The Devil's Advocate

The phrase, "playing the devil's advocate", comes from a task in Roman Catholic polity. When someone was/is nominated for sainthood, a team of people from the Church would go out and gather evidence that so-and-so deserved to be a saint. Another, however, was assigned the task of "digging up dirt", so to speak. This special office served as a canonical lawyer -- the concept of the "advocate". This one -- the "devil's advocate" -- had the job of explaining why the nominee should not be sainted. He served as a check and balance against falsely declaring someone a saint who didn't deserve the position. Of course, that's a Catholic thing. We who are not Catholic believe with Scripture that all believers are saints. But I'm interested here in the concept of a lawyer for the devil. I present to you, then, a Cease and Desist order from the Devil's Advocate.
________

Dear Christians:

This law firm represents Satan. If you are represented by legal counsel, you might think of directing this letter to your attorney immediately and have your attorney notify us of such representation. Don’t bother.

You are hereby directed to cease and desist all defamation of Satan’s character, reputation, and plans.

Satan is a respected entity in the community. He has spent years serving the community in his campaign against religion and morality – well, against God – and building a positive reputation. Satan is aware that you continue to engage in spreading destructive and defamatory rumors about him.

Your defamatory statements involved references to the Bible as truth and then leaping to the conclusions like "because the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin, it's a sin". You have suggested that he is "the god of this world" and that he has blinded people. You have made him out to be the "father of lies" and "the prince of the power of the air", and not in a good way. You have portrayed him as seeking to destroy God's work and His people. Surely you can see that none of this is complimentary regardless of whether or not it's true. And then you suggest that he was beaten at the Cross and defeated at the Resurrection? Obviously these statements demean and degrade our client.

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease and desist your defamation of Satan and provide us with prompt assurance within ten (10) days that you will cease and desist from further defamation of Satan’s character and reputation.

If you do not comply with this cease and desist demand within this time period, Satan, as a roaring lion, is entitled to seek damages and equitable relief for your defamation. In the event you fail to meet this demand, please be advised that Satan has asked us to communicate to you that he will pursue all available remedies, including seeking damages, swaying public opinion, and additional co-opting of your government and societal laws to more closely align with his schemes. Your liability and exposure under such action could be considerable.

Before taking these steps, however, my client wished to give you one opportunity to discontinue your disruptive conduct by complying with this demand within ten (10) days. You have been warned.

I recommend that you do not consult with an attorney regarding this matter. Please contact me directly or, in your own best interest, stop making claims regarding biblical truth.

Sincerely,

The Devil’s Advocate
Legal Counsel for Satan

If God is like that ...

It is not uncommon to hear people, believers and unbelievers, say something like "If God is like that, I want nothing to do with Him." Think about that for a moment. The position is remarkable.

It requires several things to hold that position. It requires the ability to judge God. It requires a moral superiority over God. It requires that God submit to my standards.

And, yet, here we are. I would venture to guess that a large number of people, even classifying themselves as "Christian", deny the biblical explanations of God and His character because "If God is like that, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God chooses whom He will save, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God creates light and calamity, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God willingly allows people to go to Hell, I want nothing to do with Him." "If God ordered the deaths of the Amorites, I want nothing to do with Him." And on and on.

In Defense and Explanation of All the Articles, pg. 81 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 32, Luther said, "Even Lucifer was not guilty of so great a sacrilege in heaven, for he only presumed to be God’s equal." Not us. Some presume to be His superior. As long as He aligns with our allowed pattern of what God ought to be and what our version of "good" is, they will allow Him. I guess that makes some of us more demonic than the demons.

Hate Crimes

With the Trayvon Martin case blaring almost daily on the front page news, we're all well aware of the problem of hate crimes. Most of America is quite certain that George Zimmerman coldly cut down this fine young man in the prime of youth simply because of racial hatred.

And you can see why. According to the FBI, a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses of hate crimes were reported in 2006 alone. Of the 7,330 known offenders, 58.6% were white and 20.6% were black. Some 9,652 victims were identified, with 52% of them targeted because of race. Something like 19% of them were because of sexual orientation. Those are big numbers.

Of course, some hate crimes go unnoticed. The Gay and Lesbian community assures us that many of the hate crimes they experience go unreported. Others are reported, but go unnoticed. Last month, for instance, seven white people were beaten by mobs of black men in Grand Rapids, MI. While Zimmerman is assumed to have shot Martin based on race, these mobs left no doubt. They told one of their victims, "This is what you deserve you white piece of ...". It's a hate crime that has gone unnoticed. While the unjustice (as opposed to "injustice" because so far justice has not been served) of the Trayvon Martin case has the nation's attention, the murder of Daniel Adkins has gone unnoticed. He was an unarmed hispanic man walking his dog and was shot to death by a black man because he felt threatened. No uproar there.

But perhaps the biggest hate crime of all is going by silently. No one appears to notice. No one appears to care. If someone does raise their hand -- "Um, excuse me ... is anyone aware of this?" -- they are ridiculed as reactionary and over-zealous. What hate crimes are these? According to Massimo Introvigne, a human rights representative for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Christian dies every 5 minutes for their faith. According to Assist News, more Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than were martyred in the total history of Christianity. You must understand. In 2000 years of Christendom, an estimated 70 million Christians died for their faith. Some 45.5 million of those died in the 20th century.

Hate crimes are deplorable. Truly awful. Violence, cruelty, killing because of racial prejudice or even sexual preference. (Wikipedia reports that in 2004 2% of hate crimes were against heterosexuals, so it happens to all types.) We're all agreed (well, almost all -- someone is doing these crimes) that hate crimes are horrendous. Apparently, though, while all hate crimes are created evil, but some are more evil than others. Given the silence of the lambs (because people tend to be sheep) on the deaths (let alone violence and cruelty) of Christians, it would appear that this kind of hate crime is much more acceptable in the world than others. In some places it is endorsed. In some places it is the law. And while it's not as big in America today, it looks, based on the talk, like some would like it to be. We are opposed to hate ... as long as it's not those we hate.

The Offense of Christianity

I recently wrote about the offense of Christianity. The offense is 1) that we claim exclusivity (which nearly all religions claim and which is the claim of Christ ... you know, the One we claim to follow) and mostly 2) the Cross. Christianity according to Scripture will be an offense to unbelievers simply because Christ died for our sins and that is unacceptable.

The truth is that there are other reasons that Christianity is considered offensive. I'm sure you've heard quite often how Christianity brought about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts, all sorts of evil. All total, deaths "in the name of Christ" in history could add up to some 500,000. The New Atheists like Sam Harris think that religion in general and Christianity in particular ought to be eliminated because religions are dangerous. Add to that the rude, argumentative folk who argue in the name of Christ, the "Westboro Baptist" types who call themselves devout Christians while passing off hate as Christianity, the narrow-minded and bigoted people who in the name of Christ perpetrate cruelty and crimes. An easy example would be Joseph Kony, the head of the "Lord's Resistance Army" in the news lately, claiming to be "fundamentalist Christians". Really bad press. It looks bad for Christianity.

There are responses to these problems, but that's not where I'm going here ... not yet. I wanted to examine the alternatives. Let's take, for instance, Islam. One only has to say "9/11" to recognize that Islam has violent adherents. The truth about the Crusades is that during the Middle Ages Islam was on the warpath conquering all sorts of territory. The Church sent troops in to defend people who were under attack. In the 7th and 8th centuries Islam prosecuted a military-based expansion that spread from Persia through North Africa and into Spain, Crete, and even Italy. Islam calls itself the religion of peace, but its history has been a violent one, and no one can doubt that it remains so in the most Islamic areas^*. If they aren't at war, they are comfortable with executing unbelievers. Today, Christianity is the largest religion with 2.1 billion adherents followed by Islam with 1.5 billion followers. It looks like the #2 choice is not a peaceful solution.

According to adherents.com, the #3 option is "secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist" with 1.1 billion in that camp. How does that group do in the question of violence? Well, since they lack organization, it's not too easy to pinpoint. However, we can examine how the adherents of atheism have done when in power. The fundamental premise of 20th century Communism was atheism. It was the official "religion" of China and the Soviet Union. Lacking any sort of "made in the image of God" valuation of human life, estimates are that Stalin alone exterminated from 20 to 65 million Russians. Mao Tse Tung took Communism to China. Various experts provide various numbers, but the conservative guess as to how many this atheist leader terminated round out about 40 million.

Another leader well known for mass murder was Adolph Hitler. Some have tried to tie his beliefs to Christianity, but history suggests that Naziism rather than religion was his motivating factor. While he referenced Christianity at times, he denied it as well. A song from the Hitler youth said, "We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel; Away with incense and Holy Water; The Church can go hang for all we care; The Swastika brings salvation on Earth." This "religion" of racism brought about the deaths of 6 million Jews on top of the millions who died in his world conquest.

Here's the question I want to ask. Given all this death, which is consistent and which is not? Christians, presented with the embarrassments of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, and all that are appalled. It takes a very brief look into the Christian Instruction Manual, the Bible, to see that all of that is in violation of Christianity. Nothing in Scripture would support those things. They were certainly done in the name of Christianity, but they violate Christianity. On the other hand, we have Islam whose Holy Book demands death to infidels and approves conquest by sword. Atheism and its pals, lacking any religious demand of "made in the image of God" or rights endowed by a Creator, are perfectly consistent in destroying humans who get in the way of their plans and endeavors. And for a worldview that is based on "the perfect race", killing the "imperfect" is simply "survival of the fittest".

The point? Christianity is offensive for what it teaches. Given. We can't avoid it. Christianity is also offensive for what it doesn't teach, for people who claim the name of Christ and violate His commands. That's not our call. We are opposed to that crowd. We agree that the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, all that was wrong. I would submit, though, that consistent Christianity on its face as defined by the Bible is not the dangerous religion that those who are offended claim it to be. On the other hand, the next best alternatives are indeed dangerous in their practice and consistent in their killing. Christianity has killed its hundred thousands, but the alternatives have killed its hundred millions. I think we should think twice about the alternatives before we toss Christianity out on the offensive pile.
________
^* This, of course, will be denied in today's "Let's just talk nice about Islam" world. Funny how it's okay to denigrate Christianity at the drop of a hat, but Islam shouldn't be examined or questioned at all. But in truth there are over 109 verses in Islam's holy book that are open-ended demands to kill infidels. These commands were acted on by Muhammad himself as well as centuries of followers including today. By "open-ended" I mean that they are not, like the Old Testament examples of the same, contained in historical context. God told Israel to slay the Amorites, as an example. One time event. Not an ongoing command. Closed. The commands in the Quran are open-ended and ongoing. Those who deny them in Islam today do so by the same means that "Christians" today deny the clear commands of the Bible, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and the like. For a "Christian" to deny the Atonement requires the same abrogation of basic instructions as a Muslim who denies the calls for death to infidels from the Quran. Both types exist. Both require denying basics.

The Cost of Compromise

Very often when the question of "same-sex marriage" is debated the popular challenge thrown at those who wish to retain marriage for what it has always meant will be "What difference would it make to you if they changed the definition?" Oh, to be fair, they rarely openly admit that they're changing the definition. They are, but usually it's more like "What difference would it make to you if gay people got married?" And, of course, it's considered the "kill shot", the question that ends the argument. From their perspective, it would make no difference to marriages defined as "man and woman", "husband and wife", if they changed to "man and man" or "woman and woman".

A big part of the reason that this seems to be the case (it isn't; it just seems to be) is, in fact, the erosion of gender roles entirely. It is the onslaught of radical feminism that has, in its efforts to bring about "gender equality", sought to dismantle any perception of gender differences. Oh, sure, there are the obvious physical differences, but inside we're all the same. There is no "female", no "male", no gender-based roles. We even get this in Christendom today with the egalitarian movement. "Doesn't the Bible say that in Christ there is no male or female?"

So, what difference will it make to me if society redefines "marriage"? First, I need to point out that it already has. Marriage was "for life" and "for offspring". Sure, sure, some couples couldn't have kids. A few could but wouldn't because of a medical danger or something. But the general rule of thumb was that marriage was for life and procreation was the norm. If you couldn't have kids, that was a sad thing, not a good thing. Before the push of a homosexual agenda, those shifts already occurred. Now we get this.

It's no secret that the past few decades have transformed traditional gender relationships. Both men and women are operating by a whole new set of rules. Instead of celebrating Mother's Day or Father's Day, some schools are celebrating Parent's Day to accommodate kids from the wide diversity of families today.

I'd like to point out to my detractors who assure me that no one is suggesting the erasure of gender differences that this is exactly what this is saying. "Traditional gender relationships" are being "transformed". Genders operate "by a whole new set of rules." "'Mother' and 'father' are often archaic concepts." The author of the article, Dr. Peggy Drexler, admits that "mother" and "father" generally indicate "egg donor" and "sperm donor" (like that is the primary understanding of gender-related parental roles), but she goes on to say, "The rise of donor insemination and surrogate pregnancies open debate even on that." Single parents, single parents by choice, and now the coup de grace of homosexual parents are bringing an end to the concepts of "father" and "mother". "Mothers' Day" and "Fathers' Day" are going by the wayside and we'll be left with "Parents' Day" because that will be the only acceptable term.

According to Dr. Drexler, we're looking at a complete melding of "gender roles". Her understanding of such roles are apparently limited to laundry, cooking, and earning a living. But even she admits that "Certainly, there are still things that fathers undertake more than mothers, such as teaching a child to ride a bike. Some things often seem to fall more to mothers, such as arranging childcare." You see, hidden under the veneer of cold clinical examination the truth still seeps out. Can a single mother raise a well-functioning child? Of course. That's not the question. Is it possible for a homosexual couple to parent a kid? Silly question. That's not the point. The question is "What is best?" and the reality remains that a loving mother and loving father in a loving marriage provide the best platform for child-rearing. Anything else, while perhaps tolerable, is less. But as society moves away from the longstanding traditional definition of marriage to this new form and embraces a "gender equality" that is defined as "gender equivalence" and generally dismisses any sort of biblical concepts of marriage, parenting, or child-rearing^*, I guarantee that it will have a large and negative impact on our world, including "heterosexuals", "Christians", and, yes, even "homosexuals". It will make a difference, and the difference will not be positive.

_________
^* As an example, while Scripture talks plainly and openly about corporal punishment as a suitable (in fact, recommended) means of training a child, we've moved so far from the concept that a news report the other day was offering "ways you can scam your children to do what you want." Instead of "training up a child in the way he should go", we've degenerated into begging, pleading, and tricking kids. This cannot end well.

Political Deists

Well, as anyone who has any news source at all knows by now, Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, leaving only (for all intents and purposes) Mitt Romney. Romney has run a phenomenal (expensive) campaign that carefully explained how all genuine conservative candidates are bad while skillfully accentuating his out-of-touch-rich-guy status. While he has been adamant that he is a real conservative, we don't really know where he is. Both the Democrats and the Republicans know that Romney is good at a few things. He knows how to outspend his opponents. And he is a world-class flip-flopper.

Back in February I wrote about my dilemma: How do I vote when there is no good vote? Over at Blog & Mablog Doug Wilson has started an uproar among conservatives by saying that he cannot vote for Romney, which spawned more commentary on more objections. "What?!" the cry will be, "Do you want the horrors of Obama to stay in office???!!!" Dr. Mattson called it Pragmatic Misanthropy and warned about "real suffering. Real economic stagnation and/or collapse. Real houses under water. Real 401(k) accounts depleted. Real babies aborted. Real medical death panels. Real Supreme Court appointments. Real Iranian nukes. Real race and class divisions and conflict." You see, if we don't vote for the wavering reed, Mitt Romney, we are voting for ... what ... the end of the world? At least as we know it.

I'm not here to smooth out the brouhaha over whether to vote for Mitt Romney as the only right and practical thing to do in the face of the Axis of Evil headed by Barack Obama or whether to vote (or refuse to vote) on principle even if it necessarily rejects Romney and elects Obama. Like I said before, I'm asking that question myself. But what I can tell you is that most Americans are political atheists and most Christians appear to be political deists. And I don't mean that in a good way.

Look, we need to examine the issues carefully. We need to vote and we need to vote our consciences. We need to decide if the general principle of not voting for someone with whom you heartily disagree (or, at least, whom you find wholly untrustworthy) is a larger principle than voting out the offensive current administration. You need to consider whether there will be new appointments to the Supreme Court and whether or not those would make a difference (because, I'm telling you, it seems as if more often than not they don't). You need to decide if the current trend against Christianity in America is something you can tolerate or if you think that voting against the current president might change that. You have to weigh the issues, perform your finest prognostications, consider as many angles as you can. I'm not saying that I'm telling you how to vote here because I'm not.

What I am telling you (as I write basically to genuine Christians) is that no matter what occurs in Washington D.C., God is on the throne. God will do with America what He will do with America. Voting in a Rick Perry or a Michelle Bachmann would not stop God from erasing America if that's what He wants to do, and another 4 years of Barack Obama cannot eliminate the country if God doesn't want it to. Maybe God wants to take the country to its bottom rung on the ladder to light the fires under our feet and make us repent back up. Maybe God has decided enough is enough and will end it all for the United States. You know, maybe our iniquity is complete. Could be, you know, with all the hard work we've been putting into it. Practice, practice, practice. But no matter who is in the White House, God is on the throne. "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1).

By all means pray about it. Absolutely spend time examining issues, considering alternatives, examining your heart, testing your principles. By all means vote. But don't do it because you're pretty sure that it would have gone better if only you had voted right and, oh, too bad, the country went in a direction that God never intended. Do it because there is no authority except from God. Do it because you are a follower of Christ and want to do what will bring Him the most glory. Do it because you think it is right, not because you are a believer in a God who isn't there when it comes to American politics. That God doesn't exist.

Remember

The Church has several rites it performs. The typical term is "sacraments". They're things we do to memorialize and set apart some events. There are things like baptism and marriage. One of these is the "Eucharist", the "Lord's Supper", "Communion". Another -- although you won't ever see this one listed in any list of sacraments -- is "the Lord's Day".

These last two are different than others. We are to be baptized once and married once. That's it. But Communion and the gathering on the Lord's Day are ongoing. Of the Lord's Supper Jesus said "As often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me." It is a repeated reminder, not a single event. And we gather on the first day of the week as part of a apostolic tradition as a repeated reminder, not a single event.

Of course, it would seem wise, then, to remember what we are trying to remember. What do these two reminders point to? The first is Christ's death. Communion reminds us of His body, broken for us, and His blood, shed for us. It is a reminder of the "new covenant" in which that Christ died for our sins. It is a reminder of the cost of our sin and the love of the Lord and the price He paid to redeem us. It is a reminder that he who is forgiven little loves little, and the price He paid for us was not little. A constant reminder.

And we gather on the first day of the week because it is the day that our Lord completed the task of saving us. He rose again on the first day of the week. He is alive. His Resurrection declares to us His victory over sin and death, the victory that He imparts to us. It declares the certainty that nothing, not even the grave, can stop Him from saving us and bringing us to be with Him. It is the beginning of the great "Hallelujah!" because it is the absolute confirmation that our Lord God Omnipotent reigns.

Baptism is a good thing, an essential thing. It demonstrates our joining with Christ in His death and resurrection. It speaks to us of dying to sin and rising cleansed, of no longer being a slave to sin, but a slave to righteousness. That's good. And marriage sets apart that relationship of two-become-one, that mysterious union that is the image of the union of Christ and the Church. Important things to remember. But the two things we as Christians want and need to be repeatedly reminded of are the death and the resurrection of our Savior. All good things hinge on those two events. We assure people that we will never forget the victims of 9/11. I'm pretty sure we will. But the death and resurrection of Christ are things that we must never forget. So let's not allow the repeated reminders to become stale and cause us to forget what they are supposed to make us remember. Christ died for us, and He's alive!

First World Problems

Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "first world problems". It references some of the inane complaints that people (like us) have that completely miss the point of how good we have it. "My Kindle battery is dead. How will I read tonight?" "My parents bought me a used car." "My Big Gulp went flat before I could finish it." "My teacher marked me off on my paper because my spellchecker didn't catch that I misspelled 'your' in that sentence." That's the idea. Between our technology and our riches (especially compared to the rest of the world), we're developing our own set of problems, and some of them are nonsensical.

Arizona lawmakers are trying to pass a bill that would make it illegal to kill a child over the age of 20 weeks. Oh, sorry, abort a fetus after 20 weeks. Same thing. The pro-abortion crowd is in an uproar. Apparently the bill states that the 20 weeks starts from the end of the last period the pregnant woman had. "Wait!" they protest. "That takes something like 2 weeks off the counter. That means that women only have 18 weeks to kill their baby legally! That's not fair!" First world problems.

While forensics tell us that the gender resides in the genes and the bones of a victim can tell us the sex of the victim and such, our society has determined that the identity of the gender is determined by how the person feels about himself or herself. If I have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome (genetically a male) but feel like I should have female body parts, I can have myself modified and be declared a female. Thus, the best looking Miss Universe contestant from Canada is a man. First world problems.

Artificial insemination is a good thing. We've figured out how to help women with infertile husbands (or single women who would like to forego male relationships or ...) to have a baby. We just need a literal sperm donor. Easy. So now a British scientist has been donating so much sperm at his own fertility clinic that he is estimated to have fathered 600 children. The question becomes "Who is my father?" because there are certainly chances (since the "good doctor" only allowed his close circle of friends to participate in his donations) that one of the 600 children might wish to marry another of the 600 children and we would have accidental incest. First world problems.

Perhaps you've seen the commercials for the car where the kids are trying to help out their poor benighted parents while the parents are out living life. One of them is a daughter who tried to set up her parents' social networking. Her poor parents ... they only have a dozen friends on their account while she sits at home with over 600 friends. How sad for them. Of course, they aren't sitting at home; they're out with friends. As it turns out our modern technology is making us lonely according to studies. While we live in the most connected society ever with ever-present Internet, immediate texting and tweeting, ubiquitous phones, and the most comprehensive social networking ever imagined, it turns out that we're lonely and getting lonelier. While virtual communication expands our "contact list", face-to-face avoidance promotes anonymity. Now we have room for online bullying, males pretending to be females pretending to be interested in males pretending to be single, easy-access pornography in the privacy of your own room, and a host of other immoral activities that promote loneliness rather than community. No facial expressions, no body language, no verbal cues, and while we think we're just a keystroke away, we feel like we're not on the same planet. Connected without connection. First world problems.

Now, I'm quite sure that we're (almost) all happy about technology and where we're going. Life is improving. We're better off. I mean, sure, we don't have our personal rocket packs yet and we're still waiting for the holographic phone calls and all, but life is getting better and better for us. We'll keep telling ourselves that. Don't examine it. Don't think about it. Don't be grateful for what we do have. Don't consider the possibility that some progress is not progress. Don't even think about the time lost in front of the computer or the television or the distance created between friends simply by eliminating real tete-a-tete conversations or the dangers of sitting forever in front of a screen instead of moving around (called "exercise"). I would encourage you to talk to your neighbors about it, but I suspect some of us have never met our neighbors. First world problems.

Introductions

All of Paul's epistles have introductions. You know, that's what letters do. "Dear Bob ..." Introductions. My tendency is to gloss over the introductions. "From Paul to Rome" ... blah, blah, blah. Got it. Let's get to the good stuff. That tendency, however, is a mistake. Look, for a moment, at the introduction to Paul's epistle to the Church at Rome. It is packed full of really important stuff.

¹ Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, ² which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, ³ concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh ⁴ and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ⁵ through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His name among all the nations, ⁶ including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, ⁷ to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

There, that seems simple enough, right? It's from Paul. Yeah, we knew that. He is a servant of Christ, an apostle. Yeah, we got that. It was written to "all those in Rome" who are "called to be saints". Yeah, yeah, now can we move on? No! Because I just skipped some really big stuff!

Paul was "set apart for the gospel of God". (Notice, by the way, that it is "the gospel of God". Keeping that fact in mind will cause problems for the Pauline Dispensationalists that suggest that Jesus's Gospel was different than Paul's Gospel.) Since "the gospel of God" is in view, what is that gospel?

"Gospel" means "good news" and there is all sorts of "good news" available. It may be good news that you got a promotion or good news that the lump turned out to be benign or good news that you received unexpected money. But Paul is not talking here about just any "gospel", just any "good news". This is "the gospel of God". It is the core of Scripture, the purpose of Christianity, the point. What does Paul say about that gospel? Let's look.

1. The gospel was promised beforehand (v 2). The prophets and the Scriptures (to Paul, that's our Old Testament), these speak of the gospel of God.

2. The gospel is about His Son (v 3). God's gospel is not "the social gospel". As I said, there are lots of gospels -- "good news". The one about which God is primarily concerned is not justice for the oppressed, feeding the poor, or health care for all. It is "concerning His Son". The gospel of God is first and foremost about Christ. Now, "other gospels" is just one mistake that is often made. The other is that the gospel is about us. While it certainly affects us, it is not about us. That error is an error of pride. The gospel is "concerning His Son", not "the people of God" or anything like it. Christ is the central point of the gospel, not helping others or even our salvation.

3. Key to the gospel of God is the physical and historical nature of Christ. He was "descended from David" (v 3). He was "according to the flesh" (v 3). Any "metaphorical" or "spiritual" reality of Christ is missing the point. At the first point of contact God's gospel is about the physical and historical reality of Christ.

4. The Trinity is key to the gospel of God. Notice in the unfolding of this introduction to this epistle is the entire three-in-one Godhead. The Father promises and sends. The Son becomes flesh and dies and is resurrected. The Holy Spirit declares to all the deity and Lordship of Christ. Dismantling any part of that three dismantles the gospel of God. Many suggest that the Trinity is not essential to Christianity. If the gospel is essential to Christianity, then the Trinity is fundamental to the gospel.

5. The "proof" of the gospel of God is the Resurrection (v 4). Many voices today will try to tell us that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. "Preachers in good standing" argue that Jesus didn't even exist, let alone rise from the dead. Islam considers Jesus a great prophet, but they assure us He never rose from the dead because He never died. But biblically the resurrection of Christ, attested to by the eyewitness of the disciples, by Paul, and by "more than 500 brothers at one time" (1 Cor 15:6), is the key proof of the gospel of God. No resurrection, no gospel. No gospel, no hope.

6. The gospel of God includes the Lordship of Christ (v 4). There have been books written and arguments made for and against "Lordship salvation". Say what you will, but Paul holds that God's gospel entails "Jesus Christ our Lord". On one hand, the Lordship of Christ is part of the good news of God. On the other hand, stripping that away eliminates that good news.

7. The gospel of God supplies through the Lord Jesus Christ grace, obedience, and sainthood. We get the grace part. We're all good with that. But the gospel of God includes in its primary components the gift of obedience that faith produces (Phil 2:13) and a declaration of holiness for all who are elect. Roman Catholic sainthood is a specialized structure that is reserved for the elite. Biblical sainthood is the declared righteousness of all who are in Christ. That is basic to God's gospel.

You see, hidden in this nice little introduction to the letter to the Romans is a huge explanation of the gospel of God. It was not an after thought, but predetermined. It is absolutely about God's Son, not about some "social gospel" or what Paul calls "a different gospel" (Gal 1:6-9). God's Son came in the flesh at a historical moment, not some spiritual event or mythical story. The gospel is about the Trinity, the work of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it is proven by the Resurrection, a fundamental event without which the gospel of God is no gospel. The point of God's gospel is Christ and Him as Lord. The outcome of God's gospel is His gift of grace, obedience, and holiness. In all of this, Christ is central. This is the gospel of God about which Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom 1:16). Let's not get the point (Christ) mixed up with the result (salvation). Let's not get the cause (the Godhead) confused with the result (obedience). Let's not run off with "a different gospel". The Bible doesn't say nice things about that gospel.

High Places

I've been reading in the books of Kings (1 and 2). There is a general consensus in there. You know the story. David was king of Israel and then his son, Solomon, became king. Solomon was wise and made the Temple. But Solomon was foolish and got entangled with pagan women and, consequently, pagan worship. So God split Israel. Ten tribes went one way and two another. The northern group was called Israel and the southern group was called Judah. I haven't found a single king of Israel that was a good king. All of them "did evil in the sight of the Lord" including, primarily, idolatrous practices. Judah, on the other hand, had a few kings that the Bible calls "good". They tried to do what was right in the sight of the Lord. Not a lot of them, but some.

There is a repeated phrase that starts with Solomon and echoes on through the stories with many of the "good" kings of Judah. Almost every "good" king of Judah receives this indictment from the Lord. Speaking here of Asa, it says, "But the high places were not taken away. Nevertheless, the heart of Asa was wholly true to the LORD all his days" (1 Kings 15:14). Over and over we hear that this king or that king of Judah did right ... "but the high places were not taken away." A few removed them, but most didn't. What's up with that?

Historically, "high places" were typically actually high places -- hilltops or the like -- that were set aside for the purpose of worship. Sacrifices were offered there. Before the Temple was built, it appeared (despite the tabernacle, apparently) to be the only place for the people of God to sacrifice to God. Even after the Temple, however, these high places remained. Generally, then, these high places were the places that the people went to worship other gods. This worship included animal sacrifice (1 Kings 3:2), prostitution (Jer 3:2), and even human sacrifice (Jer 7:31). They were decorated with "sacred pillars" and were used for the worship of various deities such as Baal, Asherah, and Topheth, deities that provided answers to problems such as fertility and fortune. They even had their own priests. These, then, were the places that the evil kings of Israel and Judah and even most of the good kings of Judah allowed to remain.

We, of course, know better. Whether we're Christians or not, we don't have these hilltops where we seek answers from deities by means of sinful practices. Or ... do we? I suspect that we're more attached to high places than we realize. I suspect that we Christians, although we have hearts that are "wholly true to the Lord", still find ourselves tolerating high places in our own lives. What do our modern high places look like?

If a high place was an elevated place where people went to obtain answers to their problems typically via sinful means, places that were not dedicated to God, but had their own priesthood, I would argue that we can find a lot of these places today. They come in various "elevations" with varying popularity, but they appear to meet these qualifications. And of most concern to me is that Christians seem to use them just as frequently and fervently as the unbelievers. There is, for instance, the government. We anticipate that the government with its attendant priesthood of legislators and governing bodies will give us good laws and fair taxation and reasonable protection of our rights. We do not anticipate that God will do that. We know that, in fact, because, well, sometimes our rights are violated. Part of that "high place" called government but distinct is the judicial system. We often anticipate that the "high place" of the court with its priests, the judges, will provide for us the relief that God has failed to give us when what we consider to be our rights have been violated. Farther down the hillside, perhaps, but still a "high place" is law enforcement. We anticipate that they will provide for us the protection that God has promised us. Then there are other "high places" for other needs. It's good, after all, to cover all your bases. So while we call on the god of government and its minions, the judicial system and law enforcement, to provide some relief for us, we will also turn to other "high places". One extremely popular one is "Social Security", although that "religion" is starting to fall into less favor and the god of 401K is on the rise. Still, we know that long term security comes not from God, but from the "high place" of the Stock Market with its priesthood of wise financial advisors. You know their names in some cases. Most of us have heard of the high priests Charles Schwab, T.D. Waterhouse, and Ed Jones. Names we can relate to. We sacrifice and they provide us with comfort and security. Throw another virgin on the fire.

Our high places don't stop there. We have a lot of them. We have sex and money and power. We have friendships and self-esteem and pride. There are a host of high places that we might seek out for blessings and answers to our difficulties instead of God. And, too often, like the good kings of Judah, while we do indeed serve God, we still retain these high places, back up gods to get answers to our daily problems. To our own shame.

So, what am I saying? Should we ditch the government, eliminate the judiciary, and drop our 401K's? No, that's not what I'm saying. Let me illustrate from another repeated sequence in First and Second Kings. Over and over some army would threaten some king. What's a king to do? Well, you can try to buy off the opponent which many did or you can try to fight off the opponent which many did or, of course, you can just surrender. Not a lot of options. What is interesting, however, is that the good kings of Judah when faced with this problem would typically not come up with their own plan, but would ask God for His plan. Sometimes God's plan was for them to do nothing and watch God beat the enemy. Nice! Sometimes God's plan was to do exactly one of the things that they would typically have done, but with an assured outcome because it was God's plan. Excellent! So, you see, in God's plan, kings often used standard means to accomplish what God wanted to accomplish. The difference, then, between the ungodly king who went to battle and won and the godly king who followed God's instructions to go into battle and win was that one was relying on his own strength and the other was relying on God. Thus, I'm not advocating that we withdraw from the government, avoid the judiciary, ignore the police, or withdraw our 401K's. God will use what God will use for His purposes with an assured outcome -- good (Rom 8:28). I'm not saying that we don't use these high places. I'm saying that we don't worship at these high places. I'm saying that we allow God to use whatever means He pleases and trust Him for the outcome rather than anticipating that the gods of this world will provide the relief we need. Sometimes God will use common means to solve our problems. Sometimes God will use uncommon means for solving our problems. Sometimes that means that an apparent injustice will be done, and we can join the early disciples in rejoicing "that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name" (Acts 5:41). But in all cases we have relied on God, the outcome is assured, and it will be certainly good. On the other hand, the "high places" of our current world do not offer the same guarantee. Counting on them to do so is foolishness.

Anti-Intellectualism

There are accusations being bantied about these days about the rise of anti-intellectualism. What does it mean? Well, the concern is that the world at large and even the Church in particular are opposed to the use of the intellect. It's not that we're opposed to education or even to intelligence. We're opposed to the intellectual elites. We're opposed to thinking too much. Christians, especially the conservative side, really suspect highly educated folk. And thinking too much. You don't want to think too much. No, no, we "walk by faith, not by sight," you see. It's better to be intuitive, to be "led by the Spirit" (especially if you don't think too much about what that means). After all, as we all know, knowledge puffs up. Reading too much, thinking too much, gathering too many big words, "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good", these things are bad.

The case can be made, I think, that this anti-intellectualism -- this opposition to deep learning, examination, thinking -- is greater today than it was a couple hundred years ago. Oh, sure, we know more now, but isn't it the learned elite that have carried out the strongest attacks on Christianity? Isn't it higher education that is stripping away too many young Christians? No, in Christianity we are all a common priesthood. We are confounding the wise. We are led by the Spirit and not confined to thinking too much, and we're continuing off in that direction. So we've ditched the Encylopedia Britannica in favor of Wikipedia because we trust much more the common man than the educated intelligensia. It's an outgrowth, I think, of American independence and equality. We're all equal, so don't try to tell me you're smarter than me. We're all independent, so I don't really need your input. Regardless of the cause, it's pretty clear that there are a lot of folks claiming that we are opposed to intellectualism.

I think also that the case can be made that God Himself is against our anti-intellectualism. Oh, maybe that caught your attention, eh? Jesus, in reciting the Greatest Commandment, said, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength'" (Mark 12:29-30). Did you see that? Included in that list is "mind". We are commanded first and foremost above other commands to "Love the Lord your God with all your ... mind." We know that "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he" (Prov 23:7). After Paul wrapped up 11 chapters of his letter to the Church at Rome, he started out his application of the doctrine he had expounded. Where did he start? Well, we need to sacrifice ourselves as worship. That self-sacrifice begins with avoiding being pressed into the world's shape by renewing our minds (Rom 12:1-2). We are to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16). Paul warns the Corinthians, "Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature" (1 Cor 14:20). Indeed, over and over again the Word tells us that we are supposed to be thinking -- using our intellect. I would say, with the preponderance of Scripture on the subject, that God is opposed to anti-intellectualism and calls on His people to think and to think rightly.

I would like to address, however, another aspect of the accusation that anti-intellectualism is on the rise. May I suggest that it is the nature of human beings rather than a recent development? The indictment of Scripture is that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). We are not, by nature, in the habit of revealing the truth. Instead, we are, by nature, truth suppressors. Truth serves our sin poorly. Thinking too much in truthful ways will not give us license to continue in sin. The nature of sinful man is anti-intellectualism. So I would suggest that it is not a recent development. It is a constant problem that ebbs and flows. Indeed, it is we who are the enemy, not the intellect. But to the extent that we feed it, it would appear that we are concurring with God that we suppress the truth. That's probably not a good thing in the end. That might be something we want to work on fixing.

How to Build an Apostate

As every devout Christian in modern America knows, our kids are in danger. There is a distinct possibility, perhaps even likelihood, that if we send them off to college, they will come out apostate. They will have rejected the faith. They will have, at best, ended up lukewarm, and we know what God thinks of "lukewarm". This is not good. Some have responded by homeschooling to better inculcate their kids before they get there. Others have simply decided not to send their kids to college. Or, if they do, send them to a good Christian college. Well, of course, that gets harder and harder to find. Did you know, for instance, that Harvard was founded in 1636 by the Puritans? It's motto was Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae -- "Truth for Christ and the Church". They've shortened it, of course. Now it's Veritas, and neither Christ nor the Church have any part at all. But don't worry. Harvard isn't an isolated case. Yale was founded in 1701 by the Puritans, and we know that there are no puritanical influences left there. The Presbyterians founded Princeton in 1746 and God has been evicted from there, too. Dartmouth was founded in 1769 by the Puritans and, again, has freed itself from its Christian origins. Or how about the most recent debacle? Vanderbilt University was founded in 1873 as a private university for the training of Methodist ministers. Contrast that with their latest move to require Christian organizations to allow anyone to lead them. Campus Christian clubs will not be allowed to prevent an atheist leader from running them because that would be discrimination. Of course, Vanderbilt is not taking its fraternities and sororities to task for discriminating for whatever reason they wish, so it's apparently just the Christians that they want to eliminate. No, finding a "Christian college" that is actually Christian gets harder and harder to do. And the "Christian colleges" that are out there can be more dangerous than the secular ones.

Is that the problem? Is it the lack of Christian universities that is causing our young people to flee the faith? Perhaps the homeschoolers have it right and it's just a lack of earlier education, a failure to provide our kids with the proper information? Is that the problem? I would suggest that, while both are problems, neither are the key issue. How is it that we are building such easy apostasy these days? I don't think the answer is education.

I think the answer is a bit more complex. I would include those difficulties, sure, but I think the real problem is that the real problem is missed. Do you want to know how to build a sure apostate? It's easy. Fake it. That's right. Act like a Christian.

According to recent polls, while 96% of America claims to believe in God (of some sort or another) and something like 70% claim to be Christian (of some sort or another), only 15% actually go to church and ... get this ... only 5% say that their beliefs actually influence how they live. That, my friends, is the recipe for disaster. All the Sunday school and Christian education and proper teaching in the world will not overcome the influence of family and friends who claim to love Jesus while failing to live it. Or, in the words of James, "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17). I'm certain that the biggest problem is that there is too much religiosity and not enough living faith.

Christian parents are required to teach their children. It is a command from God as well as a simple act of love. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates" (Deut 6:4-9). When Jewish children used to ask, "When can I study other philosophies and teachings?" their wise fathers would say, "Well, you are to learn the Word of God when you rise, when you walk, when you sit and when you lie down. Any other time is yours." Education is not to be ignored.

On the other hand, Christ did not say, "Let your good teaching show before others, so that they may hear your good words and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." We are not called to be good wordsmiths. We are called to be living reflections of Christ. We are called to demonstrate where our heart is by treasuring Christ above all else. We are called to be conformed to the image of Christ. We are called to live it, not merely teach it. A son who comes across his mother on her knees before God is much more impressed than the one whose mother tells him to pray but never does. A daughter who sees her father sacrifice for Christ is much more impacted than the one whose father encourages sacrifice without living it. Asking for repentance from children without ever demonstrating it is a much harder lesson to get across.

Sure, education is important. We must teach our children the truth. We must "train up a child in the way he should go." No doubt. We need to prepare our children. Failing to live it, however, is a sure way to erode any sense of reality in the truth being offered in word alone. And, of course, in the final analysis it is not our education or our lives that make the result. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm simply encouraging parents to remember that actions speak louder than words, that changed hearts make changed lives, and that our kids need to see that in us. Our failure to live Christian lives is the surest way to make apostate children, immunized with small doses of Christianity against Christianity. Let's not make that our legacy.

Living

I recently wrote about Paul's, "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." I talked about the difficulty most of us have with "to die is gain". And it makes sense. I mean, in a purely animalistic manner, we have a survival instinct. We want to live. "To die is gain" makes little sense. On the other hand, I pointed out that, given the glory of God and the awe of His presence and the wonder of an eternity without sin or tears but simply wonderful perfection, "to die is gain" absolutely makes sense. I wondered, in that piece, how Christians did not see it.

The natural response (I know because I've heard it) is, "So, are you going to kill yourself?" or something like it. That is, "If that is such perfection, why would you possibly continue to live?" I would like to propose that, while Paul's "to die is gain" is really, really hard for us to grasp, I think his "to live is Christ" eludes us even more.

"Now, wait," I can almost hear some say, "that part is easy." I think not. I think that we tend to think slightly different on the topic and, in so doing, largely miss the point. The reason I think that is because when I suggested that "to die is gain", the response is "So, why would you possibly continue to live?" I think we're missing the point because, well, I don't think we often live that way. How? "To live is Christ." That's how.

I think that we often miss the point that we do not live for ourselves. It's not about us. It's not about our pleasure or our comfort or even our efforts or our work. It is Christ. To live is Christ. At least, for us. Thus, if "to die is gain", why would I want to continue to live? Because living is about Christ. Now, if my viewpoint is that dying is gain but living is entirely for Christ, then I would end up slightly conflicted, wouldn't I? Oh, not for the reason that other people are. They don't want to die. Some think that dying is a good thing because life is so tough. That's not the reason that dying is gain. No, I'd be conflicted because I'm looking at two positives -- "live for Christ" or "die to be with Christ". As it turns out, this is exactly what Paul says in the passage. "I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account" (Phil 1:23-24). It's not about me.

To most people, dying is bad. To most Christians, we can mentally understand that dying is a good thing. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and what could be better than that? But we still have this will to live, this survival instinct. So we balk at Paul's "to die is gain". I think, however, that in getting that piece stuck in our craws, we may entirely miss the other half of the equation. Living isn't glorious simply because we live. Living is glorious because we get to serve Christ. Christ produces life in me. He authors my faith, directs my spirit, disciplines me as needed, provides purpose and value. He is the "Bread of Life". Death is marvelous gain when we get to be eternally and perfectly in the presence of Christ. On the other hand, the other marvel is a life spent in the glorious service of Christ, spreading His Gospel, bringing Him glory, reflecting His character. This is what answers "If death is so good, why go on living?" It is what balances "to die is gain". For believers, to live is Christ. He is the central issue, the main point, the primary focus, the reason. And it is the only accurate idea of how we are to live as followers of Christ.

Teaching the Resurrection

I spent the week with hymns on the Cross. The Crucifixion is a focus in hymns and in Scripture. Paul determined to know nothing except "Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). He defined the Gospel beginning with "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:1-8). Failing to believe that "Christ died for our sins", according to Paul, means that you are not saved. It's that important.

The Cross, however, "is folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). Recently a rash of comments hit Christian bloggers ridiculing the notion that Christ died for our sins. Others, even calling themselves Christian (and some even "pastor"), reject Christ's payment for sin as nonsense. Why? Because "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing."

Should we, then, ease up a little? Should we back off this whole "Crucifixion" thing? I mean, surely it's not something you should tell your kids, right? That's just way too gruesome. Look, let's just be smart and provide a message that the "Jews", the "Gentiles", and the "Christians" who find it all too offensive or foolish will accept. Wouldn't that be better? Why not just go with the Resurrection? It's Easter. Let's just go with that. It's a happy thing. All fuzzy and chocolatey and all. Why not go there instead?

I would advise against it. I would advise going with Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, on this. I would suggest that we present Christ and Him crucified. I would think that if Paul's gospel was "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures", that we should stick with that as well. Further, offering a rosy, "Jesus rose again" without explaining why He had to is pointless. Indeed, without the Crucifixion we have no payment for sin. Without the Crucifixion we have no taking on of our sin in our place.

We need the Crucifixion in all its gore and horror. If it doesn't make you squirm, you're not paying attention. If it doesn't bring you to tears, you're not getting it. Beyond that, however, if you find the Resurrection to be a bit ... bland ... you didn't get the Crucifixion. According to Paul, Christ crucified is the crux of the Gospel, and Christ resurrected is the only reliable offer of hope for us (1 Cor 15:17). You see, the Resurrection is only made more glorious by the Crucifixion. He died in our place, miserable and alone, taking on Himself our sin. He bore the rejection of the Father that we deserved. But that wasn't the end of the story. He rose again as "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor 15:20), demonstrating not only victory over sin on our behalf, but victory over death. Try to teach that without the Crucifixion, and you have very little to say. But couple the Crucifixion with the Resurrection and we can glory in the wonder of "'Death is swallowed up in victory. 'O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 15:54-57). Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Being Offensive

Turn on the news or peruse the Internet these days and you'll find that Christians aren't the most popular folks on the planet. In the main we're viewed as a joke, foolishness, ignorant idiots who can't think our way out of a paper bag. Intelligent Design? What nonsense! Biblical morality? Don't be ridiculous! "Look, you guys can be as religious as you want; just don't do it in my air space. Don't mention it to me. Don't carry it into politics. Don't suggest it to my kids. Look, I'd really rather you didn't even have that stupid fish sticker on your car. What a bunch of rubes!"

What is it that is so offensive about Christians? Well, of course, there is that whole "exclusivity of Christ" thing. That really riles people. They don't mind Jesus saying, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", but when He goes on to say, "No man comes to the Father but by Me", that doesn't fly. "And then you arrogant Christians agree with it? Come on! If anything, all religions hold the truth. More likely, none do and you're just stupid." Yes, that is indeed offensive to most. Of course, the logic of it eludes them. If all religions claim to be exclusive (and, with only one or two exceptions, all do), there is a logical contradiction. They can all be false or one can be true, but it is impossible that all could be true. Logic demands exclusivity. But, of course, we're arrogant for that. And being a "follower of Christ" demands exclusivity as well (since Christ claimed exclusivity), but we're arrogant there, too.

But, no, it's not just our exclusivity claim ... or rather, the exclusivity claim made by our Master. What's really offensive is that whole cross thing. The skeptics complain because it's too "pagan". Some sort of animal sacrifice thing, except made worse with a human being. Just as crazy as "This is My body." Nuts ... completely nuts. The learned complain because it just seems so base, so ancient. I mean, everyone believes we can just be good people and get to heaven or whatever. Why this whole "crucifixion" thing? "Isn't that a bit over the top? Isn't that somewhat pointless? I mean, can't you just have a nice God who forgives stuff and moves on?" Some (as far back as Pelagius, in fact) have complained that "The whole 'shedding of blood for sin' thing makes God subject to sin. That is, with your claim it appears that He cannot forgive unless someone dies. That's just crazy, like some volcano god demanding a virgin or something. God is bigger than that." Oh, yes, you'll hear them. Lots of arguments that take offense at the Cross. The skeptics who don't like religion at all deny that He existed at all. The Moslems who like Christ as a prophet deny that He died. The progressives who see that the Bible talks about Christ dying suggest it was just an example of some sort. No Atonement took place. No sin was paid for. It was just showing that Jesus's life was a life worth dying for. Being good, helping the poor, serving others, these are things worth dying for, and Jesus illustrated that. The very notion that Christ died on the cross to pay for our sin would make His death the primary mission for which He came, and we know better. No, no, God needs no appeasement, sin needs no payment, and that whole historical line of thinking is a lie, even if it does come straight out of Scripture. Unitarian Universalists are quite sure that everyone gets saved because God chooses to dismiss sin, not because Christ died. Others are not quite as beneficent. God is indeed dismissing the sin problem because, after all, He is much bigger than sin, but He is still subject to Human Free Will, so only those who choose to be saved will be because God cannot/will not save those who don't want to be saved. Sin is dismissed, but He will still hold them responsible because they choose to be held responsible.

You see, the longer you discuss it, the more you look, the better you see, the bigger the offense appears. It offends Jews. It offends Gentiles. It offends people calling themselves Christians. It is the single thing that stands out in Christianity from all other religions. All other religions call on us to be good and earn our way. Christianity points to the Cross and says, "Paid in full." It undercuts any sort of intrinsic personal worth, removes any room for boasting, and centers all glory on God the Father for His gift, His Son, on God the Son for His sacrifice on our behalf, and on the Holy Spirit for enlightening blind eyes to the glory of it all. If you are offended at the concept of a sacrificial payment on our behalf for sin, you're in the main. If you are humbly grateful for it, you're among the few. But according to Scripture the offense of the Cross is not to those who belong to Christ. It is offensive to those that do not. Rest assured, dear Christian. We will not be able to avoid offending the world around us. Our very core -- the Cross of Christ -- is an offense.

Good Friday

This is one of Isaac Watts' many hymns. This one was published in 1707 in preparation for a communion service.

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross

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

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

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

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

In all honesty, I cannot read or sing this hymn without weeping in gratitude over what Christ did for me. The price He paid on the cross for me surely demands my soul, my life, my all.

Another Look at the Cross

This is another hymn on the cross. I mentioned it earlier. It's an oldie, to be sure, and a lot of you may not have ever heard it. To be honest, it can be painful to sing (because it's in the classical style using archaic language) but I think it can be even more painful to examine (because it's about the suffering of Christ). Please, give it a chance. I think you'll find it valuable to examine.

O Sacred Head, Now Wounded
Attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

O Sacred Head, now wounded, with grief and shame weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded with thorns Thy only crown,
How art Thou pale with anguish, with sore abuse and scorn!
How does that visage languish which once was bright as morn!

What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior! 'Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor, vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this, Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever! And should I fainting be,
Lord let me never, never outlive my love to Thee!

The original words to this hymn have been attributed to a 12th-century abbot of the monastery of Clairvaux, France. Recent research has more likely attributed the writings to Saint Bernard, or perhaps a later author, Arnulf von Loewen. The hymn is taken from a seven-part medieval poem that speaks of various parts of Christ's body as He suffered on the cross: His feet, knees, hands, side, breast, heart, and face. It was translated from Latin into German in 1656 and titled, "To the Suffering Face of Jesus Christ." It appeared in 1830 in English after James Alexander translated it from German. Also of note is the harmonization of the hymn by Johann Sebastian Bach. Bach was a devout Christian who insisted that "the aim and final reason of all music should be nothing else but the glory of God and the refreshment of the spirit." Many of his compositions began with "Jesus, help me!" at the top and closed with, "To God alone be the praise."

The focus of the song is clearly at the Crucifixion. It spends a great deal of time looking at Christ's suffering on the cross. This is not a popular subject in today's churches. The cross was a vicious event in a barbarian society. Our real woes are the pains of today, our struggles and our trials. By "struggles" we mean "sin," but this is another unpopular term. We'd rather attribute our pride, lusts, and idolatry to our parents, or the dysfunctional lifestyle we grew up with, or perhaps the rigors of modern society. So instead of explicitly admitting sin, we dodge the bullet and avoid the responsibility. Thus, the Crucified Christ would not be a favored symbol in our minds. But the cross is the focal point of all of Scripture. It must be ours if we are to look where God would have us look.

Jesus' suffering on the cross exceeds our modern day comprehension. The whips, the beatings, the abuse, the nails, the hours of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual torment are all outside any modern frame of reference. That He chose to do it is unfathomable. This first verse tries to put that across. In this verse are both the Godhood and manhood of Christ. There is the Sacred Head . . . and the wounds. There is the crown . . . made of thorns. This is the face of He who created the morning, now twisted in anguish. Think of it! God chose to die that way for you! And since He was God, it is important to remember that He didn't have to.

If that's true, then why did He do it? The second verse says He did it for my benefit. Is that easy for you to grasp? "Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain." The hymnist has no delusions of avoiding responsibility. No dysfunctional family traditions let him off the hook. No excuses for bad behavior. It is sin that put Christ on the cross -- my sin. "I deserve Thy place." Without this realization, grace is meaningless. If we are not deserving of hell, then we merit God's favor. Grace is unmerited favor. And it is only that unmerited kindness that holds any hope for the sinner. That is the hymnist's prayer. ("Vouchsafe" means to bestow or grant.)

We are a generally ungrateful race and a particularly ungrateful nation. Blessings upon blessings have been heaped all around, but we don't see God's grace. The Church is not exempt from this shortcoming. One would think that the Church would be more tuned to God's tender mercies, but we are just as unappreciative as the world around us. When we look at the cross, this lack becomes unthinkable. For all He did there, for all He did for me, what possible response can there be? "What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest Friend?" This should be our daily thought. It should be the motivating factor in our every waking moment. How can I express my deep gratitude to God?

The truth, however, is that it isn't. We too easily forget God and drift off to our selfish pursuits. That is why Paul assured us that "it is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13) To Him goes all the credit, both in obtaining and in maintaining our salvation. We will faint. We will forget. It is only God at work in us that changes that. The hymnist knew this. "Lord let me never, never outlive my love to Thee!"

We need to be here -- often. We need to spend time at the cross. We need to examine His pain, and see our own responsibility. We need to realize the cost of our salvation. We need to weep over our sin and thank God continuously for His grace. This type of mindset will alter our lives. It will change our behavior and attitudes. The more we reflect on Christ, the more it will make us reflections of Christ.

Elizabeth Clephane's Cross

Yesterday I did my overview on the Cross. I mentioned Elizabeth Clephane's Beneath the Cross of Jesus. We'll look at that one more closely today.

Beneath The Cross Of Jesus
Elizabeth Clephane

Beneath the cross of Jesus I fain would take my stand,
The shadow of a mighty Rock within a weary land;
A home within the wilderness, a rest along the way
From the burning of the noonday heat and the burden of the day.

Upon that cross of Jesus, mine eye can sometimes see
The very dying form of One who suffered there for me;
And from my smitten heart with tears two wonders I confess -
The wonders of His glorious love and my own worthlessness.

I take, O cross, thy shadow for my abiding place -
I ask no other sunshine than the sunshine of His face;
Content to let the world go by, to know no gain nor loss,
My sinful self my only shame, my glory all the cross.

Elizabeth Clephane was born in 1830. She was the frail daughter of a county sheriff in Abbotsford, Scotland. The hymn, published anonymously in 1872, was written one year before her death in 1868. It reflects her deep affection for God as well as her love for the Word of God. In the first verse alone there are seven references from Scripture.

The hymn focuses on the cross. Many today see the cross as an offensive thing. They would rather concentrate on the Resurrection or the life of Christ. It just seems like the cross is such an unpleasant and past event. But Elizabeth saw it as a place to abide. That is where she would gladly take her stand. ("Fain" is a Scottish word meaning "gladly.") Look at her view of the cross. She saw it as "the shadow of a mighty Rock within a weary land, a home within the wilderness, a rest along the way."

"The mighty Rock" is a reference to the Messiah taken from Isa. 32:2. We see this same Rock in Exo. 33-34 when Moses wanted to see God and in Isaac Watts' hymn "Rock of Ages." Scripture refers to Jesus as the Rock of my salvation, the chief cornerstone, a rock of offense. (Psa. 89:26; 95:1; Isa. 28:16; Rom. 9:33) David calls God the "Rock of my strength." (Psa. 31:2, 3; 62:7; 71:3) There are, in fact over 25 references in Scripture to God as "Rock." In the shadow of the cross we can see that unyielding Rock who walked all the way to Calvary to die for me and to become the basis -- the foundation -- of my salvation.

"A home within the wilderness" is a phrase from Jer. 9:2. It depicts the personal nature of my relationship with God, portraying His sufficiency and protection. The phrase also illustrates the separation from the world we live in - "the wilderness." We are called to "come out from among them and be separate." (2 Cor. 6:17) "What fellowship has light with darkness?" Paul asks the Corinthians. (2 Cor. 6:14) ("This world is not my home; I'm just passing through.") Our citizenship is not earthly. (Phil. 3:20) Yet we try with all our might to incorporate as much of our world as we can into our spiritual viewpoints. We have so blended the two that they have become nearly indistinguishable. The morality, the divorce rates, the lifestyles, the attitudes of most evangelical Christians are almost no different than those of the world around them. But God calls to us, "Come home. My grace is sufficient for you." James warns us that friendship with the world is hostility toward God. "Whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4)

"A rest along the way," from Isa. 28:12, is a reference to the peace of God that passes understanding. God ordained rest in the Sabbath. He refers to our ultimate rest as the sabbath rest. (Heb. 4:9-11; see 4:1-16) Unrest was never God's intention for our lives. So Paul exhorts us to "let the peace of God rule in your hearts." (Col. 3:15)

Clephane takes a very personal look at the cross in the second verse. She visualizes Christ Himself hanging on that tree. And she sees clearly the truth of the crucifixion. Two truths stand when she looks at Jesus' death: His glorious love and her worthlessness.

Today's therapeutic society would have Elizabeth in counseling in a heartbeat. Her Christian friends might have urged her to go. Our modern hymnals have so protested her comment that they have changed it. Our hymnals now read "my unworthiness." No one should consider themselves worthless. But, then, Paul would have had the earlier appointment with the therapist after his unpopular claim that he was chief among sinners and that no one was good. Now what kind of a self-image is that for a believer?

It is a biblical one. The essence of God's saving grace is that I don't deserve it. By that, I mean we have no intrinsic reason to receive salvation. We have no inborn value, no innate goodness, no inherent lovableness. Paul told the Romans that God chose (not by force) to save us for His glory. (Romans 9:22, 23) God is not obligated by our weighty value to provide for us a means of escaping judgment or a way to know Him. But today's churches largely operate as a cult of self-esteem. We need to feel better about ourselves. We are people of value.

Elizabeth Clephane disagrees. The cross shows me my sin condition. In the third verse she states the only form of value she possesses. Her only value is Christ. Paul concurs - repeatedly. "For me to live is Christ." "I count all things as loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ." Jeremiah quotes God as saying, "Let him who boasts boast in this, that he knows Me." (Jeremiah 9:24) By nature, we are worthless. The only real value to be found in us is Christ in us. The only way that can happen is His redeeming work on the cross.

Clephane isn't done with her survey of the cross yet. In the final verse, her goal is to make that her dwelling place. "I take, O cross, thy shadow for my abiding place - I ask no other sunshine than the sunshine of His face." This is where we need to live. It is here, in the presence of the crucified Lord, that we see most clearly His unfathomable love and our utter depravity. It is here that we see the seriousness of God's demand for obedience and the consequence of our failure. It is here that we can see our worthlessness and His surpassing value. From the cross comes the strongest call to Christ-like character rather than self-serving ambition. At the cross we learn to endure suffering, a given for each Christian's life. At the cross, husbands learn to love their wives. At the cross, children learn to obey their parents. At the cross, Christians learn to love each other and bear one another's burdens. It is in the shadow of the cross that we all need to abide.

The Cross in Hymns

This is "Holy Week", the celebration of the end of the life of Christ, leading up to His sacrifice on the Cross. I'm going to retain that theme this week through Friday, and I'm going to do it in hymns. Today will be an overview.

One of the common themes in hymns that is very rare in choruses and praise songs is the cross. The question of "why?" can be inconclusive or even alarming. The fact remains that the cross is as much a central theme in Scripture as it is in hymns; in fact, more so. Paul said, "We preach Christ crucified." (1 Cor. 1:23) He told the Corinthians, "I determined to know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2) We are to live all of life with a view to the cross (Heb. 12:2). The daily operation of the Christian life is the taking up of one's cross (e.g., Matt. 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 14:27) It is at the cross that we learn how to love (e.g., Eph. 5:25; Rom. 5:8) and how to view trials (e.g., Rom. 8:17,18; Phil. 3:10; Heb. 5:8; 1 Peter 4:1,13).

The hymns join in this theme with vigor. "How Great Thou Art" devotes an entire stanza in awe of the cross. "And when I think that God, His Son not sparing, sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in; that on the cross, my burden gladly bearing, He bled and died to take away my sin."

Isaac Watts spends his entire time "At the Cross" recognizing the unfathomable wonder of what occurred there for us:

Alas, and did my Savior bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I?

Was it for crimes that I have done He suffered on that tree?
Amazing pity! Grace unknown! And love beyond degree!

Toplady's "Rock of Ages" is the argument based on salvation by the blood alone. His main point: "In my hand no price I bring. Simply to Thy cross I cling." Elizabeth Clephane takes the argument a step further, claiming that the cross is the place we should be living. "Beneath the cross of Jesus I fain would take my stand," she says, and goes on to explain why. Further, she urges us to remain focused there by telling what she sees:

Upon that cross of Jesus, mine eye can sometimes see
The very dying form of One who suffered there for me;
And from my smitten heart with tears two wonders I confess -
The wonders of His glorious love and my own worthlessness.

Perhaps this is why we avoid the cross in our songs today. While we certainly enjoy the concept of God's love, we don't like the concept of sin. Self-esteem may be damaged. Guilt might be imparted. Our fragile egos can't stand the stress. And a look at the cross certainly produces stress when we see the need. God required DEATH because of my sin.

We won't accept that. We nod our heads and agree, but we don't really believe it. We stand, with fists raised, and defy God to prove our guilt. "I'm just not that bad, God," we protest loudly. "I haven't killed anyone ... if you leave out that 'hating your brother is murder' stuff. I'm no sex offender ... as long as you leave the 'lust equals adultery' thing out of it. I don't worship other gods ... let's not talk about the idolatry of greed." And we glibly compare ourselves among ourselves and stand firm on our conviction that we're not that bad. But the truth is the standard is God and His perfection, and we are sinners from the inside out. We have all but blotted out the image of God in us and replaced it with the arrogant Self.

The cross was costly. It showed the great extent to which God would go to save worthless ones like us. It demonstrated love toward the unlovable. Its horror graphically illustrated the horror of our sin and the depths of our depravity, contrasting us with the perfection that was Jesus Christ. It is only when we see this, only when we realize this, that we can grasp the cross with both hands, cling to it quite literally, for dear life.

Beyond that, living in the shadow of the cross is the sole place to abide:

I take, O cross, thy shadow for my abiding place -
I ask no other sunshine than the sunshine of His face;
Content to let the world go by, to know no gain nor loss,
My sinful self my only shame, my glory all the cross. (Gal. 6:14)

"O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," taken from a much longer seven-part medieval poem, devotes its entire text to Christ's head as He suffered on the cross:

O Sacred Head, now wounded,
With grief and shame weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded
With thorns Thy only crown,
How art Thou pale with anguish,
With sore abuse and scorn!
How does that visage languish
Which once was bright as morn!

What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered
Was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
'Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor,
Vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

What language shall I borrow
To thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this, Thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord let me never, never
Outlive my love to Thee!

Spafford devoted an entire verse of "It Is Well With My Soul" to the bliss of Christ's blood shed for us:

My sin - O the bliss of this glorious tho't -
My sin, not in part, but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more:
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

Many, many more hymns are devoted to the cross. Pick up a hymnal sometime and look in the topical index. You'll find multiple listings under various topics such as Atonement, The Blood of Jesus, The Cross, and The Crucifixion. Their titles betray their content. "Beneath the Cross of Jesus" "Near the Cross" "At the Cross" "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" Title after title speaks of the cross and their focus there.

Why this "morbid" preoccupation? Why should they -- and by implication, we -- spend so much time looking at the cross? The answer I have already stated. The central theme of Scripture is the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ at the cross. In that single event, all of life changes. Where there was only the certainty of righteous judgment now comes the hope of grace and mercy. Where there was only our fruitless attempts at virtuous living is now freedom. Where there was fear of punishment now comes love.

And the Bible doesn't stop its crucifixion focus at the Resurrection. Certainly we serve a risen Savior, but we see His character magnified large enough for us to recognize at the cross, and the Scriptures are sure to point this out. So everyday, practical living is derived from looking at the cross. Husbands, how are you supposed to love your wives? What does it look like? Look to the cross. Love her "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her." (Eph. 5:25) Now look at the cross and see how that looks. That means that when all were reviling Him, He did not return the insults. That means that when all had forsaken Him, He still died in her place. That means that although it cost Him everything, He willingly gave all for her, withholding nothing for Himself. All this and more we see at the cross. Indeed, Paul says, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20). That is the Christian life -- a life dead to me and alive to Him. That comes through the cross.

Are there difficult circumstances in your life? Do you suffer? How do you deal with it? Look to the cross. "If you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps." (1 Peter 2:20,21) "Since Christ suffered in His body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin." (1 Peter 4:1) "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like Him in his death." (Phil. 3:10) "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . . He humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!" (Phil. 2:5-8) "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb. 12:2) By looking at the cross, we see that suffering has a purpose, and that we are not alone in it.

These are just a couple of examples of the biblical perspective on the cross. In fact, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ touches every aspect of the Christian's life. Why should we be so focused on the cross? How can we not be focused there? It is the focus of God's Word. It must be our focus, too.

Does God Love Everyone?

Well, does He? Of course there's no question, right? I mean, sure maybe from unbelievers and skeptics, but not from believers, right? Well, hang on a minute. Let's think about it. First, the question is a bit vague. Let's see if I can ask the question in the clearest manner: "Does God love all human beings from Adam through eternity?" Just using "love" as the premise, what do we mean? There are a variety of senses and a variation in intensity of love. Does God love everyone like we love pizza? Don't be silly. Of course that's not the question. Does He love people like we love our friends? Does He love everyone unconditionally? I mean, what question are we asking? I don't know. I think it's still vague. So maybe it's more like, "Does God love all human beings from Adam through eternity in the same sense to the same measure?"

Okay, let's go with that for a moment. But ... how would we know? Intuition? Feeling? Experimentation? Well, since the Bible is the sole authority on matters of faith and practice, we would have to ask what the Bible says. That is, the way we decide if God loves everyone is not "How does it feel?", but "What does the Bible say?" Nor is the measure the implicit, but the explicit. So now we have this question to ask: "Does the Bible say that God loves all human beings from Adam through eternity in the same sense to the same measure?"

There is a sense in which God loves everybody. We know, for instance, that He "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt 5:45). We know that it is God who "gives breath to the people" (Isa 42:5). These are things that we call "common grace". God holds all things together, restrains sin, provides needs, that kind of thing.

So there is certainly a sense in which God loves everyone, but it is not the same sense or the same measure that He uses when He says, "For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6). The text presupposes that there are some who are not disciplined or chastised, and that these are not loved or received. In fact, the Bible speaks of the Church as the Bride. I know of no one who would recommend that a husband love everyone in the same way as he loves his wife. That would be wrong.

Indeed, remembering that we must work from the explicit rather than the implicit, it is not difficult to find texts that tell us that God does not love all human beings in the same sense to the same measure. We know, for instance, that God said, "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" (Rom 9:13). David wrote, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity" (Psa 5:5). It is quite clear that "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). We know that "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14).

"Oh, sure," some will say, "God loves the sinner but hates the sin." It's a nice idea and it really feels much better, but let me ask you where you get it? The Bible doesn't say "Jacob I loved but I hated Esau's sin." God doesn't damn sin, but sinners. Jesus didn't say, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken My sin?" The Father forsook the Son, not His sin.

Okay, this isn't very pleasant, I know. I know that we like to think that John 3:16 tells us that God loves everyone. It doesn't. (If "God so loved the world" means "God loved the world in this way", then God's love was demonstrated in sending His Son for whosoever believes.) I know that we like to think that God doesn't hate. The Bible says otherwise. Nor would I even begin to suggest that I know who the "loved" and "hated" are. Trying to assign names -- "You know, Tom, God hates you." -- would be horribly wrong. As a generic warning, on the other hand, it is biblical. In fact, the real question is not "Does God love all human beings from Adam through eternity in the same sense to the same measure?" That question is answered in the negative. The real question is will we accept what the Bible says, or will we prefer a god of our own making who is much more pleasant in our estimation? Will we accept what God says about Himself, or will we decide He's quite mistaken?

April Fools Day

Ever wonder why April 1st is "April Fool's Day"? Well, the story is told that early cultures used to celebrate April 1st as the beginning of the new year. (It was close to the vernal equinox and the Feast of Annunciation. They did what they wanted. Give them a break.) It wasn't until 1582 that a pope declared a new "New Years Day". Well, what he did was replace the Julian calendar with the Gregorian calendar. That calendar put New Year's Day on January 1st rather than April 1st.

Well, of course, people are slow to change, so it took time for this new calendar to become the norm. As it did, however, the increasing minority of those who didn't change were ridiculed for remaining on the Julian calendar. They were considered fools for holding to April 1st as the beginning of the new year. They were April Fools.

Maybe that's the story. Others aren't buying it. Some say it started back in Constantine's day when some jesters said they could run the empire better. Constantine gave them one day a year to try, just for fun. That would be April 1st. As it turns out, that explanation itself was an April Fool's joke. Others suggest it's just "spring fever". Perhaps it's connected to an ancient Roman festival called Hilaria. Maybe it's a misunderstanding of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (1392) where, in the "Nun's Priest's Tale", a fox tricks a vain rooster on what was thought to be "March 32". In other words, we don't know. Simple as that.

Here's what we do know. We know, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psa 14:1; 53:1). We know that the fool cannot grasp that wickedness perishes but God is forever (Psa 92:6-8). We know that "The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin" (Prov 10:8). We are told quite clearly that "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice" (Prov 12:15) and that "A fool despises his father's instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is prudent" (Prov 15:5). We know that being a fool is funny on April 1st, perhaps, but being a genuine fool is not a good thing.

Biblically, wisdom is knowing what is good and foolishness is not. While the tricks on April 1st may be fun, we ought to always seek wisdom from God. And remember, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him" (James 1:5). Something to think about besides the jokes on April Fool's Day.