There are some today who question the Resurrection of Christ. Oh, they're okay with a "spiritual resurrection" of sorts. You know, spirituality is quite popular today. I mean, it's a popular theme that when someone dies they're "up there in heaven, looking down on us." Nice. And that was Jesus, too ... right? No, not right. The bodily resurrection of Christ is not negotiable, nor is it minor.
The Resurrection assures us that there is a God. Its violation of the "Laws of Nature" simply prove that God is the Master over Nature, something we desperately need to know when considering a world where Nature is sometimes not too friendly.
The Resurrection demonstrates a victory. The Cross was a victory over sin, but the wages of sin is death, so we needed another victory. The Resurrection demonstrates Jesus's victory over death. It is in the Resurrection that we can exult, "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1 Cor 15:55).
It was in the Resurrection that Jesus was ultimately vindicated. It is entirely possible for one to be wrongly convicted and put to death for crimes he didn't commit. That's sad. Did that happen to Jesus? We wouldn't actually know if it weren't for the Resurrection. By rising again, bodily, He demonstrated that His death was necessary and complete, but not the end of the story. He wasn't simply killed by injustice; He died on our behalf and rose again to new life.
It is this new life that is really in focus at the Resurrection. "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). That "newness of life" is what the Christian life is all about. All things have become new. Indeed, "eternal life" was the whole idea. A Savior who promises new life and then doesn't actually continue to live is no savior at all. Christ did.
The bodily resurrection of Christ is non-negotiable. Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Cor 15:14). He goes on to say, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:17-19). Instead, Paul assured his readers that the risen Lord had been seen by the original disciples as well as more than 500 more, "most of whom are still alive". In other words, "Go and ask them!"
There are other important matters that the Resurrection answers:
1. If "They shall look upon Him whom they have pierced" (Zech 12:10), but He is dead and buried, how will that happen?
2. He promised to "destroy this temple" and raise it up again in three days. His integrity was in question if He didn't rise again.
3. Appearing first to the women was a message to all of the importance of women in Christianity in the midst of a culture that demeaned them.
4. His physical resurrection was the sign needed to convince Thomas, the doubter, and continues to convince others today.
5. His Resurrection made Him the "first fruits", the forerunner of what we can expect for ourselves. It is the promise of our own bodily resurrection.
6. "What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power" (1 Cor 15:42-43).
The Resurrection is an absurdity to the unbeliever. Without it, we are without hope. But since it is a reality, we have every reason to rejoice. Some may quibble over it today, but as for me, I will exult in my Risen Savior. The Lord is risen! The Lord is risen indeed!
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Saturday, April 15, 2017
News Weakly - 4/15/2017
Weaponized
When I think of a "weapon" I do not think of, say, poison administered to an assassination target. Now, clearly that's just me. This week "White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated during in his daily briefing on Tuesday that Adolf Hitler 'didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.'" The result was a firestorm of tweets, bleeps, and blurts about how he should be fired and all. Why? Well, Hitler did use gas to kill millions of Jews. And, of course, Spicer has apologized.
To me when someone says that an "attack" was made using "chemical weapons", I would never call to mind, "They rounded up a group of people, put them in a gas chamber, and killed them", so I wouldn't have caught it myself. But, of course, Spicer is "Trump's Press Secretary" and "Trump is evil", so anything he says can and absolutely will be used against him ... you know, like a weapon.
Who Knew?
All these news things over all the years and we said, "Yeah, right" ... and it turns out it was? Who knew? When Mitt Romney was running for president in 2012 he claimed to have "binders full of women" that he was trying to hire (in response to a question about workplace inequality). "Yeah, right," they said. Turns out he was.
Back in August, 2016, in the heat of the American presidential campaign, The Daily Mail, a British news source, put out a story that Mrs. Trump provided more than "modeling services" as a model ... if you catch my drift. Now, no one was saying that they were tampering with the election, but Melania did contend that they were lying. "Yeah, right," they said. Turns out she was right.
Trump famously complained that he had been monitored by the Obama administration. Everyone laughed. Then the FBI admitted that they had actually did do some. "Trump wasn't the target." And now we find that last summer they were monitoring communications of a Trump adviser. Vindication? Well, it's about Trump, so, no, but ...
And while we're there, the accusation has been -- implied if not explicit -- that Trump got Russia to hack the Dems to help him win the election. If this is true, I suppose the Russians are pretty miffed right now since the White House is saying that Russia knew in advance that Syria was going to use chemical weapons and, in fact, possibly assisted in trying to cover it up by bombing a hospital where victims were taken. Again, vindication for Trump? Oh, don't be silly. It's Trump. He could get a sign from God and we wouldn't buy it.
But, hey, who knew?
Call It What You Will
So, North Carolina is at it again. First the "bathroom ban", which has since been rescinded. Now they're introducing a bill to "ban same-sex marriage in the state." Never mind that the bill is the "Uphold Historical Marriage Act" (which is not the same as a "Ban Same-sex Marriage Act"). But, hey, call it what you will. (Why has no one called the Oberkfell v. Hodges ruling a "Redefine Marriage Ruling" or the Roe v Wade ruling a "Kill Babies Ruling"? I mean, they were exactly that, but they don't enjoy the same mislabeling as these bills that promote historical marriage.) Don't worry, folks. It won't pass. They made the worst possible gaff by saying, "the Supreme Court ruling exceeded the authority of 'the decree of Almighty God that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24, ESV).'” I mean, seriously, quoting the Bible in a bill? And the ESV at that! Not gonna happen.
Call it a "same-sex marriage ban" if you want, but you will do so in the face of God's Word ... and, frankly, that's a dangerous place to be even if you don't know it.
Is That the Answer?
This, to me, is an odd story. Recently Hank Hanegraaff, CRI's "Bible Answer Man", converted to Greek Orthodox Christianity. Having spent years in apologetics and countering heresies and cults, he has departed from Protestant Christianity and stepped into Eastern Orthodoxy. (Here is a brief piece explaining how Eastern Orthodoxy is different. For instance, they believe in the authority of Scripture, but hold that they -- the Eastern Orthodox Church -- alone have the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. They believe in baptismal regeneration, that baptism produces the new birth and that, indeed, the faith of the recipient has no bearing on its effectiveness. And since they believe only the Eastern Orthodox Church has the authority to administer baptism, there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox Church. They teach "theosis", a process in which we participate by our works to obtain salvation and become god-like. Then there's that whole "chrismation" thing. Some examples from the article.) Hanegraaff explained that, while he was "typically more skewed toward truth", his wife was "more skewed towards life" -- concerned about experience -- and now he has gone over to her side.
Talk about Pointed Humor
The headline reads "Bill Clinton Calls Mike Pence’s Strict Marital Practices 'Excessive'". It is, actually, fake news -- a spoof -- but that is way too close to being too pointed.
In another piece on 9 Things You Should Know About The Transgender Bathroom Debate, I thought, "I couldn't have written that any better." Bravo.
When I think of a "weapon" I do not think of, say, poison administered to an assassination target. Now, clearly that's just me. This week "White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated during in his daily briefing on Tuesday that Adolf Hitler 'didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.'" The result was a firestorm of tweets, bleeps, and blurts about how he should be fired and all. Why? Well, Hitler did use gas to kill millions of Jews. And, of course, Spicer has apologized.
To me when someone says that an "attack" was made using "chemical weapons", I would never call to mind, "They rounded up a group of people, put them in a gas chamber, and killed them", so I wouldn't have caught it myself. But, of course, Spicer is "Trump's Press Secretary" and "Trump is evil", so anything he says can and absolutely will be used against him ... you know, like a weapon.
Who Knew?
All these news things over all the years and we said, "Yeah, right" ... and it turns out it was? Who knew? When Mitt Romney was running for president in 2012 he claimed to have "binders full of women" that he was trying to hire (in response to a question about workplace inequality). "Yeah, right," they said. Turns out he was.
Back in August, 2016, in the heat of the American presidential campaign, The Daily Mail, a British news source, put out a story that Mrs. Trump provided more than "modeling services" as a model ... if you catch my drift. Now, no one was saying that they were tampering with the election, but Melania did contend that they were lying. "Yeah, right," they said. Turns out she was right.
Trump famously complained that he had been monitored by the Obama administration. Everyone laughed. Then the FBI admitted that they had actually did do some. "Trump wasn't the target." And now we find that last summer they were monitoring communications of a Trump adviser. Vindication? Well, it's about Trump, so, no, but ...
And while we're there, the accusation has been -- implied if not explicit -- that Trump got Russia to hack the Dems to help him win the election. If this is true, I suppose the Russians are pretty miffed right now since the White House is saying that Russia knew in advance that Syria was going to use chemical weapons and, in fact, possibly assisted in trying to cover it up by bombing a hospital where victims were taken. Again, vindication for Trump? Oh, don't be silly. It's Trump. He could get a sign from God and we wouldn't buy it.
But, hey, who knew?
Call It What You Will
So, North Carolina is at it again. First the "bathroom ban", which has since been rescinded. Now they're introducing a bill to "ban same-sex marriage in the state." Never mind that the bill is the "Uphold Historical Marriage Act" (which is not the same as a "Ban Same-sex Marriage Act"). But, hey, call it what you will. (Why has no one called the Oberkfell v. Hodges ruling a "Redefine Marriage Ruling" or the Roe v Wade ruling a "Kill Babies Ruling"? I mean, they were exactly that, but they don't enjoy the same mislabeling as these bills that promote historical marriage.) Don't worry, folks. It won't pass. They made the worst possible gaff by saying, "the Supreme Court ruling exceeded the authority of 'the decree of Almighty God that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24, ESV).'” I mean, seriously, quoting the Bible in a bill? And the ESV at that! Not gonna happen.
Call it a "same-sex marriage ban" if you want, but you will do so in the face of God's Word ... and, frankly, that's a dangerous place to be even if you don't know it.
Is That the Answer?
This, to me, is an odd story. Recently Hank Hanegraaff, CRI's "Bible Answer Man", converted to Greek Orthodox Christianity. Having spent years in apologetics and countering heresies and cults, he has departed from Protestant Christianity and stepped into Eastern Orthodoxy. (Here is a brief piece explaining how Eastern Orthodoxy is different. For instance, they believe in the authority of Scripture, but hold that they -- the Eastern Orthodox Church -- alone have the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. They believe in baptismal regeneration, that baptism produces the new birth and that, indeed, the faith of the recipient has no bearing on its effectiveness. And since they believe only the Eastern Orthodox Church has the authority to administer baptism, there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox Church. They teach "theosis", a process in which we participate by our works to obtain salvation and become god-like. Then there's that whole "chrismation" thing. Some examples from the article.) Hanegraaff explained that, while he was "typically more skewed toward truth", his wife was "more skewed towards life" -- concerned about experience -- and now he has gone over to her side.
Talk about Pointed Humor
The headline reads "Bill Clinton Calls Mike Pence’s Strict Marital Practices 'Excessive'". It is, actually, fake news -- a spoof -- but that is way too close to being too pointed.
In another piece on 9 Things You Should Know About The Transgender Bathroom Debate, I thought, "I couldn't have written that any better." Bravo.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Alas, And Did My Savior Bleed
Issac Watts (1674-1748) is known as the "Father of English Hymnody". He specialized in paraphrasing psalms and wrote some 750 hymns including favorites such as "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross", "O God, Our Help in Ages Past", and "Alas, And Did My Savior Bleed". Great stuff.
Charles Wesley (1707-1788) was the brother of John Wesley. In his lifetime he wrote over 6,000 hymns. One of his hymns had 27 stanzas. (We've pared it down to the requisite four now.) He was charged by a grand jury with "introducing into the church ... hymns not authorized." One of his most popular hymns has enjoyed a contemporary reintroduction with Chris Tomlin's "Amazing Love". The original hymn was titled "And Can It Be That I Should Gain?" and went something like this.
There is, however, a question. Were Watts and Wesley right? Did "my Sovereign die"? Did "my God" die for me? Did God die on the cross?
There is a problem with the idea. If "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17) and He died, then ... all things ceased to hold together. Some reword Wesley's hymn to say "How can it be, That Thou, my Lord, shouldst die for me?" for that reason. If God is defined as eternal and immortal (1 Tim 1:17), then a god who dies is not God. It cannot, then, be said that God died on the cross.
I take a slightly different view. What does it mean to "die"? Referring to beings (as opposed to machines or ideas, etc.), death is defined as "the end of the life of a person or organism." We die when our bodies cease to live. The heart stops, the brain quits, the breathing ends ... death. The truth, however, is that we do not believe that we cease to be when we cease to live. We go on. "Life after death". Some to glory and some to eternal death, but we go on. Death is not a divine possibility. It is a function of "creatureliness", of being a creation. In this sense, then, it would be true that "God died". That is, God the Son ceased to live on in physical presence while His essence went on. The human part of God the Son stopped living. In this sense I have no problem speaking of God dying for me. And, in this sense it is quite reasonable for Scripture to say that God obtained the Church "with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).
No, the Son did not cease to live entirely; His body did. That's "dying" by our definition. As such, His death is a demonstration of God's love for us and His answer to our sin problem. For that we rejoice.
Alas! and did my Savior bleed(Note: Perhaps you've heard that last line as something like "For sinners such as I?" That was not the original. Earlier Christians didn't have any problem with "self-esteem issues" (like David in Psalm 22:6) and agreed that sinners -- all of us -- were "worm-like".)
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
Charles Wesley (1707-1788) was the brother of John Wesley. In his lifetime he wrote over 6,000 hymns. One of his hymns had 27 stanzas. (We've pared it down to the requisite four now.) He was charged by a grand jury with "introducing into the church ... hymns not authorized." One of his most popular hymns has enjoyed a contemporary reintroduction with Chris Tomlin's "Amazing Love". The original hymn was titled "And Can It Be That I Should Gain?" and went something like this.
And can it be that I should gainIt's Good Friday, the day we celebrate (Imagine that ... celebrating Someone's death.) the Crucifixion. It is a celebration and, in this case, right. Paul said, "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." (1 Cor 1:23) In his straightforward presentation of the Gospel he began, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures ..." (1 Cor 15:3). Jesus's death on the cross was planned and executed according to God's hand and plan (Acts 4:27-28). He died for us in part as a demonstration of God's love for us (Rom 5:8). It is both horrible and wonderful.
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
There is, however, a question. Were Watts and Wesley right? Did "my Sovereign die"? Did "my God" die for me? Did God die on the cross?
There is a problem with the idea. If "in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:17) and He died, then ... all things ceased to hold together. Some reword Wesley's hymn to say "How can it be, That Thou, my Lord, shouldst die for me?" for that reason. If God is defined as eternal and immortal (1 Tim 1:17), then a god who dies is not God. It cannot, then, be said that God died on the cross.
I take a slightly different view. What does it mean to "die"? Referring to beings (as opposed to machines or ideas, etc.), death is defined as "the end of the life of a person or organism." We die when our bodies cease to live. The heart stops, the brain quits, the breathing ends ... death. The truth, however, is that we do not believe that we cease to be when we cease to live. We go on. "Life after death". Some to glory and some to eternal death, but we go on. Death is not a divine possibility. It is a function of "creatureliness", of being a creation. In this sense, then, it would be true that "God died". That is, God the Son ceased to live on in physical presence while His essence went on. The human part of God the Son stopped living. In this sense I have no problem speaking of God dying for me. And, in this sense it is quite reasonable for Scripture to say that God obtained the Church "with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).
No, the Son did not cease to live entirely; His body did. That's "dying" by our definition. As such, His death is a demonstration of God's love for us and His answer to our sin problem. For that we rejoice.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Are We There Yet?
I often feel like the little kid on the family vacation. You know, the old station wagon with the travel accoutrements (luggage, camping gear, whatever) tied up on the roof and the whole family bundled inside. Mom tries to amuse the kids with games or singing. Dad just tries to keep the car straight -- it's a long way to the end of the road. And so shortly into this drive I'm in the back going, "Are we there yet?" You see, I want to be there.
Some time back I was talking to a friend about going home to Jesus. A coworker happened by and overheard. "What's the matter?" she asked. "Is life so hard here?" I answered with a parable.
"You live in a nice place, don't you?" "Yes, close to the beach ... a nice place." "Okay," I said, "now imagine that you get a knock on the door and when you open it there's a guy there in a suit and tie with an official briefcase and all. When you let him in he tells you you've won a sweepstakes. It's quite a prize, too. They will buy a lot in the place you want to live and then build you a house to your preferences. They will furnish it with all the nice things you could want. They will provide servants and help for life. They will give you and your husband new cars and even chauffeurs if you like. And when those cars wear out, you'll get new ones. All is paid for, tax free."
"Now," I finish, "would you take the prize?" "Oh, sure!" she answered enthusiastically. "What's the matter?" I asked. "Is life so hard here?"
I do so want to go home. No, I'm not miserable. No, it's not that I'm trying to escape anything. No, it's not that there is anything wrong. Well, mostly. To be fair, I am sick and tired of sinning. I am looking forward to ending that part of my existence. But I am certainly looking forward to going home. Are we there yet?
Some time back I was talking to a friend about going home to Jesus. A coworker happened by and overheard. "What's the matter?" she asked. "Is life so hard here?" I answered with a parable.
"You live in a nice place, don't you?" "Yes, close to the beach ... a nice place." "Okay," I said, "now imagine that you get a knock on the door and when you open it there's a guy there in a suit and tie with an official briefcase and all. When you let him in he tells you you've won a sweepstakes. It's quite a prize, too. They will buy a lot in the place you want to live and then build you a house to your preferences. They will furnish it with all the nice things you could want. They will provide servants and help for life. They will give you and your husband new cars and even chauffeurs if you like. And when those cars wear out, you'll get new ones. All is paid for, tax free."
"Now," I finish, "would you take the prize?" "Oh, sure!" she answered enthusiastically. "What's the matter?" I asked. "Is life so hard here?"
I do so want to go home. No, I'm not miserable. No, it's not that I'm trying to escape anything. No, it's not that there is anything wrong. Well, mostly. To be fair, I am sick and tired of sinning. I am looking forward to ending that part of my existence. But I am certainly looking forward to going home. Are we there yet?
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Phil 1:21)
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Wrong
If you've read the Gospels, you know the Pharisees and Sadducees, the religious leaders of Jesus's day. You know they were hypocrites (Matt 23:2-39). That was bad. Jesus pronounced some of His worst curses on them for it. Bad. You also know that they were more righteous than most (Matt 5:20), that they gave to the poor (Matt 6:1-4), that they prayed diligently (Matt 6:5-6), and that they fasted (Matt 6:16-18). (How many of us do that?) They tithed (Matt 23:23) and they searched the Scriptures (John 5:39). Lots of good things there. So they had that hypocrite thing wrong, but all that other stuff right ... right?
As it turned out, of course, they got all that other stuff wrong, too. They searched the Scriptures and missed the One about whom the Scriptures spoke (John 5:39-40). They tithed on the little things and neglected the weightier things (Matt 23:23-24). They fasted, prayed, and gave to the poor as a matter of show, for which they already received their reward (Matt 6:2,5,16). Despite getting so many things "right", they were constantly wrong and, therefore, their "righteousness" wasn't so right after all.
So we come to the delightful story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. You know the one. They begged Him to come because Lazarus sick, so Jesus ... didn't (John 11:1-6). He waited until Lazarus died, then went. He told His disciples, "For your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe." (John 11:15). Well, they went to the mourning; Lazarus had been buried for four days by the time they arrived (John 11:39). Jesus had them move the stone, then He called Him out of the tomb, and Lazarus emerged alive. Amazing stuff. Perhaps more amazing was the reaction of some of the eyewitnesses who went and complained to the Pharisees (John 11:45-46) who saw the event as a good reason to put Jesus (John 11:53) and Lazarus (John 12:10) to death.
It is here that we read of John's account of the Triumphal Entry (John 12:12-15). Crowds gathered to see Jesus and Lazarus (John 12:9) and gave Jesus a parade, calling Him, "King of Israel!" (John 12:13) And then we read this.
It turns out that it is very possible to look very good without being close. Sure, they had hypocrisy, but look at how good they were. Jesus spoke of their righteousness, their prayer and fasting and giving, their tithing, and their dedication to Scripture. And they were wrong. Dead wrong. We don't want to be Pharisees, I know. But when we say that, we're talking about the over-emphasis on religious rules or the hypocrisy. We might also want to make sure we're right with God -- genuine followers of Christ -- rather than going through the motions. Because the world is not going after Christ, but we must.
As it turned out, of course, they got all that other stuff wrong, too. They searched the Scriptures and missed the One about whom the Scriptures spoke (John 5:39-40). They tithed on the little things and neglected the weightier things (Matt 23:23-24). They fasted, prayed, and gave to the poor as a matter of show, for which they already received their reward (Matt 6:2,5,16). Despite getting so many things "right", they were constantly wrong and, therefore, their "righteousness" wasn't so right after all.
So we come to the delightful story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. You know the one. They begged Him to come because Lazarus sick, so Jesus ... didn't (John 11:1-6). He waited until Lazarus died, then went. He told His disciples, "For your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe." (John 11:15). Well, they went to the mourning; Lazarus had been buried for four days by the time they arrived (John 11:39). Jesus had them move the stone, then He called Him out of the tomb, and Lazarus emerged alive. Amazing stuff. Perhaps more amazing was the reaction of some of the eyewitnesses who went and complained to the Pharisees (John 11:45-46) who saw the event as a good reason to put Jesus (John 11:53) and Lazarus (John 12:10) to death.
It is here that we read of John's account of the Triumphal Entry (John 12:12-15). Crowds gathered to see Jesus and Lazarus (John 12:9) and gave Jesus a parade, calling Him, "King of Israel!" (John 12:13) And then we read this.
So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him." (John 12:19)If you've been paying attention, I've been pointing to the errors of the Pharisees. Notice that they got it wrong again. The world had not gone after Him. They just wanted to see the "cool signs". It was more of a circus atmosphere -- "Look at the guy raised from the dead!" -- than a gathering of believers. And in the week that follows this "whole world" that had "gone after Him" would vote to have Him executed.
It turns out that it is very possible to look very good without being close. Sure, they had hypocrisy, but look at how good they were. Jesus spoke of their righteousness, their prayer and fasting and giving, their tithing, and their dedication to Scripture. And they were wrong. Dead wrong. We don't want to be Pharisees, I know. But when we say that, we're talking about the over-emphasis on religious rules or the hypocrisy. We might also want to make sure we're right with God -- genuine followers of Christ -- rather than going through the motions. Because the world is not going after Christ, but we must.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Purpose
Not having visited most churches today, I perhaps shouldn't actually comment on "most churches today", but it seems as if most churches today are in some area between "traditional" and "contemporary" worship modes. They may have switched to a dual "traditional" service and a "contemporary" service. They may have a "blended" service. Or maybe they've ditched what would have been termed "traditional" for full-on "contemporary". This distinction is primarily in the music, although some people would include more than that. The hymnals are all but gone. The majority use projections on screens and PowerPoint presentations for the sermon and the like. But it's mostly in the music that we find the difference between "traditional" and "contemporary". "Traditional" is hymns with simpler accompaniment -- piano, organ, that kind of thing. I mean, there can be a range of instruments, but the music is primarily hymns ranging in age from hundreds of years old to maybe half a century or more. "Contemporary" has more "upbeat" music with "upbeat" instruments and "upbeat" beats. Choirs are out; stereotypical rock bands are in.
I'm not going to discuss the good or bad of switching or not. I'm not going to try to ask about what "style" Jesus would want. I am not going to examine which music is more godly than which. What I want to know is why. What is the motivation for this shift? Clearly churches are changing from something to something. Throughout Church history worship styles have changed and rarely without conflict. The 3rd century church was upset about instruments at all. The 6th century church didn't like the congregation singing much at all. The only "correct" version of singing in the 9th century was chanting. In the 15th century John Wycliffe complained that the choir was too loud and the music drowned out the words. In the 16th century they were offended that Martin Luther used contemporary tunes with his music. In the 19th century the founder of the Salvation Army was quoted as saying, "Why should the devil have all the good music?" Sure, things change. Regardless of whether or not it's a good thing, why are they doing it?
The question at hand is about changing musical styles for worship. Clearly there is no "biblical definition" of what style is the right style. You can't find any commands in Scripture that say, "Thou shalt use pipe organs and piano and thou shalt not use drums and electronic instruments." It's just not in there. So we aren't going to go with "We're changing musical styles to more closely conform to biblical commands." So why? There are a couple of answers.
First on the list is, essentially, numbers. More people like contemporary music than hymns. You want to attract more people, therefore, you need to shape your music to what would attract them. It's kind of a marketing thing. Find out what people like and, if you can, give it to them. They'll come. The standard view is "If you want to keep growing, you need to make it interesting for the younger generation." What is interesting to the younger generation? Cool music. What is "cool music"? That's a matter of feel, I suppose, but there definitely needs to be drums. Because this attracts people. The #1 answer, then, is reaching people for Christ. Isn't this what we're here for? If you want them to come in, you'll have to give them a reason. Music they like is one of them.
Close behind this one is the idea that contemporary music is more "feeling". It is more emotional, so to speak. (I'm not sure I'm expressing this adequately.) You want people to feel close to God. Most hymns are dirges ... not "close to God". Let's pick it up a bit. Let's liven it up some. Worship shouldn't be "ho-hum"; it should be expressive, enthusiastic, exciting.
Those are, I think, the primary reasons that churches have shifted. They want to improve the numbers (want more people to come) and they want to engage people emotionally. I am, of course, interested in knowing if there are others, but those are the two primary reasons I've found.
You see, I think the motivation is more important than the substance. I think that we've missed the biblical motivation for "church". If this is true, then we might want to rethink changing from something to something if that "to something" isn't in line with the biblical purpose of church.
So what is the biblical purpose of church? The first is found in the word. It refers to the "called out ones". It is a gathering of the saints. Sure, unbelievers will be present (1 Cor 14:24). But the purpose of the church is for the saints -- believers. That's found in the name -- "church". Paul goes on to explain that the primary function of the church is "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:12). "There, see?" they will tell me. "Building up the body of Christ. Bring in more people." No, that's not what he is talking about. He is talking about maturity. He says the building of the body of Christ is "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Eph 4:13-14) That is the primary purpose of the church. And how are we doing with that? How are we at "the unity of the faith"? How are we at maturity? How are we at no longer being tossed about by every wind of doctrine? I would argue that we are clearly failing. Is it because we've shifted from "building up the body of Christ" to "bringing in the sheaves"? Is it because we've aimed the church more toward evangelism than equipping the saints?
I think we've really missed the point in churches today. Worship is not about entertaining the masses or bringing up attendance. It is about God's people offering a sacrifice of praise to an audience of One, not about feeling good about God. It's about maturing believers, not enlarging the congregation. Mind you, mature believers will feel good about God and a church of equipped saints will increase attendance, but these are not the point. I think we've missed it. And I think it is our own loss to our own shame. You see, it's not about taste, about "old" vs "new", about preferences. It's not even about music. It's about unity rather than personal preference, about theology rather than experience, about participation rather than consumption or entertainment. We are engaging in worship of the Creator with all the saints and angels. Now, tell me again why we're changing from "traditional" to "contemporary"? There may be reasons for change, but do they conform to that kind of purpose?
I'm not going to discuss the good or bad of switching or not. I'm not going to try to ask about what "style" Jesus would want. I am not going to examine which music is more godly than which. What I want to know is why. What is the motivation for this shift? Clearly churches are changing from something to something. Throughout Church history worship styles have changed and rarely without conflict. The 3rd century church was upset about instruments at all. The 6th century church didn't like the congregation singing much at all. The only "correct" version of singing in the 9th century was chanting. In the 15th century John Wycliffe complained that the choir was too loud and the music drowned out the words. In the 16th century they were offended that Martin Luther used contemporary tunes with his music. In the 19th century the founder of the Salvation Army was quoted as saying, "Why should the devil have all the good music?" Sure, things change. Regardless of whether or not it's a good thing, why are they doing it?
The question at hand is about changing musical styles for worship. Clearly there is no "biblical definition" of what style is the right style. You can't find any commands in Scripture that say, "Thou shalt use pipe organs and piano and thou shalt not use drums and electronic instruments." It's just not in there. So we aren't going to go with "We're changing musical styles to more closely conform to biblical commands." So why? There are a couple of answers.
First on the list is, essentially, numbers. More people like contemporary music than hymns. You want to attract more people, therefore, you need to shape your music to what would attract them. It's kind of a marketing thing. Find out what people like and, if you can, give it to them. They'll come. The standard view is "If you want to keep growing, you need to make it interesting for the younger generation." What is interesting to the younger generation? Cool music. What is "cool music"? That's a matter of feel, I suppose, but there definitely needs to be drums. Because this attracts people. The #1 answer, then, is reaching people for Christ. Isn't this what we're here for? If you want them to come in, you'll have to give them a reason. Music they like is one of them.
Close behind this one is the idea that contemporary music is more "feeling". It is more emotional, so to speak. (I'm not sure I'm expressing this adequately.) You want people to feel close to God. Most hymns are dirges ... not "close to God". Let's pick it up a bit. Let's liven it up some. Worship shouldn't be "ho-hum"; it should be expressive, enthusiastic, exciting.
Those are, I think, the primary reasons that churches have shifted. They want to improve the numbers (want more people to come) and they want to engage people emotionally. I am, of course, interested in knowing if there are others, but those are the two primary reasons I've found.
You see, I think the motivation is more important than the substance. I think that we've missed the biblical motivation for "church". If this is true, then we might want to rethink changing from something to something if that "to something" isn't in line with the biblical purpose of church.
So what is the biblical purpose of church? The first is found in the word. It refers to the "called out ones". It is a gathering of the saints. Sure, unbelievers will be present (1 Cor 14:24). But the purpose of the church is for the saints -- believers. That's found in the name -- "church". Paul goes on to explain that the primary function of the church is "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:12). "There, see?" they will tell me. "Building up the body of Christ. Bring in more people." No, that's not what he is talking about. He is talking about maturity. He says the building of the body of Christ is "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Eph 4:13-14) That is the primary purpose of the church. And how are we doing with that? How are we at "the unity of the faith"? How are we at maturity? How are we at no longer being tossed about by every wind of doctrine? I would argue that we are clearly failing. Is it because we've shifted from "building up the body of Christ" to "bringing in the sheaves"? Is it because we've aimed the church more toward evangelism than equipping the saints?
I think we've really missed the point in churches today. Worship is not about entertaining the masses or bringing up attendance. It is about God's people offering a sacrifice of praise to an audience of One, not about feeling good about God. It's about maturing believers, not enlarging the congregation. Mind you, mature believers will feel good about God and a church of equipped saints will increase attendance, but these are not the point. I think we've missed it. And I think it is our own loss to our own shame. You see, it's not about taste, about "old" vs "new", about preferences. It's not even about music. It's about unity rather than personal preference, about theology rather than experience, about participation rather than consumption or entertainment. We are engaging in worship of the Creator with all the saints and angels. Now, tell me again why we're changing from "traditional" to "contemporary"? There may be reasons for change, but do they conform to that kind of purpose?
Monday, April 10, 2017
Monday Lite
I was away for the weekend and didn't have a lot of time to write, but I saw this last week and was amazed at the clear thinking of a self-identified "Left" millennial.
Sunday, April 09, 2017
It Is Finished
We are celebrating the Resurrection next week. In the timeline of events, of course, the Crucifixion occurred first. When else did such horror produce such good?
You know the story. You know about His betrayal -- Judas's kiss -- and arrest. You know of His trial. Before they put Him to death, they performed all sorts of cruelty. There were the false witnesses and the scourgings, the beatings and the blood. There were the crown of thorns, the whipping, the robe. It was more than we can imagine. And Scripture says, "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so He opened not his mouth." (Isa 53:7) There is no record of Jesus ever crying out through it all.
Then came the Crucifixion. They forced Him to carry His own instrument of death to the place of execution, something He couldn't complete because of the torture He endured. There they stripped Him naked and drove spikes into His hands and feet and lifted Him up to the abuse of all. Even one of those crucified with Him taunted Him. Here is one point where Jesus is recorded to cry out. It is when He experienced the worst torment possible. Not the physical horrors, but that single moment when He became sin for us and His Father turned His back on Him. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46)
Jesus's final words from the cross were most amazing. "It is finished." (John 19:30) He died there. More accurately, He "gave up His spirit." He died by choice.
It is, then, an astounding outcome from a horrendous event. "For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor 5:21) The Father forsook His Son as the worst possible thing that could happen to His Son in order that we might "become the righteousness of God." In this, "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) Jesus paid it all, a supreme act of love, the outcome of which we might be saved.
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
You know the story. You know about His betrayal -- Judas's kiss -- and arrest. You know of His trial. Before they put Him to death, they performed all sorts of cruelty. There were the false witnesses and the scourgings, the beatings and the blood. There were the crown of thorns, the whipping, the robe. It was more than we can imagine. And Scripture says, "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so He opened not his mouth." (Isa 53:7) There is no record of Jesus ever crying out through it all.
Then came the Crucifixion. They forced Him to carry His own instrument of death to the place of execution, something He couldn't complete because of the torture He endured. There they stripped Him naked and drove spikes into His hands and feet and lifted Him up to the abuse of all. Even one of those crucified with Him taunted Him. Here is one point where Jesus is recorded to cry out. It is when He experienced the worst torment possible. Not the physical horrors, but that single moment when He became sin for us and His Father turned His back on Him. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46)
Jesus's final words from the cross were most amazing. "It is finished." (John 19:30) He died there. More accurately, He "gave up His spirit." He died by choice.
It is, then, an astounding outcome from a horrendous event. "For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor 5:21) The Father forsook His Son as the worst possible thing that could happen to His Son in order that we might "become the righteousness of God." In this, "God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) Jesus paid it all, a supreme act of love, the outcome of which we might be saved.
Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Saturday, April 08, 2017
News Weakly - 4/8/2017
Even She Gets It
Erin Gloria Ryan from the Daily Beast wrote a piece on Mike Pence's "Billy Graham Rule". She admitted that "Mike Pence respects his wife" and thought it was understandable albeit somewhat childish and foolish that he would refuse to be alone with another woman without his wife being present. Her primary concern was that Pence preferred to save babies' lives rather than enlarge abortion options. She was, therefore, not a Mike Pence fan and she was not even a fan of Christian values. So I thought it was pretty amazing that she made this statement. "Pence’s choice to avoid being alone with women is a function of his religious faith. It’s hard to fathom similar left-wing backlash if Pence’s conduct were informed by a non-Christian faith." Wow! In all the errors she wrote, she really hit that nail on the head.
You asked for it ... you got it
Play with fire and you get burned. Redefine words and you'll find it coming back around to bite you. Move "life" to "what we want to call it" and you get ... Himalayan glaciers as "living entities". There ya go. It used to be that "life" meant something. It used to be the thing that distinguished plants and animals from inorganic matter. No longer. Now it means whatever we say it means. Because India has given two rivers "human rights" and declared Himalayan glaciers as "legal persons", something we couldn't do with actual human babies. We have truly redefined reality ... except, of course, we haven't. Just because we feel something is true (or not) doesn't make it so.
Given global climate change and that "any injury or harm caused to these bodies shall be treated as injury or harm caused to human beings", I wonder who's going to get prosecuted first for murder? (I think India is currently one of the biggest contributors to global climate change, isn't it? I told you it will come back and bite you. Karma?)
Eyes Wide Open
Vimeo is a leading video-sharing platform. Last week Vimeo removed 850 videos from Pure Passion Ministries and deleted their account. Why? Dr. Foster, director of Pure Passion Ministries and a former homosexual, offers a "cure" for homosexual behavior -- Christ. "The healing," he said, "comes through faith in Christ." Vimeo says, "We consider this basic viewpoint to display a demeaning attitude toward a specific group, which is something that we do not allow." Or, to put it more correctly, "We do not allow a demeaning attitude toward a specific group unless it's a specific group we wish to demean ... like Christians who disagree with our celebration of homosexuality." Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise. "The John Milton Project list of censorship offenders includes Facebook, Google, Twitter, GoFundMe, and Apple." You should have seen this coming, right?
1984 All Over Again
So Tuesday was a "global Trump protest" where nearly 200 movie theaters worldwide planned to screen the film version of George Orwell's 1984. Orwell's book found a resurgence of interest recently after senior Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway used the term "alternative facts" on a news show. Apparently a lot of the Left sees the Trump administration in a "Big Brother" light.
Funny thing. I, too, reread 1984 recently for the same reason. I was struck by Orwell's amazing characterization of the 21st century Left. They've been the ones rewriting history, redefining terms, and arguing "a boy isn't a boy until he says he is" kinds of things. Does Trump tell the truth? Don't be ridiculous. It has been a standard maxim for a long time: "How do you tell if a politician is lying? If his lips are moving." But it seems to me it's Progressives that are most concerned with "thoughtcrime" like "microagression", "intolerance", "hate", and "bigotry" where they don't exist and controlling the masses by rewriting the language. I'm not at all sure this was a well-aimed protest.
And they're at it again
So, I'm not protesting the ruling, but I am pointing out the logic. According to NBC News, "A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that long-standing federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the job against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees." Fine. Okay. How you prove that they didn't give you the job because of your sexual orientation is a bit vague, but, fine. The reasoning, however, was amazing. "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination." You see, federal law prohibits workplace discrimination on several grounds including "sex". That is, what gender you are. But the court said "it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the 'sex' from 'sexual orientation.'" Because, you see, who you have sex with is the very same thing as what gender you are. Which is really odd since we don't appear to be clear on the definition of gender either.
As I said, I'm not commenting on the ruling. I'm just wondering when what "sex" you are became synonymous with what gender you like to "have sex" with. Chief Judge Diane Wood said, "It is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex." Perhaps her great learning has muddled her brain, because I have no problem telling the difference between orientation and gender.
A Couple of Last Thoughts
This last week saw Equal Pay Day, addressing the gender gap in pay. I was just wondering. If there are ... oh, I don't know ... what ... 50+ genders out there, what does that do to the "gender pay gap" calculations? Just musing ... you know. I don't suppose I'll actually expect studies and numbers and rallies for "equal pay for pangenders" or the rest.
You remember the furor the previous week over the outrageous behavior of the vice president in refusing to let himself get into any questionable situations with women-not-his-wife. You know, the "Billy Graham rule". Because only an immoral, sexist perpetuating patriarchy and pushing prophylactic gender separatism would do such a thing. I was just wondering if anyone noticed 1) the sharp distinction between the president's view ("Hey, you get whatever sex you can get.") and the vice president's view ("You publicly and carefully limit sex to the wife.") and 2) the outrage of loud-mouthed America toward both. "No, no! You can't be coming on to women whenever you want! And, no! You can't avoid it, either. You two are evil, evil men." The other side of the double-standard coin, where you're castigated if you do and castigated if you don't.
Erin Gloria Ryan from the Daily Beast wrote a piece on Mike Pence's "Billy Graham Rule". She admitted that "Mike Pence respects his wife" and thought it was understandable albeit somewhat childish and foolish that he would refuse to be alone with another woman without his wife being present. Her primary concern was that Pence preferred to save babies' lives rather than enlarge abortion options. She was, therefore, not a Mike Pence fan and she was not even a fan of Christian values. So I thought it was pretty amazing that she made this statement. "Pence’s choice to avoid being alone with women is a function of his religious faith. It’s hard to fathom similar left-wing backlash if Pence’s conduct were informed by a non-Christian faith." Wow! In all the errors she wrote, she really hit that nail on the head.
You asked for it ... you got it
Play with fire and you get burned. Redefine words and you'll find it coming back around to bite you. Move "life" to "what we want to call it" and you get ... Himalayan glaciers as "living entities". There ya go. It used to be that "life" meant something. It used to be the thing that distinguished plants and animals from inorganic matter. No longer. Now it means whatever we say it means. Because India has given two rivers "human rights" and declared Himalayan glaciers as "legal persons", something we couldn't do with actual human babies. We have truly redefined reality ... except, of course, we haven't. Just because we feel something is true (or not) doesn't make it so.
Given global climate change and that "any injury or harm caused to these bodies shall be treated as injury or harm caused to human beings", I wonder who's going to get prosecuted first for murder? (I think India is currently one of the biggest contributors to global climate change, isn't it? I told you it will come back and bite you. Karma?)
Eyes Wide Open
Vimeo is a leading video-sharing platform. Last week Vimeo removed 850 videos from Pure Passion Ministries and deleted their account. Why? Dr. Foster, director of Pure Passion Ministries and a former homosexual, offers a "cure" for homosexual behavior -- Christ. "The healing," he said, "comes through faith in Christ." Vimeo says, "We consider this basic viewpoint to display a demeaning attitude toward a specific group, which is something that we do not allow." Or, to put it more correctly, "We do not allow a demeaning attitude toward a specific group unless it's a specific group we wish to demean ... like Christians who disagree with our celebration of homosexuality." Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise. "The John Milton Project list of censorship offenders includes Facebook, Google, Twitter, GoFundMe, and Apple." You should have seen this coming, right?
1984 All Over Again
So Tuesday was a "global Trump protest" where nearly 200 movie theaters worldwide planned to screen the film version of George Orwell's 1984. Orwell's book found a resurgence of interest recently after senior Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway used the term "alternative facts" on a news show. Apparently a lot of the Left sees the Trump administration in a "Big Brother" light.
Funny thing. I, too, reread 1984 recently for the same reason. I was struck by Orwell's amazing characterization of the 21st century Left. They've been the ones rewriting history, redefining terms, and arguing "a boy isn't a boy until he says he is" kinds of things. Does Trump tell the truth? Don't be ridiculous. It has been a standard maxim for a long time: "How do you tell if a politician is lying? If his lips are moving." But it seems to me it's Progressives that are most concerned with "thoughtcrime" like "microagression", "intolerance", "hate", and "bigotry" where they don't exist and controlling the masses by rewriting the language. I'm not at all sure this was a well-aimed protest.
And they're at it again
So, I'm not protesting the ruling, but I am pointing out the logic. According to NBC News, "A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that long-standing federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the job against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees." Fine. Okay. How you prove that they didn't give you the job because of your sexual orientation is a bit vague, but, fine. The reasoning, however, was amazing. "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination." You see, federal law prohibits workplace discrimination on several grounds including "sex". That is, what gender you are. But the court said "it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the 'sex' from 'sexual orientation.'" Because, you see, who you have sex with is the very same thing as what gender you are. Which is really odd since we don't appear to be clear on the definition of gender either.
As I said, I'm not commenting on the ruling. I'm just wondering when what "sex" you are became synonymous with what gender you like to "have sex" with. Chief Judge Diane Wood said, "It is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex." Perhaps her great learning has muddled her brain, because I have no problem telling the difference between orientation and gender.
A Couple of Last Thoughts
This last week saw Equal Pay Day, addressing the gender gap in pay. I was just wondering. If there are ... oh, I don't know ... what ... 50+ genders out there, what does that do to the "gender pay gap" calculations? Just musing ... you know. I don't suppose I'll actually expect studies and numbers and rallies for "equal pay for pangenders" or the rest.
You remember the furor the previous week over the outrageous behavior of the vice president in refusing to let himself get into any questionable situations with women-not-his-wife. You know, the "Billy Graham rule". Because only an immoral, sexist perpetuating patriarchy and pushing prophylactic gender separatism would do such a thing. I was just wondering if anyone noticed 1) the sharp distinction between the president's view ("Hey, you get whatever sex you can get.") and the vice president's view ("You publicly and carefully limit sex to the wife.") and 2) the outrage of loud-mouthed America toward both. "No, no! You can't be coming on to women whenever you want! And, no! You can't avoid it, either. You two are evil, evil men." The other side of the double-standard coin, where you're castigated if you do and castigated if you don't.
Friday, April 07, 2017
Sub Standards
"Here's what I do," he told me. "I know I'm not perfect. I know I do a lot of bad things. So what I aim for is to do more good things than bad. I try to do good things to make up for the bad. I know I hurt people when I was younger, so I try to help people now. That kind of thing."
It was a conversation with a coworker. I don't actually know where it came from. He gave me his "road to salvation" out of the blue. "Make my good outweigh my bad." I suppose it's fairly common. He's not alone in it, I'm sure. And I'm still puzzling over it.
How do you know? A business hires bookkeepers to keep track of outlay and income because accounting is essential. I was taught to balance a checkbook because accounting is essential. But in this arrangement they're just winging it. No way of knowing how much bad or good has been done. Just hope for the best, I suppose.
What is good? Or bad? They're not tracking good or bad, and they're aiming to do more good than bad, but how is "good" and "bad" defined? By what standard is this "good" and that "bad"? "How I feel", I suppose.
Infinite variability is a problem. Not knowing how much bad has been done means you can't know how much good is required to "balance the books", so to speak. Not knowing what is good or bad simply multiplies that problem. Factor in the changing feelings of what constitutes good and bad and it becomes an absolute impossibility. "Well, I thought this was bad before, but now I think it's good. And I know that is bad, but it doesn't deter me in the least from doing it anyway. Must be okay."
I don't really see how any of this provides comfort to the bearer of this standard, such as it is. If your standard is, of whatever sort, "whatever I make it to be", you're on some very thin ice. We have to go by the standards of the One who is perfect (Matt 5:48). Anything else is perilous. And, of course, that standard means we're all in need of a Savior.
It was a conversation with a coworker. I don't actually know where it came from. He gave me his "road to salvation" out of the blue. "Make my good outweigh my bad." I suppose it's fairly common. He's not alone in it, I'm sure. And I'm still puzzling over it.
How do you know? A business hires bookkeepers to keep track of outlay and income because accounting is essential. I was taught to balance a checkbook because accounting is essential. But in this arrangement they're just winging it. No way of knowing how much bad or good has been done. Just hope for the best, I suppose.
What is good? Or bad? They're not tracking good or bad, and they're aiming to do more good than bad, but how is "good" and "bad" defined? By what standard is this "good" and that "bad"? "How I feel", I suppose.
Infinite variability is a problem. Not knowing how much bad has been done means you can't know how much good is required to "balance the books", so to speak. Not knowing what is good or bad simply multiplies that problem. Factor in the changing feelings of what constitutes good and bad and it becomes an absolute impossibility. "Well, I thought this was bad before, but now I think it's good. And I know that is bad, but it doesn't deter me in the least from doing it anyway. Must be okay."
I don't really see how any of this provides comfort to the bearer of this standard, such as it is. If your standard is, of whatever sort, "whatever I make it to be", you're on some very thin ice. We have to go by the standards of the One who is perfect (Matt 5:48). Anything else is perilous. And, of course, that standard means we're all in need of a Savior.
Thursday, April 06, 2017
The Emperor's New Clothes
Hans Christian Andersen wrote the story about two scam artists who called themselves weavers and declared they could make a marvelous suit of clothes. Not only was it unparalleled in beauty, but it carried the added characteristic that it couldn't be seen by someone that was unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. Well, you know the story. The emperor ordered a set and paid big bucks and sent advisers to check on the progress and eventually put them on and walked out to show. No one said anything about the absence of the clothes because everyone knew that if you didn't see them, it was because you were unfit for your positions, stupid, or incompetent. A small child finally called out, "He isn't wearing anything at all!" and the whole thing collapsed.
Now, lots of scholarly people have written lots of scholarly things about the meaning and intent of Andersen's tale. It was political satire against the emperor. It was about maintaining the courage of one's convictions. It was about the expansion of democratic power. Right. Better minds than I, I suppose. What I see is today's perspective. They tell us, "If you believe that gender is accurately recorded on a birth certificate, you're a bigot." They assure us, "If you don't embrace the beliefs and values of others, you're intolerant." They are quite sure that if you don't agree with them on the redefinition of marriage or the celebration of sexual immorality or the like, you're "on the wrong side of history".
A left-leaning mom in California wrote a blog entry about an experience she had with her kids at Disneyland. A clearly male guy walked into the women's bathroom. No one said a thing. Some fled. "There were women and small children using the restroom and this man was walking around knowing no one would say anything." Why? "We had been culturally bullied into silenced."
It's not hate to be concerned for the eternal soul of another person engaged in sexual immorality, adultery, homosexual behavior, theft, or the rest (1 Cor 6:9-10). It's not bigotry to call sin sin. It's not sexism to agree with God regarding submission of wives to husbands (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-6) or excluding women from church leadership (1 Tim 2:12-14). It's not wrong to side with God. We need to remain like that child (Matt 18:3). "He isn't wearing anything at all!"
Now, lots of scholarly people have written lots of scholarly things about the meaning and intent of Andersen's tale. It was political satire against the emperor. It was about maintaining the courage of one's convictions. It was about the expansion of democratic power. Right. Better minds than I, I suppose. What I see is today's perspective. They tell us, "If you believe that gender is accurately recorded on a birth certificate, you're a bigot." They assure us, "If you don't embrace the beliefs and values of others, you're intolerant." They are quite sure that if you don't agree with them on the redefinition of marriage or the celebration of sexual immorality or the like, you're "on the wrong side of history".
A left-leaning mom in California wrote a blog entry about an experience she had with her kids at Disneyland. A clearly male guy walked into the women's bathroom. No one said a thing. Some fled. "There were women and small children using the restroom and this man was walking around knowing no one would say anything." Why? "We had been culturally bullied into silenced."
It's not hate to be concerned for the eternal soul of another person engaged in sexual immorality, adultery, homosexual behavior, theft, or the rest (1 Cor 6:9-10). It's not bigotry to call sin sin. It's not sexism to agree with God regarding submission of wives to husbands (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-6) or excluding women from church leadership (1 Tim 2:12-14). It's not wrong to side with God. We need to remain like that child (Matt 18:3). "He isn't wearing anything at all!"
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
Who Are These People?
I read the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:3-9) the other day. I find it disturbing. Who are these people?
You know the parable. A sower sows seeds. The seeds fall on different types of soil. The seeds on the path are scooped up by birds. The seeds on rocky soil are scorched. The seeds in the weeds are choked. Only the seeds on the good ground produce grain.
Fortunately, we have Jesus's explanation for this particular parable (Matt 13:18-23). So far, so good. The seed is "the word of the kingdom". The one who doesn't understand has the word snatched by the evil one. The rocky soil is one who "receives it with joy", but tribulations and persecutions cause him to fall away. The thorny soil also appears to receive the word, but it is unfruitful because of "the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches." And, then, there's the good soil. We get that one.
Now, that's what the text tells us. What else do we know? Well, we know that "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30) We know that God "is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy." (Jude 1:24) We can be "sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil 1:6)
So, let's feed these back into the "equation". There are four types who receive the word. The first never "experiences" it, so to speak. The last produces "grain". So there are two "soil types" that receive the word, but lose it. Who are these people? You see, if we say they are genuine believers, then Jesus would have to have been wrong when He said that "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" because apparently tribulation and the world are quite able to do so. Jude would be wrong when he said that God was able to keep you from stumbling because persecution and riches are greater than God's ability. Paul would be wrong in his confidence in God because the world would appear to be more powerful than the Father. And we know that cannot be. So ... who are these people?
If John is right -- "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us." (1 John 2:19) -- then it would appear that there are some "Christians" who are not at all. Note how closely they resemble the genuine article. You receive the Word; they receive the Word. You receive it with joy; they receive it with joy. You experience tribulations and persecutions; they experience tribulations and persecutions. You have pressures from the world; they have pressures from the world. In John's version they are in our midst, among us, indistinguishable. They teach and they share and they move among us. Jesus describes (in the very next parable after the Parable of the Sower) the "tares among wheat" (Matt 13:24-30), growing up in the very midst of the real stuff and looking very much like the real stuff and left there by God until the end.
Who are these people who hear the Word and even seem to take it in, but ultimately fail? It would appear, all things considered, that they are the tares among the wheat, the false "believers" who are among us. I think it's clear that we can't pick them out very well. It looks like they can't pick themselves out very well. They may be the neighbor or coworker who tells you, "Yeah, I tried that 'born again' stuff; it didn't work." Or they may be a friendly church member, even serving or leading a class. It's a scary group -- scary largely for their own sakes.
What is clear is this. The genuine reception of the Word is dependent on the heart of the one who receives it. The hard heart, the timid heart, the heart cluttered by the world, these cannot take in the Word. It is a heart problem (Ezek 36:26). Another clear message is that those who actually receive the Word will actually have results -- a change in life and behavior, affecting others and bearing fruit of both affecting others' lives for Christ and bearing the fruit of the Spirit -- what we call "sanctification". If there is no change -- no fruit -- perhaps you ought to be checking your own condition.
You know the parable. A sower sows seeds. The seeds fall on different types of soil. The seeds on the path are scooped up by birds. The seeds on rocky soil are scorched. The seeds in the weeds are choked. Only the seeds on the good ground produce grain.
Fortunately, we have Jesus's explanation for this particular parable (Matt 13:18-23). So far, so good. The seed is "the word of the kingdom". The one who doesn't understand has the word snatched by the evil one. The rocky soil is one who "receives it with joy", but tribulations and persecutions cause him to fall away. The thorny soil also appears to receive the word, but it is unfruitful because of "the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches." And, then, there's the good soil. We get that one.
Now, that's what the text tells us. What else do we know? Well, we know that "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30) We know that God "is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy." (Jude 1:24) We can be "sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil 1:6)
So, let's feed these back into the "equation". There are four types who receive the word. The first never "experiences" it, so to speak. The last produces "grain". So there are two "soil types" that receive the word, but lose it. Who are these people? You see, if we say they are genuine believers, then Jesus would have to have been wrong when He said that "no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" because apparently tribulation and the world are quite able to do so. Jude would be wrong when he said that God was able to keep you from stumbling because persecution and riches are greater than God's ability. Paul would be wrong in his confidence in God because the world would appear to be more powerful than the Father. And we know that cannot be. So ... who are these people?
If John is right -- "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us." (1 John 2:19) -- then it would appear that there are some "Christians" who are not at all. Note how closely they resemble the genuine article. You receive the Word; they receive the Word. You receive it with joy; they receive it with joy. You experience tribulations and persecutions; they experience tribulations and persecutions. You have pressures from the world; they have pressures from the world. In John's version they are in our midst, among us, indistinguishable. They teach and they share and they move among us. Jesus describes (in the very next parable after the Parable of the Sower) the "tares among wheat" (Matt 13:24-30), growing up in the very midst of the real stuff and looking very much like the real stuff and left there by God until the end.
Who are these people who hear the Word and even seem to take it in, but ultimately fail? It would appear, all things considered, that they are the tares among the wheat, the false "believers" who are among us. I think it's clear that we can't pick them out very well. It looks like they can't pick themselves out very well. They may be the neighbor or coworker who tells you, "Yeah, I tried that 'born again' stuff; it didn't work." Or they may be a friendly church member, even serving or leading a class. It's a scary group -- scary largely for their own sakes.
What is clear is this. The genuine reception of the Word is dependent on the heart of the one who receives it. The hard heart, the timid heart, the heart cluttered by the world, these cannot take in the Word. It is a heart problem (Ezek 36:26). Another clear message is that those who actually receive the Word will actually have results -- a change in life and behavior, affecting others and bearing fruit of both affecting others' lives for Christ and bearing the fruit of the Spirit -- what we call "sanctification". If there is no change -- no fruit -- perhaps you ought to be checking your own condition.
Tuesday, April 04, 2017
"Equal Pay" Day
April 4th is Equal Pay Day. Now, of course, different sources offer different days, so we won't quibble over which day it is. The question is what it is. Ostensibly it's a day set aside to highlight pay differences between men and women. It is intended to symbolize "how far into the year women must work to earn what men earned in the previous year."
Nolo.com is a website that gives legal information and sells law products (like software for making wills and the like). They have an article on the Equal Pay Act that "requires employers to pay men and women equally for doing the same work -- equal pay for equal work." I'm in favor of equal pay for equal work. On the question of determining what equal work is, they say, "Courts have ruled that two jobs are equal for the purposes of the Equal Pay Act when both require equal levels of skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar conditions." Fine. Clear enough. Fair enough. And, yet, it doesn't seem to be a part of our vocabulary.
Looking into it further, I found that the Whitehouse.gov website on the topic that claimed that full-time working women earn 77% of what their male counterparts earn is no longer available. The Pew Research Center said it wasn't quite accurate. For instance, "Our own estimate, which is based on hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers, finds women earn 84 percent of what men earn." Further, "for young women, the wage gap is even smaller – at 93 percent." They point out that women typically experience more career interruptions which means they work reduced work hours, take more time off, turn down promotions, and quit jobs significantly more than men. The raw number (last year the Washington Post put it at 79%) for the discrepancy in pay is not in terms of equal pay for equal work, but in terms of money made without regard for equal work. It is "a ratio of the difference between women’s median earnings and men’s median earnings." But if you drop that to weekly wages, the gap drops to 18 cents and if you look at hourly wages it's down to 13 cents. (As it turned out, the women in Obama's White House were paid on this ratio of earnings at 88% of what the men there earned, an almost literal "not putting your money where your mouth is.")
Is there a pay gap? Sure. The facts and figures are unavoidable. And, certainly, just as racism still resides in certain communities (and is wholeheartedly encouraged in others while denying it exists there), sexism still has some weight to throw around. On the other hand, figuring out how to fix it is much harder than it looks. How much is due to unequal work? How much is due to unequal hours, unequal jobs, unequal effort, unequal skills, unequal responsibility? Is the answer a socialism-lite, where we pay everyone the same, at least to some extent? Maybe we think that it's time for an "equal pay affirmative action" system where we give women more simply for being women, obviously taking it from the men to recompense them for years of inequity. On the other hand, very few seemed to notice that in the 2009 recession far more men lost their jobs than women. It might be shown that those making more money are also working more and taking more risks. Or shall we just do as we've done in so many other places and redefine "equal pay for equal work" to be whatever makes us feel better, even if it isn't a valid definition?
Nolo.com is a website that gives legal information and sells law products (like software for making wills and the like). They have an article on the Equal Pay Act that "requires employers to pay men and women equally for doing the same work -- equal pay for equal work." I'm in favor of equal pay for equal work. On the question of determining what equal work is, they say, "Courts have ruled that two jobs are equal for the purposes of the Equal Pay Act when both require equal levels of skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar conditions." Fine. Clear enough. Fair enough. And, yet, it doesn't seem to be a part of our vocabulary.
Looking into it further, I found that the Whitehouse.gov website on the topic that claimed that full-time working women earn 77% of what their male counterparts earn is no longer available. The Pew Research Center said it wasn't quite accurate. For instance, "Our own estimate, which is based on hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers, finds women earn 84 percent of what men earn." Further, "for young women, the wage gap is even smaller – at 93 percent." They point out that women typically experience more career interruptions which means they work reduced work hours, take more time off, turn down promotions, and quit jobs significantly more than men. The raw number (last year the Washington Post put it at 79%) for the discrepancy in pay is not in terms of equal pay for equal work, but in terms of money made without regard for equal work. It is "a ratio of the difference between women’s median earnings and men’s median earnings." But if you drop that to weekly wages, the gap drops to 18 cents and if you look at hourly wages it's down to 13 cents. (As it turned out, the women in Obama's White House were paid on this ratio of earnings at 88% of what the men there earned, an almost literal "not putting your money where your mouth is.")
Is there a pay gap? Sure. The facts and figures are unavoidable. And, certainly, just as racism still resides in certain communities (and is wholeheartedly encouraged in others while denying it exists there), sexism still has some weight to throw around. On the other hand, figuring out how to fix it is much harder than it looks. How much is due to unequal work? How much is due to unequal hours, unequal jobs, unequal effort, unequal skills, unequal responsibility? Is the answer a socialism-lite, where we pay everyone the same, at least to some extent? Maybe we think that it's time for an "equal pay affirmative action" system where we give women more simply for being women, obviously taking it from the men to recompense them for years of inequity. On the other hand, very few seemed to notice that in the 2009 recession far more men lost their jobs than women. It might be shown that those making more money are also working more and taking more risks. Or shall we just do as we've done in so many other places and redefine "equal pay for equal work" to be whatever makes us feel better, even if it isn't a valid definition?
Monday, April 03, 2017
Intimate
In our "brave new world" we've managed to change meanings of many words and concepts, and not for the better. Sex was once the ultimate union of husband and wife and is now the plaything of "friends with benefits". Intercourse once meant any communication between people or groups -- social intercourse, economic intercourse, and, yes, sexual intercourse, but much more than that. Now it means only one of those. It's the same with "intimacy". In our current culture "intimacy" means one and only one thing -- sex. The word actually refers to very close association, contact, or familiarity. While that could (could, not must) include sexual intimacy, it is much, much more. Oddly enough, in today's world sexual intimacy requires very little actual intimacy at all.
Intimacy -- beyond the mere sexual -- is important to human beings. We need mental, verbal, emotional and other forms of intimacy. We need someone who we let inside. Proverbs says, "A man of too many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24) That's an intimate. Someone closer. More than an acquaintance. Closer than a close friend. An intimate friend. Ideally that would be your spouse, of course, but not everyone has a spouse and not everyone is intimate that way with their spouse.
We are people in need of genuine connections. We need mental intimacy, another mind that operates in the same channels that ours does. We each have various things important to us, and it's vital that we have someone else with whom to share those things. We all have feelings, some hidden, repressed, unexpressed but very much in need of acknowledgment by someone. Each of us needs someone who can share in some of our experiences that aren't shared by everyone. We need someone we can trust at that deepest of levels with our deepest thoughts, feelings, and concerns.
Unfortunately, it seems as if our society is losing this. There used to be a larger base of family from which to draw, the so-called "nuclear family" where we lived tightly connected to the community that is family. No more. Intimacy takes time, but we've become a largely transitory culture moving from place to place and job to job and even spouse to spouse, shortchanging intimacy in all these possible areas. Having relegated "intimate" to "sex" and shifted from largely face-to-face to electronic communications, genuine intimacy seems to be harder and harder. There are quiet cries from all over from people longing for that intimate connection but unable to find it.
We need intimacy. The world has gone a long way to avoid it. Our first necessary intimacy is with God. "Be still and know that I am God," He says (Psa 46:10). We are saved on the basis of Him knowing us (Gal 4:9). "If anyone loves God, he is known by Him." (1 Cor 8:3) But we need that close bond here with one another as well. We need people who we give permission to come into the deepest parts and share in our secret places. Not a lot. But one or two. It ia necessary.
Intimacy -- beyond the mere sexual -- is important to human beings. We need mental, verbal, emotional and other forms of intimacy. We need someone who we let inside. Proverbs says, "A man of too many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24) That's an intimate. Someone closer. More than an acquaintance. Closer than a close friend. An intimate friend. Ideally that would be your spouse, of course, but not everyone has a spouse and not everyone is intimate that way with their spouse.
We are people in need of genuine connections. We need mental intimacy, another mind that operates in the same channels that ours does. We each have various things important to us, and it's vital that we have someone else with whom to share those things. We all have feelings, some hidden, repressed, unexpressed but very much in need of acknowledgment by someone. Each of us needs someone who can share in some of our experiences that aren't shared by everyone. We need someone we can trust at that deepest of levels with our deepest thoughts, feelings, and concerns.
Unfortunately, it seems as if our society is losing this. There used to be a larger base of family from which to draw, the so-called "nuclear family" where we lived tightly connected to the community that is family. No more. Intimacy takes time, but we've become a largely transitory culture moving from place to place and job to job and even spouse to spouse, shortchanging intimacy in all these possible areas. Having relegated "intimate" to "sex" and shifted from largely face-to-face to electronic communications, genuine intimacy seems to be harder and harder. There are quiet cries from all over from people longing for that intimate connection but unable to find it.
We need intimacy. The world has gone a long way to avoid it. Our first necessary intimacy is with God. "Be still and know that I am God," He says (Psa 46:10). We are saved on the basis of Him knowing us (Gal 4:9). "If anyone loves God, he is known by Him." (1 Cor 8:3) But we need that close bond here with one another as well. We need people who we give permission to come into the deepest parts and share in our secret places. Not a lot. But one or two. It ia necessary.
Sunday, April 02, 2017
You Might Be A Sinner
If you've never struggled with sin, you might have a real sin problem. I've you've ever or never confessed sin, you might be a sinner. If you've never asked or ever asked, "Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24), you might be a sinner. Well, to be clear, if you've ever been born, you might be a sinner. Nay, you are.
Sin is the default position of anyone born human -- an inborn defiance of the God who made us. You don't have to teach children to be bad; you have to teach them not to. We consider it courageous to resist temptation because our natural tendency is not to. In John's first epistle, he gives us two options. We can either agree with God that we are sinners -- that we sin -- or we can not, in which case "we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us" and "we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10)
You see, this isn't a "you" problem. This isn't "All you rotten people out there are sinning!" This is a "we" problem. I would dispute with Paul who calls himself the foremost of sinners (1 Tim 1:15) because I fear I could be that myself.
This is why we have such delight in Paul's response to his own claim of being foremost of sinners.
If you do not struggle with sin, you might have a good reason to ask if you've ever been saved. But if you, like others before you, recognize your sin and struggle with it and long for that permanent release from sin, you are likely right where you need to be, trusting solely in the God who demonstrates His love toward us, resting only in Christ Jesus who came into the world to save sinners ... sinners like me and like you. That there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus produces joy inexpressible to the ones who know the condemnation they deserve.
Sin is the default position of anyone born human -- an inborn defiance of the God who made us. You don't have to teach children to be bad; you have to teach them not to. We consider it courageous to resist temptation because our natural tendency is not to. In John's first epistle, he gives us two options. We can either agree with God that we are sinners -- that we sin -- or we can not, in which case "we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us" and "we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10)
You see, this isn't a "you" problem. This isn't "All you rotten people out there are sinning!" This is a "we" problem. I would dispute with Paul who calls himself the foremost of sinners (1 Tim 1:15) because I fear I could be that myself.
This is why we have such delight in Paul's response to his own claim of being foremost of sinners.
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (1 Tim 1:15)This is why Paul's response to his own cry, "Who will set me free from the body of this death?", is so remarkable.
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. (Rom 8:1-2)"We have fixed our hope on the living God," Paul says (1 Tim 4:10). "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) Good news, indeed!
If you do not struggle with sin, you might have a good reason to ask if you've ever been saved. But if you, like others before you, recognize your sin and struggle with it and long for that permanent release from sin, you are likely right where you need to be, trusting solely in the God who demonstrates His love toward us, resting only in Christ Jesus who came into the world to save sinners ... sinners like me and like you. That there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus produces joy inexpressible to the ones who know the condemnation they deserve.
Saturday, April 01, 2017
News Weakly - 4/1/2017
A Truly Interesting Story
Not all weekly news is bad. Try this interesting story, not just in content, but where it comes from. This New York Times article tells the story of Bashir Mohammad, a 25-year-old "jihadi who turned to Jesus." Yeah, imagine that! A terrorist who turned to Christ, and the story is in the New York Times. Will miracles never cease?
Not all news on April Fool's Day is foolish.
Pardon me ...
... you're contradiction is showing.
So, what do we know? Well, today we know that the body parts that accompany you at birth do not determine your actual gender; you do. We know that when a male identifies as a female he changes his appearance to look "female" or vice versa (ala Bruce Jenner). Now, this seems odd, doesn't it, since body parts don't determine gender but gender determines body parts? And then we find the inevitable next contradiction. A leading ethics expert at the British Medical Association has said that women should be allowed to abort babies based on gender. The doctor tells the (not yet) mother that the (not yet) baby is a boy and she doesn't want a boy? She should be free to kill that (not yet) child on that basis. Wait ... wait! Didn't we just agree that we can't know the gender before ... the child is old enough to tell us what it is? How can the baby be the wrong gender? How can it be a baby? How does any of this make sense?
For the Birds ... NOT
Based on the date of the story, I clearly came upon this late, but it's the first I heard of it. After Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's famous "Miracle on the Hudson" crash landing due to bird strike, New York City's three major airports undertook a sort of "nuclear option" program to decrease the risk to aircraft from birds. The Associated Press has determined that "nearly 70,000 gulls, starling, geese and other birds have been slaughtered, mostly by shooting and trapping, since the 2009 accident, and it is not clear whether those killings have made the skies safer." It appears that bird strikes have actually gone up since the program began.
Hey, wait! I thought we were supposed to be saving the environment, not annihilating it. Make up your minds!
A Case of Mixed-Up Priorities
You remember those videos where they recorded Planned Parenthood folk elaborating on the evil things they did about abortion. You know, selling body parts, killing live-birth babies, that sort of thing. Last year a Texas grand jury was convened to investigate Planned Parenthood and ended up charging the two who made the videos instead. The charges were dropped. Now California is bringing charges. No, again, not against Planned Parenthood. They're charging the two who made the videos with 15 felonies for filming without consent. "Invasion of privacy." That ought to teach them. "You can’t target women & health care providers without consequences." That's for sure. Ensure privacy for illegal activities? Absolutely! Protect babies? No way! We as a society have arrived at the point where we embrace the murder of the most innocent of children and punish those who wish to curtail it. Not something to be proud of.
Just When You Thought ...
"Come into the 21st century," they've told me. The suggestion has been, "We're much more advanced now." I'm not so sure. As it turns out, witchcraft has gone mainstream with healing crystals, incense, horoscopes, and mystical spiritual powers. "Spiritual but not religious" is in vogue and witchcraft is in use by ex-churchgoing millenial women, often as part of anti-mysogynistic views, women who are "fully sane and high-achieving young professionals". And in Uganda and elsewhere child sacrifice is on the rise. "A thriving business," the article says. Tell me again how we're so much more advanced now.
The Billy Graham Rule
Story after story over the last few years have surfaced of women crying "Rape!" who were not. Or were. We'll likely never know. The well-documented failure of Rolling Stone magazine last year to properly verify the rape accusation is a prime example. Do rapes and affairs happen? Sure. But not all such accusations are created equal. So the story comes out that Mike Pence practices the 'Billy Graham Rule' of not eating alone with women other than his wife to avoid any possibility of scandal, and the media has exploded over his "sexism". Either he thinks that women are untrustworthy or he's a latent womanizer, but he's evil. One writer said, "It's not cute, it's incredibly sexist." The Internet is sure. It's all about him being a bad man. It cannot be about avoiding the appearance of impropriety or possible false accusations. How do we know that? I suspect it's because he's President Trump's vice-president, and everything connected with Trump is evil, right? In our day of "guilty until proven innocent" by the media and the public, I'd consider it wise, but, hey, who am I to say?
Seen on the Internet
Maybe you've heard of John Piper; maybe not. Maybe you've read his book, Don't Waste Your Life; maybe not. However, the Babylon Bee is a great site for fake Christian news, and this one really had me laughing ... and it was just with the headline alone. New Video Game Simulates Not Wasting Your Life. Classic. The only discouraging thing is the thought of how many millennial-types won't get it.
Not all weekly news is bad. Try this interesting story, not just in content, but where it comes from. This New York Times article tells the story of Bashir Mohammad, a 25-year-old "jihadi who turned to Jesus." Yeah, imagine that! A terrorist who turned to Christ, and the story is in the New York Times. Will miracles never cease?
Not all news on April Fool's Day is foolish.
Pardon me ...
... you're contradiction is showing.
So, what do we know? Well, today we know that the body parts that accompany you at birth do not determine your actual gender; you do. We know that when a male identifies as a female he changes his appearance to look "female" or vice versa (ala Bruce Jenner). Now, this seems odd, doesn't it, since body parts don't determine gender but gender determines body parts? And then we find the inevitable next contradiction. A leading ethics expert at the British Medical Association has said that women should be allowed to abort babies based on gender. The doctor tells the (not yet) mother that the (not yet) baby is a boy and she doesn't want a boy? She should be free to kill that (not yet) child on that basis. Wait ... wait! Didn't we just agree that we can't know the gender before ... the child is old enough to tell us what it is? How can the baby be the wrong gender? How can it be a baby? How does any of this make sense?
For the Birds ... NOT
Based on the date of the story, I clearly came upon this late, but it's the first I heard of it. After Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's famous "Miracle on the Hudson" crash landing due to bird strike, New York City's three major airports undertook a sort of "nuclear option" program to decrease the risk to aircraft from birds. The Associated Press has determined that "nearly 70,000 gulls, starling, geese and other birds have been slaughtered, mostly by shooting and trapping, since the 2009 accident, and it is not clear whether those killings have made the skies safer." It appears that bird strikes have actually gone up since the program began.
Hey, wait! I thought we were supposed to be saving the environment, not annihilating it. Make up your minds!
A Case of Mixed-Up Priorities
You remember those videos where they recorded Planned Parenthood folk elaborating on the evil things they did about abortion. You know, selling body parts, killing live-birth babies, that sort of thing. Last year a Texas grand jury was convened to investigate Planned Parenthood and ended up charging the two who made the videos instead. The charges were dropped. Now California is bringing charges. No, again, not against Planned Parenthood. They're charging the two who made the videos with 15 felonies for filming without consent. "Invasion of privacy." That ought to teach them. "You can’t target women & health care providers without consequences." That's for sure. Ensure privacy for illegal activities? Absolutely! Protect babies? No way! We as a society have arrived at the point where we embrace the murder of the most innocent of children and punish those who wish to curtail it. Not something to be proud of.
Just When You Thought ...
"Come into the 21st century," they've told me. The suggestion has been, "We're much more advanced now." I'm not so sure. As it turns out, witchcraft has gone mainstream with healing crystals, incense, horoscopes, and mystical spiritual powers. "Spiritual but not religious" is in vogue and witchcraft is in use by ex-churchgoing millenial women, often as part of anti-mysogynistic views, women who are "fully sane and high-achieving young professionals". And in Uganda and elsewhere child sacrifice is on the rise. "A thriving business," the article says. Tell me again how we're so much more advanced now.
The Billy Graham Rule
Story after story over the last few years have surfaced of women crying "Rape!" who were not. Or were. We'll likely never know. The well-documented failure of Rolling Stone magazine last year to properly verify the rape accusation is a prime example. Do rapes and affairs happen? Sure. But not all such accusations are created equal. So the story comes out that Mike Pence practices the 'Billy Graham Rule' of not eating alone with women other than his wife to avoid any possibility of scandal, and the media has exploded over his "sexism". Either he thinks that women are untrustworthy or he's a latent womanizer, but he's evil. One writer said, "It's not cute, it's incredibly sexist." The Internet is sure. It's all about him being a bad man. It cannot be about avoiding the appearance of impropriety or possible false accusations. How do we know that? I suspect it's because he's President Trump's vice-president, and everything connected with Trump is evil, right? In our day of "guilty until proven innocent" by the media and the public, I'd consider it wise, but, hey, who am I to say?
Seen on the Internet
Maybe you've heard of John Piper; maybe not. Maybe you've read his book, Don't Waste Your Life; maybe not. However, the Babylon Bee is a great site for fake Christian news, and this one really had me laughing ... and it was just with the headline alone. New Video Game Simulates Not Wasting Your Life. Classic. The only discouraging thing is the thought of how many millennial-types won't get it.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Not-Quite Solas
You may have heard of the "5 solas". "Sola" is "alone" in Latin, so the Reformers had these five "alones": sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, sola scriptura, and soli Deo gloria. Okay, in English, we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We are ruled by Scripture alone and all glory goes to God alone. All well and good. Except they aren't true. Well, not true in the sense of "alone". And this, I think, is the cause of some confusion with some people.
The easy one first -- soli Deo gloria. Is it not true that God gets all the glory. Well, mostly. We do know, for instance, that God's plan is to predestine some "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29). "And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." (Rom 8:30) So there is certainly a sense in which God's people will be "glorified". In the end, however, God gets the glory for that, so let's let that one go.
One of the most controversial is sola scriptura. What do we mean? Does it mean that the Bible is the sole source for truth? No, it doesn't. Then in what sense is Scripture "sola" -- alone? Well, by the term we mean that as the Word God breathed, Scripture is our sole authority on matters of faith and practice. Not on math, science, or biology. Not on politics, psychology, or economics. But when it comes to the Christian faith and how we ought to practice that faith, Scripture, as God's Word, is our sole authority. (Of course, this may have an impact on math, politics, economics, or the like, but you get what I'm saying, right?)
So, two of these "solas", as it turns out, are not strictly "alone". What we're finding is that they are "alone" in the sense that they exclude something specific. We give all glory to God and no one else. Others are excluded. Scripture is our sole authority in matters and faith and not the Roman Catholic Church, the priesthood, or the enlightened pentecostal down the street. This same idea works out in the other three.
We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Indeed, this is almost word for word from Scripture. Except, of course, the "alones" aren't in there. So we read, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8) This is true. Saved by grace through faith. Notice, however, that it doesn't say "in Christ". That's easily resolved, of course, but it's not in there. And this is significant for this discussion. You see, we are not saved by faith alone. You can see it in the phrase itself. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. That's three things, not "alone". Scripture says, "The demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19) Faith alone saves no one. What, then, do we mean by sola fide? We mean that we are saved through faith apart from works. That's the intent. It is, in fact, critical. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Rom 4:4-5) It is the distinctive of Christianity. We are not saved by works; we are saved by faith.
But not faith alone. We are saved by grace, too. How does that work? What is the phrase sola gratia intended to convey? It is intended, again, to exclude something. What? It excludes merit. "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (Rom 11:6) We are saved on the pure kindness of God apart from any value in ourselves.
That leaves us with solus Christus. Clearly we are saved by grace through faith, so "alone" still doesn't quite apply, so what is intended here? As I've said, faith alone saves no one. If it did, "I believe I'll have another beer" would be a saving faith. Trust me; it's not. No, in order for us to be saved, there must be grace from someone and there must be faith in someone and that someone must be the right someone. Thus, solus Christus means we are saved by faith in Christ and in no other. It is a reference to the exclusivity of the Christian faith. As Peter told the crowds, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
That about rounds it up. While these solas are not actually alone, it is true that we are to live our lives to God's glory alone. It is true that Scripture is our sole authority in matters of faith and practice. It is true that we are saved through faith apart from works by grace apart from merit in Christ and no other. And when you think it all through, you find that these are quite comprehensive. I, for one, am glad for the five not-quite solas.
The easy one first -- soli Deo gloria. Is it not true that God gets all the glory. Well, mostly. We do know, for instance, that God's plan is to predestine some "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29). "And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." (Rom 8:30) So there is certainly a sense in which God's people will be "glorified". In the end, however, God gets the glory for that, so let's let that one go.
One of the most controversial is sola scriptura. What do we mean? Does it mean that the Bible is the sole source for truth? No, it doesn't. Then in what sense is Scripture "sola" -- alone? Well, by the term we mean that as the Word God breathed, Scripture is our sole authority on matters of faith and practice. Not on math, science, or biology. Not on politics, psychology, or economics. But when it comes to the Christian faith and how we ought to practice that faith, Scripture, as God's Word, is our sole authority. (Of course, this may have an impact on math, politics, economics, or the like, but you get what I'm saying, right?)
So, two of these "solas", as it turns out, are not strictly "alone". What we're finding is that they are "alone" in the sense that they exclude something specific. We give all glory to God and no one else. Others are excluded. Scripture is our sole authority in matters and faith and not the Roman Catholic Church, the priesthood, or the enlightened pentecostal down the street. This same idea works out in the other three.
We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Indeed, this is almost word for word from Scripture. Except, of course, the "alones" aren't in there. So we read, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8) This is true. Saved by grace through faith. Notice, however, that it doesn't say "in Christ". That's easily resolved, of course, but it's not in there. And this is significant for this discussion. You see, we are not saved by faith alone. You can see it in the phrase itself. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. That's three things, not "alone". Scripture says, "The demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19) Faith alone saves no one. What, then, do we mean by sola fide? We mean that we are saved through faith apart from works. That's the intent. It is, in fact, critical. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Rom 4:4-5) It is the distinctive of Christianity. We are not saved by works; we are saved by faith.
But not faith alone. We are saved by grace, too. How does that work? What is the phrase sola gratia intended to convey? It is intended, again, to exclude something. What? It excludes merit. "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (Rom 11:6) We are saved on the pure kindness of God apart from any value in ourselves.
That leaves us with solus Christus. Clearly we are saved by grace through faith, so "alone" still doesn't quite apply, so what is intended here? As I've said, faith alone saves no one. If it did, "I believe I'll have another beer" would be a saving faith. Trust me; it's not. No, in order for us to be saved, there must be grace from someone and there must be faith in someone and that someone must be the right someone. Thus, solus Christus means we are saved by faith in Christ and in no other. It is a reference to the exclusivity of the Christian faith. As Peter told the crowds, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
That about rounds it up. While these solas are not actually alone, it is true that we are to live our lives to God's glory alone. It is true that Scripture is our sole authority in matters of faith and practice. It is true that we are saved through faith apart from works by grace apart from merit in Christ and no other. And when you think it all through, you find that these are quite comprehensive. I, for one, am glad for the five not-quite solas.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Make America Great Again
There is a famous quote, falsely attributed to Alexis de Toqueville, that is, despite its lack of a sure source, true.
Here's the problem. While the standard default for most people is "People are basically good", the truth is that they are not ... and now we have a problem. (If you don't believe the Bible's version, simply look at the daily news version.) It is a problem the Founding Fathers understood. They understood that a self-governed people could only have a great nation as long as they were self-governed themselves -- as long as they were moral. The more unruly the people, the more government would be required to step in. Freedom would be diminished because a democracy of unruly, immoral people produces an unruly, immoral government. So when we see "big government" at work, you can be pretty sure it's not because government is evil, but because people are evil.
This last election cycle our now-president ran on a "Make America Great Again" slogan. In this idea, originally the Reagan slogan, is a misconception -- America can be great without being good. That is, "The answer is in a better government." Truth is no president, no Congress, no judiciary has the capability to "Make America Great Again". It is not within their power. And trusting in any form of government to provide that greatness is pure foolishness.
This is when Scripture is handy to have around. Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18) David wrote, "There is no one who does good, not even one." (Psa 14:3) Isaiah said that the best we can do is like filthy garments (Isa 64:6). From God's perspective, if America's greatness lies in having good people, "Make America Great Again" looks bleak. But there is another side -- good news, if you will. Paul's prayer was that he would "be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." (Phil 3:9) He wrote, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor 5:21) That is, while humans by nature are not good, there is a righteousness available -- the righteousness found in Christ. If we want to "Make America Great Again", it is not going to happen by beating the Left into submission, hiring the right judges, or getting rid of or embracing (depending on you persuasion) President Trump's views. It is found in the Good News that we can be saved by grace through faith in Christ. It is not in better government; it is in better people. And, as it happens, we know the One who can make better people. So, in the Internet vernacular, SHARE.
________
Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.1"That's quite a claim, Stan. How can you say that it's true?" Well, think about it. Is it not always true? Consider. In order for any government to be good, it requires that government to be good. That is, you might have a monarchy where the monarch is good and it will be good or a dictator where the dictator is good and you will have a benevolent dictatorship. If the governing body is good, the government will be good. Pretty simple. When you then substitute the "better" government of either a democracy or our republican-style government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", what has to be good in order for us to have a good government? The people. Simple. So in order for a republic to have a good government and, therefore, a good country, the people have to be good. And we're right back at that quote.
Here's the problem. While the standard default for most people is "People are basically good", the truth is that they are not ... and now we have a problem. (If you don't believe the Bible's version, simply look at the daily news version.) It is a problem the Founding Fathers understood. They understood that a self-governed people could only have a great nation as long as they were self-governed themselves -- as long as they were moral. The more unruly the people, the more government would be required to step in. Freedom would be diminished because a democracy of unruly, immoral people produces an unruly, immoral government. So when we see "big government" at work, you can be pretty sure it's not because government is evil, but because people are evil.
This last election cycle our now-president ran on a "Make America Great Again" slogan. In this idea, originally the Reagan slogan, is a misconception -- America can be great without being good. That is, "The answer is in a better government." Truth is no president, no Congress, no judiciary has the capability to "Make America Great Again". It is not within their power. And trusting in any form of government to provide that greatness is pure foolishness.
This is when Scripture is handy to have around. Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18) David wrote, "There is no one who does good, not even one." (Psa 14:3) Isaiah said that the best we can do is like filthy garments (Isa 64:6). From God's perspective, if America's greatness lies in having good people, "Make America Great Again" looks bleak. But there is another side -- good news, if you will. Paul's prayer was that he would "be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." (Phil 3:9) He wrote, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor 5:21) That is, while humans by nature are not good, there is a righteousness available -- the righteousness found in Christ. If we want to "Make America Great Again", it is not going to happen by beating the Left into submission, hiring the right judges, or getting rid of or embracing (depending on you persuasion) President Trump's views. It is found in the Good News that we can be saved by grace through faith in Christ. It is not in better government; it is in better people. And, as it happens, we know the One who can make better people. So, in the Internet vernacular, SHARE.
________
1 The best source I can find for the quote is from two English Congregational ministers who traveled in the United States in 1834. They wrote a book, A Narrative of the Visit to the American Churches by the Deputation from the Congregational Union of England and Wales (London, 1836), in which they wrote, "Universal suffrage, whatever may be its abstract merits or demerits, is neither desirable nor possible, except the people are the subjects of universal education and universal piety. America will be great if America is good. If not, her greatness will vanish away like a morning cloud." Not the same thing, but close.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Pick and Choose
If you've been around much at all, you've heard the accusation. "You Christians pick and choose which verses you're going to obey." Pretty common. Why do they say it? Well, at the bottom, of course, it's because they figure if they can cast aspersions on us, they can use that as a reason to ignore God. Fine. But what is the more surface reason? Well, it's largely based on the fact that we don't follow the Jewish laws of dress and food and animal sacrifice but do aim to follow the moral law, not for salvation, but to obey the God we claim to follow. Because of the fact that the surface reason is not the actual reason for the accusation, the truth is that no matter how much we say about how Christ fulfilled the ceremonial laws or about how we are not under the Old Testament civil laws, they will retain the accusation. The real aim is to avoid responding to God. It's called a red herring.
There is still, however, a problem. The reality is that any honest, genuine, Bible-believing Christian would have to admit that we do indeed pick and choose what commands we will obey. And not on the basis of Christ's fulfillment of the sacrifices required or us not being part of Israel's civil laws. It's because of our refusal to obey. To our shame.
Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Notice the form; it is indicative, not prescriptive. It says what will happen if you love Him, not what you must do to love Him. John wrote, "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him." (1 John 2:3-5) This is not to suggest that perfection is required to know Him. It does suggest that a persistent failure to follow Him is a reason to question your relationship with Him. (Remember, 1 John 2:3-5 is preceded by 1 John 2:1-2 in which John tells us of the Advocate we have in Christ when we sin. Perfection is not in view here; rampant refusal to obey His commands is.)
Sure, we all sin in many ways (James 3:2). He might, in a moment of weakness, find himself looking at porn and repent. She might, without thinking, opt to refuse to submit to her husband and regret it. Oh, and there is the ever present "pride monster", a roaring lion of its own waiting to attack us. We all do it. I'm not talking about sinning -- about the normal sin-repent cycle we all experience. I'm talking about refusal to obey. Obedience is important, and I'm suggesting that we seem to have a systemic disobedience in many of the commands we've been given. What kinds of commands am I referring to? Well, we all know the command sequence Paul gave the Thessalonians.
We live in America, the home of the brave ... and exceedingly rich by the world's standards. So I would argue that most of us struggle with covetousness and greed. We find excuses for not being satisfied and think up ways why it would be good and right to be greedy ... which Scriptures calls "idolatry" (Col 3:5). I'm not talking about the "slip and fall" type. I'm talking about the sustained "No, I don't have to obey that command" type. That seems like an issue for American Christians.
Which of us has never heard of the Great Commission? It is, after all, part of the grand scheme of God in which believers are to take part.
Just a few examples. Not small ones, big ones. We don't even need to go with the top two: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and body, and love your neighbor as yourself. How hard do we work at those two? Not hard enough, I'd guess. I think if you looked at Scripture you'd find a tendency in yourself to pick and choose what commands you'll obey and what you'll ignore. So while we fend off the false accusation of the skeptics in theory, we end up affirming it in practice. Mind you, I'm not pointing fingers at you here. I'm looking in a mirror. I suspect, however, that other genuine, Bible-believing Christians might find that they might see a similar reflection in their own mirrors. I know it has been fairly common in my long Christian experience. So maybe you might want to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!" (2 Cor 13:5) You know, "Be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you." (2 Peter 1:10) We who wish to follow Christ ought to be following Christ, oughtn't we? Not picking and choosing.
There is still, however, a problem. The reality is that any honest, genuine, Bible-believing Christian would have to admit that we do indeed pick and choose what commands we will obey. And not on the basis of Christ's fulfillment of the sacrifices required or us not being part of Israel's civil laws. It's because of our refusal to obey. To our shame.
Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Notice the form; it is indicative, not prescriptive. It says what will happen if you love Him, not what you must do to love Him. John wrote, "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him." (1 John 2:3-5) This is not to suggest that perfection is required to know Him. It does suggest that a persistent failure to follow Him is a reason to question your relationship with Him. (Remember, 1 John 2:3-5 is preceded by 1 John 2:1-2 in which John tells us of the Advocate we have in Christ when we sin. Perfection is not in view here; rampant refusal to obey His commands is.)
Sure, we all sin in many ways (James 3:2). He might, in a moment of weakness, find himself looking at porn and repent. She might, without thinking, opt to refuse to submit to her husband and regret it. Oh, and there is the ever present "pride monster", a roaring lion of its own waiting to attack us. We all do it. I'm not talking about sinning -- about the normal sin-repent cycle we all experience. I'm talking about refusal to obey. Obedience is important, and I'm suggesting that we seem to have a systemic disobedience in many of the commands we've been given. What kinds of commands am I referring to? Well, we all know the command sequence Paul gave the Thessalonians.
Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thess 5:16-18)How well would you say you do that? Any of it? Rejoice, pray, give thanks? Notice the superlatives: "always", "without ceasing", "in everything". A bit much, right? But Paul says that "this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus", so it would seem to be important. Do you? Do you at least make an effort? We often wonder, "What is God's will for my life?" and we have something here in print in God's inspired Word and we seem to largely ignore it. Doesn't that seem problematic?
We live in America, the home of the brave ... and exceedingly rich by the world's standards. So I would argue that most of us struggle with covetousness and greed. We find excuses for not being satisfied and think up ways why it would be good and right to be greedy ... which Scriptures calls "idolatry" (Col 3:5). I'm not talking about the "slip and fall" type. I'm talking about the sustained "No, I don't have to obey that command" type. That seems like an issue for American Christians.
Which of us has never heard of the Great Commission? It is, after all, part of the grand scheme of God in which believers are to take part.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:19-20)We are ostensibly followers of Christ. That's what "Christian" means. He gave this Great Commission to His followers. "Make disciples." Do we? Sure, it's big. It includes going and spreading the gospel. It includes baptism. It includes teaching them "all that I commanded you." It should be done as Jesus did (since we are, after all, followers of Christ). Do we do anything like this on the whole? Do you know a church that teaches and practices discipleship? Is your Christian experience one of being discipled and discipling others? Here we have a straightforward command from our Lord based on His ultimate authority (Matt 28:18) and yet we calmly and coolly mostly skip out on it. We don't even do the watered down version much -- "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." (Mark 16:15) "It's okay," we tell ourselves. "There are missionary types who will do this for us. We can keep safe here in our shell as long as we give out some dollars to support them, can't we?" This is a prime command from our Lord Jesus Christ not given to Old Testament Israel but to the Church that we largely choose to ignore in our personal lives.
Just a few examples. Not small ones, big ones. We don't even need to go with the top two: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and body, and love your neighbor as yourself. How hard do we work at those two? Not hard enough, I'd guess. I think if you looked at Scripture you'd find a tendency in yourself to pick and choose what commands you'll obey and what you'll ignore. So while we fend off the false accusation of the skeptics in theory, we end up affirming it in practice. Mind you, I'm not pointing fingers at you here. I'm looking in a mirror. I suspect, however, that other genuine, Bible-believing Christians might find that they might see a similar reflection in their own mirrors. I know it has been fairly common in my long Christian experience. So maybe you might want to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!" (2 Cor 13:5) You know, "Be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you." (2 Peter 1:10) We who wish to follow Christ ought to be following Christ, oughtn't we? Not picking and choosing.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
You Deserve It
A recent Princeton study says that there is a disturbing trend on the rise. Apparently "death rates for white Americans without a college degree are on the rise, largely driven by increased rates of drug overdose, suicide, and alcohol use." While death rates are dropping in almost all categories and even nations, white, uneducated Americans are dying off faster than ever before. That's the numbers. What's the reason?
They're calling them "deaths of despair." It's not an income issue, they say. Mortality rates among others of the same income are dropping. It's not a global trend, as death rates among whites in other countries are falling. One wise fellow suggested it's likely because other countries provide universal health coverage. Um, okay. The authors of the study offered a preliminary guess that a "cumulative disadvantage over life, in the labor market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health, is triggered by progressively worsening labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of education." That is, they aren't satisfied with the job market and can't get the jobs that others can so they're despondent and, thus, self-destructive. They suggest that current obesity rates are also part of this mindset.
I would have to disagree with the "wise fellow" from the Washington Post that suggested it's despondence over the lack of universal health coverage. I wouldn't disagree with the notion that it's a problem of despair, but I'm not sure it's because they're blue collar workers. I would suggest it's because our culture has worked so hard in the last 20 years to endorse and urge covetousness. "What?" you ask. Think about it. We had that whole "1%" thing where large numbers were protesting the fact that people were rich ... and they weren't. There has been this sharp rise in "socialism in America" where we more and more believe that we are owed stuff ... better stuff. Healthcare. Education. A living wage. And we will have it now! More young people no longer believe in a meritocracy where you earn what you get and get what you earn, but think they ought to just have it. Credit card debt is through the roof as we're all trying to get what we want rather than what we can afford. We are engulfed in covetousness. "You deserve" is our motto, and what goes after that is so widely variable as to be unbelievable. You deserve a break. You deserve a good cup of coffee. You deserve being happy. You deserve peace and love. You deserve to do what you want. You deserve success. It goes on and on. And it's not true. But we want it and others have it, so we covet it and when it looks like we can't get it, it's not pretty.
I am not here to fix the problems of society. I'm not here to correct the immoral covetousness of today anymore than anyone could fix the covetousness of yesteryear. We've long had this issue of "keeping up with the Joneses" and today's version is just that version on steroids where we covet as a virtue. What the world needs now is not better income equity and universal health coverage. What the world needs now is Christ. And what we -- we Christians -- need to be diligent to do is to learn to be content with what we have (Phil 4:11). Jesus told us, "Do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt 6:31-33) We need to avoid societal covetousness and seek the Lord first. (And a little hint: Don't ever demand from God what you deserve. I don't think you'd actually want that.)
They're calling them "deaths of despair." It's not an income issue, they say. Mortality rates among others of the same income are dropping. It's not a global trend, as death rates among whites in other countries are falling. One wise fellow suggested it's likely because other countries provide universal health coverage. Um, okay. The authors of the study offered a preliminary guess that a "cumulative disadvantage over life, in the labor market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health, is triggered by progressively worsening labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of education." That is, they aren't satisfied with the job market and can't get the jobs that others can so they're despondent and, thus, self-destructive. They suggest that current obesity rates are also part of this mindset.
I would have to disagree with the "wise fellow" from the Washington Post that suggested it's despondence over the lack of universal health coverage. I wouldn't disagree with the notion that it's a problem of despair, but I'm not sure it's because they're blue collar workers. I would suggest it's because our culture has worked so hard in the last 20 years to endorse and urge covetousness. "What?" you ask. Think about it. We had that whole "1%" thing where large numbers were protesting the fact that people were rich ... and they weren't. There has been this sharp rise in "socialism in America" where we more and more believe that we are owed stuff ... better stuff. Healthcare. Education. A living wage. And we will have it now! More young people no longer believe in a meritocracy where you earn what you get and get what you earn, but think they ought to just have it. Credit card debt is through the roof as we're all trying to get what we want rather than what we can afford. We are engulfed in covetousness. "You deserve" is our motto, and what goes after that is so widely variable as to be unbelievable. You deserve a break. You deserve a good cup of coffee. You deserve being happy. You deserve peace and love. You deserve to do what you want. You deserve success. It goes on and on. And it's not true. But we want it and others have it, so we covet it and when it looks like we can't get it, it's not pretty.
I am not here to fix the problems of society. I'm not here to correct the immoral covetousness of today anymore than anyone could fix the covetousness of yesteryear. We've long had this issue of "keeping up with the Joneses" and today's version is just that version on steroids where we covet as a virtue. What the world needs now is not better income equity and universal health coverage. What the world needs now is Christ. And what we -- we Christians -- need to be diligent to do is to learn to be content with what we have (Phil 4:11). Jesus told us, "Do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt 6:31-33) We need to avoid societal covetousness and seek the Lord first. (And a little hint: Don't ever demand from God what you deserve. I don't think you'd actually want that.)
Monday, March 27, 2017
Indoctrination
I recently heard of a Facebook complaint (I only heard of it because someone else told me; I don't do Facebook.) that a Christian school was just an indoctrination center where kids are taught Christian propaganda and brainwashed. Really? Is that so? How awful!
Indoctrination is defined as "the act of indoctrinating". Not helpful. Not helpful at all. At its core is clearly the word, "doctrine", and, therefore, at its core is the concept of teaching a doctrine, especially of a particular point of view. But, of course, we don't use it that way much anymore. No. "Indoctrination" is a bad word. Most people understand it to carry a more sinister meaning. You will find such synonyms as "brainwash" and "propaganda" connected to it. One source includes "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." And that gets more to the point, doesn't it? The idea is that it is doctrine without question. Brainwashing. See?
The idea of "indoctrination" produces some questions. Is it present as often as we say it is? Who is doing it? Is it bad?
When a preacher preaches the Word, they call it "indoctrination". He presents it from one perspective -- his own -- and doesn't actually ask for analysis. The congregation has little opportunity for feedback or correction. Indoctrination? Is it indoctrination if it is the truth? Jesus gave little room for disagreement or critique. "The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works." (John 14:10) That is, "Believe Me or not, but if not, you're disbelieving the Father." Indoctrination? And if it is the truth, is it bad? Is it wrong to present the truth without criticism?
Over against this is the question, often it seems, of a double standard. "Propaganda" is information of biased nature used to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view and is linked to "indoctrination" ... both of which are words we use to get people to side with us on our biased position about which we do not want them to think. They're catchphrases, so to speak, intended to cause an emotional response without analysis of the question at hand. Like "homophobe", "bigot", and "hater", they cause you to feel before you ever think. So the people that typically throw out the words "propaganda" and "indoctrination" are using them as propaganda and indoctrination. Beyond this, if "indoctrination" is presenting a one-sided view without presenting opposing views in order to cause people to accept the one-sided view, is this not precisely the demand of science education everywhere when considering Evolution (with a capital "E")? "No, we will not present opposing views on this topic." Is that not by definition indoctrination? And how does it differ from the teaching that Christians offer about which they so sorely complain?
There are certain sins in this society that are not merely condoned, but embraced and celebrated. The woman that heroically kills her unborn child or the man that bravely decides he's a woman or the multitudes that wisely cohabitate before marriage are all considered good and admirable. There are certain sins in this society that are not tolerated. First appears to be intolerance, defined as failing to embrace as good the sins that society embraces as good. We will not tolerate that. Another is certainty. Certainty about anything Christian in particular is wrong, wrong, wrong. Of that we're certain. Another is teaching something as true. We call it "indoctrination". Teaching something true as if it is true without question is evil. Except, of course, if the thing you're teaching as if it is true without question is the position that "Teaching something true as if it is true without question is evil." We surely live in a world of convoluted, twisted, and double standards. And they say we're the problem.
Indoctrination is defined as "the act of indoctrinating". Not helpful. Not helpful at all. At its core is clearly the word, "doctrine", and, therefore, at its core is the concept of teaching a doctrine, especially of a particular point of view. But, of course, we don't use it that way much anymore. No. "Indoctrination" is a bad word. Most people understand it to carry a more sinister meaning. You will find such synonyms as "brainwash" and "propaganda" connected to it. One source includes "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." And that gets more to the point, doesn't it? The idea is that it is doctrine without question. Brainwashing. See?
The idea of "indoctrination" produces some questions. Is it present as often as we say it is? Who is doing it? Is it bad?
When a preacher preaches the Word, they call it "indoctrination". He presents it from one perspective -- his own -- and doesn't actually ask for analysis. The congregation has little opportunity for feedback or correction. Indoctrination? Is it indoctrination if it is the truth? Jesus gave little room for disagreement or critique. "The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works." (John 14:10) That is, "Believe Me or not, but if not, you're disbelieving the Father." Indoctrination? And if it is the truth, is it bad? Is it wrong to present the truth without criticism?
Over against this is the question, often it seems, of a double standard. "Propaganda" is information of biased nature used to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view and is linked to "indoctrination" ... both of which are words we use to get people to side with us on our biased position about which we do not want them to think. They're catchphrases, so to speak, intended to cause an emotional response without analysis of the question at hand. Like "homophobe", "bigot", and "hater", they cause you to feel before you ever think. So the people that typically throw out the words "propaganda" and "indoctrination" are using them as propaganda and indoctrination. Beyond this, if "indoctrination" is presenting a one-sided view without presenting opposing views in order to cause people to accept the one-sided view, is this not precisely the demand of science education everywhere when considering Evolution (with a capital "E")? "No, we will not present opposing views on this topic." Is that not by definition indoctrination? And how does it differ from the teaching that Christians offer about which they so sorely complain?
There are certain sins in this society that are not merely condoned, but embraced and celebrated. The woman that heroically kills her unborn child or the man that bravely decides he's a woman or the multitudes that wisely cohabitate before marriage are all considered good and admirable. There are certain sins in this society that are not tolerated. First appears to be intolerance, defined as failing to embrace as good the sins that society embraces as good. We will not tolerate that. Another is certainty. Certainty about anything Christian in particular is wrong, wrong, wrong. Of that we're certain. Another is teaching something as true. We call it "indoctrination". Teaching something true as if it is true without question is evil. Except, of course, if the thing you're teaching as if it is true without question is the position that "Teaching something true as if it is true without question is evil." We surely live in a world of convoluted, twisted, and double standards. And they say we're the problem.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
Majesty and Humility
David's Psalm 8 begins with the glorious, "O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens!" (Psa 8:1) The verse alone swells praise in the heart. But he goes on.
Given, then, our insane and, in fact, evil self-centeredness, it is all the more amazing that the Creator of the heavens and earth would deign to take notice of us. But, He does. He sent His Son. His Son humbled Himself to be a human and die for us. In this, His majesty is magnified. And I am humbled.
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,Does that not baffle and amaze you? Is it not astounding that the One who made the nature that surrounds us would have a care about us? When you consider the vastness of the universe and how immeasurably small we are in comparison to the universe, let alone God Himself, why would God take thought of Man or care for him? We in our arrogance would assume that it is our great worth, our supreme importance. That makes no sense at all. Indeed, if you look at all creation, you'd have to wonder how we could think such a thing. But ... we do. Routinely. Insanely.
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
(Psa 8:3-5)
Given, then, our insane and, in fact, evil self-centeredness, it is all the more amazing that the Creator of the heavens and earth would deign to take notice of us. But, He does. He sent His Son. His Son humbled Himself to be a human and die for us. In this, His majesty is magnified. And I am humbled.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
News Weakly - 3/25/2017
In a World Gone Mad
The Bible argues that what is needed for Christians is "the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2) because, apparently, sin rots the brain (Rom 1:28). Apparently the Bible has access to today's news stories. Like the one where a mother and her son have decided to "transition" to a father and daughter. I'm not at all clear how it is possible that the world would miss the fact that "mother" and "son" require particular components and relationships that no amount of surgery or medical science can change to "father" and "daughter". But that appears to be the case, given our acceptance of a "men's gold medalist" who now identifies as "Caitlyn Jenner" and we all nod and use female pronouns and decry those who raise an objection. Or the story about the female pastor who identifies as a male preaching a sermon on how God is transgender. (Psst! Confused preacher! "Transgender" is defined as "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity does not correspond with the gender assigned to them at birth." What possible way can that definition, whether such a thing exists or not, be applied to God who had no birth?) A world gone mad.
Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law is an Internet rule that says, essentially, that if an argument goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler. You know. "End of discussion, you evil person." So, it appears that Tim Allen has proven the rule. Except it was crazy. Actor and comedian Tim Allen told Jimmy Kimmel that being a conservative in Hollywood is like living in '30's Germany. We get it, right? Except it outraged the Anne Frank Center whose executive director demanded an apology to the Jewish people. Now, mind you, Tim did not say it was like being a Jew in 1930's Germany. And Germany in the 1930's was marked by hatred and restrictions of freedoms and in other ways there are indeed similarities. Nor was there outrage from the executive director when someone compared Trump to Hitler. How odd!
Values Clarification
We here in the "civilized" world can't seem to see that God has placed value in human beings as made in His image, so we've made abortion legal. In other places, they're giving human rights to rivers. Yes, rivers. Well, I suppose it's just as irrational as abortion. We value human life ... except when we value sexual freedom over human life. In India they declare the Ganges and Yamuna rivers as sacred while authorities estimate "1 billion gallons of waste enter the Ganges every day" and the Yamuna is considered dead from too much pollution. Makes as much sense.
The $10 million comma
Now, this is no big story -- no huge ramifications or critical issues -- but it is a story right up my alley. Maine milk-truck drivers won a $10 million suit for unpaid overtime on the basis of a missing comma. The state law exempts overtime for "The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods." The truckers argued that they did not do canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, or packing, so they were not exempt from overtime. They argued that the phrase, "packing for shipment or distribution", lacking the comma between "shipment" and "or", made a complete thought (instead of "packing for shipment" being one thought and "distribution" the other). They further explained the missing conjunction between "storing" and "packing" as an "asyndeton", an omission or absence of a conjunction between parts of a sentence for emphasis. (For instance, "I came, I saw, I conquered.") The State of Maine specifically instructs those who draft legal statutes not to use the comma known as the "Oxford comma" or the "serial comma" and the need for the use of the comma is hotly debated, but the court ruled in their favor in this case.
Thank You Very Much
Princeton Seminary gives out an annual award in Reformed theology and public witness. Who would have guessed? They had announced this year that it would go to Tim Keller, one of America's currently most popular Reformed pastors and authors. Luckily, the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) with which Princeton is aligned protested because Keller takes a biblical view of things like women and LGBT pastors and such, so the seminary tossed that idea right out. I mean, that lowdown dirty pastor believes that God made men and women differently, nay, to complement each other (Gen 2:18-24) and supports male church leadership (2 Tim 2:11-15) and holds, worst of all, that "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" ... including those who engage in homosexual behavior (1 Cor 6:9-10). The audacity! Besides, he's a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) pastor, the heretic. Although the seminary boasts such conservative biblical scholars as Bruce Metzger, James Moorehead, Geerhardus Vos, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen among its graduates, its ongoing dedication to PCUSA theology and denying the award for standing on biblical truth would suggest that a refusal to honor Keller in this way would be a compliment to the man.
"We're sorry; we're not going to honor you because you're too true to Scripture."
"Thank you ... thank you very much."
Just Weird
So, remember all those bomb threats to Jewish community centers of late? Turns out it appears to be the work of an 18-year-old kid with dual citizenship in both the U.S. and Israel. He's Jewish. It seems to be a case of Jewish anti-Semitism. (That's what the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is saying, not me.) The reports says he has some mental problems and the motivation isn't clear, but ... that's just weird.
The Bible argues that what is needed for Christians is "the renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2) because, apparently, sin rots the brain (Rom 1:28). Apparently the Bible has access to today's news stories. Like the one where a mother and her son have decided to "transition" to a father and daughter. I'm not at all clear how it is possible that the world would miss the fact that "mother" and "son" require particular components and relationships that no amount of surgery or medical science can change to "father" and "daughter". But that appears to be the case, given our acceptance of a "men's gold medalist" who now identifies as "Caitlyn Jenner" and we all nod and use female pronouns and decry those who raise an objection. Or the story about the female pastor who identifies as a male preaching a sermon on how God is transgender. (Psst! Confused preacher! "Transgender" is defined as "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity does not correspond with the gender assigned to them at birth." What possible way can that definition, whether such a thing exists or not, be applied to God who had no birth?) A world gone mad.
Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law is an Internet rule that says, essentially, that if an argument goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler. You know. "End of discussion, you evil person." So, it appears that Tim Allen has proven the rule. Except it was crazy. Actor and comedian Tim Allen told Jimmy Kimmel that being a conservative in Hollywood is like living in '30's Germany. We get it, right? Except it outraged the Anne Frank Center whose executive director demanded an apology to the Jewish people. Now, mind you, Tim did not say it was like being a Jew in 1930's Germany. And Germany in the 1930's was marked by hatred and restrictions of freedoms and in other ways there are indeed similarities. Nor was there outrage from the executive director when someone compared Trump to Hitler. How odd!
Values Clarification
We here in the "civilized" world can't seem to see that God has placed value in human beings as made in His image, so we've made abortion legal. In other places, they're giving human rights to rivers. Yes, rivers. Well, I suppose it's just as irrational as abortion. We value human life ... except when we value sexual freedom over human life. In India they declare the Ganges and Yamuna rivers as sacred while authorities estimate "1 billion gallons of waste enter the Ganges every day" and the Yamuna is considered dead from too much pollution. Makes as much sense.
The $10 million comma
Now, this is no big story -- no huge ramifications or critical issues -- but it is a story right up my alley. Maine milk-truck drivers won a $10 million suit for unpaid overtime on the basis of a missing comma. The state law exempts overtime for "The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods." The truckers argued that they did not do canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, or packing, so they were not exempt from overtime. They argued that the phrase, "packing for shipment or distribution", lacking the comma between "shipment" and "or", made a complete thought (instead of "packing for shipment" being one thought and "distribution" the other). They further explained the missing conjunction between "storing" and "packing" as an "asyndeton", an omission or absence of a conjunction between parts of a sentence for emphasis. (For instance, "I came, I saw, I conquered.") The State of Maine specifically instructs those who draft legal statutes not to use the comma known as the "Oxford comma" or the "serial comma" and the need for the use of the comma is hotly debated, but the court ruled in their favor in this case.
Thank You Very Much
Princeton Seminary gives out an annual award in Reformed theology and public witness. Who would have guessed? They had announced this year that it would go to Tim Keller, one of America's currently most popular Reformed pastors and authors. Luckily, the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) with which Princeton is aligned protested because Keller takes a biblical view of things like women and LGBT pastors and such, so the seminary tossed that idea right out. I mean, that lowdown dirty pastor believes that God made men and women differently, nay, to complement each other (Gen 2:18-24) and supports male church leadership (2 Tim 2:11-15) and holds, worst of all, that "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" ... including those who engage in homosexual behavior (1 Cor 6:9-10). The audacity! Besides, he's a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) pastor, the heretic. Although the seminary boasts such conservative biblical scholars as Bruce Metzger, James Moorehead, Geerhardus Vos, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen among its graduates, its ongoing dedication to PCUSA theology and denying the award for standing on biblical truth would suggest that a refusal to honor Keller in this way would be a compliment to the man.
"We're sorry; we're not going to honor you because you're too true to Scripture."
"Thank you ... thank you very much."
Just Weird
So, remember all those bomb threats to Jewish community centers of late? Turns out it appears to be the work of an 18-year-old kid with dual citizenship in both the U.S. and Israel. He's Jewish. It seems to be a case of Jewish anti-Semitism. (That's what the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is saying, not me.) The reports says he has some mental problems and the motivation isn't clear, but ... that's just weird.
Friday, March 24, 2017
God Revealed
In his epistle to the Romans Paul writes the wonderful, "For 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) Good stuff. He says, "For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" (Rom 1:17) Powerful. But it begs the question, doesn't it? "Salvation ... from what? Why do we need salvation?" And Paul answers that in the very next verse.
Now, most of us get that. I mean, David wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork." (Psa 19:1) We get that. I love watching nature shows because they scream design. "Wow," they make me say, "God designed our world like that." You just have to look at nature, the skies, the heavens, and you can see the power of God. But ... what about His "divine nature"? How does the natural world tell us about God's "invisible attributes"? We might be able to come up with some answers there -- good ones -- but I think we're missing some really big ones. And I think that the reason we're missing them is because of the suppression of truth that has been practiced for so long.
Consider. It says that we can know about God "in the things that have been made." So there is nature ... sure. But besides nature, what has been made? One of the earliest things God made was work. "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." (Gen 2:15) We know this is significant in terms of the character of God because the principle of the Sabbath is based on it (Exo 20:8-11). So, God works and God designed Adam to work.
What else? How about one of the first things God made after the classic Creation? "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) (Side question: Who said this? Many think it was Adam. Jesus says it was God (Matt 19:4-6).) God made marriage. Remember, we can know God "in the things that have been made." So in marriage we can see God's invisible attributes. We can see love (Eph 5:25-26; 1 John 4:7-8). We can see authority (1 Cor 11:3; Matt 28:18) and submission (Eph 5:22-24; John 6:38; 1 Cor 15:28). We can see the Mystical Union (Eph 5:31-32). Complex and invisible attributes clearly indicated in marriage.
It's interesting. In many of the spheres of life -- work, marriage, family, society, government, etc. -- I think you can find many of the invisible attributes of God. I think, if you look at it, you'll also find that the areas that most clearly reflect the nature of God are also the areas under attack from Satan. So areas like work, marriage, submission, authority, and the like are popular targets of the father of lies. Conversely, I think if we're to view these areas from a biblical worldview, we'd need to do so as reflections of the character of God (Rom 11:36; Col 1:16-17). And if this is true, our failure to do so is part of the suppression of the truth that angers God.And we're back to the need for the gospel.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)"Saved from what?" The wrath of God. "Why is God angry?" Because of the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. We violate God (ungodliness) and we violate each other (unrighteousness). "How do we do this?" We suppress the truth. "Oh, really? What truth?" The truth about God. Paul says that we are without excuse in this because God's power and nature have been "clearly perceived". "How?" In the things that have been made.
Now, most of us get that. I mean, David wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork." (Psa 19:1) We get that. I love watching nature shows because they scream design. "Wow," they make me say, "God designed our world like that." You just have to look at nature, the skies, the heavens, and you can see the power of God. But ... what about His "divine nature"? How does the natural world tell us about God's "invisible attributes"? We might be able to come up with some answers there -- good ones -- but I think we're missing some really big ones. And I think that the reason we're missing them is because of the suppression of truth that has been practiced for so long.
Consider. It says that we can know about God "in the things that have been made." So there is nature ... sure. But besides nature, what has been made? One of the earliest things God made was work. "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." (Gen 2:15) We know this is significant in terms of the character of God because the principle of the Sabbath is based on it (Exo 20:8-11). So, God works and God designed Adam to work.
What else? How about one of the first things God made after the classic Creation? "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) (Side question: Who said this? Many think it was Adam. Jesus says it was God (Matt 19:4-6).) God made marriage. Remember, we can know God "in the things that have been made." So in marriage we can see God's invisible attributes. We can see love (Eph 5:25-26; 1 John 4:7-8). We can see authority (1 Cor 11:3; Matt 28:18) and submission (Eph 5:22-24; John 6:38; 1 Cor 15:28). We can see the Mystical Union (Eph 5:31-32). Complex and invisible attributes clearly indicated in marriage.
It's interesting. In many of the spheres of life -- work, marriage, family, society, government, etc. -- I think you can find many of the invisible attributes of God. I think, if you look at it, you'll also find that the areas that most clearly reflect the nature of God are also the areas under attack from Satan. So areas like work, marriage, submission, authority, and the like are popular targets of the father of lies. Conversely, I think if we're to view these areas from a biblical worldview, we'd need to do so as reflections of the character of God (Rom 11:36; Col 1:16-17). And if this is true, our failure to do so is part of the suppression of the truth that angers God.And we're back to the need for the gospel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)