It is a Gift of God

I left you yesterday with the necessity of writing this entry today when I said, "The faith that the Bible references is not something we drum up. It is something given by God. No, it isn't given to everyone. It is given as He chooses." "Oh? Really?" you might say. "Let's see you argue that idea with any real substance." Okay, let's do.

First, the perception begins with the certainty that faith is something we muster up. It's something that we bring to the table. It's something that we provide and God recognizes and then justifies. That's a nice concept. Is there any reason to think it's not true? Is there any reason to think that faith is given rather than developed?

The first and easiest spot to look is Rom 12:3 where Paul says, "God has allotted to each a measure of faith." Conclude what you will about how, when, who, or any other question, whatever else Paul is saying here he is definitely saying that God allots faith. Faith is a gift. Now, most people, seeing this, would likely conclude, "Oh, well, okay. Then faith is given to all people and we decide what to do with it." The first problem with this is that Paul isn't writing to "all people". He's writing to the saints in Rome (Rom 1:7). Then there is a logical problem. We know that justification is by faith. So consider the logical syllogism:

1) We are justified by faith.
2) All humans have faith.
3) Therefore, all humans are justified.

That is a perfectly logical syllogism, but we know it's not true. Still, we need to be more sure of this. Certainly the Bible isn't silent on the subject, is it? No, indeed. The Bible has much to say. We know, for instance, that Jesus is "the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb 12:2). He is the one who begins and completes our faith. In Acts 13:48 we read "... as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." The obvious implication is that those who were not appointed did not believe (did not have faith). 2 Tim 2:25 says that God grants (or doesn't grant) repentance to people. Paul also says, "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake" (Phil 1:29). We all get that. We are being given the privilege of suffering for Christ. Don't miss, however, the first mention. We are granted "not only to believe", but to suffer. Believing is a gift, a grant. Of course, there's always the ever-popular Eph 2:8-9. Most who make the claim I'm making go here first. I'm going here last because it's only a piece of the puzzle. Paul says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." In normal Greek and English usage, a prepositional phrase references the thing before it. The "not of yourselves", then, would suggest that "faith" is in mind. Faith is not of yourself -- it is a gift of God. Some are inclined to argue. "No, no, the real reference is to salvation." So, faith is not a gift, but salvation is. The argument leaves me flat because there is a missing component in the sentence that is skipped. Three pieces make up the first phrase: Grace, salvation, and faith. Something there is "not of yourselves". They argue it's salvation. So we conclude that faith ... and grace are something we produce. Wait ... no ... that's not right. It seems to me that the "not of yourselves" is referencing the entire previous statement: "By grace you have been saved through faith." So grace, salvation, and faith are "not of yourselves". This is buttressed with the next statement: "Not a result of works, so that no one may boast." No matter how you cut it, if I provide the faith and the faith is the key ingredient, I have something to boast about. But, if God provides the faith, we have nothing left to boast about.

One other relevant passage came up in my examination of the question. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for him and his team:

Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you, and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith. But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one (2 Thess 3:1-3).

We saw in Rom 12 that God allotted to each a measure of faith. Now we see the reverse: "Not all have faith." Paul goes on to say that "the Lord is faithful" and that "He will establish you and guard you".

We are really reticent to think that we have nothing at all to do with our own salvation. Most people think "If you're good enough you'll get to heaven." "Good enough" doesn't work. We Christians realize that we're not good enough and we need a Savior. But we're still unwilling to give up our own contribution. Surely we contribute something. "I know! We contribute faith! Yeah! We exercise our own free will and we muster up the faith that is required and that's our small but extremely significant part in our own salvation. That's right!" Both logic and the Word seem to disagree. While we are certainly required to exercise the faith given to us, it would appear that even that faith that we are to exercise is a gift from God, not something that we produce. Or, in the words of the author of the hymn, Rock of Ages, "Nothing in my hand I bring; Only to Thy cross I cling."

What Must I Do to be Saved?

Given yesterday's post ("This is not what it takes to be a Christian, but Christians do these things"), this would be the next obvious question, wouldn't it? It was the famous question from the Philippian jailer. It was simple, straightforward, to the point. Actually, you don't hear it too often, and that's too bad. And Paul gave an equally simple, straightforward, to-the-point answer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Ah, yes, that's it. We're done. Let's bow in prayer, pass the offering plates, and go home.

Is it that simple? Is there more to it? Let's look. Without straying beyond the confines of the textual question/answer, is there more to this simple conversation that we need to see? Yes. First, the question presupposes prior information. It presupposes that the questioner knows he/she is lacking something, is in danger, needs rescue. ("Saved" has become so overused that people miss the point.) To ask the question first requires that the questioner recognizes personal peril (I'm in real trouble here) and personal need (I don't know how to get out of the trouble I'm in.) Therefore, the question itself addresses a prerequisite condition -- the recognition of guilt and separation from God. In other words, the question won't get asked if the person doesn't see the problem or the need. Second (and this seems painfully obvious but isn't), the question presupposes an answer. It presupposes that there is a solution to the personal peril and the lack of ability to avoid that peril. It assumes that God has put into place a means of ... salvation. So we have basic premises that underlie the question to begin with.

Moving on, then, assuming that the questioner knows of their spiritual peril and lack of ability to fix it and that God has supplied an answer (the one they're seeking), what is the answer to the question? "Believe." What could be simpler? Just ... believe. Mentally acquiesce. Accept as true in your mind. Believe. Unfortunately, today's English "believe" is not quite the equivalent of the Greek word that is behind Paul's answer. That Greek word is pisteuo. It is more accurately "have faith". "Faith" is not merely mental acquiescence. It is a confidence in, a reliance upon, placing one's weight on the thing believed. It isn't like believing in George Washington. This kind of belief is only genuine when you place your weight on it, when your reliance is there and only there. Faith in Christ is also an obligation of loyalty and fidelity to Christ. Faith is not simple mental belief; it is something that produces a response. Now, step back a moment. Remember, the prerequisite for the question is "I am in peril with God, have no means to fix it, and believe that He has." This faith, then, says, "There is no other means by which I can solve this problem. I am relying solely on this solution."

Now, having cleared up what "believe" means, we come to the object of that faith -- the Lord Jesus Christ. We can debate (as others have) whether that requires that the believer recognize that Jesus is Lord (see "Lordship salvation"), that He is Messiah, that He is God Incarnate (another implication of "Lord"). I think there are some parts of this that are genuine and some too far off. To be saved, though, isn't simply, "Yeah, yeah, I believe there was a Jesus." There is more than His existence. As a minimum, He must be the Jesus who is Lord, who was Messiah ... that Jesus. As Lord He demands obedience and as Messiah He came to save His people. A "Jesus" who is neither Lord nor Messiah is not the same Jesus that Paul is referencing. A deep, extensive knowledge and agreement with Messianic theology, Trinitarian theology, and the far-reaching implications of Christ as Lord is not in mind here, but neither is "whatever Jesus you have in mind" an acceptable possibility. It must be the same Lord Jesus Christ that Paul knew, the same one that walked with the Apostles, the one with the mission and authority to save and to rule. It cannot be the "analogy Jesus" who never actually lived but is a fine story about how to live (as some hold) or the "'brother of Lucifer' Jesus" who is one of many gods (as others argue) or some other variation. There is one and only one -- the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is a problem with all of this that is rarely addressed. I bemoaned the fact that the question isn't often asked. Scholars question whether the jailer actually meant what we see there. Was he saying, "How do I avoid eternal damnation at the hands of God?" or was he saying, "How do I avoid getting fired (or killed) by my employers?" Was it a genuine spiritual question, or did Paul simply provide the man with the better answer? We do not and cannot know. The real problem is this: Since humans are naturally dead in sin (Eph 2:1), hostile to God (Rom 8:7-8), and incapable of understanding (1 Cor 2:14), what would make them ask the question or be capable of understanding the answer? On the one hand, the question and answer are simple. On the other, a genuine question and a genuine understanding of the answer are not. At the mental level, it's all an easy thing. We understand all the words. We get all the components. That's fine, thanks. But at the spiritual level, both genuine understanding and genuine faith are impossible. You see, the faith that the Bible references is not something we drum up. It is something given by God. No, it isn't given to everyone. It is given as He chooses. (I'm leaving off the arguments and references here because I'm setting myself up for another blog entry, see?) So, while Natural Man can nod and say, "I understand all those words and I believe what it says", it is entirely possible (nay, an actual given) that such a person will think he or she is among the saved when he or she is not. How will I provide correction? I can't. That is God's job. He has to do an awakening (we call it "regeneration" or, in the King James vernacular, "quickening"). He has to provide the necessary faith. So while the concepts are easy to explain and clear enough, it isn't, in the final analysis, in our hands, but in God's hands. Careful analysis of word and context, clearly written explanations, and concise process steps don't produce either the faith or the understanding for this whole thing. That would be God's job.

Fruit and Nonsense

Those who have faithfully followed my blog along with the comments will remember [a guy who will remain nameless but made a lot of comments that you can read at your leisure]. [This guy] (quite understandably) took offense when he asked me a direct question -- "Do you think I'm not a Christian?" -- and I gave him a direct answer -- "No, I don't think you're a Christian." We aren't supposed to do that, are we? I mean, it's wrong to question other people's faith, isn't it? [The guy] was right to be offended, wasn't he? I mean, after all, he claimed to be saved by grace through faith in Christ. Who am I to question that? What kind of Pharisee am I ... making up other things regarding salvation that are not in the Bible? Didn't Paul answer the jailer's "What must I do to be saved?" with "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"? How dare anyone ask anything else?

I have to admit that it sounds convincing. It sounds like anyone who questions someone who claims "I am saved by grace through faith in Christ" is questioning Christianity itself. Hey, the phrase is even biblical, isn't it? So I take a half step back and ask myself "Is [the guy] (and all those others who openly or silently complained) right?"

Then I run across some very odd (or, rather, perhaps not so odd) stuff in my Bible. Jesus warned, for instance, of wolves among the sheep. He said, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16). So ... now we're to become fruit inspectors? What fruit? Jesus goes on in that very context to say, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven" (Matt 7:21). Apparently, then, there are going to be those who come to the Day of Judgment completely convinced that they view Jesus as Lord ("faith in Christ") but are completely misguided. The problem, according to Jesus, occurred long ago: "I declare to them, 'I never knew you ...'" (Matt 7:23). The relationship never started.

Well, it's all well and good for Christ (the perfect Judge) to inspect fruit and to determine who is or isn't saved, but what about us? Shouldn't we keep our noses out of it? I would say that, to some extent, yes, we need to avoid too much action here. In the parable of the tares among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30), the master tells his servants not to tear out the tares in the wheat because it would damage the wheat. Of this Jesus said, "The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers ..." (Matt 13:41). Removing the tares from the wheat is His job, not ours.

On the other hand, does that mean, then, that we are to be silent? If we are, the Bible is full of sinful writing. Paul wrote things like:

When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor 5:4-5).

Purge the evil person from among you (1 Cor 5:13).

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Eph 5:5).

It would appear that Paul is laying down these instructions to act as markers to tell if someone is in or out of the kingdom. In fact, the basic purpose of the John's first epistle is just that. It is largely a series of "test questions" for his readers to determine if they have a relationship with God or not. Indeed, the Bible is full of differentiators -- ways to determine "Christian" or "not Christian".

Now, the first problem here occurs when we think, "These things determine if a person is saved." No, genuine "faith in Christ" determines if a person is saved. These things are not the things that determine if a person is saved. They are things that indicate it. They are, to use the biblical term, fruit. An fig tree is a fig tree because it is a fig tree, not because it bears figs. But a genuine fig tree will bear figs. And it was Jesus who said "You will recognize them by their fruits." So, what "fruits" are there? We're not left to guess. We know, for instance, that there is "the fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-23). John has a whole listing of stuff in 1 John. But Paul makes an interesting summary: "The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth" (Eph 5:9). Isn't it interesting that the fruit includes virtue (goodness), holiness (righteousness), and truth? Now, Paul is not saying, "In order to be saved, you must be virtuous, holy, and right." What Paul is saying is that those who have the Spirit begin to produce -- bear the fruit of -- virtue, holiness, and truth.

My concern way back then when I was upsetting readers with my concerns about their spiritual well-being was this. It wasn't "Have you come to faith in Christ?". Genuine faith in Christ makes a Christian. It was "When confronted with truth, do you recognize it or reject it?" Recognizing truth doesn't make you a Christian, but Christians (those with the Spirit of God in them) have certain characteristics and those who lack them ought to be concerned about whether or not what they thought was "faith in Christ" was genuinely faith in Christ. I'm not saying, "You need to do these things or believe these things to be saved." I'm saying, "True believers -- those who are saved -- do these things and believe these things." I'm not saying, "You have to bear figs to be a fig tree." I'm saying, "Fig trees bear fruit." Now, the folks of this world [like the guy I referenced at the start] would prefer that I shut up about this stuff. You know, let 'em go and let God sort 'em out. (No, they'd say, "Don't impose your views on others" which, by the way, is imposing a view on me.) I suppose that's an approach, but it sure seems like a cruel one to me. If I have information that people might need and withhold it, especially when it affects their eternal destination, is it kind of me to keep silent or to say something? I can't seem to conclude that the kindest thing for me to do is shut up about it. You decide.

Update: Edited to put the actual name of someone in brackets to remove his real name because he was offended that I referred to him.

Crucial Conversations

I'm currently in the midst of an interesting book. The title is Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler, and Stephen R. Covey. These guys set out to discover what it is that sets successful businesses apart from less successful businesses. In their study, though, they found out that the primary difference between the two was people. So they studied further what sets successful people apart from less successful people. As they studied this concept, what they found was that successful people had an approach to communication that differed from everyone else. Thus, the book is about crucial conversations rather than successful people or businesses.

What I have found fascinating thus far is that these men did not set out as Christians to produce something Christian, but what they have produced sounds decidedly Christian. The secret, they suggest, to successful interactions with people is to "start with heart". Now, of course, there is a lot more to it and I'm still working my way through the book, but at the core, they say, the best way to have proper dialog with people in the most productive way possible is to care about the people with whom you are having the dialog. The book even points out, "This is not a technique." You can't fake it. You have to genuinely care about the people with whom you are interacting if you want to have the best possible outcome. Funny thing. The command of Scripture is "love your neighbor." Kind of like "You have to genuinely care about the people with whom you are interacting." This, they say, is the absolute core and fundamental key to success in conversations at work, at home, wherever you care to go.

I am convinced that truth is truth. Or, as the saints before me put it, all truth is God's truth. Science equivocates. Philosophy meanders. Psychology wanders about. But in the end, I suspect, the truth will be that God was right from the beginning. People work better when they care about each other. Life is better lived with concern for our fellow man. Things are a lot smoother when we aren't self-centered. And I could go on, but it would start to get a bit pointed ...

Great is Your Faithfulness

Consider the work of God, for who is able to straighten what He has bent? In the day of prosperity be happy, but in the day of adversity consider -- God has made the one as well as the other so that man may not discover anything that will be after him (Eccl. 7:13-14).

I recently used this reference in a post about the sovereignty of God when things are unpleasant. It says that God makes both days of prosperity and days of adversity. In the first we are to be happy. In the second we are to take it from the hand of God. All well and good.

I wanted to look at the last phrase. It gives, from Solomon's perspective, the reason why God gives both prosperity and adversity: "So that man may not discover anything that will be after him." What an interesting reason! Now, I'm quite sure there are a host of other reasons. I don't suppose that Solomon intended "This is the only reason God does this." But it is a reason. The reason is so you won't know tomorrow what God intends to do.

Lots of people like to guess when bad things happen. Job's friends in the book of Job were very happy to offer advice as to why bad things happened to Job, for instance, and they represent a fairly common approach. "Bad things happen to bad people; good things happen to good people." And it's just not true. People like to guess "It's a judgment from God." And it may or may not be true. It's one of the popular methods of determining success, too. "If things don't work out, it must mean that you're not doing what God wanted." Again, perhaps true and perhaps not. Specifically what Solomon claims here is that you cannot know. God does what He does -- pleasant or unpleasant -- for His own good reasons and we're not wise to try to guess at what that is without specific instructions to do so.

So, what's the alternative? If we can't guess, "This is why God did what He did when that unpleasant thing happened", how are we to respond? We are to respond as Jeremiah did: "This I recall to my mind, Therefore I have hope. The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness. 'The LORD is my portion,' says my soul, 'Therefore I have hope in Him'" (Lam 3:21-24). Hope in the Lord and His character, not in better circumstances. It's a much more stable place to be because we "may not discover anything that will be after".

Blog!

Look, it's Saturday and not a lot of people are reading this, so I'll do a "Saturday-lite" post. Everyone okay with that?

I have friends out there who read my blog (or, perhaps, who don't) and who don't blog themselves. Some of them blog a little, but not much. Most of the people I know don't blog at all. So, this one is for all you who read my blog and either blog a little or not at all.

It is my strong recommendation that you blog. Okay, maybe not blog. But write. Why?

Well, writing gives you the chance to put down your ideas in a "solid" form. When you write, you are required to pull ideas out of your head, examine those ideas, put them in an explainable order, and then evaluate the explanation. Blogging (or something similar) has the added advantage of allowing others to evaluate the explanation of your ideas and say, "No, that doesn't make sense" or "Yes, you're right on that point."

I am of the opinion that people don't think so much these days. We are pretty happy with the feed we get from the television and the radio and the Internet and we don't really need to evaluate much at all because, happily, someone else is doing it for us. So we pick up the ideas that "feel" best to us and stand our ground on them ... without ever making them our own or even fully understanding them. We are in too many cases, I'm afraid to say, mentally lazy. And then we assume others did their thinking right and absorb their errors without analysis. Sometimes it really makes us look stupid. Most of the time, though, no one else is really evaluating these things, so no one notices that we might look stupid. Besides, the emotional debate is far more popular than the reasoned one.

"Oh," you say, "I can't write. I have no writing skills. I'm not good with words." Two points here. First, the quality of the writing isn't the point. Conversely, writing down your thoughts gives you the chance to improve the quality of your writing (among other benefits). No one writes well who has never written. If "I can't write" was the decision point for anyone who wrote, then no one would start writing. And the second point is like unto the first. I'm not suggesting that you aim to be the next bestseller author. I'm not suggesting you try to be some riveting writer with clever turns of phrases and spellbinding thoughts ... you know, like me. (Kidding ... just kidding.) I'm suggesting that you write for your own benefit.

So ... if you want to stand out, if you want to be a reasonable person, if you want to ... how about this? ... renew your mind, I would recommend you blog. Blogging is free so you don't have a cost problem. It forces you to think to some degree (the more the better). It requires that you explain yourself. It offers your ideas to others who may benefit from them and can also help you critique them. The added benefit of blogging is that you will very possibly have to interact with people who disagree with your ideas. If you use the opportunity properly, it might help you learn to interact with civility and argue with charity. But, hey, that's up to you, isn't it? (Trust me ... I've seen enough bloggers who don't see any requirement to offer civility or charity.) As a benefit to you, then, I say, "Blog!"

Pet Peeves

Through the years I've discovered that there are little things that bother me that, frankly, shouldn't. But they do. I'm not talking about the things people do or say that are seriously wrong. I'm talking about little things ... or at least little things to me. You know, little things like rotten grammar or poor spelling when it shouldn't be so hard. Usually I overlook it, but when it comes from people that appear to be just too lazy to bother, it bothers me. But there are worse things to me.

I really dislike it when people say things "I really hate it when ..." without actually meaning hate. I prefer it when people reserve the right words for these things. But we throw around words like "love" and "hate" and "good" and "evil" without really considering them. Is the thing of which you speak really that good/bad/right/wrong/wonderful/horrible? Or not?

It irks me when Christians defend their positions from the Bible. No, no, that's not right. Not at all. But two Christians will be discussing differing opinions on a topic, both deriving their view from Scripture, and one will say, "Well, Luther said ..." and the other will trump them with, "Well, I get my idea from the Bible." The suggestion is, "You don't." The implication is, "My view is the only right view because (apparently) I can't be wrong in my interpretation ... and since you are using other sources, I'll assume you're not using the Bible." When Christians discuss differing views of Scripture, can't we just admit that we're both talking about Scripture and drop this failed trump as if the other isn't using the Bible? A hint to Calvinists and Arminians, Presbyterians and Baptists, pre-millenialists and amillenialists, paedobaptists and credobaptists: both sides will be using Scripture. Show a little charity, okay?

A close relative is "The Lord showed me the meaning of that passage ...". I see. You have a special connection with God that I don't. And usually "the Lord" shows these people meanings of passages that no one has ever seen before. Really? You have that special a connection? Don't go there.

Of course, it really bugs me when people cannot discuss ideas with charity. At some point, it seems, it becomes personal. This one may comment negatively on a pet concern of that one and suddenly we're no longer discussing those ideas; we're discussing me. "Are you calling me stupid?" Or something like it. Even if it doesn't get said. There are triggers for all of us, it seems. Just mention the word "socialism" and I'll get angry responses from all directions (not necessarily aimed at me ... just angry). Just drop a word like "abortion" or suggest "homosexual behavior is sin" and people will be coming out of the woodwork not to argue the point, but to fight ... and from both directions. Can't we discuss ideas without getting personal? "I think that some of President Obama's plans are wrong" could very likely get a response of "racist!". Really?

But, then, maybe I'm just too sensitive. I tend to view most things with a bit of humor. Maybe I should practice more of that.

Why Be Moral?

There are plenty of times that I've been told, "Keep your Christian morality to yourself." I've even heard it from "Christians". (The quotes there are my way of being generous. They may or may not be Christian ... I'm just not calling it into question right now.) Somehow there is an underlying conviction that morality is negative. It is a thrill-kill, a sad thing. It is a limitation, a mean streak, an overbearing belief. And it is, of course, individualistic. There is "your morality" and "my morality" and these are both equal in value and validity. So keep "your morality" out of my face.

I would guess that this belief is rather prevalent. Sometimes we see studies aimed at showing that God's version of the best family (mother, father, children) is wrong or that sexual purity is pointless. But most of the time we're just told, "Believe what you want; just don't force it on me." The term "force", explicit or implicit, suggests something "wrong". So encouraging moral behavior ... is wrong.

So I have to ask, why be moral? Why would I bother saying out loud that homosexual behavior is wrong? That's just my belief, right? I'm just being intolerant, right? Why would I hold in public that abortion is murder and murder is wrong? Why can't I let those others who believe that "it's a woman's choice" do what they believe is right? Why would I be so judgmental? And the Christians who say it are urging me away from these things because "it will push people away from the Gospel" or some such. So ... why be moral?

I believe that there is more to "moral" than rules. It's not simply "right or wrong". It's not simply "be good or not". It is much, much more. I am convinced that being moral is best. Now, let me say here clearly and quickly that being moral doesn't give you heaven. But what it does do is to make the "machinery" work best. What do I mean?

I believe that the man who is faithful to his wife is much happier than the man who is not. There may be some temporary pleasure, some immediate gratification, but in the end, recognized or not, the faithful husband is happier than the cheat. I believe that a person of integrity is better off than a liar, a cheat, a thief. I believe that those who give are more blessed than those who receive, that those who love are more fulfilled than those who demand love, that those who seek the welfare of others are more satisfied than those who seek their own personal pleasure. In other words, while being moral may not get you to heaven (because the demand of heaven is perfect morality), it will certainly make your life much better.

So I ask myself, "Why are they telling me to keep it to myself? Why is it judgmental or intolerant to want what's best for others? How is it more caring to keep the truth from others?" I imagine a fellow picking up a bottle of poison. Maybe it's a slow poison, taking years, prossibly, to end his life. But it is poison. He tells me, "Mmmm, I just love this stuff." And the people around me, seeing I'm about to say something, shoosh me. "Don't say anything," someone near me whispers. "Keep your opinion to yourself. He likes it. There's no need for you to foist your views on him. If you do, he may not even listen to you anymore. Don't be so judgmental and intolerant." Seriously, people, would I be more kind, loving, caring if I kept my mouth shut while this fellow poisoned himself? I don't think so.

Dead Right

"Dead" ... we all know what that means, right? It means "lacking life". Or does it? Similar but different, we might say after a long, hard day of work, "Man am I dead?!" No one thinks we're devoid of life. We're just tired. It is possible for silence to be dead, as in "dead silence". That would suggest absolute silence. A "dead shot" would be someone with excellent accuracy. And if you hit a nail "dead center", there is no variation from center. So what is "dead wrong"? That generally means "totally, absolutely, completely dead center of 'wrong'."

Funny thing. You don't often hear the term "dead right". Is it possible to be dead right? Well, if you mean "completely, totally, absolutely, completely in the center of being right", I suppose so. But how about if you mean "lacking life"?

Calvinists carry around two interesting "accusations". First, they are considered by many to be "the most logical" when it comes to their theology. Mind you, those who say that generally don't mean "right" or even that it's good. But one of the marks of Calvinist theology that it is a rational system. The other accusation seems to play off the first. Calvinists are often cold in their theology. And that is the clue as to why the accusation of "most logical" is intended as an assault rather than a compliment. Admittedly you won't likely walk into a Calvinist church and find them swaying to the praise band music or lifting their hands in worship. It's not impossible, but it's not likely.

Now, to be fair, it's not accurate to say that Calvinism and religious emotion are contrary to each other. Jonathan Edwards, one of the best known Calvinists, wrote A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. His claim was that, while emotional responses to God don't prove genuine faith, it is not actually feasible to have genuine faith without an emotional response. And if you take a moment to think about it, you'd see that Paul said the same thing: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control ..." (Gal 5:22-23). These things all carry an emotional component, and they are the fruit of the Spirit. Or consider a current Calvinist, John Piper. Dr. Piper is known as "the Christian hedonist". He believes that "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied with Him." And no one can accuse Dr. Piper of lacking emotion.

All this to say that while being right may be a good thing, it is possible to be dead right. It is possible to be right and be dead. The problem, of course, is that if you are accurate in the area of faith and practice and dead, you end up dead wrong.

Why? There are a lot of folks that argue that orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy. (Orthopraxy is "right practice" and orthodoxy is "right doctrine".) Many seminaries today teach up-and-coming pastors to leave off the doctrine because doctrine isn't nearly as important as practice. "Teach the right practice," the thinking goes, "and your doctrine should be fairly accurate." The truth is, however, that orthodoxy produces orthopraxy. The truth is that if you get ahold, for instance, of the genuine Sovereignty of God, it cannot fail to have an impact on your life, your thinking, your living, your emotions. Truth shapes choices. Truth produces emotions. So if you're dead right, you're missing something somewhere, because "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (Isa 55:11).

There are times that I find myself "dead right". I am right (to the best of my knowledge), but sometimes I just don't care. I am able, at times, to argue for truth without being concerned about the listeners, the feelings of others, how people will respond to your comments, and not operating out of genuine love for others. When I recognize it in me, it grieves me. It is possible to be dead right, but if the true mark of a believer is love, it's not a good thing to be both dead and right. Truth ought to change you, move you, alter not just your thinking, but your feelings. "Dead wrong" is clearly a bad thing, but "dead right" is not necessarily a good thing.

If I Were King

Two of my friends (my "amen corner") disagreed with me when I said that President Obama was not a socialist. Since I am not the type to think I cannot be wrong, I looked into it. I don't have an answer.

There are a whole bunch of folks, starting with the president, who will tell you "No, he is not a socialist." Multiple articles from multiple sources with multiple agendas all argue that he is not. Socialists themselves won't accept him as a socialist. On the other hand, some voices are making good arguments to the contrary. He may deny it and they may deny it, but if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck ... well, you get the idea.

My friend, Dan, pointed out, "If the president were king instead, I'm sure his socialist worldview would be evident." In truth, I cannot know. (Hey, I have a hard time figuring out what my own worldview is, let alone what it would be given different circumstances.) But I understand his perspective there. You see, I've often wondered (not broadly, but in specific circumstances) what I would do if I were king. I'm sure I'm not alone. My grandfather, for instance, told me years ago, "If I were king, I could put an end to the drug dealing problem. I'd just order public executions of all drug dealers. It would end quickly." Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't, but you could see how my grandfather viewed things "if I were king". Me? While I love our country and I believe this is likely the best country in which to currently live, I'm not so sure, if I were king, if I would keep it like it is. I'm not so sure, for instance, that a democracy is the best choice for people so willing to discard community and morality in preference for pure self-interest. Maybe a benevolent dictatorship would be better. I'm not so sure that taxation is the way I'd do it if I were king. I'm not at all sure that I wouldn't change some things in the justice system especially. I particularly dislike the notion of genuine criminals getting off on a technicality. For instance, if a police officer did an illegal search and turned up solid evidence, I wouldn't delete the evidence; I'd prosecute the police officer (after convicting the criminal). So there are lots of things I'd do different ... if I were king.

Is President Obama a socialist? I don't know. I do know that "socialism" is a bad word these days. I know that throwing the word out in public is like throwing out a stick of dynamite. It will cause an explosion ... from those for and those against. I do know that labeling the president "socialist" will terminate a lot of conversations. And I know that what I support now and what I would do if I were king are different. So I suppose I'll just avoid the conflagration and say that the president is not operating as a socialist ... completely.

The New Barbie

More than once I've written something about the push these days to eliminate gender differences. Now, to be completely fair, no one is saying, "Men are women and women are men." Okay, almost no one. Everyone understands and agrees that they are different. No, what's really going on is the annihilation of gender roles. The goal, it seems, is to say that women can do anything that men can do, that there is no "guy things" or "gal things" in life, that we all do the same stuff. (Funny thing ... no one seems to be saying, "Men can do anything women can do." Why is that?)

Enter the latest entry -- Barbie and the Three Musketeers. It's a straight-to-video CGI movie where Barbie plays a girl named Corrine (Ahem ... does anyone realize that Barbie is a doll, not an actress?) (And is it wrong these days to call females who act "actress"? Or are they only "actors" because we're trying to erase gender differences? But I digress ...) who wants to be a musketeer. Now, the dictionary says that a musketeer is "A member of the French royal household bodyguard in the 17th and 18th centuries." Actually, they existed in China, India, Spain, Russia, France, Sweden, Britain, and Poland. They were the soldiers who carried the muskets. Who they were and that they were only male is not up for discussion. But the makers of Barbie want these nice little girls to know that they, too, can be weapon-toting, gun-slinging, killing machines. Don't let your gender slow you down. You can be anything you want to be!

Seriously, people, is this really the place we want to go? Christians ought to have no question. The Bible clearly differentiates between roles of men and women ... and they aren't the same. They are complementary (not complimentary). We work best in the God-given roles of male and female and operate best as a team of both male and female. Do we really want to blur the lines? Haven't we already done enough damage there? Seriously.

Disciples, the Sequel

In August I wrote a piece on the Great Commission about how we ought to be discipling, not simply making converts. I had a follow up thought that perhaps might benefit you.

The command is "Go therefore and make disciples" (Matt 28:19). My original post was on how we ought to be going and doing that. But what about the reverse? We are part of the Body of Christ, an interconnected group that is to be marked primarily by love for one another. If we are to be discipling others, isn't it obvious that we ought to be discipled? So ... are you?

It has been my prayer for a long time that I would be given a "Paul" for whom I could be a "Timothy". I've asked people at times, but for the most part I've just kind of "waited on the Lord" as if it's solely His responsibility to make that happen. Not a wise approach. It seems to me that if we are designed to be interconnected and the Great Commission is about discipleship, then we ought to all be in the midst of discipling and being discipled.

So ... if you are not being discipled (as I suspect the case with the majority of Christians), do you know someone you could ask? And when are you going to ask them? I know, I know ... I'm meddling. But I believe that if we Christians got ourselves more interconnected (instead of independent), operated more like a Body rather than lone rangers, and actually became both disciples and disciplers, we would begin to see some changes in the fragmented and independent Church we see today in America. But that happens one at a time ... starting with you and me. So the question is who are you discipling ... and who is discipling you?

Socialism is coming!

If you haven't heard it yet, you just haven't been paying attention. The right is surging back against the president's left because "We don't want socialism in America!" In the demonstrations and blogs and news and practically everywhere you look, angry Americans are protesting the socialism that is just around the corner. This whole "health care reform" thing is the current catalyst for the fire, but we saw it before when the "financial recovery" plan hit the news and so on. "We don't want socialism in America!"

Now, I don't mean to defend the president's financial choices nor do I plan to offer support for his health care reform plans, but I do need to say something here. Get over it, folks. You don't want socialism in America? It's too late. It's already here.

Socialism is an economic system. While capitalism encourages private business ownership and minimal government interference, socialism advocates government or public ownership of the resources and production of goods. Capitalism operates on the "earn your way" process while socialism goes with an egalitarian approach where everyone gets the benefits rather than simply those who work for it. Now, it is true that we are largely a capitalist society. Most businesses are privately owned. In a majority of the cases each person gets what they earn, not what they don't earn. We're mostly capitalist. But don't fool yourself into thinking that we are all capitalist.

Where do we find socialism in America? Well, besides the obvious (There is a socialist movement in the country.), how about the very popular idea that it's good to take from the rich and give to the poor? That's not capitalism. That's egalitarianism. Encouraged by class wars and urged by the left, this idea is getting more and more traction. Whether it is right or not is irrelevant. It is not capitalism; it is socialism. But we've instituted genuine socialism already in various places. Our sense of compassion for the elderly led us to put in Medicare. This system provides health care for the elderly regardless of what they own or earned. It takes from the rest and gives to them. It is a prime example of socialism. Or how about the welfare system? That is clearly a product of socialist thinking. Take from those who have to give to those who do not (regulated by the government, of course). The Postal Service is a clear case of American socialism, a government-owned business. And none of this has anything at all to do with the current president.

When the Obama administration nationalized something like $85 billion of American corporate and business assets, it was a step into socialism. Support it or decry it, it is still the case. When the government takes ownership of a health care option, even if it is only one, it is socialism. The president is not a socialist, but he seems more comfortable with a more centralized control of the economy than leaving it in the hands of private enterprise. And he's not finished tinkering with things yet.

In other words, the president is certainly leading us toward more socialism. You may disagree. You may agree and be happy about it. I don't think it's a real question. But all this "We don't want socialism in America!" stuff is nonsense, folks. It's already here. We let it happen. We even like some of it. So let's stop clamoring against the cows we already let out of the barn and figure out if they're better off out there and, if so, maybe we should let out some more ... because I'm pretty sure we won't be closing the door on socialism any time soon.

Foxholes and Christians (a reprise)

This is a repeat from 2006. I know it's longer than my normal post (which is likely too long anyway), but when times are tough (as they are today), I think it bears remembering, and we were all on the same "tough times" page on Sept. 11, 2001. I wrote this soon after that fateful day and will share it again because, after all, most of you have never read it.

The events of September 11 and following have been shocking, frightening, unnerving, devastating. They have stirred emotions and responses that one wouldn’t have found a week before the aircraft hit those buildings and killed thousands of Americans. In the aftermath, an interesting series of events has unfolded. A resounding "God bless America!" has been shouted around the country that has resoundingly evicted God from America. The masses have flocked to prayer services. Leadership has called on God for support. The President has declared that God is on our side. The old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes", has been demonstrated once again. My question, however, isn’t about these frightened people who are turning to God in time of trouble. My question is about Christians. In this new surge of spirituality, what is the Church offering? What are the Christians doing in the foxholes?

The public responses have been embarrassing at best. One Christian leader has stated that America got what it deserved. This is a running theme in many churches. We are a decadent country, and God is judging America. Others are backpedaling. "God didn’t have anything to do with this," they assure us. "God is a gentleman." Some religious leaders are on a similar bandwagon. "This isn’t God’s fault – it’s the fault of Man’s Free Will." Private responses have been similar. Christians have responded with everything from "Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out" to "God loves everyone and would never allow this to occur." So, with this gaping national wound bleeding from our televisions and a mad rush for support and answers to the best place to find support and answers – the Church – all we have to offer is either an angry God who smites His enemies or an uninvolved God who was just as appalled as we were and wishes He could have done something about it.

What ever happened to the God of the Bible? This God seems to be a different sort of God than the one of which we’re hearing from Christians. This is what God says about Himself in the words of Scripture:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, who makes the judges of the earth meaningless. Scarcely have they been planted, scarcely have they been sown, scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth, but He merely blows on them, and they wither, and the storm carries them away like stubble. "To whom then will you liken Me that I should be his equal?" says the Holy One (Isa. 40:21-25).

Have you not heard? Long ago I did it, from ancient times I planned it. Now I have brought it to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into ruinous heaps. Therefore their inhabitants were short of strength, they were dismayed and put to shame; they were as the vegetation of the field and as the green herb, as grass on the housetops is scorched before it is grown up (Isa. 37:26-27).

I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these (Isa. 45:6-7).

These are words from Isaiah, but they are God speaking about Himself. He says that from His viewpoint human beings are "like grasshoppers". He says that He "reduces rulers to nothing". He says that He destroys their crops. He says that He plans to destroy their fortified cities, and He brings it to pass. In Isaiah 45, God Himself declares that He creates calamity. This is the image God is presenting concerning Himself.

Does God cause bad things? It is important, in answering the question, that we understand that God does not cause sin. Very clearly, "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." (James 1:13) But don’t be deceived into believing that God does not cause unpleasant events. He says He creates calamity. And even in the sin of Man, God is not out of control. He doesn’t cause evil, but He surely ordains it. Our clearest proof is our most blessed event, the death of Christ. No sin was more heinous than Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ. Of this event, Jesus said, "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22) In other words, God planned for Judas to do what Judas would do. It was foreordained. Judas still bore the responsibility of his choice ("Woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"), but his sin did not mean a deviation from God’s plan.

Do not be deceived. God is sovereign. He plans the events that bring us happiness. He plans the events that bring us sorrow. It is all in His hand, and it is good.

Solomon writes on the same topic in Ecclesiastes.

Consider the work of God, for who is able to straighten what He has bent? In the day of prosperity be happy, but in the day of adversity consider -- God has made the one as well as the other so that man may not discover anything that will be after him (Eccl. 7:13-14).

Solomon claims that God has made both the day of prosperity and the day of adversity. He claims that God does it for a reason.

Interestingly, throughout Scripture we see people who understand this and accept it. Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). We would look puzzled at Job. "The Lord took away? And you say He is to be blessed?" But God’s perspective on Job’s comment is "Through all this Job did not sin" (Job 1:22). We see the same concept from Sarah in Genesis. She tells her husband, "The Lord has made me barren" (Gen. 16:2). Clearly Sarah is not happy about it, but there are two features present that we lack today. First is the absolute certainty that God is in charge. It wasn’t "a fluke of nature" or "a string of bad luck". The Lord did it. The second is that, while she may not have liked the condition, she accepted it and worked with it rather than complaining. She worked in the wrong direction, but to her it was not "unfair" of God to do what He had done. To her, God had the perfect right to do what He would do, and He did.

This God is a different God from is being offered to many within the Church today. This God is a God who is intimately involved in everyday existence. This God doesn’t retreat from saying "I am the One creating calamity." Instead we read that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). David rejoiced in the knowledge that God had ordained all his days (Psa. 139:16).

Consider Daniel’s viewpoint of his God:

The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god (Dan. 1:2).

This is a key example of God at work. Today’s Christian would say "God does not do bad things; these things are caused by Man’s sinful Free Will." The events described in Daniel are as bad as they come. Judah was overrun and sent into captivity. The Temple was overrun and its holy vessels were put to profane use in a pagan temple. It doesn’t get any worse. But Daniel starts with the very clear statement as to who was in charge in all of this. "The Lord gave" them over. It wasn’t pleasant, and it wasn’t pretty, but this same Daniel who believed that God had actually given His people into captivity and His holy vessels into pagan use still stood firm in his faith, as evidenced by the rest of the book of Daniel. In Daniel’s view, God Himself brought all this to pass, and in Daniel’s view God was allowed to do so – it was "fair".

Consider Jeremiah’s viewpoint of his God:

He has filled me with bitterness, He has made me drunk with wormwood. And He has broken my teeth with gravel; He has made me cower in the dust. And my soul has been rejected from peace; I have forgotten happiness. So I say, "My strength has perished, and so has my hope from the LORD."

Remember my affliction and my wandering, the wormwood and bitterness. Surely my soul remembers and is bowed down within me. This I recall to my mind, therefore I have hope. The Lord's lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "Therefore I have hope in Him." The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the person who seeks Him. It is good that he waits silently for the salvation of the LORD. It is good for a man that he should bear the yoke in his youth (Lam. 3:15-27).

Here we have Jeremiah standing in the ruins of his homeland. There is no doubt that Jeremiah is unhappy. Faith in God’s sovereignty does not necessarily mean bliss. He says he has no peace. He says that he has even lost hope. Then something occurs to him that renews his hope. What is that? "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases. His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning. Great is Thy faithfulness." We know these words. They’re in our songs. But Jeremiah lived them. He understood that nothing around him brought comfort; nothing around him gave reason for hope that circumstances would improve. His single source of hope was in the simple, sure confidence that God was God. While we clamor for joy or peace or blessing, Jeremiah said, "I’ve lost all that . . . but God is good enough." Paul says the same thing. "I count all things as loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ." (Phil. 3:8) Knowing God is enough.

Consider Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s viewpoint of their God:

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up" (Dan. 3:16-18).

These three men stood on the brink of disaster. They were about to suffer a horrible death. So hot was the fire they were to face that it killed those who threw them into it. They spoke confidently, as we would have our heroes do. "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire." "You tell them, guys," we cheer. "God can deliver you. Trust in Him." We’re behind them. But they aren’t lost in a false sense of "God only wants us to be comfortable". They recognize that this may not be His plan. "Even if He does not . . . we are not going to serve your gods." Here we would typically draw the line. If God, in our estimation, is going to be fair to these guys, He must reward their faithfulness to Him by saving them. To do otherwise would not be right. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego disagree. To them, God decides who lives and who dies, and God is just in doing so. His saving them from the fire is not the expected result of their faith. To them, this is right. Their God is the One who decides. Their God is right in what He decides.

This is not the vengeful God being portrayed on one end, the "hands off" God in the middle, or the "He loves us too much" God being offered on the other end. This is the God who is intimately involved in the everyday existence of human beings. This is the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient God who brings both affliction and comfort, justice and mercy. This God answers our cries of "That’s not fair!" with the simple retort, "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" (Rom. 9:20) This God grants us suffering (Phil. 1:29). This is the God who leads us through the valley of the shadow of death. There may be painful and frightening things in this valley, but "I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me." This is the sovereign Lord who "comforts us in all our afflictions" (2 Cor. 1:4) and provides a peace that passes understanding (Phil. 4:7) by never leaving or forsaking us (Heb. 13:5). We don’t have confidence in God because He makes us comfortable. We have confidence in God because He is God, because He is sovereign, and because He will always do what is best.

We have attempted to "fill in the blanks" where God is concerned, and we have failed badly. When some in Jesus’ day tried to do that, Jesus responded accordingly:

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1-5).

Jesus’ disciples made the same mistake with the man born blind.

His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:2 3).

In both cases, people grossly misjudged the circumstances. As Job’s "friends" who gathered to inform him that his suffering was the result of his sin, these assumed that bad things do not happen to good people. The premise is "If something bad happens to you, it’s because you did something wrong." Jesus disagrees. "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate?" Jesus makes two clear points. First, not all unhappy events are punishment from God. Second, we all deserve unhappy events. We have tricked ourselves into believing that we deserve pleasant circumstances, and God is unfair or angry if we don’t get them. What we have missed is that we deserve Hell, and any pleasant event in life is an act of sheer grace on God’s part.

In fact, Jesus holds that unpleasant events can actually be God’s plan, "in order that the works of God might be displayed." From the perspective of our Lord Jesus, our dire circumstances are God’s opportunity to shine, to display His power, to show His strength. God told Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:9). We view our pain and suffering as things to escape. God views them as opportunities for Him to declare His glory.

Did God judge America? Perhaps. Or did He merely withdraw His hand of protection? Could be. But it is folly to try to explain God’s intent in the events of September 11 without a specific word from God. It is foolish to assume, for instance, that they are God’s judgments and chastening for specific sins. Instead, we need to recognize that every bad thing that happens is part of God’s curse upon humanity for our rebellion against Him in our father Adam. We dwell in a cursed world. So we should not jump to the conclusion that all bad things that happen are God’s acts of retribution for specific sinful actions. Jesus’ teaching in Luke 13:1-5 makes this clear. Every evil that befalls us beckons us to return to God Himself. We need to flee the anemic God offered by our therapeutic culture who loves everybody without discrimination. We need to flee the irate God of the other view that capriciously smites His enemies with wild abandon. The God we need is the God of Daniel, who sovereignly ordains calamity for good purposes. The God we need is the God of Jeremiah who removes tranquility while remaining faithful. The God we need is the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who may not meet our expectations of what we might like, but is certainly to be trusted to perform what is best. We need to see, with Joseph, that "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:20). This God is not a powerless god who cannot intervene, nor is He a "gentleman" who does not intervene. He is not subject to Man’s Free Will nor given to fits of temper. He is the LORD God Almighty (Rev. 4:8), the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14), the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:13). He is God of all, over all, through all, and in all (Eph. 4:5), for Whom and through Whom are all things (Heb. 2:10).

It is only in that sovereign, good, faithful God that we can find a peace that passes understanding in times of harsh crisis, and it is only that God that we can offer to the hurting world around us. Any other God is not God at all, but a caricature of the True God – an idol carved by human hands.

Finding Myself

Do a search on "finding myself" and you'll get millions of hits. It's a big question, it seems. "I need to find myself. How do I do that?" People are writing in for advice. "I want to leave my spouse of x years so I can find out who I am." There is an entire article in wikiHow about how to find yourself. Answers.yahoo.com has multiple questions/answers on "finding myself". It's a big, big thing.

The thing is ... I haven't got a clue what it is ... or why it is that you have to rip off the people around you to do it. Apparently you can't do this while connected to anyone else. It is, by all appearances, a totally self-absorbing, self-centered process. It would seem that "finding self" requires no interaction with others.

wikiHow has a nice little article on how to find yourself. It illustrates, to me, the total contradiction. For instance, Step 1: "Develop your own moral conduct and practice sticking to it. Remove vice from your life. Smoking, over-eating, and over-drinking will prevent you from functioning at your peak." Wait a minute ... if you are developing your own moral conduct, how can they dictate to you that smoking, over-eating, and over-drinking are wrong? You're developing your own moral conduct. Second, if it is your own moral conduct, in what sense is it "moral"? It's simpy what you decide is right or wrong, not actually "moral". Or how about Step 2? "Forget about what everyone else thinks!" How nice! Paul says, "As much as within you, be at peace with all men." In other words, "care about others and their feelings". But apparently finding yourself means not caring. Step 3 is "Find solitude." You cannot find yourself if you are not by yourself. I guess your "self" is traveling and you need to go where it is, because it is not where others are.

I have to tell you. I hate this stuff. We feed this stuff to each other in our culture. "Forget about everyone. You are the only important person. Shirk your duties. Violate your promises. Ignore your responsibilities. Do whatever it takes ... but find yourself." What if ignoring those around you, failing to be what you ought and surrendering integrity are all things that violate yourself? Then running from what you are won't help you find yourself, will it? Encouraging total immersion in self-centeredness is the wrong way to go. That kind of sin is never the right answer. Besides, I suspect that what you find there won't be pleasant. I, for one, recommend against it.

American Independence

I'm not writing this around July 4th because I'm not thinking about American independence from Britain. That's likely the first thing that comes to mind when I use that phrase: American independence. That use of the term "independence" would be defined as "not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction". I'm not talking about that version. What I want to look at is this one: "not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.; not relying on another or others for aid or support; rejecting others' aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others."

Oh, that "independence". Yes, we Americans value that oh so highly. We respect those who can stand on their own two feet. The "self-made man" is greatly admired. We love the theme song, "I Did It My Way". I have to ask, though ... is this a good thing?

We all know the old adage -- "No man is an island." Humans are gregarious beings, operating best in groups. We were designed for society rather than isolation. We are created to be connected. We work best both when we lean on others and are available to be leaned on. So how is it that we have so highly elevated "independence" as a virtue?

Scripture is quite clear. There is command after command about how we are to relate to one another. Love one another. Giving is better than receiving. Love your enemy. The Body of Christ is described as "made up of many parts" and not working well as independent beings. And so it goes. Nowhere in the Bible is there praise for the self-made man. Nowhere do we find "personal independence" as moral excellence. So how is it that we have so highly elevated that trait as a virtue?

As an example of the problem, look at families today. According to statistics, 50% of marriages end up in divorce. Interestingly, the highest divorce rates for first marriages is among the 20 to 24-year-old age group. Older than that, and the rates drop drastically. Why is that? Well, there are lots of theories. Childless couples have higher divorce rates than couples with children. Couples who live together before marriage have higher divorce rates. Despite Barna's argument that Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists and agnostics, it appears that statistically the lowest divorce rate is among Christians who are deeply involved with their church. It seems to me quite obvious that interdependence puts a family on stronger footing than independence. The family that is internally interdependent as well as closely tied to wider family and friends ends up with greater accountability and stronger support. In other words, independence in marriage is a bad thing.

We haven't always been this way. There was a time when the family was tied together. To this day in other cultures the wisdom of age is revered and the ties of family are nearly unbreakable. It isn't a virtue to be apart from the ties that bind. It's considered foolish, painful, and dangerous. So how did we get here?

When all of God's Word tells us how to relate to one another, and we find it best to "do it my way", you can pretty well tell where that voice is coming from. That wouldn't be God. So the message wouldn't be a good one. When God built us for interdependence, and the voices around us are praising independence, you can be pretty sure about the source of that voice.

Betrothal

There has been some discussion of late in a variety of places regarding how Christians should find a mate. The popular method, of course, is dating. Shop around until you find the right one ... and you're on your own. Others raise the flag. "Oh, no," they say, "it should be 'courtship'." The primary difference, as I can see, is that you're aiming for a mate rather than simply "shopping around". "That," they assure us, "is the more Christian way." And they'll likely point to Solomon's Song of Songs as biblical reason. Okay. Finally there is the third style. Now, we moderns all know that this third style is, well, not only backwards, but wrong. Those who favor this approach will likely object to my designation here, but it's essentially "arranged marriage". They prefer "betrothal". Whatever you call it, the parents determine who their children will marry. Now, we're all quite sure that this is not right. Even if I told you that it is the only biblical example offered, you're still going to be pretty sure that this isn't a Christian mandate. After all, the means of transportation in the Bible includes zero references to automobiles, but we're all quite confident that this doesn't make cars wrong. So likely we're just looking at the culture. I mean, there is no command: "Thou shalt obtain a wife in this manner." That sort of thing. So we can discard that one ... right?

Before we do, I'd like to look at exactly what "that one" looked like. Here is the process. First, the bridegroom's father selects a bride for his son. (It was very rare for the bridegroom to select his own bride.) The father then sends an emissary to negotiate the terms for the bride. The groom then pays the price for the bride. The deal is sealed with a cup of wine and the bride is baptized to symbolize a cleansing from her other world to be devoted only to her husband. Having completed the covenant, the bridegroom returns home to prepare for his bride. I don't say "bride to be" because during this period (called "betrothal"), the couple is considered to be husband and wife. There is a covenant between the two. The only way to break this covenant is to go through proper legal proceedings. They called it "divorce". The difference between "betrothal" and "marriage" in this setting was that the marriage was not yet consummated. So, the bridegroom is preparing for his bride so that she will have all that she needs. When all is ready (generally a year or two, but an unknown time), the bridegroom and his male entourage begin a torch light procession to his bride. The arrival of his party is heralded with a shout, warning the bride to prepare for his coming. She gathers her female entourage and they await his arrival. The wedding party then proceeds to the home of the groom's father where the wedding takes place. The bride is given new clothing, a wedding garment. The couple consummates their marriage, followed by seven days of wedding feast. They are now married.

Now, remember, when Paul commands husbands to love their wives, he carries out an interesting parallel. Commanding that the husband love his wife as he loves himself, he gives the reason based on the standard definition of marriage: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Eph 5:31). (You see the logic. If they are "one flesh", then loving his wife as he loves himself is only rational.) Then Paul throws in this comment: "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church" (Eph 5:32). There is no doubt that Paul sees a direct parallel between marriage and the relationship of Christ with the Church. So, let's look again at that series of events that we were ready to dismiss as barbaric.

I'm sure, if you look for yourself, you'll see some glaring images. There is the selection of the Bride by the Father (John 6:37) . There is the payment for the Bride by the Son. There is an emissary (the Holy Spirit). There is a new covenant which starts with a cup (1 Cor. 11:25) and baptism. The betrothal period is a time of purity for the Bride while the Groom goes to prepare a place for her (John 14:2-3). The Bride doesn't know when the Groom will return; she has to be prepared at all times. But He will return with a shout (1 Thess 4:16) and take her to His Father's house for the new garments, the consummation, and the wedding feast of the Lamb ...

In the Old Testament, Moses led his people through the desert. At one point they cried for water. God instructed him to strike the stone (Exo 17) and water came forth. Later, the people came back through the same spot and again cried for water (Num 20:1-18). This time God commanded him to speak to the rock. The imagery was clear. Christ, the Rock, needed to be struck to provide living water. Having been struck once, He only needed to be asked. But Moses lost his temper. He struck the rock. Water was provided to the people, but the destruction of the imagery cost Moses entry into the Promised Land. I can't say for sure, but I wonder about the wisdom on our part of destroying imagery that God intended because our culture is much smarter than theirs was. God went to great lengths to parallel the betrothal and marriage events to match His Son's coming and betrothal to His Bride. Are we really sure we want to be so smart that we dismiss God's idea as irrelevant or inferior in our day? I'm just wondering ...

(If nothing else, you have to admit that the imagery and parallels are fascinating.)

Inferiority Complex

For a good part of my life I've suffered from what we used to call "poor self-image" (which is actually different from "low self-esteem", but the difference isn't likely obvious). While most other people are quick to say, "It's not my fault", my first inclination has been "Yeah, that's probably something I did wrong." I used to joke, "I'm the reason for abortion. I just haven't told the Pope yet."

Now, of course, this condition of mine has always upset to my mother, but I'm beginning to wonder if this "problem" hasn't actually served me well. Think about this. When my wife and I have had the inevitable strong disagreement that every marriage encounters now and then, my first reaction has not been "Man, I wish she'd straighten out!" It has been, "What in the world is wrong with me??!!" And on those very few occasions when I've left the house to cool off, it was never because I was mad at her. I was disgusted with me. I can't actually remember a time that I was mad at my wife. I'm the one that is at fault. So you can imagine how much easier that makes it when we make up. Or how about in the arena of ideas? The easiest way to correct errors in life is to recognize them. It's a lot harder to correct problems when you don't know they're there. Now, my tendency, when I pick up an idea that is not "mainstream" (which, I confess, describes a whole lot of the ideas I hold), is to think first, "What makes you think you're right? Why would you be right when all those others are wrong?" So my approach in these cases has been, "Figure out what is wrong with my thinking and let's get it right!" Do you see the advantage that might bring? Instead of trying to defend faulty notions, I'm expecting my notions to be wrong. I've been surprised to find that some have been right and ready to change those that I expected to be wrong and decided they were. Perhaps you can begin to see that this isn't all bad.

There is a malady that many people suffer from that doesn't seem to be my problem. It's overconfidence. I have other problems in life, but that's not one of them. So you can be fairly sure that if I hold to something strongly, it's not likely because I came to it lightly. It's probably because I was convinced against my expectations.

Psalm 50

⁵ "Gather My godly ones to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice." ⁶ And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge. Selah. ⁷ "Hear, O My people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you; I am God, your God. ⁸ I do not reprove you for your sacrifices, And your burnt offerings are continually before Me. ⁹ I shall take no young bull out of your house Nor male goats out of your folds. ¹⁰ For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. ¹¹ I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. ¹² If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains. ¹³ Shall I eat the flesh of bulls Or drink the blood of male goats? ¹⁴ Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving And pay your vows to the Most High; ¹⁵ Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me."

¹⁶ But to the wicked God says, "What right have you to tell of My statutes And to take My covenant in your mouth? ¹⁷ For you hate discipline, And you cast My words behind you. ¹⁸ When you see a thief, you are pleased with him, And you associate with adulterers. ¹⁹ You let your mouth loose in evil And your tongue frames deceit. ²⁰ You sit and speak against your brother; You slander your own mother's son. ²¹ These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes. ²² Now consider this, you who forget God, Or I will tear you in pieces, and there will be none to deliver. ²³ He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; And to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God" (Psa 50:5-23).

We like it when things are clean. We like it when we get an "attaboy", when we sense God smiling on us, when we have a singular view. God, on the other hand, seems often to delight in "mixed" messages. Oh, no, not actually mixed, but not clean.

In this passage we get two themes. One is to the godly; the other is to the wicked. The demand of the passage is that you ask yourself, "Which am I?" It seems, on a church day, like this is a very good question to address.

God explains here that "My godly ones" are those "who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice." The "sacrifice" in view, of course, is the Old Testament sacrifice, but we know that the Old Testament sacrifice was a pre-Christ view of Christ's ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. The question, then, is have you made a covenant with God based on the sacrifice of Christ? If so, look at the message to God's people: "I will testify against you" (v 7). Wait, wait ... against? Yes. What is the accusation against God's people? It's not that we've ignored the sacrifice. It's that we think we're doing something for God. It is that we think we're adding to Him, that we're doing Him favors, that we're making things better for Him or meeting His needs. Instead God says, "If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is Mine, and all it contains" (v 12). What, instead, does God want of His people? Not that we do Him any favors, but that we be thankful (v 14), that we call upon Him in time of trouble and honor Him (v 15). Today, you know, is a good day to do that.

The next message is to "the wicked". What defines this group? Well, apparently it's not their words. They apparently proclaim that they agree with God's statutes and are in covenant with Him (v 16). God denies it. It's words only. While they claim to agree with God, they "hate discipline" and discard God's words (v 17). They speak evil and lies (v 19), especially against God's people (v 20). This group has nothing but God's wrath. They think that God's lack of response is approval (v 21), but it's actually only the chance to repent (v 22) before judgment occurs. In contrast, God's people are thankful and aim for godliness (v 23).

Which are you? Ask yourself. It could be that you're a child of God, one of the godly ones, in need of reproof. It could be that you're a wicked one, talking the good talk but not walking it, ignoring God's discipline and His word. It's not my job to name names; it's your job to evaluate yourself. Today is a good day for repentance, redirection, and thanksgiving. No, it's not a "clean" messsage, but it's necessary.

Just Because

Have you ever considered what we take for granted as a given may not be? There are so many things in our culture that we simply accept without analysis and say, "That's the way it should be." If someone comes along and questions it, they're likely loony because "That's the way it should be." But, truth be told, we never figured out why we think that's the way it should be. We just do because that's the way it is.

Take, for instance, retirement. Americans assume retirement. We all know that we will retire some day. Retirement looks like the ultimate leisure time. You're not expected to do anything anymore. That portion of your life is simply extended vacation. That's it. If it doesn't work out that way for you, it's a crying shame. We ought to do something about it. The government needs to intervene. It's a problem that needs to be fixed. Or is it? Why is "retirement" a given? Who ever said that we should able to retire? Our modern society assumes it; why did no previous society? In older times, those who were no longer able to work were still expected to contribute to society. They would share their wisdom, teach, encourage, mentor. Before the '60's when America decided that we couldn't trust people over 30, older generations were venerated. That's where you went to learn the secrets of life. Some today are suggesting that "retirement" is the perfect opportunity to thoroughly invest yourself in new ventures. When you're raising a family, you need to work hard at it. In your later years, though, you may have the wherewithal to go to the mission field or spend your time as a full time volunteer. You can really invest your life in caring and sharing rather than working and supporting. Where did we get the idea that retirement was a divine right?

Or how about "the honeymoon"? We all know that when you get married you're supposed to go away on a honeymoon. Oh, yeah, sure, some can't or don't, but we consider them either slighted or confused. The norm is the honeymoon, and any good marriage starts with it. But I can't say why. Think about this. Marriages usually run into trouble not from too much community, but from too much isolation. They don't share their problems with folks. They internalize them. So, starting with the honeymoon, we encourage couples who just left a very public ceremony to withdraw from public view and complete privately what they started publicly. Is that really the right thing to do? I'm not saying that couples shouldn't be alone, or shouldn't have a private time away. I'm just wondering what the rationale is to hurry off the very first night from the very thing that will more likely cement their relationship than any other -- community. I'm not even saying I'm right. I'm simply pointing out that no one is asking.

Here's one -- dating. It is a given that we "marry for love". Everyone knows that. Not even a question. (The fact that this is a relatively new concept on the historical scene doesn't cause us to bat an eye.) So the first thing we have to do is start ... shopping. You see, "love" is about "chemistry", and "chemistry" is the word we use because, frankly, we're completely unclear on what we're talking about. I mean, we don't know what it is; we just know it when we feel it. So let's take our young people in the midst of raging hormone storms and convoluted questions about their role in society (not quite children; not quite adults) and surround them with ambient pornography (at least) and toss out parental input and control and see how this turns out for the best. They'll find their "one true love" (??) and get married for life. Seriously, in what world does this make any sense? But, again, I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying that no one seems to be asking.

I am not actually saying that all of these things are wrong or that I'm right. I'm saying that these (and many more) are generally accepted as "good" simply because they are "present" in our society. There is a whole host of things that we just accept as "good and right" because they are, not because we've thought about it. We don't evaluate them. We don't examine them. We don't question them. We just ... assume. I wonder how much our assumptions have twisted our thinking to drag us away from biblical thinking and pushed our society away from optimum society. I really wonder.

Christianity and Government

My recent posts on why I think that the health care reform issue is not a Christian issue have caused a bit of confusion and certainly some understandable questions. The basic concept is this: "If we shouldn't demand of the government what God demanded of us, then we shouldn't demand anything of the government, right?" In other words, "What's the difference between not telling the government to care for the poor and sick like we are supposed to do, and telling them to outlaw murder (or 'gay marriage' or whatever the hot topic of the day is)?"

I have two approaches to the question. One is to explain the principles behind the two concepts to show their difference. There is, if you examine it, a fundamental difference between asking the government to care for the poor and asking the government to outlaw that which is evil. I actually alluded to the fundamental difference in my previous posts. I'll give you a moment to think about it. Times up! We are commanded to care for the poor and sick and widows and orphans ... that "social gospel" stuff. We are commanded to engage in marriage a particular way, not to steal, not to murder, a host of positive and negative commands. We are commanded. The commands are to people. Enter the government. If I petition the government to encourage others in my community (by passing laws) to maintain the moral values that we are told to maintain, then the government is simply encouraging the individual accountability that God does. The government is not doing for us what we are supposed to do. It is encouraging us to do what we ought. On the other hand, if I petition the government to do what I am commanded to do rather than doing it myself, I have now stepped out from under the commands of Christ and passed them on to my government. If the government takes care of the poor and sick and widows and orphans when I am supposed to, I am not being obedient. If the government does the good works that I'm supposed to do, God doesn't get the glory. On the other hand, if the government requires its people not to commit murder (as an example) as God requires, then the government isn't doing for people what they are supposed to do. Instead, it is encouraging them to do what they are supposed to do. Do you see the difference?

The second approach is to question the questioner. I suspect that the bottom line for questions of this sort are often a smoke screen. "I think you're wrong, so I'm going to obfuscate the situation with questionable logic to suggest you're wrong." (I love that word, "obfuscate". Look it up if you need to.) The aim of the question is to say, "In the case of health care reform and in the name of 'Christianity', we should call on the government to do what God required of His people." But it's a double standard. We should do this in the name of Christianity, but we should not limit marriage to male and female partners (as an example) in the name of Christianity. Christianity has no part in that. As I pointed out before, for some reason this issue (health care reform) is a valid, Christian issue that should be addressed as such to the government, but we'd better keep our Christian values to ourselves when it comes to moral values like abortion, "same-sex marriage", and the like. In other words, the blade doesn't cut both ways in these questions. We should ask the government to involve itself in health care reform because of our Christian values, but we should not ask the government to involve itself in other moral issues because of our Christian values. Thus, I'm sensing "smoke screen".

Christians should encourage the government to hold us accountable to God's standards. Most laws are based on morality, and Christian morality is right. Eliminate "Christian morality" as a basis and all we're left with is the morality of personal preference or the morality of the majority. However, asking the government to replace our obedience to God's standards by doing it themselves is not the same thing. I hope you can see the difference.

(As a postscript, because I've heard this too many times and won't write an entire blog about it, I need to comment on an underlying belief of so many. "We can either fix this problem with Obama's reform now or we can do nothing and go on as it is." This is called a false dilemma. It is possible to address issues in health care without agreeing with the president's plan and without ignoring the problem. Why is it that no one is looking in that direction?)

Government and Marriage

Maybe you've heard this before. I've heard it with reasonable regularity in the debate over "same-sex marriage". "Why is marriage a matter for the government? The government should not be regulating marriage. It should be a matter for churches." The thinking is that marriage is a "spiritual thing" and, as such, government should have nothing to say about it.

I would hope that my normally intelligent readers would see immediately the problem with this type of thinking. It is two-fold. First, the government does have a vested interest in marriage. One aspect has to do with protecting privacy, private property, that sort of thing. Recognizing that married couples fall in a different category than simple friends or even close friends, married couples need to have a different legal standing. Another has to do with protecting society in general. Marriage is the best-case scenario for children. Children are the continuation of society. Therefore, it is a good idea for the government to regulate marriage. But the other side -- the second notion -- frankly makes zero sense. If marriage is a "spiritual matter" with no ties to government ... if marriage ought to be a church (whatever church you care to name) thing rather than a government issue, then what do you do with the non-churched? You would have to conclude, for instance, that two atheists wishing to marry wouldn't be allowed to do so because they deny "spiritual matters" generally and the "church" specifically. That makes no sense. Further, marriage would lose all definition because churches have a broad range of definitions. The Church of Love and Sex (not the actual name, but I've read about several of these) would encourage everyone to marry everyone. The Mormon church might be amenable to polygamy. There are churches that do not recognize same-sex relationships as "marriage" and those that do. So by leaving it without an overarching definition, it acquires no definition ... and becomes meaningless.

You may not wish to comment to someone the next time they suggest this approach of "leave government out of it; it's a church thing." But you should take note in your own mind, "That makes no sense." There may be sticky questions involved and we may disagree on the answers, but that one is not one of them. That one makes no sense.

Election and Assurance

There is often discussion about the topic of election. One thing that cannot be denied is that election is biblical. You may disagree about how it takes place or what it means, but that there is "the elect" is not a valid question. There is "the chosen". There has been since the beginning of time. Noah was chosen. Abraham was chosen. Israel was God's chosen people. And so it goes on through the New Testament.

Jesus said, "Many are called but few are chosen." He told His disciples, "You didn't choose Me, but I chose you." Now, think about that for a moment. Did they choose Him? It wouldn't be completely accurate to say that they didn't. He said, "Follow Me" and they chose to do so. So while Jesus clearly made the first choice, election doesn't eliminate choice.

One thing I've heard over and over is, "Well, if you believe in election, you can never really be sure if you're saved, can you? You will always wonder if you are one of the elect." It might surprise these people to know that Scripture addresses this very question.

² Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; ³ seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. ⁴ For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. ⁵ Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, ⁶ and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, ⁷ and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. ⁸ For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. ¹⁰ Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; ¹¹ for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you (2 Peter 1:2-11).

I had to include the whole context because it is so clear. The premise: "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness."

In verse 5 Peter starts with "Now for this very reason." What reason? Because His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness. What, then, does Peter say we should do? "In your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love." "Pharisee!" some might cry. Peter is talking about being diligent to do these things. Some call it "works" and deny it completely. Peter doesn't. Instead he says, "If these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful." The image, then, starts at "faith" and spirals upward in a series of character qualities that "are increasing". In other words, it doesn't stop.

Why would someone label Peter a Pharisee? Because there are those who argue that looking at a person's life is the wrong place to look. They say, "You should only ask if they believe. What they do is not an indicator." Peter says, "He who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted." And then Peter answers the question at hand. Is it possible, if election is a fact, to know that you're saved? Peter assures his readers ("those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours") that in diligently adding to their godly character they can "make certain about His calling and choosing you."

Do you want to know if you are one of the elect? Peter says it's simple. If you are diligent, if you are making use of the power of Christ which has "granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness", if you are adding to faith in the form of godly character, then you can be certain of His calling and choosing of you. It doesn't have to be a constant question. The Bible offers certainty ... despite the certainty of the skeptic that you cannot know. God, it seems, disagrees.

The Bad Seed

Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ, is making headlines, at least here in the Valley of the Sun, because he's preaching sermons on "Why I hate Barack Obama". What?? He is telling his congregation that he is praying for Obama's death. He doesn't want the president assassinated. That would make him a martyr. No, he's praying that the president dies of brain cancer or something. (Unrelated, but related, the guy who stood outside with an AR-15 when the president was visiting Phoenix attends Anderson's church.)

The "good pastor" assured his congregation that it's a biblical position to take. Look at David's imprecatory psalms. He prays for bad things to happen to his enemies. That's all the pastor is doing. So ... there it is! It's a biblical position!

I'm sorry, pastor, but I don't follow. I don't see any commands that tell believers "pray for the death of those you disagree with." Not finding it anywhere. I do find specific commands to "love your enemy". Paul specifically commands "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (1 Tim 2:1-3). (Now, whatever you think of our president, there is no doubt that the government under which Paul found himself was more ungodly than ours.) I'm sorry, pastor, but it makes no sense.

When Osama Bin Laden and his folk ordered (and continue to order) attacks on "infidels", Muslims are quick to respond, "Well, that's them; that's not us." What they don't say is "They're wrong." When "fundamentalist" (their word, not mine) Mormons defy the law and engage in polygamy, Mormons are happy to say, "That's them; that's not us", but I don't hear "They're wrong." Every group out there -- political, religious, or otherwise -- will get its share of "bad representatives". Someone is going to do something that casts a bad light on whatever belief system you're in. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Pastor Steven Anderson is preaching a lie. I will not keep silent about it. I won't say, "That's him; that's not me." He's wrong. He is not representing genuine Christian teaching. I want there to be no doubt. Christians are commanded to pray for government, not against it. He's wrong.