Gospel is "according to the Scriptures". The facts of the Gospel are attested to by witnesses ... lots of them. The Gospel is "of first importance". Yes, yes, all of that. But the Gospel is, first and foremost, about Christ who paid the price for our sins and who rose again. That's the Gospel. When we embrace that payment on our behalf and the One who made it (since He is alive), we have forgiveness of sins, His righteousness, and a living relationship with God. If we do not embrace the Gospel, we do not have any of those things. It is such good news ("Gospel") to those of us who have embraced Him and His sacrifice on our behalf!

That Gospel, then, is "the glory of Christ". How is Christ glorified in the Gospel? He is glorified as the Lamb who was slain. John writes about this in the Revelation of Jesus Christ (that is the correct name, folks):

I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice,

"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

"To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb , be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped (Rev. 5:11-14).

Now that is a worship service. "many angels" and "the living creatures" and "the elders" and "myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands" all in one voice declaring that "the Lamb that was slain" is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, might, honor, glory, and blessing ... "forever and ever." What a choir! What an event, one I can hardly imagine! And it is all to the glory of "the Lamb" ... "that was slain". Because He came and died, because He willingly laid down His singularly perfect life on our behalf, because of that choice, that love, that unparalleled act of mercy, Christ is glorified.

Christ is also glorified in the Resurrection. It serves first as confirmation that His sacrifice on our behalf was accepted by God. It concurs with Scripture that says, "Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay" (Psa. 16:10). It also provides a map for us. Christ was a forerunner that showed that we, too, will enjoy Resurrection. This is the primary point of the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians. Christ is "the first fruits of those who are asleep" (1 Cor. 15:20). His resurrection is part of the plan of subjecting all things to Him, and "when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28). His resurrection provides a blueprint for our resurrection. Paul says, "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body" (1 Cor. 15:42) and promises "I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Cor. 15:51). In the end, the bottom line is that on our behalf through His resurrection Christ has conquered death. "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:56-58). Through His resurrection He gives us victory over death and a reason to abound in "the work of the Lord". That's glory!

The Gospel is indeed good news for us. We must not lose sight of its simplicity (His death on our behalf and His resurrection, in which, if we believe, we are saved and defeat death itself), its power, and its wonder. On the other hand, let us be careful to remember continually that the point of the Gospel, as is the point of everything that exists and everything that occurs, is the glory of Christ. We benefit, but it's really about Him. And we, too, someday will be among the myriads and myriads shouting, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!"

Glory of God - Sovereignty

Back to the Glory of God.

It's a funny thing. Most Christians agree that God is sovereign. The degree of that sovereignty varies, but most Christians agree that He is sovereign. The odd thing is that you won't find that in many Bibles. The word does not appear, for instance, in the King James Version. In the NASB it occurs once -- 1 Tim. 6:15. In the ESV you can find it three times, including Acts 4:24, Rev. 6:10, and 1 Tim. 6:15. So if it is so spotty a term, why is it universally agreed that God is sovereign?

Well, much like the doctrine of the Trinity, another word not found in the Bible, the attribute of God that we call "sovereignty" may not be found in word, but it is evident throughout the Bible. The Old Testament refers to God as "Most High God" in multiple places (Gen. 14:18-20, 22; Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; Psa. 7:17; 9:2; 18:13; 21:7; 46:4; 47:2; 50:14; 57:2 ... you get the idea). There are many references to the Earth as belonging to God (Exo. 9:29; 19:15; Josh 3:11; Psa. 24:1; Isa. 66:1; 1 Cor. 10:26). Of course, the term "Lord" is a reference to ... Lordship -- a statement that He is Master. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, placing Him above all other sovereigns. In 1 Chron. 29:11 we read, "Yours is the dominion, O LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all." Now, if the NASB is a little vague there, perhaps the King James will jog your memory: "Thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and Thou art exalted as head above all." We all know the phrase, "Thine is the kingdom." Along the same lines, Jesus told His disciples before He left, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth". (Matt. 28:18). The phrase "all authority" which includes "in heaven and on earth" leaves no authority anywhere to anyone but Him. That's "sovereign".

A sovereign is "One that exercises supreme, permanent authority" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.) It seems that this is claimed solely for God. Does the rest of the Bible bear it out? Does God do whatever He pleases? Psa. 115:3 says, "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." Psa. 135:6 repeats the idea: "Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps." He saves who He will (John 10:29), blinds who He will (Luke 10:21), needs nothing from anyone (Acts 17:25), and His dominion knows no end (Exo. 15:18; Psa. 146:10; Micah 4:7; Rev. 11:15). He raises human authority as He wills for His own purposes (Rom. 9:17) and allows them to do what He intends them to do (Acts 4:27-28). It sounds pretty much like "sovereign" to me. Indeed, it sounds like the only "supreme, permanent authority".

God claims to be sovereign ... ultimately sovereign -- Sovereign with a capital "S". There is nothing that occurs outside of His plan. He does as He pleases. He even has made the wicked for a purpose (Prov. 16:4). Many attempts have been made to sidestep this kind of Sovereignty (with a capital "S"). Some think it puts God on the hot seat. They try to minimize the damage by making Man responsible for sin and nature responsible for calamity even though God claims direct responsibility for calamity (Isa. 45:6-7) and God's omniscience makes it unavoidable that He would have to have known and, therefore, have planned for sin, even if He doesn't cause it. As the Westminster Confession puts it, "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." That's Sovereignty.

Assuming that our Bibles are right and God is actually as Sovereign as they claim, what does that mean to us? It means that "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13). It means that, despite appearances at times, our world is not out of control. It means that no one is beyond the reach of God to save or assist. It means that no authority out-votes Him. It means that all circumstances in life are for good. It means that when we fail it's God's plan for good and when we succeed it's God's plan for good and while we may be rewarded for success, in the end it is God who gets the glory. And that, in the end, is the ultimate purpose. All that occurs under His Sovereign Hand occurs to His glory. Count on it.

Happy Father's Day

It's Father's Day, and what better way to celebrate than to tell you about my dad?

I have an unusual father. I mean that in the best possible way. I've never really met anyone else like my dad. He doesn't fall into the stereotypes. He doesn't fit the mold. He's not like everyone else's dad. He's a good father.

My dad is a good father for several reasons. First and foremost, he models what he preaches. I've never seen my dad offer advice that he didn't take himself. I've always seen him acting on the principles that he espouses. Funny story that illustrates something of my experience with my father. This occurred way back when I was a kid. We were on a trip (Dad loves to travel) and Dad asked Mom if she had brought a particular pair of pants for him to wear. She hadn't. He said, "Oh, that's too bad. I wish you had." End of encounter. I told my sister, "I hate it when they argue like that" because that was my perspective of "arguing" that I learned from my dad. To my recollection, that was the harshest he ever spoke to her. From the way he interacts with his wife (my mom) to the way that he interacts with his kids (my siblings and I) to the way he interacts with those around him, he is amazingly consistent. One of the reasons for this and one of the things I really appreciate about him is that it is in his character to think rather than feel. I don't mean to suggest that he doesn't feel. That would be nonsense. But he operates basically on a logical rather than emotional basis. And that's a good thing.

I can see this characteristic in a variety of places. When we took our trip together in March, he had the whole thing mapped out in advance. He had researched the best places to stay overnight, what he planned to do at those places, and the best places to buy gas. He had an itinerary both on a map and on a calendar. This is not to suggest that he hasn't a spontaneous bone in his body. When he travels, he likes to explore. So in his meticulous planning, he includes room for spontaneous exploring. "Let's leave a couple extra days at this place because we might find some interesting things to look at between here and there." That kind of thing. But he does that kind of thing in so many areas. He knows what he wants in a church and goes to find it. His experience working for the county of Los Angeles taught him a lot about how to run a county, and he has applied that extensive knowledge to helping run his housing community. He thinks about what he should do, and he does it. I very, very much admire that in my father.

One of the things that is amazing about him is his ability to interact with people. To us kids, my father was always quiet and not very sociable. Turn him loose, however, and he's talking to the guy at the next gas pump or the couple at the next RV spot or the neighbor down the street. In his community, everyone calls him for help because he's always out and about and everyone knows him. He can strike up a conversation with a fellow RVer or a fellow engineer or a fellow fisherman or a fellow human being at the drop of a hat. He is always personable, always knowledgeable, always approachable. We always saw him as quiet and reserved, but that's not the man I observe these days.

Another thing about my father that is a real joy is the long term observation I've had. The truth is that my father when I was growing up is not the same man as my father today. The primary reason that our perception was that he was always quiet and reserved is that he was. He rarely ever expressed an emotion, positive or negative. We almost never saw him angry, but we also almost never saw him elated. He didn't really interact much with us too deeply. Oh, he spent time with us, and for that I'm very grateful, but digging into what we thought, felt, dreamt, etc. ... well, that just wasn't his thing. But God has been working in him over the years. He has become engaged. I've seen him cry when he tells a story that moves him. I've seen him develop a sense of humor, something we rarely saw before. I've seen him love his wife in ways that seemed foreign to him before. He has become the dream husband my mom always wanted. He has become involved in his kids' and their kids' lives like he never was before. He cares like he never did before. This man is a walking, talking, living illustration of the hand of God in someone's life.

I have a lot of reasons to be grateful for my father. These are just a few of them. Thanks, Father, for my father. Thanks, Dad, for being such an excellent dad. Happy Father's Day.

The Glory of God - Omnipotent

One of the attributes of God that most clearly demonstrate His glory is His power. In His omnipotence we get a real, tangible vision of His glory. Imagine, for instance, actually being at some of the events of the Bible.

Israel has just experienced the faith-building experience of all times. Some lunatic named Moses came to them and said, "God said we're going." Very few believed him. Yet, event after event -- ten in all -- occurred that had no rational explanation. God was there and He was real and He was acting on their behalf. The whole thing culminated in the death of every firstborn ... except their own. They were protected. As a result, not only were they being released; they were enriched (Exo. 12:35-36). Now, on their way out, Pharaoh changed his mind and was in hot pursuit. Israel wasn't armed, and they stood trapped between the Red Sea and the army that would either enslave or kill them (Exo. 14). The army, however, was blocked ... by the angel of the Lord. And the sea was parted so that they crossed on dry land. Ultimately, God terminated the pursuit by ensuring that the pursuers died that day (Exo. 14:17, 24-28). Exodus 15 is the song that Moses and Israel sang on that event. In it we see, "I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea" (Exo. 15:1) and "Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy" (Exo. 15:6).

That's an event I would have liked to have seen. God's power marvelously displayed His glory. Another such event was Elijah's duel with the priests of Baal. In 1 Kings 18, Elijah throws down the gauntlet to Israel. "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him" (1 Kings 18:21). All day the prophets of Baal and Asherah danced around calling on their gods to bring them fire, cutting themselves and dancing and shouting, to no avail. Finally, at "the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice" (1 Kings 18:29), they gave up. It was Elijah's turn. He set himself up with an impossible task by dowsing everything in water (1 Kings 18:34-35). Then he made one, simple plea to God. "O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant and I have done all these things at Your word. Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that You, O LORD, are God, and that You have turned their heart back again" (1 Kings 18:36-37). That was it. No shouting, preaching, or dancing. One simple prayer. "Show 'em, God." That was it. And "the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench" (1 Kings 18:38). What an event! The people repented en masse. The false prophets were executed. The rains fell for the first time in seven years. And dear, old Elijah ... he outran the king's chariot going to Jezreel.

That's an event I would have liked to have seen. That is a marvelous display of His glory. His glory is manifested in His power, and there are wonderful displays of power in the Bible. There is the Creation in which God speaks and all that is now comes into existence. That's power. There is the Flood where all life save eight souls is annihilated by God in response to the evil of mankind. That's power. There is the assault on Jericho where the walls fall down without the Israelites bringing them down or the ultimate "battle of the bands" where Jehoshaphat takes his people out to watch God defeat their enemies while the choir sang (2 Chron. 20). That's power. According to Paul, Pharaoh was raised up for the purpose of God displaying His power (Rom. 9:17). And in God's judgment of sinners His power is displayed and His glory is manifested (Rom. 9:23).

God is omnipotent. He possesses all power. In that, His glory is wondrously displayed for us all to see. Some argue that God is hard to find. But on any given starry night a simple look into the vastness of the heavens shows His handiwork and all creation declares the glory of God as His power puts Him on display. It should be the prayer of every believer "to see Your power and Your glory" (Psa. 63:2).

The Glory of God - Holy

The Bible is all about the glory of God. The Gospel is called "the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4). Christ was "raised from the dead through the glory of the Father" (Rom. 6:4). We are blessed with every spiritual blessing to the glory of God (Eph. 1:3-12). We know that in the end every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God (Rom. 14:11). All that has occurred from the creation of all that is to the end of all things has occurred for the glory of God. I thought that maybe it would be a good idea to take a little time to review what it is that makes God glorious.

The Bible lists many attributes of God. We're all aware that He is good and that He is love and that He is just and righteous. These are all true about God. One attribute, however, overshadows all other attributes. It is His holiness. In Isa. 6, the prophet Isaiah says, "In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord ..." (Isa. 6:1). He goes on to describe his vision of God complete with flowing robes, smoke, and seraphim. Isaiah, rather than being gleeful about this encounter with the God that he has been serving for five chapters already, is undone. "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts" (Isa. 6:5). What, exactly, was it that caused Isaiah to actually curse himself? Well, certainly it was the whole package, but there was one particular aspect of his vision of God that left an indelible mark in the rest of his ministry. Isaiah describes the seraphim as calling out to one another, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory." (Isa. 6:3). Ever after Isaiah refers to God as "the Holy One of Israel".

We have a difficult time comprehending this holiness. We think of it as "not sin", and there is certainly that element. But it is much, much more. First, "holy" refers to "set apart". This term essentially means "other". The seraphim were crying out to one another, "God is other, other, other!" As such, He is set apart from sin without a doubt, but He is "other" far beyond the concept of sin. He is "other" in that He is God and we are not. He is "other" in that He is not a man (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Job 9:32; Psa. 50:21). This is one of our extremely common mistakes in our thinking about God -- we think He is just like us. He is not. He is ... other. The other aspect of "holy" that we miss is the Hebraism used. When I want to emphasize something, I might italicize it or put it in bold. I can use an exclamation mark or an underlining. They didn't use those methods. Instead, they used repetition. Repetition, to them, was a sign of emphasis. Jesus, for instance, used this tool on multiple occasions. He always spoke truth, so His disciples should always listen. On occasion, however, He would say, "Verily I say to you ..." This was a sign to the listener. "The truth-sayer is calling attention to the fact that this is truth." It was like a teacher saying, "This may be on the final exam." On rare occasion Jesus went a step further: "Verily, verily I say to you ..." On these occasions, had the disciples been modern students, they would have done well to get out their notepads, turn on their recorders, or do whatever it took to note what followed because the "truth-teller" was calling grand attention to some truth here. In the case of Isaiah's vision, God's attribute of holiness is raised to the third degree. "Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of hosts!" It was as if they were raising the superlatives. "Holy, Holier, Holiest!" Then it was underscored, bold printed, italicized. This was not an everyday attribute; this was the key attribute.

Now, as I said, we can list a lot of attributes for God. He is love, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He is righteous and merciful, gracious and just. He is creative and sovereign and lots of other attributes. But never do we see any attribute listed to this third degree. Nowhere else do we read that God is "love, love, love" or "gracious, gracious, gracious." Not only is it listed that way in Isaiah 6, it is also laid out that way in Revelation. "The four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, 'HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME'" (Rev. 4:8). So the holiness of God is expounded in both the Old and New Testaments and raised to the third power, so to speak. There is no other attribute of God so greatly emphasized as the holiness of God.

The point is that God is set apart, other. We cannot comprehend the degree to which that is true. And while there are commonalities (we are, for instance, made in His image), we will never be able to encompass God. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. When viewed this way, our puny attempts at explaining God seem feeble. Our ardent attempts to defend God seem nonsensical. Our wondering about why God would do thus and so seems purely childish. God is God; we are not. God is holy, and we can only get a taste, a glimpse of that glory. I suspect that the longer we meditate on the glory of God in His ultimate holiness, the better we will understand the futility of fully explaining Him or arguing against Him, especially in our own lives. I suspect that once we actually get a glimpse of this kind of holiness, we, too, will be on our faces with every single person that ever came in contact with God in real terror crying, "I am unclean!" Then, I think, we would be where we should be in the glorious presence of God.

Comfort One Another

We do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words (1 Thess. 4:13-18).

Comfort one another with these words.

I recently lost a family member. Okay, "lost" isn't the right word. I know where he is. He died. But, you see, a death in the family is a painful event, so we prefer to replace the hard truth with a euphemism. We "lost" him. He "passed away". And people comfort one another with nice platitudes. "He's in a better place." "You'll see him again someday." Sometimes the platitudes are even true, but, truth be told, the day after your loved one has left this world, they're not very helpful.

I suppose this passage of Scripture is about as close as I get to disagreeing with Scripture. Oh, no, I don't call anything here "wrong". I'm not suggesting that Paul is in error. Paul here has offered information that he hopes will comfort people because their loved ones have passed away, "fallen asleep", died. The comfort is the coming resurrection. The truth, indeed, is that we are not like those "who have no hope". All well and good. I don't disagree that Paul is speaking the truth. But I know, from personal experience, that sometimes the truth, even if it is full of hope, provides little comfort at the "moment of impact".

We all get overwhelmed at times. A loved one dies. We undergo a painful situation. Our circumstances pile up and we are weary and torn. Paul underwent just such an event.

Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me —- to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:7-10).

The briefness of the passage belies the point I'm making. Paul endured a "thorn in the flesh". Now, Paul expresses relief at the end here, confident in the power of God, but clearly there was a time period in this story where Paul was not so confident or relieved. He begged God for relief, and not only once -- three times. This was likely a matter of time. It took a response from God to comfort Paul: "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." It took time for Paul to find the relief and comfort that he sought.

I recently wrote about "burnout". I believe I spoke the truth. I neglected the truth that those who are in it aren't going to receive much immediate comfort from my urging them to lean on the Source. They're burned out. That doesn't negate the truth of what I wrote. It simply means that the comfort people in those situations require isn't found in a five-paragraph blog, and we who are speaking need to be sensitive to that fact.

Most of us try to be helpful when others around us are suffering. There are lots of reasons that we and those around us endure difficult times and we try to offer nice things to say. Hopefully we are generally offering truthful things. We try to offer hope, comfort, relief. If you are one of those who is currently offering hope, comfort, and relief, keep in mind that the result is not in your hands and it inevitably takes time. Kind words, regardless of how loving and truthful, don't immediately alleviate the pain. And if you are in that position, please be sensitive. Too often our kind and truthful words are ill-considered and end up offering little aid at all. Too often we ignore James's sage advice: "Let everyone be quick to hear [and] slow to speak" (James 1:19). And to those of you who are undergoing hardships, testing, and loss, our prayers are with you. Perhaps the truth offered as relief today is of little comfort, but time will help. Forgive us our inability to remove your pain despite our best intentions. In time, the truth will set you free.

What's Behind It?

I was talking with a good friend of mine. He had found the woman of his dreams. He planned to marry her. She had all the characteristics he wanted and he was in love. Well, all except one -- she wasn't a Christian. It was okay, he assured me, because she was honest about it. She didn't claim to be a Christian. Here was his reasoning: It's very common for people to claim to be Christians and not be, so this was better than that.

It is a very common approach. (Admittedly his reasoning was not quite like that. Honesty requires that his real "reasoning" was "I'm in love with this girl and I'm not really concerned about anything else." But I'm addressing the approach, not his reality.) "If something can be wrong with it, it doesn't matter." How many times have I heard it? People committed atrocities in the name of Christianity, so Christianity must be bad. This or that doctrine has been taken to mean something that is obviously false -- and evil -- so this or that doctrine is wrong. It is possible to take orthodoxy to the wrong place, so orthodoxy is wrong. Too many people claim to be Christians that aren't, so it doesn't matter if you're a Christian.

One would think the error was obvious, but it is so common that I have to conclude that it's not. Let's look at an easy example. "Since a car can be used to run people over, a car must be evil." Now, we all know that cars are neither good nor evil. They're things. What a person does with them is either good or evil. They can be used to kill or to heal. They can be used to injure people or they can take the injured to the hospital to heal them. They can be a method for a drunk driver to kill someone or they can be a method for a good Samaritan to take meals to the elderly. The car is not the issue.

It's the same thing here. What someone does with Christianity doesn't determine the truth or error of Christianity. What someone does with orthodoxy or doctrine doesn't determine the truth or error of orthodoxy or doctrine. Because something can be abused doesn't determine the truth or error of the thing.

Now, I have to say, I would think this would be self-evident. I don't think, with a little thought, that anyone would actually disagree. It is my suspicion that my friend's reality is more common than we like to admit. These arguments that "It can be abused so it's wrong" are more likely due to an underlying belief or feeling, not a cause. I suspect that it's not the argument that they're sustaining; it's the underlying position. Maybe that's the better place to start.

Blowback

I've spent plenty of time in my life refuting those who disagree with biblical theology. Conversations with skeptics and anti-theists have been many. Disagreeing with non-Christians is a given. It's what we do. In fact, it's biblical. Those discussions are interesting, even stimulating. Sometimes I'll learn things. Sometimes I'll have to research things. Sometimes the objections are new. The tiring part for me is not the discussions with non-believers. Nor are the discussions with people asking questions a problem for me. I'm always glad to answer questions. The part that gets tiring for me is correcting views from my allies.

Maybe you've heard the story; maybe not. It's an illustration of what I'm talking about. Christians were so excited when the story began circulating that NASA had a computer that tracked the locations of planets and stars. You see, they had to know where everything was all the time because if you're launching a spacecraft out there, you need to know where it's going and what will be in its path. Well, as it turns out, they ran this computer program backwards and found that some 3000 (or so) years ago there was a day that was too long. It appears, according to this story, that NASA's computer has verified the story of Joshua's day when the sun stood still (Josh. 10)! Wow! Scientific proof! Of course, it takes very little effort to shoot serious holes in that story. Without knowing the locations of heavenly bodies 3000 years ago, it is impossible to verify that they were in the wrong position 3000 years ago. So boat loads of excited Christians jump on this "make me look stupid" bandwagon using it as "proof", and here I am defending the faith ... against well-meaning believers.

It happens all the time. Misguided Christians offer poorly constructed arguments in uncharitable ways. Then I walk on the scene, and I'm labeled with their poorly constructed arguments and uncharitable ways. Over-enthusiastic Calvinists misrepresent the Reformed faith, and I walk on the scene as a "Calvinist", saddled with their misrepresentations and, too often, arrogant styles. It's usually the two that are the problem: Content and style. I'm often having to explain, "Yes, I know you heard that from your neighborhood Christian or the pastor down the street or some other Christian you've come in contact with ... but it's not what I believe." That's content. More often it's style -- and that's more hazy. I will say something like, "Christianity is exclusive by nature" and the response is angry, defensive, finger-pointing, ready to fight. It doesn't match my tone. When examining what happened, it turns out that the last person who said, "Christianity is exclusive by nature" to them also included, "Any idiot can see that!" So I've been the beneficiary of their blowback. (Now, here's a side story. I looked up "blowback", you know, just to make sure I was using it correctly. The first definition was what I had in mind: "The backward escape of gases and unburned gunpowder after a gun is fired" -- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Yeah, that was the idea. They took a shot and I got the "unburned gunpowder" from standing behind them. But the second definition was just as good: "Misinformation resulting from the recirculation into the source country of disinformation previously planted abroad by that country's intelligence service." In this case, my blowback is the result of poor transmission of information that ends up "poisoning the well" so to speak and produces disinformation caused by someone trying to argue for the truth. Wow! Now that's a lengthy aside.)

I understand the problem. I doubt that any two Christians would answer every single theological question the same way 100% of the time. So there will be differences of opinion among honest believers. And not all Christians are at the same point of sanctification -- they don't all have "love" as their primary mark of character. (I suppose honesty demands that I admit that very few of us have "love" as our primary mark of character. It's just that there's some more than others.) So between the disinformation and the less-than-loving approach, I'm stuck with defending things or refuting things that I shouldn't have to defend or refute. And I further understand that much of what we use is shorthand. "Calvinist" is shorthand for a set of beliefs that are actually very small in the pile of theological issues of Christianity as a whole (just 5 points, really). If each of us had to stop and explain what we believed every time, it could make some conversations much lengthier than they are now. So it's easier to say, "Oh, I'm a Catholic" or "I'm a Protestant" to get a snapshot of someone's theology despite the vast differences among Catholics (and the confusing fact that "catholic" refers to "universal" while "Catholic" refers to "Roman Catholic") and the even more vast differences among Protestants. Sometimes our shorthand becomes long division.

I guess I'm just spouting off here. In my interactions with others, I've been told many times, "You're not a standard _____." I'm not a standard "Christian", "Calvinist", and many other things (like father and husband). Good or bad, that's significant. When I'm labeled, understand that I may not fit the mold. When I say something that sounds "Calvinish", realize that I may not hold the same view as that loon down the street that told you he was a Calvinist and believed that God forces unbelievers not to believe or some such. And I rarely carry weapons into conversations. It is not often that I intend to be cruel, unkind, rude, or mean. If I say something that someone else said in an unkind or offensive manner, don't assume I mean it the same way. If I don't call you a heretic, don't assume I am calling you a heretic, for instance. I try to be clear. I'm sorry that too often I have to battle misinformation you received from my allies and injuries inflicted on you by my friends. It is this kind of stuff that is so maddening, so tiring for me. Discussions about the truth I like. Explaining away the errors of my cohorts is much more exhausting. So bear with me.

Feeding the Thousands

Most Christians know the story of the feeding of the 5,000. The story is found in Matthew 14. Jesus went away after the beheading of John the Baptist, but found that a crowd had followed. His compassion overwhelmed Him and he healed their sick. But the hour grew late and the people hungry. The disciples told Jesus, "This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves" (Matt. 14:15). Jesus responded, "They need not go away; you give them something to eat" (Matt. 14:16). They assured Him that they lacked the capacity. "We have only five loaves here and two fish" (Matt. 14:17). To their surprise and, perhaps, dismay, Jesus told them to bring Him their meager amount. He had the crowd sit in groups, blessed the food, and distributed it to the disciples who distributed it to the crowd. When they were done, there were twelve baskets of leftovers (Matt. 14:19-20).

I'm not going to debate the miracle. I learned something interesting from this passage that I think we can take away for ourselves. I see a principle here that we can and should use in our daily lives. Look again.

The disciples did the right thing. They saw a need that they couldn't meet and took it to Jesus. They were tuned in to the needs of the crowd -- the crowd was tired and hungry. And they were aware of their own shortcomings -- they didn't have the capacity to feed them. They took it to the Lord in prayer. Jesus responded, "You feed them." What an interesting response! "Lord, there is a need we can't meet." And the Lord responded with "Meet the need." How did He do that? He asked them to take inventory. "You don't have enough to meet their need ... fine. What do you have?" They had enough to feed one or two people. And Jesus, by implication, said, "Good enough -- give me what you have." You know the rest of the story. He blessed it and met the need. But He didn't do it alone. He had them do it. He took what they had, blessed it, and used what they had (in materials, time, and effort) to meet the needs of the crowd.

In fact, this was the same approach with Moses, wasn't it? At the burning bush encounter (Exo. 3), Moses worried about how he would convince the Israelites that he was actually from God? Remember God's approach? He chose to use what Moses had. He had a staff, so God turned it into a snake and then into a staff. He had a hand, so God made it leprous and then clean. He could get water, so God told him He would turn it to blood. God seems to use what we have at hand -- inadequate in and of itself -- to accomplish His plan.

I suspect that we are often like the disciples or Moses in this way. We see a need. "Lord, there's a serious need and I lack the capacity to fix it." And we leave it at that. I suspect that many times what Jesus wants is for us to give Him what we have so He can bless it and use us to meet the needs we cannot meet. I am confident that many times what Jesus wants is for us to give Him what we have so that we can do the ministry to others that we don't have the capacity to do.

I hear too often about "burnout", the apparently common occurrence where pastors and other Christian workers simply run out of steam and cannot continue. I don't understand this concept. The disciples in this case started with insufficient means to meet the need that they saw. All it took was Jesus's blessing and they had more than they needed. I wonder how many times what we call "burnout" is one of two other possibilities. Either the person who burns out wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, or they stopped relying on the Sovereign of the Universe to supply what they needed to perform the task He gave them to perform. The alternative is hard to imagine. In terms of the story, it would imply that the disciples correctly saw a need and Christ certainly called them to meet it and then failed to supply what they needed to accomplish what He gave them to accomplish. "Okay, I said the blessing over your loaves and fishes; now distribute them." And five loaves and two fishes later they're "burnt out".

That's not the God we serve. He is the All-Sufficient One. He supplies what we need, even when we don't see it. And often He calls on us to step out in our weakness to do the miraculous even when we don't see the resources at hand. To participate in a miracle like that would be glorious. I think we all get the chance. Let's taste and see that the Lord is good.

The Solid Rock

Another Sunday hymn coming to you ...

The Solid Rock
Edward Mote

My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name.

Refrain
On Christ, the Solid Rock, I stand - all other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.

When darkness veils His lovely face, I rest on His unchanging grace;
In ev'ry high and stormy gale my anchor holds within the veil.

His oath, His covenant, His blood support me in the whelming flood;
When all around my soul gives way, He then is all my hope and stay.

When He shall come with trumpet sound, O may I then in Him be found,
Dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.

Edward Mote was born in 1797 to poor, ungodly parents in London, England. The school he attended wouldn't allow a Bible to be seen, and his Sundays were spent on the streets. He grew up ignorant of God, and became a cabinetmaker. One day his master took him to hear John Hyatt and there he met Christ. His life was radically altered.

When he was fifty-five, a church building was completed for his Baptist congregation due largely to his effort. The congregation offered him the deed out of gratitude, but he refused. "I do not want the chapel; I only want the pulpit, and when I cease to preach Christ, then turn me out of that." He served there for the next twenty-one years until he resigned due to poor health a year before his death.

This hymn was written in 1834 and titled, "The Gracious Experience of a Christian." It originally had six verses. The two omitted verses are interesting to note:

My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness;
'Midst all the hell I feel within, on His completed work I lean.

I trust His righteous character, His council, promise and His power;
His honor and His name's at stake, to save me from the burning lake.

(Why were these verses omitted? Are they too controversial? Do we not want to hear about hell or judgment?)

The hymn was released in 1836 under the name "The Immutable Basis of a Sinner's Hope." The hymn expresses the confidence found in the blood, righteousness, unchanging grace, promise, and covenant of Christ. What better place to hope! Surely all other ground is sinking sand.

The hymn points out a vital doctrine in Christianity. Most religions claim to attain heaven by good works. Even we Christians, while discounting their philosophy, view ourselves as more righteous individuals. Certainly we're valuable people. The claim of Scripture, however, is that there is none good, and that my only value, my only righteousness, my only hope lies in the person of Jesus Christ.

The fact is, although His death and resurrection made Jesus special, His sinless life made Him unique. The crucifixion would have been meaningless without His righteousness, for it was His righteousness that qualified Him to pay for my sin. Our hope, then rests solely on Jesus' death in my place and the sinlessness that enabled it, that is, "Jesus' blood and righteousness." Nothing within any of us can add to or enable our forgiveness. No morality, no sacrifice, not anything will change that truth.

The refrain points to the only safe place to stand: "On Christ, the Solid Rock." The concept of Christ, the Rock, is a common one in Scripture ¹. It brings to mind some very clear pictures. His immutability, His faithfulness, His solidity, all this and more are represented in this image. It is upon this Rock that we are to build our house (Matt. 7:24-27). All other ground is sinking sand. Where do you "build your house?" Are you more at home in the truth of Scripture or the claims of today's thinking? Is, for instance, self-esteem and self-fulfillment a priority? Or is self-denial your preference? The two views are in direct contradiction. Which is yours? The church in America has, in many cases, strayed from the Rock and built on sinking sand.

When darkness veils His lovely face, I rest on His unchanging grace;
In ev'ry high and stormy gale My anchor holds within the veil.

The second verse deals with one of the difficult questions for Christians. Where is God when it hurts? How do we deal with trials and tribulations, when our very core of faith is assaulted? The hymn looks to the character of God Himself. "I rest on His unchanging grace." "My anchor holds within the veil." "Within the veil" refers to the holy of holies, the place in which God dwells. It is in the presence of God that peace occurs. Where is God when it hurts? Right beside me. How do I deal with trials? Resting in the proven faithfulness of God.

His oath, His covenant, His blood support me in the whelming flood;
When all around my soul gives way, He then is all my hope and stay.

In the book of Job, God allowed Satan to strip away all of Job's obvious support. With family, wealth, and health gone, Job was left with a wife who urged him to "curse God and die" and three "friends" who assured him that God only did this kind of thing to sinners. Now, God's ways are far above ours. His reasons may not be clear or simple (although they are always right). But one of His intents was to strip Job of all but dependence on Him. We see this as Job gears up for a case against God (Job 31:35-37) and then faces the inquisition to end all inquisitions (Job 38 41). Job ends in repentance (Job 42:1-6). This is God's aim. So says James (James 1:1 4). Our growth occurs in trials.

This is the same message in the third verse of this hymn. "When all around my soul gives way, He then is all my hope and stay." This has always been God's plan our total dependence on Him. In the garden of Eden, we see God providing both of our necessities: significance and security. Man had a job to do (significance) in the dominion of the earth (Gen. 1:28). God provided for him (security) in this task (Gen. 1:29, 30). All of life is God's constant supply of security and significance. But our sin nature blinds us to both. So God is in the business of constantly stripping from us all but Himself. He alone is our hope. That's why we can stand on Christ, the Solid Rock.

When He shall come with trumpet sound, O may I then in Him be found,
Dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.

One leading complaint about the church is that it is full of hypocrites. This seems ludicrous at first glance since the prerequisite to coming to Christ is a recognition of sin. Churches are, essentially, a group of admitted losers. But a strange thing occurs thereafter. Somehow we become convinced that because we are saved, we are better. We are more obedient, more acceptable to God, more righteous. This is self righteousness, the miserable condition for which Christ lambasted the Pharisees (Matt. 23:1-36).

The last verse of this hymn holds the truth that corrects this problem. The fact is we possess no righteousness. There is no good in us (Romans 3:10-18). The righteousness required by God to enter His presence is provided by Christ alone. "Clothed in His righteousness alone." All my value, all my good, all my righteousness is a result -- a gift -- of Christ. Only His righteousness allows me to stand faultless. There is no other hope.

His blood, His righteousness, His faithfulness, His promise. He is my only hope. He is the Solid Rock. All other ground is sinking sand. Where is your footing? Do you trust your capabilities? Friends? Family? Or do you see Christ as your only hope? All other ground is sinking sand.

¹ There are over 20 references to God as the Rock in Scripture. See Gen. 49:24; Deut. 32:4; 32:15; 32:18; 32:30; 32:31; 1 Sam. 2:2; 2 Sam. 22:32, 47; 23:3; Psa. 18:31; 18:46; 19:14; 28:1; 42:9; 78:35; 89:26; 92:15; 95:1; 144:1; Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8.

Prove it

When I was first in junior high school, I came up with my own fun little game. It was a simple little game, and what made it fun was the fact that it was pure irritation to everyone who got sucked into it. The game was an exercise in skepticism. It was early Hume. The idea was that to whatever anyone suggested as a truth statement I would respond with "Prove it!" "My name is Ted." "Prove it." Any proof that might be offered received the same treatment. "Well, that's what my parents named me." "Prove it." It was a simple refusal to accept any propositional truth statement at face value. And the reason it was so infuriating to those on the receiving end was that as long as I was unwilling to accept standard evidence at face value, it was really difficult for them to prove anything. The game was fun ... for me. Of course, it didn't last long. One day in our morning carpool the older girl in the car took me on. "I'm a girl." I responded in kind, "Prove it." My mom put an immediate end to the game.

It was a silly junior higher's game, but it was effective in pointing to a truth. The definition of "proof" is essentially "evidence sufficient to produce belief in its truth." Therein lies the trouble. As in the case of my juvenile game, if agreement is necessary for "proof", then simply refusing to agree makes "proof" impossible. We see this in many places in life. A loving mother, faced with the DNA evidence, the video evidence, the written confession of her son having committed a murder, can still say, "No, my boy would never do such a thing." There is still the Flat Earth Society, a group quite sure that all the evidence that proves the Earth is a sphere is simply trumped up evidence. You can still find people who believe that we never put a man on the moon. And some still believe that O. J. didn't do it. Pile up the evidence all you want. In some areas of life, it is possible for some people to simply say, "Prove it" and proof becomes impossible.

Over at Moral Science Club, Jim takes on a skeptic who has tried to take on one of Christianity's proof statements: "The disciples wouldn't die for a lie." The idea is that those who saw Christ after His resurrection preached that resurrection and were killed for it. Why, if that resurrection was a lie, would they do it? Jim does a decent job of answering, and I won't address it. What I see in the skeptic's approach, however, is exactly my junior high game. We say, "Those who witnessed the resurrection were killed for preaching it." And the savvy 21st century skeptic says, "Prove it." You see, this is an argument from historical evidence. Try proving anything historical. Try providing irrefutable evidence that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, that Alexander the Great ever lived, or that Archimedes was not an owl. It's the same argument other skeptics use about Jesus. To our simple proposition, "Jesus lived" they respond "Prove it." Oh, and you can't use that Bible thing. We deny that. Church history? That's out. Tradition? Nonsense. Other writings that agree? Nope! You see, if you try to use anything at all, it's a simple thing to demand proof of that evidence, and the "prove it" pile becomes too big to manage.

It's an interesting thing in life. Some things are simple to "prove", simple to provide sufficient evidence so that most everyone concurs. We can "prove" that 2 + 2 = 4 by holding up two fingers on one hand and two on the other and counting. Most people accept that. It's when the truth proposed enters the realm of real effect that it gets more sticky. If the truth that you are proposing will have an effect on my life, I'm going to be more careful. And, much like that devoted mother, there are times that the proposition is just too much for us to allow. In these cases, the human being is fully capable of rejecting all evidence and denying that such a thing is "proved". In these cases, what can you do? Not much, really. Unfortunately, in this case, the claim is the Gospel. The stakes are high. The issues are precious to both sides. And evidence often becomes irrelevant. There is no battling the true skeptic. The only hope here is an Intervention. That's my prayer.

The Public Rebuke

I don't know if you've noticed, but it seems to me that in the realm of public dialog about ideas ... it is rarely about ideas. Have you noticed? It seems as if we (human beings) lack the capacity to discuss the quality of ideas without resorting to abusing the idea-holders. And I'm not speaking of those of you who disagree with my views. I'm speaking about the vast majority, regardless of viewpoints.

Let me give a prime example. Christians in America really like Rosie O'Donnell as a target. Why? Because she is an outspoken enemy of Christianity. She has a public forum from which to loudly state her opinions, and they are often against what Christians believe. So she becomes a target. Unfortunately, she is not merely the target of rational Christians who are taking the ideas she offers to task. More often she is the target of irate Christians who castigate and insult her. She's a lesbian; how can her ideas be of any value? She's loud and ugly; why should we listen to her? And the ideas that she spouts don't actually get addressed because the person has been dismissed.

Now, as in the case of O'Donnell, there are two factors to be considered. First, if ideas are stated publicly, they become "public property", so to speak. That is, if they are offered in public, the public has the right and even responsibility to discuss, review, and, if necessary, refute the ideas publicly. Second, if a person presents himself or herself as an expert, the listener has the right to question their credentials. So, in the case of Rosie O'Donnell, she comes across as an expert, and she does it publicly. Therefore, it is right that her credentials as an expert be questioned and her ideas be examined, discussed, and refuted as needed in the public arena. However, that doesn't give the public the right to be mean ... even if the ideas offered are offered unkindly. We can examine and respond to ideas, but unkindness is not me with unkindness.

I often try to discuss ideas. I try to make it a point to discuss ideas without intending to insult or demean the idea-givers. I generally fail. Sometimes I fail because I myself slip into this very problem. It's easy, when you feel an idea is stupid, to portray the idea-giver as stupid. It's easy, but it's not right. Sometimes I fail not because I did something wrong, but because, as is often the case, when the idea is confronted, the idea-giver feels insulted. And that seems unavoidable. But I dream of a place where ideas can be engaged without being forced to engage the idea-giver. I dream of a place where ideas can be picked up, turned over, pulled apart, even refuted without a sense that the person holding them has been insulted or intended to be insulted. I dream of a place where we can dialog about ideas without insulting people. It's a dream, I know, because it requires the lack of people who are notorious for feeling insulted when their pet idea is taken to task and the responses, now personal, escalate. But I can dream.

To all of those who feel or think that I have attacked them when I have commented on their ideas, I apologize without mitigation. Some might feel like I attacked them when I didn't intend to, and I should have been more careful. Others might feel like I attacked them ... because I did. I'm not perfect, and sometimes, like everyone else, I get too passionate about ideas and let it spill over into the personal. So to all of you who feel that way, whether I intended to attack you or not, I apologize.

Let me offer a few thoughts on proceeding which should be of benefit to me and may assist anyone else who takes on ideas and people. I have often heard it said in defense of the attack (that's an odd phrase, isn't it?), "Well, Jesus did it. Paul did it. Why can't we?" There are two things we need to consider when looking at these examples. First, we have one overarching rule as Christians. The hallmark of a Christian is love. That is the first and foremost rule. Second, while it is indeed true that Jesus spoke quite harshly to the Pharisees and Paul spoke quite harshly to Peter, note that in both cases they spoke quite harshly ... to their intended audiences. We never read of Jesus going off with His disciples in a private room where He castigated the Pharisees. Instead, He did it to their faces. That is, out of love, Jesus told the Pharisees things like "woe to you" and "you are of your father, the devil." Paul told Peter that he was being hypocritical. If we wish to correct someone (a person), we must do it to the person. Most of the time we do it "sideways". We do it off to the side, not actually addressing the person. We do it in public places without actually addressing the person. Now, sometimes love dictates a sharp response, but it is to the person because it is for the person. So if we are going to address people, we need to address people. If we are going to address ideas, we can address ideas. Let's not mix the two. Love is not properly served when we rebuke people publicly without actually addressing the people we are addressing.

Now, if we (including me) can just keep this in mind, maybe dialog can occur in places that animosity has blocked it in the past. I know ... I'm dreaming, but it doesn't stop me from trying.

No Distinction

Some of the hard sayings of the Bible seem like they shouldn't be that hard. And yet, sometimes they confuse people. One I've often seen used in completely the wrong way is this one:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

Plain as day, isn't it? Shouldn't be confusing at all. Clearly this verse is saying that when we are Christians, there are no distinctions in people.

Clearly this is a confusing point. It only takes a moment of thinking to realize that this cannot be the aim of this verse. That is, whether or not a person is a Christian, they are still, for instance, male or female -- not both and not neither.

Now, there are those who would take me to task for such a statement. "What do you mean, 'That can't be what it means'? We find similar thoughts in other places.

There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him (Rom. 10:12).

There is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:11).

There you have it, Stan ... proof that in Christ there is no distinction between people. How many ways does it have to be said?"

So ... let's assume that these passages all mean that -- no distinctions whatsoever. If this is the case, what was Paul trying to convey when he gave different instructions to slaves and masters? In Col. 3:22, for instance, Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. He never tells masters to obey their slaves (a statement that is obviously ludicrous). Instead, masters are supposed to be fair (Col. 4:1), not obedient. How can this be if there is no distinction? What can possibly be intended if the distinction of "slave" and "master" is meaningless? What could possibly be in mind when Paul says, "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3) when there is no distinction between "man" and "woman"? Looking at the question from an algebra viewpoint, if A = B, then what distinction is there? How can we discuss A and B if they are the same? If the intent of these passages is "Ignore any distinctions", then one would expect the Bible to ignore any distinctions. It doesn't.

Let's look again, then, at what these might mean. You see, I think that context doesn't leave any question about intent. And each of these verses has been yanked out of context.

The context of Galatians 3 is given in the opening verses of the chapter.

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:1-3)

The topic is straightforward: We are justified and sanctified by faith apart from works. Paul validates this position with a quote from Habakkuk (Hab. 2:4) -- "That no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith'" (Gal. 3:11). Paul argues that "the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin" (Gal. 3:22). So if the promises God made to Abraham are dependent on works, they don't help the Jew or the Greek since everyone suffers from sin. The good news, then, is "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). So when Paul gets to the statement in verse 28, he isn't speaking about "in every case from all perspectives" but "in terms of being justified by faith". That is, in terms of who gets justified by faith and who does not, there is no distinction based on your race, gender, or any other human factor. It does not mean a generic, "All distinctions are removed."

You'll find, in fact, that each of the passages are the same in this sense. In Rom. 10:4 Paul says, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." The point of the Law is to point to justification by faith. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10). In this context ("justification by faith apart from works"), there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. Salvation is for all who call on Him regardless of external conditions.

The Colossians verse is completely yanked out of context in the middle of a sentence. The entire sentence reads more like this:

Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him -- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:9-11).

The topic here is "the new self". This "new self" is "being renewed to a true knowledge." This renewal is without distinction based on externals. It is a product of Christ who "is all and in all."

"A text without a context is a pretext," it is said. Clearly the context of these verses limits their application to the thought at hand. The idea is that salvation and sanctification are without distinction. They are both products of faith accomplished by God and without consideration of race, gender, classification, or any such thing. Thus, all references to salvation are without distinction. That does not mean that there are no distinctions between people. It simply means that in terms of justification and sanctification there are no distinctions. In terms of daily living, on the other hand, the Scriptures give distinct commands ... because there are distinctions. And we know that there are still distinctions. Men do not cease being male when they are saved. Women do not cease being female when they are saved. Our nationalities don't vanish at the point of salvation. We do not all get the same economic status at salvation. There are distinctions. The next time someone tries to tell you that there are no distinctions whatsoever for those who are in Christ, point to the context to counter the pretext and avoid this pervasive error.

The Road Less Taken

I've found that many times in Christianity the truth is somewhere on a fine line right down the middle of the road. It's often easy to travel down that road and fall off to the right or to the left. I would say, for instance, that the Bible teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands. To fall off that road to the left is to say, "And husbands are to submit to their wives. There is no authority in Christianity. Everyone must submit to everyone." On the right we have, "Therefore, husbands have absolute right over their wives. Wives are of no value and must meekly submit to her their husbands every whim." Both miss the point. One of these "fine line right down the middle of the road" things is a problem for me, and I am confessing it here.

There are those who are facts-oriented and those who are emotion-oriented. The emotion-oriented folks love to love God. They love the feelings He induces. They are enraptured with Him. They hear special things from the Holy Spirit, things that sometimes violate what is clearly in the Word. That's okay. They're in love with God, and they get their marching orders from Him, not from some cold, sterile book. They walk by faith, not by sight. The facts-oriented person rises up against this. "Stop! Thus saith the Lord ..." and proceeds to quote passages from the Bible. The facts-oriented person sees the reasons and logic and rationality behind faith. They believe, but they believe largely because it makes such good sense. They're often found in apologetics venues fending off atheists and heretics alike.

What we find, however, is that Christianity, in this case, is not an "either/or" proposition. (Sorry, you facts-oriented folks.) As it turns out, the Bible suggests that it is "both/and" in this case. The truth is that Christianity is based on facts -- real, hard facts. Man is sinful -- fact. Christ died for our sins -- fact. He rose from the dead -- fact. We can be saved by faith in Christ's atonement for us -- fact. It is vital that we know and believe certain facts. But it is imminently possible to hold to each and every fact and not be saved. How? Because Christianity is more than a pile of facts with which to concur. It is a relationship with the Truth, the person of Jesus Christ.

This is an easy line to fall off. Fall off to one side and you're back in the mysticism realm to the exclusion of creeds and the mind. Fall off on the other side and you're back in the world of facts without spiritual life. The reality of it is a sharp line right down the middle of that lane. We need the facts. I am commanded to love the Lord with all of my mind. I am commanded to be transformed by the renewing of my mind. I am dedicated to a godly use of the mind. And yet, there is the other side that cannot be ignored. The mind, you see, like the heart, is "desperately wicked". The only way we can arrive at the truth is exactly by the working of the Holy Spirit. He reveals truth to us. And without a living relationship with Christ, we don't have the Holy Spirit and any truth we might discover on our own without the Spirit is dead truth -- of no value.

I remember an illustration I heard years ago. A husband comes home after work. It's his anniversary, so instead of going inside, he rings the doorbell. His wife, puzzled, comes to the door. "Surprise!" he says and produces a bouquet of flowers from behind his back. Then, "And here's a gift for my dear wife," and he produces a nicely wrapped box in the other hand with a card that says nice things. She is surprised and delighted. "Okay," he says, "now go get dressed. I've made reservations for us at your favorite restaurant." She is nearly in tears with happiness. "Oh, honey, what made you do all this?" she asks. He answers, "It's my duty as a husband." Of course, now it won't be a happy anniversary, he likely won't be eating dinner with her at her favorite restaurant, and, if he's lucky, he'll be sleeping on the couch, not in the doghouse with the dog. You see, it is his duty, but that's not the motivation that pleases. What she wants to hear is something like, "Oh, my dear wife, I just couldn't help myself. I am so in love with you that I had to do it."

We need hard facts in our Christian faith. There are reasons for what we believe. There is evidence and logic and rationality. To ignore all of this would not merely be unwise; it would be wrong. We are commanded to engage our minds. On the other hand, to focus purely on these aspects is to make Christianity a duty, a cold set of knowledge. Instead we are called to be the Bride of Christ, to be in love with Jesus. We are to be engaged in a relationship with Him, filled with the Spirit and, yes, engaged in a mystical ride with God that produces new depths of information and new heights of enjoyment in His presence. We dare not exclude one for the other. This is one of those unusual "both/and" situations. Enjoy the ride.

Defending the Truth

It's always helpful if you can find someone who loves you and will tell you the truth. Receiving the truth from someone who loves you, especially when it's not pleasant truth, can be very beneficial. Well, I have such people in my life. So I asked one of them about my blog.

I was wondering about the recent exchange regarding the exclusivity of truth and, more importantly, how I come across. You see, there are several components in what I write that may not be properly perceived. On the one hand, I try to write in such a way as to say, "This is my view; I may be wrong." On the other hand, it would be foolish to say I believe something if I didn't think it was true. So I'm trying to strike an extremely delicate balance here. There are things of which I've become convinced. I've examined the arguments, looked at the Scriptures, sometimes even held the opposing views, and become persuaded that these things are true. I believe them fully and, from my current perspective, can't see how that would change. There are other things about which I have ... opinions. These things are less certain. I have opinions, for instance, about eschatology -- the doctrines and theology concerning last, or final, matters, as death, the Judgment, the future state, etc. -- but I'm not fully convinced, so I'm not going to be asserting them as surely. But regarding the things of which I'm convinced, I cannot afford not to assert them because I believe them to be true and I believe them to be of great importance.

So, here is my dilemma. I have been accused of being unwilling to take criticism or have my views examined. I've been thought of as arrogant. I've been viewed as unkind to those who disagree. Now, in my view I've been none of those things. But we all know that the heart is deceitful, so I've asked others who love me to evaluate what I've written and tell me how I come across. What I was told was that I come across as right. That is, I seem to hold the position that I'm right and if you disagree you're wrong.

I'll accept that. Anyone who holds a viewpoint believes that they are right or they wouldn't hold that viewpoint. It would be insane to hold a viewpoint that you believe to be wrong. And, as I've argued before, since truth excludes that which is false, if I believe I have the truth on a particular point, it would necessarily exclude that which disagrees. But ... do I come across as unwilling to examine, unwilling to accept criticism, unkind, arrogant?

You see, I'm back to that "2 + 2 = 5" example. Here I am, sitting (hypothetically) with a child, discussing his math homework. He assures me that 2 + 2 = 5. How I respond will likely shape the interaction and our future interactions. Here are a few options. I could say, "Whatever you think is okay. You bear the consequences." I could say, "No, you're wrong. 2 + 2 = 4. Here, hold up two fingers on one hand and two fingers on the other hand and count them. What do you get?" I could say, "What kind of idiot thinks that 2 + 2 = 5?" There's a spectrum of responses. The first one leaves the poor kid on his own when I had the ability to help. And later, when he finds that I knew the truth and didn't tell him, he'll likely not want to interact with me much anymore. It's not loving. The last alternative corrects the student, but in such a way that communication is shut down, feelings are hurt, and animosity is constructed. He may get the question right on his next test, but he certainly won't come to me anymore for questions. It's not loving. The only option I can see is to defend the truth without wavering but without insulting.

And we end up at my dilemma. How do I do that? I try to put lots of things in my writings that suggest that "These are the things I believe" while certainly allowing (nay, knowing beyond any doubt because of my past history) that I may be wrong. I use phrases like "I believe" and "I suspect". I certainly try not to belittle the people who disagree with me. And I suspect (see?) that some of the problems people have with what I write is due to past clashes with others who are more willing to belittle those with whom they disagree. So how do I accomplish what I am trying to accomplish? How do I defend the truth without wavering but without insulting? How do I come across as if I am convinced of what I believe (because I am) without coming across as arrogant? Narrow-minded? Well, yes, I'm narrow-minded. Again, it's the nature of truth. If you believe something to be true, that becomes a narrow road, excluding everything else that is not true on that point. But I am indeed willing to (and, in fact, constantly in the process of) examine my views, the Scriptures, and evident reason to see if they correspond. How do I get that all across?

If any of you have insights that would help me, I'd appreciate it. I asked my reliable friend, "How can I do that?" and they answered, "It can't be done." Maybe they're right. But if any of you have suggestions or hints as to how to do that or observations as to how I'm missing the mark, I would greatly appreciate it. I am, after all, human. I'm right a lot of the time, but I am human.

Where Errant Philosphies Come From

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a poet and essayist of the 19th century. He was trained as a Unitarian minister but became the originator and a leader of the Transcendentalist movement. Transcendentalism defied the church of their day, denying that the church would have the truth, and asking instead, "What is truth?" Oh, and did I mention ... Emerson was bisexual.

Michel Foucault was one of the leading modern spokesmen for post-modernism. Born in 1926, he died in 1984. His works included works on the treatment of the insane, the development of the medical profession, and the power of knowledge. He argued that there should be no age boundaries between consensual sexual partners and that governments controlled their people by controlling their sexual relations (a concept he called "biopower"), and "participated in the subcultures of anonymous gay sex and sadomasochism" in San Francisco. He died a of AIDS-related illness in Paris.

Books have been written on this topic with better information than I have. Do heretical ideas come about by a pure search for truth, or is their origin elsewhere? Here's the process that one might normally think is the case. A person is thinking and considering and looking and, in that process, they come to the conclusion that morality is irrelevant. Having come to that conclusion, they then discard their sense of morality and become immoral ... consistent with their belief. Now, that's all well and good, a reasonable idea, except that it's counter to the biblical version.

Here's how the biblical version goes. Man intrinsically knows there is a God, but suppresses that knowledge. Having suppressed that, he sinks into a worship of the creature, a replacing of God with the creature. The creature becomes the most important thing. Having replaced God with the creature, he indulges his desires. That is, since he is the most important thing, what he wants is the most important thing. Having indulged his desires for sin, his mental processes become twisted, producing false philosophies and theologies that will encourage others to follow in the same path. (See Rom. 1:18-32.)

People would like to think that it is an honest mistake. They've just come to a wrong conclusion, and that wrong conclusion leads them into sin. Unfortunately, the Bible says that they are in sin, and that sin leads them to the wrong conclusion to defend their sin. In other words, too often our morality tends to dictate our theology instead of vice versa. The upshot of this is that, while we certainly need to address wrong conclusions, the real problem isn't altered by the simple refutation of error. We can come up with right answers and scintillating logic and even what appears to be irrefutable proof, but as long as the sin problem isn't addressed, there will be no change, since the sin problem is the basis for the erroneous thinking.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. We need to contend for the faith, to defend the truth, to be ready always to give an answer. But let's not forget that the real problem for humans is not that they're thinking incorrectly. The real answer is not that they're ignorant or confused. The real problem is that they're dead, and no amount of education fixes that. Only the Gospel, including the problem of sin and the remedy for sin, and the work of the Holy Spirit in the listener can fix this situation. We need to stand for truth, but let's not do it at the expense of presenting the Gospel. No one has ever been argued into the kingdom. That takes an act of God.

'Tis So Sweet To Trust In Jesus

Okay, it's Sunday again. I think we could all use another hymn.

'Tis So Sweet To Trust In Jesus
Louisa M. R. Stead

'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, Just to take Him at His word,
Just to rest upon His promise, Just to know, "Thus saith the Lord."

Chorus
Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him! How I've proved Him o'er and o'er.
Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus! O for grace to trust Him more.

Oh, how sweet to trust in Jesus, Just to trust His cleansing blood,
Just in simple faith to plunge me, 'Neath the healing, cleansing flood!

Yes, 'tis sweet to trust in Jesus, Just from sin and self to cease,
Just form Jesus, simply taking Life and rest and joy and peace.

I'm so glad I learned to trust Thee, Precious Jesus, Savior, Friend,
And I know that Thou art with me, Wilt be with me to the end.

The song was written by Louisa Stead, an English-born woman who moved to America in 1871. On a picnic with her husband and four-year-old daughter, she watched her husband drown attempting to save a drowning boy. The hymn was written in response to her own soul-searching question of "why?". Mrs. Stead later went on to the mission field in South Africa where she served until she died. Her daughter became a missionary to Rhodesia.

What was it that sustained Mrs. Stead? What drove her to God in the face of His apparent unkindness? When others would have fled God's cruelty, she proclaimed, "'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus." What did she see that pressed her closer to God?

Louisa Stead knew a God who was faithful. Today's blithe bumper sticker, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" may be true, but our experiential record demonstrates a lack of the sincere trust needed in times of trial. The hymnist, on the other hand, demonstrated a trust in God in the midst of what psychologists consider the most stressful condition known to man, the loss of a loved one.

So how did she acquire this faith? The chorus answers the question. "How I've proved Him o'er and o'er." God, being God, has the right to demand our belief, but He points instead to our own personal history to prove His faithfulness. Throughout Scripture, God calls on experience to prove His faithfulness. He reminds Israel again and again that it was He who brought them out of Israel. He reminds them of the many blessings He has bestowed. He reminds them also of His recurring wrath. In the book of Amos, He points out the inevitability of judgment that always follows sin. God is faithful. He says He is. If we would look, we would see it.

The second line of the chorus is a wonderfully human plea. In the gospel of Mark, a man asks Jesus to heal his child. Jesus tells him he must have faith. With a plea we can all understand, he replies, "I believe; help Thou my unbelief." The hymn concurs. Following on the glorious certainty of God's faithfulness, we hear, "O for grace to trust Him more!" This, too, is my prayer.

One of the most amazing things about the good news of redemption is its incredible simplicity. Man's religion tries to muddy the waters with a performance-oriented view. If we're good enough, we'll get to heaven. Christians know this isn't the case, but a strong undercurrent of legalism remains. The evangelical church fights with the extremes of righteousness by law and antinomianism, the end of law. God's good news is so much simpler. "Just to trust His cleansing blood." The hymnist relies on the simplicity of faith. So does God's Word. "We are saved by grace through faith," Paul tells us (Eph. 2:8). It doesn't get any more plain than that.

There's much more to this good news, this trust in our heavenly Father. The next verse says that we are to "cease from sin and self." This is an ongoing process, the end of which will be in heaven, but imagine a world of people who are not tied up in self-interest. Imagine a society predicated on looking out for each other rather than scurrying to protect one's self. The world finds such a prospect abhorrent, but with our trust in Jesus, there is no other rational path. Why should I be worried about self when this faithful God, the One with the proven character, is looking out for my best? I can only imagine the rest of being self-forgetful.

Is there unrest in your life? Are you stressed? Do you have worries? Is there little joy? The problem is not circumstances. The problem is trust. There is no reason we can't all agree with this last verse. "I'm so glad I learned to trust Thee, precious Jesus, Savior, Friend." What have I to worry over with Jesus in my life? What could possible trouble me with the Lord of lords as my friend? Is there trouble anywhere? If you lack peace, it's your choice. We have the proven faithfulness of God in which to rest. With Him we are never alone (Hebrews 13:5). This recurring theme in Scripture should cheer us in our daily living. If it doesn't, we are refusing to believe God. We are failing to trust Jesus.

Comment in Blog Form

I was hoping to be able to do this in comment form, but I can't comment. There are locks in place to prevent me from commenting. Maybe there's a secret I don't know, but I couldn't get in. But there are some things that really need comment, and since I can't do it there, I'll have to do it here.

I'm referring to this post at Left of Calvary. There are several problems here. Some are of little consequence. Some I have already addressed. But some really require a response. Please, please, please keep in mind: I am addressing the ideas, not the person. I have no ill will for the blogger and have no desire to be unkind. Nor is it because I am the subject of the blog that I am writing this. That's irrelevant. It is the ideas that require a response because they have ramifications that are common and problematic.

Make no mistake about it: exclusivity (a.k.a. prejudice, bias, bigotry), if left unchecked can quickly metastasize from beliefs born of ignorance into hatred and outright violence against those who are different.

Exclusivity here is also known as prejudice, bias, or bigotry. It is a common belief, but it takes a simple examination of the facts to find the problem with it. Indeed, it is actually the blogger that points out the error.

Suppose you know a child who asserts that 2+2 equals 5. Offering that child the correct answer does not mean you don’t value that child it means you show concern for his education.

You see, 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't equal 5. In fact, when we agree that 2 + 2 = 4 and nothing else, we have immediately excluded an infinite number of other possible answers. Now, having become exclusive in our answer, is there anyone who would reasonably complain that we are suffering from prejudice, bias, or bigotry?

It is one of the constant attributes of truth -- truth is exclusive. When we say "In the case of Y, X is true", then in the case of Y, anything else is excluded. It's the nature of truth. Truth excludes that which is not true about the question at hand.

So what about the claim that exclusivity "can quickly metastasize from beliefs born of ignorance into hatred and outright violence against those who are different"? Well, of course he's right about that. If exclusivity is built on a lie, it will obviously produce problems. And if exclusivity is misused, it will also produce problems. We can all agree on that. So what is the solution? One might argue, "Therefore we can never be exclusive", which automatically ignores truth and eliminates "4" as the right answer to "2 + 2". No, that isn't the right approach. Or we could take the opposite view that so many do. "Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead!" "Who cares if exclusivity sometimes produces error; we're going to do it anyway." No, that's not right, either. Unfortunately, the right approach isn't as easy as either of those. The right approach is "What is true?" The right approach is to find out what is true, eliminate what is false, and avoid allowing it to "metastasize" into faulty results. Neither eliminating nor indulging exclusivity is the answer. The right answer is embracing the truth, whatever that requires.

Included in the "exclusivity" question, then, is the question of truth, which is included in the "orthodoxy" question. The concept of "orthodoxy" -- "right belief" -- affirms that there is truth and that the truth excludes that which is not true. The misuse of orthodoxy doesn't preclude either truth or the necessary exclusivity that accompanies truth. The fact that some people have constructed their own truth statements and called them "orthodoxy" doesn't mean that there is no orthodoxy. Because people misuse truth doesn't preclude truth.

What is the answer, then, to what to do with orthodoxy? Well, apparently it's the same as what to do with exclusivity. Be sure you have the truth. That, admittedly, is a lot more work than rejecting truth or embracing prejudice, bias, and bigotry. But it is the only reasonable answer.

Where does this leave us? This leaves us out in the field of ideas. You say, "I have beliefs and you have beliefs. Let's compare them and see where the differences are. Then we can discuss them." This entire dialogue is short-circuited when we grasp at either extreme. But excluding either "no exclusivity" or "prejudice" leaves room for conversation. Now you can tell me, "I think you're wrong at this point because ..." and I can say, "No, I think I'm right here because ..." and we have a dialog. If you say, "We're all right" you forfeit the right to tell me where I'm wrong. If you say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you think because you're a heretic", you forfeit the right to engage in a dialog at all. (Diatribe will be your only venue.)

Now, I've tried to address ideas, not people. I have made no attempt to defend myself. I've made no attempt to discuss minor issues. My point here has been to address what I believe to be patently obvious but often viewed in error. I do have one truth issue, however, from the blog in question that I need to mention because it is, from my perspective, very important.

Stan’s theology in my view continues to lack a certain sophistication. Judging by what I have read, he does not acknowledge that man’s relationship has changed over thousands of years – not because God has changed but because man has.

I will acknowledge without question that my theology (taken from the pages of Scripture) does not acknowledge that Man's relationship with God has changed ... that Man has changed. The nature of Man is documented in Scripture as "inclined only to evil", "hostile to God", "blinded by the god of this world." Man hasn't found a way to improve his condition. He has found new scientific data he didn't have before, but it doesn't alter the fundamental aspects of human nature. And that fundamental aspect of human nature is the primary reason for God's gift of His Son, the Substitutionary Atonement, the Resurrection ... the Gospel. If we move Man from "sinner" to "much better off now", we also eliminate any real need for the Gospel. If we hold to a "new and improved Man", we can pretty much eliminate biblical Christianity because the fundamental premise of biblical Christianity is "We are sinners and without Christ we have no hope." If we are not so bad, then any religion will do because you just need to be relatively good, well within your capabilities, and any religion (including those doggone "fundamentalist Christians") will do. I'm sorry, but I can't go there.

(One little personal note. I will willingly affirm without reservation that my theology includes an omniscient, omnipotent, Sovereign God, which necessarily includes "predestination". Just removing any doubt there. "Gnosticism" is out completely, but I'm right there with the Sovereignty of God. Note, also, that "condemned by various denominations as heretical" doesn't make something heretical (or everything is heretical since anything you care to mention has been condemned as heretical by some denomination or another) or wrong or "unorthodox". Orthodoxy is "right belief" regardless of the denomination that agrees or not.)

Confused Again

The complaint of the left is often "That darned Christian right is trying to seize power." I don't get it, but look around the Christian blogosphere, and you'll find that, to my surprise, much of what the Christian bloggers are blogging about is politics. Now, perhaps that's a real "attention-getter", something that really makes for readership. But these people are passionate about it, so I suspect it's their real passion, not merely a ploy for readers. And I'm puzzled.

As I've said other times (more than once), I'm often confused. While others are dogmatic, I'm often in a quandary about what is right. This is another one of those instances. You see, I can see both sides of this question and I'm not coming up with any solid answers. Maybe you, my faithful but few readers, can help.

On the one hand, I understand that God's laws are there for our benefit. I understand that a moral society is better than an immoral society. I understand that people are happier if they have higher morals. I understand that the Creator of human beings knows best how those creations operate. He knows that we are best off when we don't lust, covet, murder, cheat, steal, lie and so on. And I also understand that we live in a nation whose government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." As such, we have an obligation to be involved to some degree in how our country is run. We need to vote, to be heard, to let our representatives know what we want, and so on.

On the other hand, I understand that a moral society doesn't put a single person in heaven. I understand that the purpose of Christianity is to spread, not Christian virtue, but the Gospel. The Gospel includes the recognition that Man is sinful, but it doesn't dwell there. Further, I understand that we are commanded to be a light, to spread the Gospel, to represent Christ to the world around us. But I also see that nowhere in Scripture does Jesus complain about the government, nor does Paul address social reform, nor does Peter call for political change. I see no one arguing that slavery, for instance, is sinful and ought to be stopped or that taxation without representation is evil. I don't see anyone in Scripture complaining about the poor treatment of Christians by the world around them. Instead, I see Jesus commanding His fellow Jews to pay their taxes and Paul explaining to Christians how to operate within the less-than-optimum environment of slavery and Peter writing that suffering for Christ is a blessing.

So I'm confused. Exactly how far are we supposed to go to make a moral society? Exactly what is our responsibility in terms of the politics of our society? How deeply should we be immersed in the ethical and political questions of our day? I see both sides of the equation and I can't come up with an answer.

I am firmly convinced that the politically disconnected Christian is wrong in that choice. We have an obligation, living in this country, to vote, for instance. I am equally convinced that Christians who are involved in politics to the exclusion of the Gospel are equally wrong in that choice. I mean, if they managed to achieve their goal of a perfect government, we'd still have a nation, well-run to be sure, going to Hell because the Gospel is not preached. And I know that individuals are called to individual callings, which might include a political vocation. But I cannot imagine that God has decided that His primary thrust in America today is to leave off the Gospel and get this country back on track, and that's what I would conclude from the many loudly complaining Christian blogs and other outlets I see today.

So ... what's the right answer? What is our responsibility, and what is not our responsibility? Are Christian voices too immersed in politics and devoid of the Gospel, or am I missing something here? Why does it seem that the biggest concern among so many Christians is our fair treatment and obtaining a "good government" with hardly a word about what Christianity is really all about? Is that the way it should be, or are we missing something? What is the right thing to do? I don't really know.

Who is on the Lord's Side?

Over at Refreshment in Refuge, Gina wrote a nice little piece about God not taking sides. Based on Joshua's encounter with the Commander of the Armies of Heaven in Joshua 5, she has several good points. She says, for instance, that "He doesn't take sides. He is the God of Republicans and of Democrats. He is the God of Northerners and of Southerners, of blacks and of whites, of rich and of poor." So true! She says, "We are not in control, no matter how much we'd like to be in control, we are not." Very true! The idea, I suppose, is that of cooperating with God.

I have a real difficulty, however. At the outset here I need to say that I like Gina and don't wish to take issue with her. It is the idea here that I am addressing. It is an extremely pervasive idea, and when it is taken to its logical conclusion, it is extremely problematic. At one point she says, "He doesn't take sides, He is ready to take over if only we would move over and let Him take over." The idea is that of a "gentleman", very popular today. It posits that God doesn't invade or overpower; He simply waits for people to allow Him to operate. Admittedly the same people that hold to this also hold to the idea of a "sovereign God", but this is far from "sovereignty". Gina (rightly) says, "Without God humans can do nothing." However, the ramification of a "gentleman God" is precisely the reverse -- without Man God can do nothing. He's standing there, waiting to work things out, begging, pleading, maybe even demanding, but ultimately on hold until we "let Him take over."

When I read the story in Joshua 5, I don't get the impression of a gentleman God. I get the impression of a militant God. When Joshua demands, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?" and the "man" (who turns out to be no mere man) replies "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD" (Josh. 5:15-16), I don't hear "So if you please, let me take over." Instead I hear, "I'm on My side, and you may either submit or be destroyed." There is no "gentleman God" there in that conversation. The captain of the host of the LORD isn't making an offer; He's making a demand. He is taking sides -- His own. He is holding up to Joshua the same decision that we all face all the time: "Are you going to take earthly sides, or are you going to submit to God?" I hear the Captain saying, "It's not about you, Joshua, or your enemies; it's all about Me."

I have no idea if Gina intended to imply a "gentleman God" in her post. I am not trying to put words in her mouth. That very well may not have been her intention. But this idea is so prevalent today that I needed to comment on it. God is on God's side. We can be on His side or not, but He isn't going to wait for our permission. He isn't going to submit to our desires. He isn't going to hold off until we cooperate. God will do what God will do. It will always be right and it never depends on us. Because God is on God's side, it is true that "He is the God of Republicans and of Democrats. He is the God of Northerners and of Southerners, of blacks and of whites, of rich and of poor." These are our distinctions, not His. And something we must never forget is that "Without God humans can do nothing." But never make the mistake of thinking that God is waiting for anything from us. He does whatever He pleases whenever He pleases. It is always the right thing, always at the right time, and always in the right way. Count on it.