I recently read an article in the Los Angeles Times about how millennials replaced religion with astrology and crystals. Like the rise of the "Nones" -- those people who consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" -- it was another story about Man's constant efforts to replace God with "God to me" -- an idol of their own making. The story was about a generation that has turned from "traditional organized religion" and replaced it with ... something else. "More spiritual beliefs" the article says. Because, apparently, "traditional organized religion" contains less spiritual beliefs. The common theme was that these people were raised with those traditional religious beliefs but rejected them. "As they became adults, they felt that faith didn’t completely represent who they were or what they believed." That last quote was stunning to me. It reflects the common belief is that faith is a matter of subjective belief that I get to define. You see that this is entirely circular, right? If faith is "whatever I believe," then it isn't actually based on anything but me.
So what went wrong? Why did "faith" never exceed "me" in these cases? The story seems to be constant. "Her parents were Christian but not devout when she was growing up." "Christian but not devout." Is that even a real thing? James warned that a faith without works was dead faith. And Paul commended the faith of Timothy's mother and grandmother. "I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well" (2 Tim 1:5). "Sincere faith." In contrast to James's "dead faith." I cannot tell you how many stories I've heard from both skeptics and believers regarding parents, friends, and family who held an insincere faith and the detrimental effects it had on them.
Jesus doesn't need my sincere faith to bring the lost to Him. He doesn't need me to be faithful, to be godly, to be true. He is fully capable of saving to the uttermost without my help, thank you very much. Nor does my failure to be the mirror of Christ that I'm supposed to be excuse the lost. But we are commanded to make disciples (Matt 28:19), to let God be glorified in our behavior (Matt 5:16), to be genuine believers. We are warned about causing the heathen to blaspheme on account of us (Rom 2:24). So we need to ask ourselves? Is our faith sincere? Are we actually walking the walk? Do we have a living relationship with Christ? I think of those who come to Jesus with sincere belief (versus faith) that they did have a relationship with Him and He declares, "I never knew you" (Matt 7:21-23). We don't want to be a stumbling block because we lack sincere faith. And being faithful, godly, and true are much more effective tools for showing Christ to those around us than the lack thereof.
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
The Question of Salvation
We as believers are commanded to "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Matt 28:19). We are obligated to "proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). It's our job. Not only is it our assignment, it is our pleasure. Well, if we're people who love as we ought, it is. People need Christ; we can help them there. People need salvation; we can point the way. That's all as it should be.
Still, we have some difficulties with it. On one hand, we tend to be lackadaisical -- apathetic. On the other hand we might be in dread.
You get the problem of apathy. We know it's important and we know that we're supposed to tell people about Christ and we know that people are going to Hell, but ... well, it's hard to get too worked up over. (I would hope that the idea I just presented would jar you, especially if you recognize it in yourself.) People need Jesus -- the one whose title, Christ, is in our very terminology as Christians. We have what they need and the consequences of them not getting Him are truly catastrophic. And somehow we aren't particularly motivated to tell our neighbors or our fellow workers or the like. That's a problem. But we get it. We know we need to work on that.
The one I'm considering these days is the "dread" one. Apathy is seriously overcome when it gets real. When it's a spouse or a child, a dear friend or a close family member -- someone about whom we care deeply -- apathy is not in play. We care deeply. Sometimes we care so much that we are ... undone. "Lord Jesus, I don't know what more I can do. My brother/sister/child/parent/loved one doesn't know you and I cannot endure the idea that he/she might end up in Hell." How do I pray? What do I say? What more can I do? What is the best thing to do? We are in turmoil because this is serious and we really care.
There are two lines of thought here. One says that God has limited Himself to merely influence, to urge, to "woo" -- to Man's Free Will. So God, like us, is held captive by the will of the unsaved person and we -- God and I -- can only hope that the right combination of things will occur to win the loved one to Him. The other perspective says that God is able to overcome the spiritual resistance of the unsaved when He wishes so that the person will certainly come to Christ if that's what God wants. The only question here, then, is whether or not that's what God wants for the person in question. Whichever side of that aisle you're on, it turns out you have the same dilemma. The outcome, from the human perspective, is not known. Will the loved one in view be saved?
It is at this point that we are missing an absolutely critical principle. What do you believe? Is God good, or is God not reliably good?
I know how this goes. I know because I have this very issue myself. People about whom I care deeply are currently living in rejection of Christ. It really hits home, doesn't it? There is a sense of powerlessness. What can I do? What can I say? How else can I pray? There is a complete assault on any sense of adequacy. I thought I had done better. I thought others had done better. How can this dear one not hear the message? Certainly it feels like a personal failure. I may not share the gospel with everyone I meet or come in contact with, but I've certainly shared it with these loved ones. Repeatedly. In multiple ways. Often. With this sense of failure and the accompanying grief for these loved ones there comes a need to defend myself. Perhaps it is in flight -- become less caring, less sensitive. Perhaps it is fight -- frustration or anger. There is certainly fear. Fear for the outcome. Fear for the loved one. Fear of judgment -- judgment of them by God and judgment of me for my powerlessness, inadequacy, and failure on behalf of these people I love. I get it. This is real pain, real dread.
So you have to ask yourself. What do you believe? Is God good, or is God not reliably good? Whether you believe that God "entices" people to Himself or overpowers their resistance (however you want to put that), do you believe He is good in what He does? If He delays that process in these loved ones, is He good? If He never brings them to Himself, is He good? If God does not save everyone, is He good? If God doesn't save your dear ones, is He good?
We understand that the Gospel is the "good news." We get that. We rejoice in that. It is our great comfort and joy. Now we have to decide if the rejection of the "good news" is good if God allows it and it is our loved ones who are doing it. And, of course, if you're not sure of that answer, it might really bother you that you don't care as much about "the rest of them" who aren't on this short list of loved ones. That can't be commendable.
Still, we have some difficulties with it. On one hand, we tend to be lackadaisical -- apathetic. On the other hand we might be in dread.
You get the problem of apathy. We know it's important and we know that we're supposed to tell people about Christ and we know that people are going to Hell, but ... well, it's hard to get too worked up over. (I would hope that the idea I just presented would jar you, especially if you recognize it in yourself.) People need Jesus -- the one whose title, Christ, is in our very terminology as Christians. We have what they need and the consequences of them not getting Him are truly catastrophic. And somehow we aren't particularly motivated to tell our neighbors or our fellow workers or the like. That's a problem. But we get it. We know we need to work on that.
The one I'm considering these days is the "dread" one. Apathy is seriously overcome when it gets real. When it's a spouse or a child, a dear friend or a close family member -- someone about whom we care deeply -- apathy is not in play. We care deeply. Sometimes we care so much that we are ... undone. "Lord Jesus, I don't know what more I can do. My brother/sister/child/parent/loved one doesn't know you and I cannot endure the idea that he/she might end up in Hell." How do I pray? What do I say? What more can I do? What is the best thing to do? We are in turmoil because this is serious and we really care.
There are two lines of thought here. One says that God has limited Himself to merely influence, to urge, to "woo" -- to Man's Free Will. So God, like us, is held captive by the will of the unsaved person and we -- God and I -- can only hope that the right combination of things will occur to win the loved one to Him. The other perspective says that God is able to overcome the spiritual resistance of the unsaved when He wishes so that the person will certainly come to Christ if that's what God wants. The only question here, then, is whether or not that's what God wants for the person in question. Whichever side of that aisle you're on, it turns out you have the same dilemma. The outcome, from the human perspective, is not known. Will the loved one in view be saved?
It is at this point that we are missing an absolutely critical principle. What do you believe? Is God good, or is God not reliably good?
I know how this goes. I know because I have this very issue myself. People about whom I care deeply are currently living in rejection of Christ. It really hits home, doesn't it? There is a sense of powerlessness. What can I do? What can I say? How else can I pray? There is a complete assault on any sense of adequacy. I thought I had done better. I thought others had done better. How can this dear one not hear the message? Certainly it feels like a personal failure. I may not share the gospel with everyone I meet or come in contact with, but I've certainly shared it with these loved ones. Repeatedly. In multiple ways. Often. With this sense of failure and the accompanying grief for these loved ones there comes a need to defend myself. Perhaps it is in flight -- become less caring, less sensitive. Perhaps it is fight -- frustration or anger. There is certainly fear. Fear for the outcome. Fear for the loved one. Fear of judgment -- judgment of them by God and judgment of me for my powerlessness, inadequacy, and failure on behalf of these people I love. I get it. This is real pain, real dread.
So you have to ask yourself. What do you believe? Is God good, or is God not reliably good? Whether you believe that God "entices" people to Himself or overpowers their resistance (however you want to put that), do you believe He is good in what He does? If He delays that process in these loved ones, is He good? If He never brings them to Himself, is He good? If God does not save everyone, is He good? If God doesn't save your dear ones, is He good?
We understand that the Gospel is the "good news." We get that. We rejoice in that. It is our great comfort and joy. Now we have to decide if the rejection of the "good news" is good if God allows it and it is our loved ones who are doing it. And, of course, if you're not sure of that answer, it might really bother you that you don't care as much about "the rest of them" who aren't on this short list of loved ones. That can't be commendable.
Monday, July 15, 2019
Sell All Your Possessions
I wrote about this some time ago and it remains my "biggest hit" in terms of both views and comments. I thought it might be helpful to revisit since it appears to be so popular among believers and skeptics alike. Is it necessary for Christians -- followers of Christ -- to sell all your possessions and give it all away?
Jesus said it more than once (e.g., Luke 12:33; Luke 18:22). What did He mean?
He didn't mean that all believers everywhere must sell all their possessions. How can I be sure? Jesus didn't do it. Sure, He didn't own a lot of stuff. Hardly anything at all. Just the apparently expensive clothes on His back (John 19:23-24). But if Jesus did not actually sell all His possessions, then it cannot be a requirement as followers of Christ to sell all our possessions. So Jesus Himself was an exception to the rule and we need to figure out, then, just what it is.
Jesus commended the widow for giving all (Mark 12:41-44) and told the rich young ruler to sell all (Luke 18:22). On the other hand, we have other commands in Scripture that run counter to "sell all." Paul tells people to "do their work quietly and earn their own living" (2 Thess 3:12). Thieves are commanded to stop stealing and to do honest work so that they have something to share (Eph 4:28). The Thessalonicans were told to "work with your hands" and avoid being dependent on anyone (1 Thess 4:11-12). Paul told the Corinthians to give "as he may prosper" (1 Cor 16:1-2). These do not indicate "give all." In fact Scripture commends some who did not give all. Barnabas sold a field (Acts 4:36-37) but not all. Zacchaeus gave 50% (Luke 19:8-9), but not all. Both were commended for it. On the flip side, Ananias and Sapphira sought to deceive the Apostles by claiming to give more than they did. They were struck dead, but not for not giving all (Acts 5:1-11). Peter said, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). There was no indication that they were obligated to give anything.
If it wasn't a mandate for Christ, it cannot be a mandate for us all. If Scripture commends folks who don't sell all their possessions, it cannot be a mandate for all. What then?
On one hand, there is real danger when we love money. Paul calls it a trap (1 Tim 6:9) and warns that the love of money is the root of a host of evils (1 Tim 6:10). So having wealth is not a sin, but loving it is. Paul says, "If we have food and clothing, with these we will be content" (1 Tim 6:8). Rationally, loving and pursuing and clinging to that which is very, very temporary like wealth is foolish given the eternal nature of the believer. That's why James severely warns the rich who obtain it by sinful means and use it for self-indulgence (James 5:1-6).
On the other hand, Paul told Timothy, "As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy" (1 Tim 6:17). There are two key points there regarding how we should view possessions. First, don't count on them. They are not reliable. People who see their wealth as a means of safety, security, and comfort are standing on air. Second, all that we have is from God. He "richly provides us with everything to enjoy." As such, none of it is ours and all of it is for His use. Some of "His use" includes keeping us alive -- clothed, fed, housed, etc. -- and some of "His use" includes properly using what He gives us for His service. He gives us resources for His work. We are, in fact, commanded to be rich, but pay attention. We are to "be rich in good works" and to "be generous and ready to share" so that we store up treasure for ourselves in heaven. That, Paul says, is taking hold of "that which is truly life" (1 Tim 6:18-19), a life lived in the eternal view rather than the temporal. "Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called" (1 Tim 6:12).
We have not received a blanket command to sell everything. Jesus didn't do it. Scripture commends those who did not. We are warned about loving and relying on wealth, but we are told that what we have is from God and, as such, we should use it for His work. Neither the stark asceticism on one hand or the skeptical "See, you're not doing what your Bible says" on the other are in view in Scripture. Rather, live with an open hand, using the good things God gives you for His use and counting on Him to provide what you need. Nothing more; nothing less.
Jesus said it more than once (e.g., Luke 12:33; Luke 18:22). What did He mean?
He didn't mean that all believers everywhere must sell all their possessions. How can I be sure? Jesus didn't do it. Sure, He didn't own a lot of stuff. Hardly anything at all. Just the apparently expensive clothes on His back (John 19:23-24). But if Jesus did not actually sell all His possessions, then it cannot be a requirement as followers of Christ to sell all our possessions. So Jesus Himself was an exception to the rule and we need to figure out, then, just what it is.
Jesus commended the widow for giving all (Mark 12:41-44) and told the rich young ruler to sell all (Luke 18:22). On the other hand, we have other commands in Scripture that run counter to "sell all." Paul tells people to "do their work quietly and earn their own living" (2 Thess 3:12). Thieves are commanded to stop stealing and to do honest work so that they have something to share (Eph 4:28). The Thessalonicans were told to "work with your hands" and avoid being dependent on anyone (1 Thess 4:11-12). Paul told the Corinthians to give "as he may prosper" (1 Cor 16:1-2). These do not indicate "give all." In fact Scripture commends some who did not give all. Barnabas sold a field (Acts 4:36-37) but not all. Zacchaeus gave 50% (Luke 19:8-9), but not all. Both were commended for it. On the flip side, Ananias and Sapphira sought to deceive the Apostles by claiming to give more than they did. They were struck dead, but not for not giving all (Acts 5:1-11). Peter said, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). There was no indication that they were obligated to give anything.
If it wasn't a mandate for Christ, it cannot be a mandate for us all. If Scripture commends folks who don't sell all their possessions, it cannot be a mandate for all. What then?
On one hand, there is real danger when we love money. Paul calls it a trap (1 Tim 6:9) and warns that the love of money is the root of a host of evils (1 Tim 6:10). So having wealth is not a sin, but loving it is. Paul says, "If we have food and clothing, with these we will be content" (1 Tim 6:8). Rationally, loving and pursuing and clinging to that which is very, very temporary like wealth is foolish given the eternal nature of the believer. That's why James severely warns the rich who obtain it by sinful means and use it for self-indulgence (James 5:1-6).
On the other hand, Paul told Timothy, "As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy" (1 Tim 6:17). There are two key points there regarding how we should view possessions. First, don't count on them. They are not reliable. People who see their wealth as a means of safety, security, and comfort are standing on air. Second, all that we have is from God. He "richly provides us with everything to enjoy." As such, none of it is ours and all of it is for His use. Some of "His use" includes keeping us alive -- clothed, fed, housed, etc. -- and some of "His use" includes properly using what He gives us for His service. He gives us resources for His work. We are, in fact, commanded to be rich, but pay attention. We are to "be rich in good works" and to "be generous and ready to share" so that we store up treasure for ourselves in heaven. That, Paul says, is taking hold of "that which is truly life" (1 Tim 6:18-19), a life lived in the eternal view rather than the temporal. "Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called" (1 Tim 6:12).
We have not received a blanket command to sell everything. Jesus didn't do it. Scripture commends those who did not. We are warned about loving and relying on wealth, but we are told that what we have is from God and, as such, we should use it for His work. Neither the stark asceticism on one hand or the skeptical "See, you're not doing what your Bible says" on the other are in view in Scripture. Rather, live with an open hand, using the good things God gives you for His use and counting on Him to provide what you need. Nothing more; nothing less.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
Church Polity
Note: Let me just say at the outset that this is more of a question than a statement. It is NOT "Thus saith the Lord."
Most of the churches (perhaps all?) I've been to most of my life have been "congregational" in terms of church polity. That is, the congregation decides. The membership will gather and vote. Who will the pastor be? Who will serve in the various capacities such as elder (if they have them) or deacon or committees or whatever? What will our rules and policies be? How will we operate? There is a leadership team of some sort, but they typically simply make suggestions and the final authority falls on the members. A nice sort of democracy.
I wonder where it came from? You don't find it in the Bible. Now, it's true that when we read in Acts 6 when the office of deacon was instituted that it "pleased the whole gathering" (Acts 6:5). It appears that the "whole gathering" was involved in the choice of the original seven deacons, but they were "ordained" by the Apostles (Acts 6:6). When they sent Paul and Barnabas out, they did it "with the whole church" (Acts 15:22). On the other hand, in Acts 20:28, Paul indicates that the leadership -- the "elders" or "overseers" -- were made overseers "by the Holy Spirit." Paul sent Titus to Crete to appoint elders (Titus 1:5) without any reference to getting buy in from the church there. What is going on?
Scripture talks about church leadership. First, foremost, and absolutely undisputed, Christ is the head of the church (e.g., Col 1:18). There is a role in the church termed alternately "elder" and "overseer" ("bishop" in KJV). In 1 Peter 5 "the elders among you" are linked to the term "shepherd" (1 Peter 5:1-2) which is translated "pastor" in Ephesians 4:11. (In fact, in most translations the Eph 4:11 reference is the only time "pastor" is used in the Bible.)
What do we know about this group? It would appear that "elders" and/or "overseers" are to be the "shepherds." They are to exercise oversight (1 Peter 5:2) and lead by example (1 Peter 5:3), with Christ as their example (1 Peter 5:4). The rest of the church is to "be subject to" that leadership (1 Peter 5:5). Paul commends the "elders who rule well" (1 Tim 5:17). It looks more like an authority than an advisory group. Further, elders are always referred to in the plural, making a congregation with a single "elder" (or "overseer" or "pastor") an apparent unbiblical anomaly. Elders are not elected; they are appointed (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). They have specific character requirements (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). They are the spiritual leaders and are especially the preachers and teachers (1 Tim 5:17). (Others may preach and teach as well (e.g., Acts 13:1), but they are to be the primary preachers and teachers of their congregation.)
What else? In Acts 15 we find an example of a "Council." A Council would be called to consider a particular problem. In this case it was the Judaizers. "Should we circumcise or not?" A matter of theological importance. The text then says, "The Apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter" (Acts 15:6). In this Council, then, it wasn't the congregation or "the staff" or "a group of people" that made up the Council. It was Apostles (we no longer have these) and elders. So while the concept of the Council is biblically present, this kind of Council is still predicated on elders.
The Declaration of Independence assumes that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. The American Constitution begins with "We the people." Abraham Lincoln believed that the government was "of the people, by the people, for the people." These are all very noble and useful in human government. They are not, however, applicable to a church. Christ is the head of the church (Col 1:18). The church is not a democracy; it is a theocracy. When we read things like, "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account" (Heb 13:17), how do we come to "Let's vote on it"? When Scripture uses terms like "leaders," "be subject to," and "rule," how do we conclude "Let's see if the congregation will approve it"? Is this an effect of American democracy leaking into the church where it shouldn't really be? Is it something worse, like "I think Christianity should be a democracy and God ought to listen to what we have to say"?
Most of the churches (perhaps all?) I've been to most of my life have been "congregational" in terms of church polity. That is, the congregation decides. The membership will gather and vote. Who will the pastor be? Who will serve in the various capacities such as elder (if they have them) or deacon or committees or whatever? What will our rules and policies be? How will we operate? There is a leadership team of some sort, but they typically simply make suggestions and the final authority falls on the members. A nice sort of democracy.
I wonder where it came from? You don't find it in the Bible. Now, it's true that when we read in Acts 6 when the office of deacon was instituted that it "pleased the whole gathering" (Acts 6:5). It appears that the "whole gathering" was involved in the choice of the original seven deacons, but they were "ordained" by the Apostles (Acts 6:6). When they sent Paul and Barnabas out, they did it "with the whole church" (Acts 15:22). On the other hand, in Acts 20:28, Paul indicates that the leadership -- the "elders" or "overseers" -- were made overseers "by the Holy Spirit." Paul sent Titus to Crete to appoint elders (Titus 1:5) without any reference to getting buy in from the church there. What is going on?
Scripture talks about church leadership. First, foremost, and absolutely undisputed, Christ is the head of the church (e.g., Col 1:18). There is a role in the church termed alternately "elder" and "overseer" ("bishop" in KJV). In 1 Peter 5 "the elders among you" are linked to the term "shepherd" (1 Peter 5:1-2) which is translated "pastor" in Ephesians 4:11. (In fact, in most translations the Eph 4:11 reference is the only time "pastor" is used in the Bible.)
What do we know about this group? It would appear that "elders" and/or "overseers" are to be the "shepherds." They are to exercise oversight (1 Peter 5:2) and lead by example (1 Peter 5:3), with Christ as their example (1 Peter 5:4). The rest of the church is to "be subject to" that leadership (1 Peter 5:5). Paul commends the "elders who rule well" (1 Tim 5:17). It looks more like an authority than an advisory group. Further, elders are always referred to in the plural, making a congregation with a single "elder" (or "overseer" or "pastor") an apparent unbiblical anomaly. Elders are not elected; they are appointed (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). They have specific character requirements (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). They are the spiritual leaders and are especially the preachers and teachers (1 Tim 5:17). (Others may preach and teach as well (e.g., Acts 13:1), but they are to be the primary preachers and teachers of their congregation.)
What else? In Acts 15 we find an example of a "Council." A Council would be called to consider a particular problem. In this case it was the Judaizers. "Should we circumcise or not?" A matter of theological importance. The text then says, "The Apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter" (Acts 15:6). In this Council, then, it wasn't the congregation or "the staff" or "a group of people" that made up the Council. It was Apostles (we no longer have these) and elders. So while the concept of the Council is biblically present, this kind of Council is still predicated on elders.
The Declaration of Independence assumes that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. The American Constitution begins with "We the people." Abraham Lincoln believed that the government was "of the people, by the people, for the people." These are all very noble and useful in human government. They are not, however, applicable to a church. Christ is the head of the church (Col 1:18). The church is not a democracy; it is a theocracy. When we read things like, "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account" (Heb 13:17), how do we come to "Let's vote on it"? When Scripture uses terms like "leaders," "be subject to," and "rule," how do we conclude "Let's see if the congregation will approve it"? Is this an effect of American democracy leaking into the church where it shouldn't really be? Is it something worse, like "I think Christianity should be a democracy and God ought to listen to what we have to say"?
Saturday, July 13, 2019
News Weakly - 7/13/19
The Next Logical Step
We already have a society that will burn you at the metaphorical stake for the slightest accusation of particular offenses. Now we've moved to the next logical step. Four-star Admiral William Moran, confirmed by the Senate, was set to be the next top admiral for the Navy and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Instead, he has resigned. For what? What impropriety is he accused of? What was his inappropriate conduct? He had maintained a "professional relationship" (personal email) with a former staff officer who had been disciplined for inappropriate behavior. Mind you, Adm. Moran was not guilty of any such behavior; he merely maintained communication with someone who was. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer said, "This decision on his part to maintain that relationship has caused me to call his judgment into question." So, it makes sense. If you commit "inappropriate behavior," you should bear the consequences. If you know someone who commits inappropriate behavior, you must either shun them or bear the consequences. If you read about someone who didn't shun someone who committed such behavior, you should ... well, you can see how this is going to get really nasty. We do indeed live in a world of staunchly anti-judgmental judgmental people. "Hey, Stan, didn't you say you liked Bill Cosby's humor?" Uh oh ...
A Remarkable Company?
Nivea, the skin products company, has made the news in remarkable fashion. During a meeting with their ad agency (of 100 years), FCB, the agency pitched a commercial with two men holding hands. The company response was, "We don't do gay at Nivea." The ad agency "fired" Nivea and the voices are loud in condemning them for what they don't do. Because as everyone knows, "We don't make sex a part of our advertising scheme" is, by definition, homophobia. But, don't worry. It won't last. "We wish to express our concern on the reported allegations, as they do not reflect the values of Beiersdorf, Nivea and our employees worldwide," the company spokesman said. "No form of discrimination, direct and indirect, is or will be tolerated. We are strongly committed to diversity, mutual respect, equal opportunity and tolerance." Homophobic or not (whatever that even means today), it is not company policy and if it was actually said, the one who said it should be looking for work elsewhere. No company today can stand the assault of the LGBT leviathan.
Pesky Science
"Ziklag? We don't need no stinkin' Ziklag." In 1 Samuel 27 David and his little band of men (and their families) hid out from Saul in a Philistine town called Ziklag. We know that is the biblical account, but we also know that the Bible is myth and all those stories are made up and ... wait ... hang on ... oh, no, it appears that "An international team of archaeologists has discovered the remnants of an ancient settlement they believe to be the biblical city of Ziklag." Complete with a settlement dating back to ... you guessed it ... the time of King David. "According to the Bible," the article says, "Ziklag was ransacked and burned by a group of desert nomads called the Amalekites." "This settlement came to an end in an intense fire that destroyed the buildings," the IAA news release reported. Pesky science, raining on the skeptics' parade. Again.
Hate Equality
When the haters found out that the owner of Chick-Fil-A (that is, the owner, not the corporation) was a Christian who opposed gay mirage, they went wild. "Boycott 'em!" Chicago opted to exclude them from their inclusivity. San Antonio and the Buffalo Niagara International Airport opted to ban them because "New York is a welcoming state that celebrates diversity." Except, of course, if it is diversity on this issue. But, don't worry. They are equal-opportunity haters. The owner of Home Depot donated money to the Trump campaign, so haters now want that business boycotted, too. Because everyone knows that anyone that supports Trump should not be included in our society. "Now let me see ... didn't I read somewhere that 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump? I suppose they're next to go, right?"
Racist? Sexist? Who Knows?
No one blinked an eye when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told one of the Democratic presidential candidates to "sashay away." The term is typically used toward men to suggest that they are effeminate -- "gay" -- and not in a good way. That wasn't sexist or rude in the least. But when Kellyanne Conway refers to AOC's dispute with Nancy Pelosi as "a catfight," well, now, that is sexist. (I thought the headline was funny over at this website: "AOC 'Womansplains' Sexism To Kellyanne Conway After 'Catfight' Comment")
I can't keep up. White people, by definition, are racist because they're white; black people cannot be racist at all. Men, by definition, are sexist because they're men; women cannot be sexist. Except when they are. Right? Oh, I don't know.
Illegal Health Care
Speaking of not understanding, here's another story I just don't get. California has become the first state to provide health care coverage for young undocumented adults. For illegal immigrants ages 19-25, California offers Medi-Cal. The state rejected a measure that would have covered illegals 65 and over. (No, seriously ... this is not from the Babylon Bee.) They said that was too expensive. Okay, so, up to this point I understand. Then the story says that existing California law has an "individual mandate that requires California residents to purchase health insurance for themselves and their dependents. Californians who fail to buy insurance would face a state tax penalty." Here's where I'm lost. If you're here legally and don't buy health insurance, you're not only not covered; you're penalized. If you are here illegally (between the mysterious ages of 19-25), you are not only not penalized for being here illegally, you're provided with coverage. This is what California's state government deems reasonable and just.
And Why Not?
In a sad turn of events, after Colin Kaepernick notified Nike that racists in the 18th century breathed, Nike's upper management voluntarily stopped breathing and died.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
We already have a society that will burn you at the metaphorical stake for the slightest accusation of particular offenses. Now we've moved to the next logical step. Four-star Admiral William Moran, confirmed by the Senate, was set to be the next top admiral for the Navy and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Instead, he has resigned. For what? What impropriety is he accused of? What was his inappropriate conduct? He had maintained a "professional relationship" (personal email) with a former staff officer who had been disciplined for inappropriate behavior. Mind you, Adm. Moran was not guilty of any such behavior; he merely maintained communication with someone who was. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer said, "This decision on his part to maintain that relationship has caused me to call his judgment into question." So, it makes sense. If you commit "inappropriate behavior," you should bear the consequences. If you know someone who commits inappropriate behavior, you must either shun them or bear the consequences. If you read about someone who didn't shun someone who committed such behavior, you should ... well, you can see how this is going to get really nasty. We do indeed live in a world of staunchly anti-judgmental judgmental people. "Hey, Stan, didn't you say you liked Bill Cosby's humor?" Uh oh ...
A Remarkable Company?
Nivea, the skin products company, has made the news in remarkable fashion. During a meeting with their ad agency (of 100 years), FCB, the agency pitched a commercial with two men holding hands. The company response was, "We don't do gay at Nivea." The ad agency "fired" Nivea and the voices are loud in condemning them for what they don't do. Because as everyone knows, "We don't make sex a part of our advertising scheme" is, by definition, homophobia. But, don't worry. It won't last. "We wish to express our concern on the reported allegations, as they do not reflect the values of Beiersdorf, Nivea and our employees worldwide," the company spokesman said. "No form of discrimination, direct and indirect, is or will be tolerated. We are strongly committed to diversity, mutual respect, equal opportunity and tolerance." Homophobic or not (whatever that even means today), it is not company policy and if it was actually said, the one who said it should be looking for work elsewhere. No company today can stand the assault of the LGBT leviathan.
Pesky Science
"Ziklag? We don't need no stinkin' Ziklag." In 1 Samuel 27 David and his little band of men (and their families) hid out from Saul in a Philistine town called Ziklag. We know that is the biblical account, but we also know that the Bible is myth and all those stories are made up and ... wait ... hang on ... oh, no, it appears that "An international team of archaeologists has discovered the remnants of an ancient settlement they believe to be the biblical city of Ziklag." Complete with a settlement dating back to ... you guessed it ... the time of King David. "According to the Bible," the article says, "Ziklag was ransacked and burned by a group of desert nomads called the Amalekites." "This settlement came to an end in an intense fire that destroyed the buildings," the IAA news release reported. Pesky science, raining on the skeptics' parade. Again.
Hate Equality
When the haters found out that the owner of Chick-Fil-A (that is, the owner, not the corporation) was a Christian who opposed gay mirage, they went wild. "Boycott 'em!" Chicago opted to exclude them from their inclusivity. San Antonio and the Buffalo Niagara International Airport opted to ban them because "New York is a welcoming state that celebrates diversity." Except, of course, if it is diversity on this issue. But, don't worry. They are equal-opportunity haters. The owner of Home Depot donated money to the Trump campaign, so haters now want that business boycotted, too. Because everyone knows that anyone that supports Trump should not be included in our society. "Now let me see ... didn't I read somewhere that 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump? I suppose they're next to go, right?"
Racist? Sexist? Who Knows?
No one blinked an eye when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told one of the Democratic presidential candidates to "sashay away." The term is typically used toward men to suggest that they are effeminate -- "gay" -- and not in a good way. That wasn't sexist or rude in the least. But when Kellyanne Conway refers to AOC's dispute with Nancy Pelosi as "a catfight," well, now, that is sexist. (I thought the headline was funny over at this website: "AOC 'Womansplains' Sexism To Kellyanne Conway After 'Catfight' Comment")
I can't keep up. White people, by definition, are racist because they're white; black people cannot be racist at all. Men, by definition, are sexist because they're men; women cannot be sexist. Except when they are. Right? Oh, I don't know.
Illegal Health Care
Speaking of not understanding, here's another story I just don't get. California has become the first state to provide health care coverage for young undocumented adults. For illegal immigrants ages 19-25, California offers Medi-Cal. The state rejected a measure that would have covered illegals 65 and over. (No, seriously ... this is not from the Babylon Bee.) They said that was too expensive. Okay, so, up to this point I understand. Then the story says that existing California law has an "individual mandate that requires California residents to purchase health insurance for themselves and their dependents. Californians who fail to buy insurance would face a state tax penalty." Here's where I'm lost. If you're here legally and don't buy health insurance, you're not only not covered; you're penalized. If you are here illegally (between the mysterious ages of 19-25), you are not only not penalized for being here illegally, you're provided with coverage. This is what California's state government deems reasonable and just.
And Why Not?
In a sad turn of events, after Colin Kaepernick notified Nike that racists in the 18th century breathed, Nike's upper management voluntarily stopped breathing and died.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, July 12, 2019
The Holy Bible?
I've been accused on more than one occasion of worshiping the Bible. I suppose you might be able to see why. I believe "If it's in there, it's true." I believe "If it's in there, it is authoritative." Conversely, I believe, "If it contradicts the Bible, it's not true." See? I worship the Bible ... right?
Well, no, not quite. Here's why. There are some religions in the world that consist of "people of the book." That is, they have Scriptures with a capital "S" that define for them their own beliefs. Some are more so than others. The two most extensive versions are Islam and Christianity. In Islam, the Qu'ran is a holy book. The book itself is holy. It is an offense to tear out a page or harm the book in any way. The book is holy. The same is not true in Christianity. Our Bible claims that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). We refer to it as "God's Word." That's the idea.
As Christians we have one God who is the one Authority on all matters of truth (that which corresponds to reality), faith, and practice. If we take that claim seriously, we would reject as authoritative any other source that contradicts that single Authority. Since the Bible claims to be "God-breathed" (not merely "inspired") and since we claim to be subservient to God, we would need to be under God's written Word. As God speaks, we are to listen and follow. So God is our Authority, and God has given us His written Word to tell us what is true, what to do, and how to think. It is, then, God whom we worship and not the book of His Word. Those pages aren't sacred. Those words aren't holy. The message they convey, coming from God, is holy as coming from the One who is Holy, Holy, Holy.
Look, I get it. "Did God really say ...?" has been a question practically from the very beginning. And I understand that there is, even between serious and dedicated believers, disagreement about the meanings of this particular passage or that. The point is not that the Bible is to be worshiped. The point is that God is to be worshiped and you can't say that you're doing that if you reject what He has to say. The point, then, is to be serious about determining what He has said rather than rejecting it because of "other authorities" ... like "cultural perception," "public opinion," current popular views, or "in my experience" types of approaches. We don't worship the Bible. We do worship the God who breathed it and, so, we take it seriously. We don't take too seriously those who don't take His Word seriously because, seriously, that's clearly a proclamation that they don't take God seriously.
Well, no, not quite. Here's why. There are some religions in the world that consist of "people of the book." That is, they have Scriptures with a capital "S" that define for them their own beliefs. Some are more so than others. The two most extensive versions are Islam and Christianity. In Islam, the Qu'ran is a holy book. The book itself is holy. It is an offense to tear out a page or harm the book in any way. The book is holy. The same is not true in Christianity. Our Bible claims that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). We refer to it as "God's Word." That's the idea.
As Christians we have one God who is the one Authority on all matters of truth (that which corresponds to reality), faith, and practice. If we take that claim seriously, we would reject as authoritative any other source that contradicts that single Authority. Since the Bible claims to be "God-breathed" (not merely "inspired") and since we claim to be subservient to God, we would need to be under God's written Word. As God speaks, we are to listen and follow. So God is our Authority, and God has given us His written Word to tell us what is true, what to do, and how to think. It is, then, God whom we worship and not the book of His Word. Those pages aren't sacred. Those words aren't holy. The message they convey, coming from God, is holy as coming from the One who is Holy, Holy, Holy.
Look, I get it. "Did God really say ...?" has been a question practically from the very beginning. And I understand that there is, even between serious and dedicated believers, disagreement about the meanings of this particular passage or that. The point is not that the Bible is to be worshiped. The point is that God is to be worshiped and you can't say that you're doing that if you reject what He has to say. The point, then, is to be serious about determining what He has said rather than rejecting it because of "other authorities" ... like "cultural perception," "public opinion," current popular views, or "in my experience" types of approaches. We don't worship the Bible. We do worship the God who breathed it and, so, we take it seriously. We don't take too seriously those who don't take His Word seriously because, seriously, that's clearly a proclamation that they don't take God seriously.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
A Cheap Revolution
Revolutions take place all the time. There was the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution. There is social revolution, economic revolution, cultural revolution. There are currently stirrings of revolution of a sort in our own country today. We just celebrated America's Independence Day. It is regarded essentially by all as a heroic revolution against an evil regime. Some are even drawing parallels with the growing sense of revolution today where an expanding number of left-wing Democrats are aiming the country toward overt socialism. There is the classic outcry against the 1%, the rising tide of opposition against authority by the "little people," the demand for freedom, for something better. Isn't it the same?
There are key differences.
In the 1776 version, America sought to disassociate their country with their monarch's country; in today's version the rebels hope to take the country from those who are already in it. The aim of the American Revolution was liberty; the aim of today's rebels is entitlement.
Some of the most striking differences are found in the Declaration of Independence.
The framers of the Declaration of Independence appealed to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions" rather than today's version that appeals to our basest desires, where "Me Too" means more of "I want what you have and I'll take it from you by force if I have to."
Finally, they wrote, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." These were men of faith with a lot to lose -- lives, fortunes, honor. In today's class warfare -- the poor versus the rich, the have-nots versus the haves -- there isn't a lot to lose. Those who don't have a lot hope to take from those who do. Not much on the line for them. If they lose, they lose little. A cheap revolution if they can pull it off.
I think there are parallels between the Revolutionary War of 1776 and the current revolutionary push against America's current government and economy. I just don't think there are nearly as many as the Left would like to think. Their war is not against a monarch, but against Capitalism. Their fight is not for freedom, but for that which they think they are owed. Their rights are not derived from their Maker, but from their own imaginings. They make no appeal to any Supreme Judge, but only to what they want. And unlike the American revolutionaries of old who risked a lot, they risk little. The only question is whether or not Americans have the stomach anymore for what is right and reasonable over the emotional pull of what we desire.
There are key differences.
In the 1776 version, America sought to disassociate their country with their monarch's country; in today's version the rebels hope to take the country from those who are already in it. The aim of the American Revolution was liberty; the aim of today's rebels is entitlement.
Some of the most striking differences are found in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.The aim of that revolution was to secure their God-given rights. They didn't believe they manufactured their rights or even earned or deserved them. They believed they were endowed by their Creator. Today's version is not that version. The Creator has been expelled. Rights are now what we make them, what we claim, what we believe to be "self-evident" without the slightest backing. So there is the "right to a living wage" and the "women's reproductive rights" (by which they mean "the right to kill a baby to avoid reproduction"). There is the right to universal healthcare (which, if you think it through, points to a stunning universal injustice in all mankind for thousands of years because no such provision has ever been made before this new modern version).
The framers of the Declaration of Independence appealed to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions" rather than today's version that appeals to our basest desires, where "Me Too" means more of "I want what you have and I'll take it from you by force if I have to."
Finally, they wrote, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." These were men of faith with a lot to lose -- lives, fortunes, honor. In today's class warfare -- the poor versus the rich, the have-nots versus the haves -- there isn't a lot to lose. Those who don't have a lot hope to take from those who do. Not much on the line for them. If they lose, they lose little. A cheap revolution if they can pull it off.
I think there are parallels between the Revolutionary War of 1776 and the current revolutionary push against America's current government and economy. I just don't think there are nearly as many as the Left would like to think. Their war is not against a monarch, but against Capitalism. Their fight is not for freedom, but for that which they think they are owed. Their rights are not derived from their Maker, but from their own imaginings. They make no appeal to any Supreme Judge, but only to what they want. And unlike the American revolutionaries of old who risked a lot, they risk little. The only question is whether or not Americans have the stomach anymore for what is right and reasonable over the emotional pull of what we desire.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Think It Through
The word, "queer," describes something that is strange or odd. Merriam-Webster lists as the first definition "differing in some way from what is usual or normal." It is, in fact, with that in mind that the homosexual community adopts "queer" as their moniker. There is "straight" and there is "queer" because "straight" is normal and "queer" ... is not. Once a pejorative, now it is recommended. So how do they get to the place of being "not normal" (and loving it)? Well, we all know, don't we? They're "born that way."
But there are some problems.
First, science hasn't actually demonstrated any such thing. They try, but they have "no irrefutable conclusions." Science says there is "scarce scientific evidence" to support the so-called "gay gene" idea.
Second, it doesn't matter. "What??!" Think about it. Those who identify as "homosexual" also identify as "queer." That is, "We're not the norm." Proudly. So let's just say that they are born "not the norm" in some sense. What do we do when a child is born "not the norm"? I once saw a documentary on a child born without arms and legs. The story was about how he learned to cope. He learned to put on prosthetic arms and legs and get around in his world. It was remarkable. Truly. "But," we should have heard, "he was born that way!" You see, we understand that there is "normal" and we understand that "gay" isn't normal. Lest you think I'm being harsh, remember, 1) they cling to "queer" ("not normal") as a good term and 2) "normal" is defined by averages and "2.5%" (the estimated percentage of people who identify as homosexual) is not "average." For some reason the LGBTQI (etc.) folk have decided that "born that way" is, by definition, virtuous simply by being born that way. But we don't see any other abnormal birth condition the same way. Why? So if it was to be true that they are "born that way," it still doesn't answer the question if whether or not it is morally good.
To illustrate and drive the point home more clearly, I am heterosexual. I am, if you will, born that way. I didn't choose it. Okay? We're all on the same page? Good. So, as a heterosexual, I am attracted to the opposite sex. That means that I might be attracted to my wife and I might be attracted to someone else's wife or sister or other females. I don't choose attraction, but I do choose what I do with it. If I choose to be faithful to my wife and choose not to lust after others, I choose good. If I choose the opposite, I choose bad. What I do, then, is my choice for which I am responsible. In the same way, if it was to be true that they are "born that way," it wouldn't really be part of the equation because we all have choices to make regardless of our "programming." I'm hungry, so I choose what I will eat and reap the reward if I choose wisely or bear the consequences if I choose poorly. It still comes down to choice.
You see, then, that "born that way" is not a means of making the abnormal moral. "Born that way" doesn't require that we should stay that way. If it did, that remarkable kid without arms and legs would have been doing wrong to seek to be more ... normal. And none of us think so. It is a smokescreen to dodge the question of morality. And answering that question with the currently popular "love is love" idea is just stinkin' thinkin'.1
________
But there are some problems.
First, science hasn't actually demonstrated any such thing. They try, but they have "no irrefutable conclusions." Science says there is "scarce scientific evidence" to support the so-called "gay gene" idea.
Second, it doesn't matter. "What??!" Think about it. Those who identify as "homosexual" also identify as "queer." That is, "We're not the norm." Proudly. So let's just say that they are born "not the norm" in some sense. What do we do when a child is born "not the norm"? I once saw a documentary on a child born without arms and legs. The story was about how he learned to cope. He learned to put on prosthetic arms and legs and get around in his world. It was remarkable. Truly. "But," we should have heard, "he was born that way!" You see, we understand that there is "normal" and we understand that "gay" isn't normal. Lest you think I'm being harsh, remember, 1) they cling to "queer" ("not normal") as a good term and 2) "normal" is defined by averages and "2.5%" (the estimated percentage of people who identify as homosexual) is not "average." For some reason the LGBTQI (etc.) folk have decided that "born that way" is, by definition, virtuous simply by being born that way. But we don't see any other abnormal birth condition the same way. Why? So if it was to be true that they are "born that way," it still doesn't answer the question if whether or not it is morally good.
To illustrate and drive the point home more clearly, I am heterosexual. I am, if you will, born that way. I didn't choose it. Okay? We're all on the same page? Good. So, as a heterosexual, I am attracted to the opposite sex. That means that I might be attracted to my wife and I might be attracted to someone else's wife or sister or other females. I don't choose attraction, but I do choose what I do with it. If I choose to be faithful to my wife and choose not to lust after others, I choose good. If I choose the opposite, I choose bad. What I do, then, is my choice for which I am responsible. In the same way, if it was to be true that they are "born that way," it wouldn't really be part of the equation because we all have choices to make regardless of our "programming." I'm hungry, so I choose what I will eat and reap the reward if I choose wisely or bear the consequences if I choose poorly. It still comes down to choice.
You see, then, that "born that way" is not a means of making the abnormal moral. "Born that way" doesn't require that we should stay that way. If it did, that remarkable kid without arms and legs would have been doing wrong to seek to be more ... normal. And none of us think so. It is a smokescreen to dodge the question of morality. And answering that question with the currently popular "love is love" idea is just stinkin' thinkin'.1
________
1 In case you don't know what I mean, consider "love is love." Is love of pizza the same as love of country the same as love of a parent the same as love of a spouse? Why not, if "love is love"? If "love is love," on what basis do they deny polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, objectophilia, or pedophilia (to start a list of the bizarre)? "Come on," the objection will come, "we're talking about love between people." Does love require sexual relations? Because the objection from Scripture is solely in regards to sexual relations and not "love." If "love is love" is about sex, what kind of "love" are you talking about? I don't think many of us define "love" as sex with pizza, a parent, or the country. "Love is love" sounds nice, but let's do some careful analysis before blindly leaping into that cauldron.
Tuesday, July 09, 2019
Making Sure
We are not saved by works. It is one of several distinctives between Christianity and every other religion. We are saved by faith apart from works through grace apart from any merit in Christ and Christ alone. There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). This is a fact. While all other religions rely on good works and personal merit to get to the "great beyond" (whatever that is to their religion), Christianity alone stands on salvation apart from works.
"So," some people conclude, "works have nothing to do with it." These folks are often "antinomians" -- the belief that there are no rules. Pauline Dispensationalists declare a stark distinction against anything "works" related. Jesus said, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:20), but Jesus was before Paul. John wrote, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning" (1 John 3:9), but John was not Paul. "No, no," they declare absolutely, "works have nothing at all to do with being a Christian." Are they right?
I affirm (again, just for clarity) that we are not saved by works. No question. On the other hand, I affirm that faith without works is dead faith (James 2:17). If you strike a match and light a fire, you will get smoke. The smoke is not the cause of the fire, but it is a necessary result. In the same way, a person who has died with Christ (Rom 6:6) and become new (2 Cor 5:17) with God at work in him/her (Php 2:13) is not saved by works, but works are the unavoidable result. To put it another way, works do not bring about salvation, but salvation does bring about works.
So what? Why does it matter? Well, it matters for a few reasons, not the least of which is that God says it is so. It matters because our works are a demonstration that we are changed and God is glorified (Matt 5:16). Beyond this, Peter says it is very important. "Be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election," he says (2 Peter 3:10). Now that is important. We want assurance. We want to be confident of our salvation. How is that done? How do we confirm it? "If you practice these qualities you will never fall" (2 Peter 3:10). What qualities?
That actually sounds daunting at the outset, but the original thinking Peter based it on is an astounding claim.
We come to Christ on the basis of grace through the medium of faith. "Not of works" (Eph 2:8-9). In this new relationship we are adopted as His children (John 1:12) and empowered by His Spirit (1 Cor 12:11) and we are changed. In this -- His work in our lives, manifested by changed actions and attitudes -- we can gain confidence that we actually did become new. He has already provided it (Eph 1:3ff). We can be sure -- confident. God says so.
"So," some people conclude, "works have nothing to do with it." These folks are often "antinomians" -- the belief that there are no rules. Pauline Dispensationalists declare a stark distinction against anything "works" related. Jesus said, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:20), but Jesus was before Paul. John wrote, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning" (1 John 3:9), but John was not Paul. "No, no," they declare absolutely, "works have nothing at all to do with being a Christian." Are they right?
I affirm (again, just for clarity) that we are not saved by works. No question. On the other hand, I affirm that faith without works is dead faith (James 2:17). If you strike a match and light a fire, you will get smoke. The smoke is not the cause of the fire, but it is a necessary result. In the same way, a person who has died with Christ (Rom 6:6) and become new (2 Cor 5:17) with God at work in him/her (Php 2:13) is not saved by works, but works are the unavoidable result. To put it another way, works do not bring about salvation, but salvation does bring about works.
So what? Why does it matter? Well, it matters for a few reasons, not the least of which is that God says it is so. It matters because our works are a demonstration that we are changed and God is glorified (Matt 5:16). Beyond this, Peter says it is very important. "Be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election," he says (2 Peter 3:10). Now that is important. We want assurance. We want to be confident of our salvation. How is that done? How do we confirm it? "If you practice these qualities you will never fall" (2 Peter 3:10). What qualities?
Make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. (2 Peter 1:5-7)That's some list. He adds, "If these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:8). So these qualities in increasing amounts can assure you that you are called and chosen.
That actually sounds daunting at the outset, but the original thinking Peter based it on is an astounding claim.
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (2 Peter 1:3-4)Did you see that? He has already granted it to us. "All things that pertain to life and godliness." It's ours. And He cannot fail because of His "precious and very great promises." By His divine power we "become partakers of the divine nature." Wow! No, that doesn't mean we become divine -- "little gods." It isn't pantheism or panentheism. It isn't even polytheism. It simply means that we are "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29). It means that we partake of His power and glory by His work in us. It means that we sacrifice all that we are and gain all that He is.
We come to Christ on the basis of grace through the medium of faith. "Not of works" (Eph 2:8-9). In this new relationship we are adopted as His children (John 1:12) and empowered by His Spirit (1 Cor 12:11) and we are changed. In this -- His work in our lives, manifested by changed actions and attitudes -- we can gain confidence that we actually did become new. He has already provided it (Eph 1:3ff). We can be sure -- confident. God says so.
Monday, July 08, 2019
Subjective Morality
A Starbucks in Tempe, AZ, last week opted to remove 6 Tempe police officers because a customer complained that they were making the customer feel unsafe. Now, as the barista involved, numerically you might think, "Well, I can eject one snowflake who hates cops or 6 officers that are buying coffee and making this place safer" or morally you might think, "We cannot let irrational feelings determine right and wrong here" or you might think as a member of the community, "I should do this customer a favor and teach them the value of having law enforcement and the irrationality of fear brought on by overblown media stories," but none of those occurred. Many people don't think that way anymore. The rule is not "business" or "economics" (Do we even know what that is anymore?) or "the greater good." The rule is largely simple today -- you must not for any reason make those of the protected classes feel uncomfortable.
I say "protected classes" because it is absolutely clear that "uncomfortable" is not a sin when done to certain categories. It is absolutely okay to make a white person feel uncomfortable ... for being white. In fact, making a white person feel uncomfortable for being white is a virtue. In religious terms, there are some you can offend and some you can't. Muslims must not be offended, but Christians can. In terms of authority, if you have to offend someone, offend a police officer or a government entity, not a customer or a citizen. Men deserve to be shamed; women deserve to be offense-free. We've just built up, in the last few years it seems, this massive new rule that "offended" is the ultimate evil if you are in the "protected class" and shaming is a delight if you are not.
Actually we've arrived at what I consider to be a terrifying place. With our "separation of Church and State" as the seed and the growing antipathy against all things Christian as the medium, we've cultured a society that has no solid footing for determining "moral." So now we go with "feelings" as the ultimate determination of right and wrong. Of course, some people might deny this and others might embrace it. "No," they'd say, "that's good!" What we do not have, however, is an objective standard for right and wrong, and this puts us in a dangerous place. When society (more accurately, the largest voices that can influence public opinion the most) determines that X is right and Y is wrong, then anything goes. The possibilities are endless ... and often not pleasant. In Hitler's Germany, the society as a whole embraced the hatred of Jews and homosexuals. In Communist countries the government is worshiped and individuals demeaned. In Muslim countries there is little religious freedom or tolerance. When Man determines right and wrong apart from an objective moral standard, things can really turn ugly. With objective morality removed and subjective morality as the rule, expect things to get ugly ... and that ugly to be celebrated.
I say "protected classes" because it is absolutely clear that "uncomfortable" is not a sin when done to certain categories. It is absolutely okay to make a white person feel uncomfortable ... for being white. In fact, making a white person feel uncomfortable for being white is a virtue. In religious terms, there are some you can offend and some you can't. Muslims must not be offended, but Christians can. In terms of authority, if you have to offend someone, offend a police officer or a government entity, not a customer or a citizen. Men deserve to be shamed; women deserve to be offense-free. We've just built up, in the last few years it seems, this massive new rule that "offended" is the ultimate evil if you are in the "protected class" and shaming is a delight if you are not.
Actually we've arrived at what I consider to be a terrifying place. With our "separation of Church and State" as the seed and the growing antipathy against all things Christian as the medium, we've cultured a society that has no solid footing for determining "moral." So now we go with "feelings" as the ultimate determination of right and wrong. Of course, some people might deny this and others might embrace it. "No," they'd say, "that's good!" What we do not have, however, is an objective standard for right and wrong, and this puts us in a dangerous place. When society (more accurately, the largest voices that can influence public opinion the most) determines that X is right and Y is wrong, then anything goes. The possibilities are endless ... and often not pleasant. In Hitler's Germany, the society as a whole embraced the hatred of Jews and homosexuals. In Communist countries the government is worshiped and individuals demeaned. In Muslim countries there is little religious freedom or tolerance. When Man determines right and wrong apart from an objective moral standard, things can really turn ugly. With objective morality removed and subjective morality as the rule, expect things to get ugly ... and that ugly to be celebrated.
Sunday, July 07, 2019
A Solid Foundation
In Paul's first letter to Timothy Paul is exhorting Timothy how to lead a church (Ephesus in this case) in a pagan world (you know, kind of like our own). At the end of the letter he charges Timothy to "Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called ..." (1 Tim 6:11-16). It's kind of a strange charge because right in the middle of it without even a period-end-of-sentence he launches into this doxology.
I think I know. I think, in fact, that it's clear. Paul has given Timothy a clear charge, and it's not an easy one. Lest he think it's too much, Paul undergirds it with the source and end -- God. God determines when Christ comes again. God is the "only Sovereign" (in contradiction to a popular notion that He has surrendered some of His Sovereignty to us). God alone is immortal. God lives in light that we can't even approach. God holds all honor and dominion (power).
"There you go, Timothy," Paul is saying, "I've asked a lot of you. Now grasp the One you serve, take an eternal worldview, and go." Paul is equipping Timothy with more power and footing than he will ever need to do what he was charged to do.
We, too, stand with that charge. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of eternal life -- an eternal view rather than a worldly view. Be ready for the fight of your life. We, too, have that power and footing. It's the power of God who holds all power. It's the confidence of God's Sovereignty in an unsure and unsettled world. It is the certainty that while we face kings and lords in our own world, He is the King of those kings and the Lord of those lords. No one can touch Him. No one can even get close.
When you're tired, when you're weary, when you feel discouraged or disabled, remember that. You're not alone. You're not beaten. It's not even about you. God is still on His throne. "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases" (Psa 115:3). And it is that God "who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). When the seas around you look rough, remember that. You can't lose.
He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (1 Tim 6:15b-16)You can see from that "b" in the reference that the "a" part of the verse is ... something else. He's talking to Timothy about keeping "the commandment unstained until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ which He will display at the proper time" (1 Tim 14-15a) and, BOOM, he launches that doxology. Why?
I think I know. I think, in fact, that it's clear. Paul has given Timothy a clear charge, and it's not an easy one. Lest he think it's too much, Paul undergirds it with the source and end -- God. God determines when Christ comes again. God is the "only Sovereign" (in contradiction to a popular notion that He has surrendered some of His Sovereignty to us). God alone is immortal. God lives in light that we can't even approach. God holds all honor and dominion (power).
"There you go, Timothy," Paul is saying, "I've asked a lot of you. Now grasp the One you serve, take an eternal worldview, and go." Paul is equipping Timothy with more power and footing than he will ever need to do what he was charged to do.
We, too, stand with that charge. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of eternal life -- an eternal view rather than a worldly view. Be ready for the fight of your life. We, too, have that power and footing. It's the power of God who holds all power. It's the confidence of God's Sovereignty in an unsure and unsettled world. It is the certainty that while we face kings and lords in our own world, He is the King of those kings and the Lord of those lords. No one can touch Him. No one can even get close.
When you're tired, when you're weary, when you feel discouraged or disabled, remember that. You're not alone. You're not beaten. It's not even about you. God is still on His throne. "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases" (Psa 115:3). And it is that God "who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). When the seas around you look rough, remember that. You can't lose.
Saturday, July 06, 2019
News Weakly - 7/6/19
Speaking Truth from Power
With so many loud and angry voices about how the dirty, rotten United States is evil for not flinging open her borders to all comers (while no other country in the world does so), it is almost a total surprise to hear this. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, declared that the death of the man and his young daughter whose picture at the Rio Grande recently incited such outrage was the fault of El Salvador (and, by extension, the other countries from which they are coming). "We can blame any other country," he said, "but what about our blame? What country did they flee? Did they flee the United States? They fled El Salvador, they fled our country. It is our fault." Bukele doesn't even approve of American treatment of immigrants, but I am impressed that he is looking at the source rather than the end point of the problem.
Neither Justice nor Mercy
In 1970 Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul, and Mary was sentenced to three months in jail for "indecent liberties" with a 14-year-old girl. Two sisters, ages 14 and 17, had knocked on his hotel room door for an autograph and he answered naked. In 1981 President Carter pardoned Yarrow. You might (unwisely) think, "Done and done." The man served his sentence and was pardoned later on top of the distance in time from the crime. But, no. The Colorscape Chenango Arts Festival in upstate New York disinvited 81-year-old Yarrow because of social media outrage. That is, once you've committed a particular category of sin, there is no payment, no forgiveness, no possibility of change, no termination by any means of the guilt. American social media hates both justice and mercy, except, I suppose, in their own cases.
Many in our society today complain about Christian judgmentalism. "He who is without sin cast the first stone," they will throw in our faces without the slightest consideration of their own judgmentalism.
We're Not Using It
After we invaded Iraq because of WMDs, they began the process of becoming self-governed. One comedian quipped, "If they need a Constitution, they can use ours; we're not using it." We have a Constitution largely to protect us from leadership. We have checks and balances in place to keep us from having a government by fiat. Elizabeth Warren appears not to care. While the concept of "executive order" has been used by many presidents, it was used on the basis of emergency and intended for short-term action. Warren plans in advance to use it to remedy "the wage and employment leadership gap for women of color." She won't wait for the legislative branch to do its job; she will do it by declaration. That's okay, I suppose. We're not using our Constitution anyway. But if you are in favor of a president that rules by fiat rather than our legal process, vote for Warren. (I think there are more candidates than her planning the same sort of monarchy.)
The Offense of Being American
Nike has decided to pull a special shoe from the market which featured the old Betsy Ross American flag -- you know, the one with the circle of 13 stars. Why? Because Colin Kaepernick said that the original American flag reminded people of slavery. Nike concurred. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey disagreed with Nike and "ordered the Arizona Commerce Authority, a public-private economic development agency, to withdraw incentives the state offered Nike to build a plant in Goodyear, Arizona." Ducey said, "Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Nike." The statement would cost the state some 500 jobs and $450 million in economic activity.
Follow the logic. "'These people' (in this case, some racist or nationalist groups) have used a symbol of a nation's origin for their own nefarious purposes. Ergo, that symbol is offensive and should be removed from public display." Follow the logic. "Some Christians have used the name of Christ as a reason for their own nefarious purposes. Ergo ..." well, you can see where this would go. Now, shall we try it with the Left's pet symbols or projects? Let's not. There is probably no symbol that would survive if "somebody is offended" is the measure of what should stay or go.
It is not a surprise, then, that as Pride Month ends, it is followed by "Shame On You America" Month. Must be true; I saw it on the Internet.
With so many loud and angry voices about how the dirty, rotten United States is evil for not flinging open her borders to all comers (while no other country in the world does so), it is almost a total surprise to hear this. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, declared that the death of the man and his young daughter whose picture at the Rio Grande recently incited such outrage was the fault of El Salvador (and, by extension, the other countries from which they are coming). "We can blame any other country," he said, "but what about our blame? What country did they flee? Did they flee the United States? They fled El Salvador, they fled our country. It is our fault." Bukele doesn't even approve of American treatment of immigrants, but I am impressed that he is looking at the source rather than the end point of the problem.
Neither Justice nor Mercy
In 1970 Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul, and Mary was sentenced to three months in jail for "indecent liberties" with a 14-year-old girl. Two sisters, ages 14 and 17, had knocked on his hotel room door for an autograph and he answered naked. In 1981 President Carter pardoned Yarrow. You might (unwisely) think, "Done and done." The man served his sentence and was pardoned later on top of the distance in time from the crime. But, no. The Colorscape Chenango Arts Festival in upstate New York disinvited 81-year-old Yarrow because of social media outrage. That is, once you've committed a particular category of sin, there is no payment, no forgiveness, no possibility of change, no termination by any means of the guilt. American social media hates both justice and mercy, except, I suppose, in their own cases.
Many in our society today complain about Christian judgmentalism. "He who is without sin cast the first stone," they will throw in our faces without the slightest consideration of their own judgmentalism.
We're Not Using It
After we invaded Iraq because of WMDs, they began the process of becoming self-governed. One comedian quipped, "If they need a Constitution, they can use ours; we're not using it." We have a Constitution largely to protect us from leadership. We have checks and balances in place to keep us from having a government by fiat. Elizabeth Warren appears not to care. While the concept of "executive order" has been used by many presidents, it was used on the basis of emergency and intended for short-term action. Warren plans in advance to use it to remedy "the wage and employment leadership gap for women of color." She won't wait for the legislative branch to do its job; she will do it by declaration. That's okay, I suppose. We're not using our Constitution anyway. But if you are in favor of a president that rules by fiat rather than our legal process, vote for Warren. (I think there are more candidates than her planning the same sort of monarchy.)
The Offense of Being American
Nike has decided to pull a special shoe from the market which featured the old Betsy Ross American flag -- you know, the one with the circle of 13 stars. Why? Because Colin Kaepernick said that the original American flag reminded people of slavery. Nike concurred. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey disagreed with Nike and "ordered the Arizona Commerce Authority, a public-private economic development agency, to withdraw incentives the state offered Nike to build a plant in Goodyear, Arizona." Ducey said, "Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Nike." The statement would cost the state some 500 jobs and $450 million in economic activity.
Follow the logic. "'These people' (in this case, some racist or nationalist groups) have used a symbol of a nation's origin for their own nefarious purposes. Ergo, that symbol is offensive and should be removed from public display." Follow the logic. "Some Christians have used the name of Christ as a reason for their own nefarious purposes. Ergo ..." well, you can see where this would go. Now, shall we try it with the Left's pet symbols or projects? Let's not. There is probably no symbol that would survive if "somebody is offended" is the measure of what should stay or go.
It is not a surprise, then, that as Pride Month ends, it is followed by "Shame On You America" Month. Must be true; I saw it on the Internet.
Friday, July 05, 2019
Stonewall Inn in Retrospect
Last week, June 28 to be exact, we recognized the Stonewall Riots of 1969.
In 1966 the Genovese crime family purchased the Stonewall Inn, renovated it, and reopened it as a gay bar. They circumvented liquor license laws and bypassed safety and hygiene considerations by paying about $1,200 a month to the police. There was no running water at the bar, so they served drinks in used glasses. Gay rights groups blamed the bar for an hepatitis outbreak in 1969. The only entry and exit in the case of a fire was the narrow front door. The owners used the bar to extort wealthy patrons who weren't "out" which, eventually, was the most profitable aspect of the club.
On the morning of June 28, 1969, police carried out a surprise raid despite the bribes. They found illegal alcohol and arrested 13 people. Angry patrons struck back. Hundreds of people started arriving and throwing bottles, cobble stones, and other items at the police. Police retreated with a few prisoners into the bar and blocked the single door. The mob attempted to set fire to the bar to burn them all. Firefighters and more police arrived to douse the fires and disperse the crowd, but thousands of people continued to gather and riot for five more days.
As a result of this attempt at murdering police and protecting the Mafia, the "gay rights" folk recognize this as the start of "gay liberation." Barack Obama designated the site of the riots a national monument in 2016 and the event is commemorated and celebrated. There are certainly many who are GLAAD about this, but I can't help wondering how it's a good thing.
In 1966 the Genovese crime family purchased the Stonewall Inn, renovated it, and reopened it as a gay bar. They circumvented liquor license laws and bypassed safety and hygiene considerations by paying about $1,200 a month to the police. There was no running water at the bar, so they served drinks in used glasses. Gay rights groups blamed the bar for an hepatitis outbreak in 1969. The only entry and exit in the case of a fire was the narrow front door. The owners used the bar to extort wealthy patrons who weren't "out" which, eventually, was the most profitable aspect of the club.
On the morning of June 28, 1969, police carried out a surprise raid despite the bribes. They found illegal alcohol and arrested 13 people. Angry patrons struck back. Hundreds of people started arriving and throwing bottles, cobble stones, and other items at the police. Police retreated with a few prisoners into the bar and blocked the single door. The mob attempted to set fire to the bar to burn them all. Firefighters and more police arrived to douse the fires and disperse the crowd, but thousands of people continued to gather and riot for five more days.
As a result of this attempt at murdering police and protecting the Mafia, the "gay rights" folk recognize this as the start of "gay liberation." Barack Obama designated the site of the riots a national monument in 2016 and the event is commemorated and celebrated. There are certainly many who are GLAAD about this, but I can't help wondering how it's a good thing.
Thursday, July 04, 2019
Is Revolution Biblical?
In 1776 the British colony in the Americas revolted against the king. In a heroic war against tyranny, they threw out the British government and established the United States of America. We Americans were raised on this historic story and celebrate it every July 4th. We celebrate the victory of the "Patriots" against the "Loyalists" (or "Tories") and their crown. Their cry was "no taxation without representation" and "Don't tread on me." They threw tea into the Boston harbor. They dissolved their "political bands" because their government had refused to secure their God-given rights or to recognize that the power of the government is derived from the governed. They decried a "long train of abuses and usurpations" and "Tyranny". (By the way, those aren't "scare quotes"; they're just quotes from the Declaration of Independence.) There was a long list of grievances, including the requirement to quarter troops in their homes, cutting off and taxing trade with other countries, and actual murder of citizens. They appealed to "the Supreme Judge of the world" for their right to be free and independent and pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
I think it's abundantly clear that the American Revolution was premised largely on a Christian basis, despite what historians would have us believe today. I think it is equally clear that today's world would have no such basis, having eliminated it as a possibility. But the question I have is this: Was that revolution biblical? They stood on rights bestowed by the Creator and depended on the protection of Divine Providence, but was there a biblical basis for any of this?
First, I think it's important to note, based on the Christian influence on the Declaration of Independence, that Americans linked liberty and "the consent of the governed" (democracy) to Christianity, that Christianity affirmed these as God-given rights. I don't suppose, in fact, that many American Christians today would disagree. But can you find that in Scripture?
Next, you may wonder why I ask the question about whether the Revolution was biblical? If they saw their freedoms and rights as given by God, isn't that the basis? Well, there is a question here. Paul wrote, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2). Given that all governing authority comes from God, is it ever right to fail to submit to governing authority? Peter wrote
Of course, it doesn't take but a moment to realize that this biblical requirement is not a blanket requirement. That is, Scripture declares, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). So it is not always the case that we must simply submit to governing authorities. And, if you think about it for a moment, it makes perfect sense. Since the source of the authority for government is God, when that government defies the God that instituted it, it would seem clearly necessary to choose to obey the higher authority. That, then, would be the principle that would allow Christians to refuse to obey government -- when they require us to do or not do what God has commanded us not to or to do. So, as in the Acts 5 example, if a government required that we not preach the Gospel and we have clearly been commanded to preach the Gospel, we have no option but to disobey the government and obey God.
The question, then, is whether or not this was the case in the 1770's. (The question is not "Did people use the Bible to justify the Revolutionary War?" They did, no doubt. The question is whether the Bible agrees with them.) The reasons for the revolution were demands for God-given rights. Are those rights genuine rights, as in actual commands? A prominent Congregational minister at the time argued that government should be obeyed as long as they don't abuse their power and trust, but exercise it for the good of the governed. That looks to me like "You must submit as long as you're comfortable with it and, if not, revolution is justified." This would be a problematic view of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 since Paul and Peter were both writing during the time of a true despot, Emperor Nero. If Paul didn't list him as an exception, on what basis would we list King George?
So the question seems to hang in the air. Given the Scriptures on the topic and the belief among Bible-believing Christians that God's Word is the primary authority in matters of faith and practice, on what grounds could we justify the American Revolution? You know where this goes next, don't you? By extension, on what grounds would we justify resisting authority today?
Postscript
I understand that this may disturb some Americans who don't like the idea that the very origin of the country might have been counter-biblical. I just want to point out that I wrote this as a question, not as a statement. Something to think about, to ponder, to even dismiss if you wish. I also understand that some Americans worship America and what it stands for (especially today) above Christ, making such a question offensive, so there is that to consider as well.
I think it's abundantly clear that the American Revolution was premised largely on a Christian basis, despite what historians would have us believe today. I think it is equally clear that today's world would have no such basis, having eliminated it as a possibility. But the question I have is this: Was that revolution biblical? They stood on rights bestowed by the Creator and depended on the protection of Divine Providence, but was there a biblical basis for any of this?
First, I think it's important to note, based on the Christian influence on the Declaration of Independence, that Americans linked liberty and "the consent of the governed" (democracy) to Christianity, that Christianity affirmed these as God-given rights. I don't suppose, in fact, that many American Christians today would disagree. But can you find that in Scripture?
Next, you may wonder why I ask the question about whether the Revolution was biblical? If they saw their freedoms and rights as given by God, isn't that the basis? Well, there is a question here. Paul wrote, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2). Given that all governing authority comes from God, is it ever right to fail to submit to governing authority? Peter wrote
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17)Remembering that Peter wrote about an emperor that declared himself god and sought the deaths of Christians, this whole thing becomes a serious question.
Of course, it doesn't take but a moment to realize that this biblical requirement is not a blanket requirement. That is, Scripture declares, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). So it is not always the case that we must simply submit to governing authorities. And, if you think about it for a moment, it makes perfect sense. Since the source of the authority for government is God, when that government defies the God that instituted it, it would seem clearly necessary to choose to obey the higher authority. That, then, would be the principle that would allow Christians to refuse to obey government -- when they require us to do or not do what God has commanded us not to or to do. So, as in the Acts 5 example, if a government required that we not preach the Gospel and we have clearly been commanded to preach the Gospel, we have no option but to disobey the government and obey God.
The question, then, is whether or not this was the case in the 1770's. (The question is not "Did people use the Bible to justify the Revolutionary War?" They did, no doubt. The question is whether the Bible agrees with them.) The reasons for the revolution were demands for God-given rights. Are those rights genuine rights, as in actual commands? A prominent Congregational minister at the time argued that government should be obeyed as long as they don't abuse their power and trust, but exercise it for the good of the governed. That looks to me like "You must submit as long as you're comfortable with it and, if not, revolution is justified." This would be a problematic view of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 since Paul and Peter were both writing during the time of a true despot, Emperor Nero. If Paul didn't list him as an exception, on what basis would we list King George?
So the question seems to hang in the air. Given the Scriptures on the topic and the belief among Bible-believing Christians that God's Word is the primary authority in matters of faith and practice, on what grounds could we justify the American Revolution? You know where this goes next, don't you? By extension, on what grounds would we justify resisting authority today?
Postscript
I understand that this may disturb some Americans who don't like the idea that the very origin of the country might have been counter-biblical. I just want to point out that I wrote this as a question, not as a statement. Something to think about, to ponder, to even dismiss if you wish. I also understand that some Americans worship America and what it stands for (especially today) above Christ, making such a question offensive, so there is that to consider as well.
Wednesday, July 03, 2019
Sanctify Christ?
We've talked before (more than once) about 1 Peter 3:15. You know, how we're to always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for the reason for the hope that is in you. I've even pointed out that we're supposed to do it "with gentleness and respect." But we've always glossed over the first phrase. And since this is the end of a sentence, let's look at it all.
The text is actually a quote pulled out of Isaiah.
How do you "sanctify" God? I mean, He's already holy, right? Well, the term is based on the original Hebrew concept that is more at "other" than "holy." It refers to "set apart" and the idea is along the lines of things like "set apart for God" or "set apart from sin" or the like ... which correspond to our idea of "holy." The real concept, however, is "set apart." So, how can we sanctify God (in Isaiah) or Christ (in 1 Peter)? Well, we certainly don't do it by making them holy. They already are (Isa 6:1-4; Rev 4:8-9). The idea, then, is to set Him apart in our lives, in our existence, in our thoughts, hearts, emotions, in our practices. The context (in Peter's epistle) is suffering. "If you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed" (1 Peter 3:14). The context in Isaiah is the dangers of avoiding sin (Isa 8:11-12). (People won't like you if you avoid sin.) In both cases, suffering is in view and in both cases we are not to fear them; we are to fear God. We are to set Him apart in our lives as the utmost, the highest, that which is most feared, revered, respected, and trusted.
So, how are you doing in that? I am a person under construction. I have not arrived. I need to make this a constant practice. Christ first. Christ last. Christ always. I need to make Him my primary concern, my highest trust, my ultimate resting place, my life's goal. The outcome will be that I don't need to fear the world around me, the people in it, my culture, my surroundings, not because there is no danger, but because they aren't my biggest concern. He is. If I can get to that kind of singular-mindedness, I will have sanctified Christ in my heart. That's my aim. That's my hope. Oh, hey, that's what he said, right? Be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for the reason for your hope? When Christ is sanctified in my heart, He is my hope. Got it.
Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but sanctify Christ in your hearts... (1 Peter 3:14-15)Now that's a strange phrase, isn't it? To "sanctify" is to "set apart; to make holy."
The text is actually a quote pulled out of Isaiah.
"You are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. Sanctify the LORD of hosts Himself. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread." (Isa 8:12-13)So this isn't a Pauline thing. That Isaiah reference is a quote from God.
How do you "sanctify" God? I mean, He's already holy, right? Well, the term is based on the original Hebrew concept that is more at "other" than "holy." It refers to "set apart" and the idea is along the lines of things like "set apart for God" or "set apart from sin" or the like ... which correspond to our idea of "holy." The real concept, however, is "set apart." So, how can we sanctify God (in Isaiah) or Christ (in 1 Peter)? Well, we certainly don't do it by making them holy. They already are (Isa 6:1-4; Rev 4:8-9). The idea, then, is to set Him apart in our lives, in our existence, in our thoughts, hearts, emotions, in our practices. The context (in Peter's epistle) is suffering. "If you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed" (1 Peter 3:14). The context in Isaiah is the dangers of avoiding sin (Isa 8:11-12). (People won't like you if you avoid sin.) In both cases, suffering is in view and in both cases we are not to fear them; we are to fear God. We are to set Him apart in our lives as the utmost, the highest, that which is most feared, revered, respected, and trusted.
So, how are you doing in that? I am a person under construction. I have not arrived. I need to make this a constant practice. Christ first. Christ last. Christ always. I need to make Him my primary concern, my highest trust, my ultimate resting place, my life's goal. The outcome will be that I don't need to fear the world around me, the people in it, my culture, my surroundings, not because there is no danger, but because they aren't my biggest concern. He is. If I can get to that kind of singular-mindedness, I will have sanctified Christ in my heart. That's my aim. That's my hope. Oh, hey, that's what he said, right? Be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for the reason for your hope? When Christ is sanctified in my heart, He is my hope. Got it.
Tuesday, July 02, 2019
On the Approach of July 4th
"America is not a Christian nation." While technically this is true (no nation can confess its sins and come to Christ in faith), it is also undeniably true that the United States of America has her roots firmly planted in Christianity. From the beginning, eight of the thirteen original states had state-sponsored Christian churches. In the five which did not, they had Christian charters. The Constitutional Convention had 55 members, 50 of whom were actual Christians. When the Bill of Rights was passed with its noticeable First Amendment in front, the House passed a resolution for both houses of Congress to call for a day of public prayer and thanksgiving. The Charter of Delaware, 1701, declared, "All Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively..." Of the original 13, Delaware was the first to terminate its state-supported religion in 1792 and New Hampshire the last in 1877. Without a doubt, the original intent of the Founders was not the separation of Church and State -- not a religion-free government -- but a federal government that wouldn't decide for the States which religion to practice. No, it's more than that. They didn't want the federal government to determine which denomination of Christianity they would use. At that time, they referred to Christianity as "religion" and most references to "religion" in the writings and quotes from those days were a direct reference to Christianity.
Today, of course, this is unheard of. This is foul. This is unholy. We understand that the divine (lowercase) decree is the separation of Church and State. Few realize that this was never included in any actual documents from our founding. The actual phrase comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut. In 1962, the Supreme Court (tasked with determining constitutionality) used the phrase to declare school prayers unconstitutional, but the notion that school prayers would be unconstitutional wasn't even a remote possibility to the deeply religious new country of the United States. The Connecticut Baptists were concerned that the State might meddle in their business, and Jefferson was assuring them that the state was blocked from doing so and not that the church had no part in the state. The establishment clause was there to prevent the federal government from making the Congretationalists (for instance) become Puritans (for example), not to prevent individual states from declaring a State religion. Originally the country was assumed to be Christian; it was merely what flavor of "Christian" was in view.
Most of the original folks that arrived on America's shores to establish a new home came for religious reasons. They wished to practice Christianity in the way that they believed they were supposed to. Some even came to bring Christianity to the Native Americans. It makes no sense, then, to argue that America has never been Christian in its roots. The opposite is true.
I've written about this topic on more than one occasion. We've been lied to. I wouldn't point first at any political or even philosophical groups for this. I would point first to the father of lies. Still, given the volume of voices touting this false notion, I'd say there are far more vocal followers of that father than we've heard before. But you, dear readers, can see the truth of the matter. As it turns out, modern America is on the wrong side of history.
Today, of course, this is unheard of. This is foul. This is unholy. We understand that the divine (lowercase) decree is the separation of Church and State. Few realize that this was never included in any actual documents from our founding. The actual phrase comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut. In 1962, the Supreme Court (tasked with determining constitutionality) used the phrase to declare school prayers unconstitutional, but the notion that school prayers would be unconstitutional wasn't even a remote possibility to the deeply religious new country of the United States. The Connecticut Baptists were concerned that the State might meddle in their business, and Jefferson was assuring them that the state was blocked from doing so and not that the church had no part in the state. The establishment clause was there to prevent the federal government from making the Congretationalists (for instance) become Puritans (for example), not to prevent individual states from declaring a State religion. Originally the country was assumed to be Christian; it was merely what flavor of "Christian" was in view.
Most of the original folks that arrived on America's shores to establish a new home came for religious reasons. They wished to practice Christianity in the way that they believed they were supposed to. Some even came to bring Christianity to the Native Americans. It makes no sense, then, to argue that America has never been Christian in its roots. The opposite is true.
I've written about this topic on more than one occasion. We've been lied to. I wouldn't point first at any political or even philosophical groups for this. I would point first to the father of lies. Still, given the volume of voices touting this false notion, I'd say there are far more vocal followers of that father than we've heard before. But you, dear readers, can see the truth of the matter. As it turns out, modern America is on the wrong side of history.
Monday, July 01, 2019
What About Adam?
In the Garden of Eden the serpent tempted Eve. His approach was to first undercut her position by asking, "Did God really say ...?" (Gen 3:1) and then offering an outright contradiction of what God did say (Gen 3:4-5). The text says that the trick worked and Eve "took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). Now, Scripture is clear about what went wrong with Eve. "The woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim 2:14). Satan tricked her. But ... what about Adam?
The story says that Adam was with her. Did he actually hear what was going on? When Eve answered, "God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die,'" did he not think to correct the error? (God never said that touching it would kill you.) When the serpent contradicted God, did Adam not intervene? When his wife started checking out the fruit appreciatively, was he not concerned? And why, for pity sake, did he take the fruit from her and eat it? The Bible suggests that Eve was deceived, but the implication is that Adam was not. He walked into this with eyes wide open. Hers was an error of deceit; his was open rebellion.
I don't know what went wrong with Adam. Maybe he didn't want to cross his wife. "Come on, Adam, eat with me! Don't leave me hanging here." "Yes, dear." Maybe he didn't much care what God had to say at that moment; his wife was his god. Maybe it was a guy thing. "No woman is going to show me up. If she can do it, so can I." Any number of possibilities exist and guessing at them would be ... guessing.
Here's what we do know. The Bible indicates that Adam, not Eve, was the doorway for sin to enter our world (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22). God holds Adam responsible for the universal problem of sin in our world. The other thing that is absolutely clear is that there was a tremendous breakdown in the man, Adam, in carrying out his God-given responsibilities. How? Well, it was to Adam that God said (mind you, said), "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen 2:16-17). There is no record of God repeating that to Eve, so she must have received the information from Adam. He was tasked with "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28) and they did not. He was tasked with subduing the world (Gen 1:28) and they did not. He was made first and was the head (1 Tim 2:14; 1 Cor 11:3) and he failed to carry out the responsibilities of that role. Let's face it; Adam blew it. Big time.
Here's my point. Adam bears the blame for the sin condition of all subsequent humans (except Christ) because he failed to carry out his God-given responsibilities. He didn't stand in defense of his wife. He didn't stand in opposition to an attack on God. Instead of opposing sin, he condoned and furthered it. And, guys, we are so ready to do the same. We fail to love our wives as Christ loved the Church, giving Himself up for her (Eph 5:25), and we fail to sanctify her by the washing of the Word (Eph 5:26) and we fail to love her as we love ourselves. We do not stand ready to answer her questions (1 Cor 14:35) and we do not honor her as a joint heir (1 Peter 3:7). We might be willing to complain about her lack of obedience (Eph 5:22-24,33; 1 Peter 3:1), but we don't stand ready to defend her or support her or comfort her. Instead, we are often perfectly willing to give in to her rather than call her to something better. Adam abrogated his God-given responsibilities and the result was sin and death for the rest of humanity. What is the result of our abrogating ours?
We have clear instructions on our God-given responsibilities. Let's not let serpents or pride or laziness or inactivity or lack of faith or just simple sinfulness prevent us from acting on them. Don't be that kind of Adam.
The story says that Adam was with her. Did he actually hear what was going on? When Eve answered, "God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die,'" did he not think to correct the error? (God never said that touching it would kill you.) When the serpent contradicted God, did Adam not intervene? When his wife started checking out the fruit appreciatively, was he not concerned? And why, for pity sake, did he take the fruit from her and eat it? The Bible suggests that Eve was deceived, but the implication is that Adam was not. He walked into this with eyes wide open. Hers was an error of deceit; his was open rebellion.
I don't know what went wrong with Adam. Maybe he didn't want to cross his wife. "Come on, Adam, eat with me! Don't leave me hanging here." "Yes, dear." Maybe he didn't much care what God had to say at that moment; his wife was his god. Maybe it was a guy thing. "No woman is going to show me up. If she can do it, so can I." Any number of possibilities exist and guessing at them would be ... guessing.
Here's what we do know. The Bible indicates that Adam, not Eve, was the doorway for sin to enter our world (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22). God holds Adam responsible for the universal problem of sin in our world. The other thing that is absolutely clear is that there was a tremendous breakdown in the man, Adam, in carrying out his God-given responsibilities. How? Well, it was to Adam that God said (mind you, said), "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen 2:16-17). There is no record of God repeating that to Eve, so she must have received the information from Adam. He was tasked with "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28) and they did not. He was tasked with subduing the world (Gen 1:28) and they did not. He was made first and was the head (1 Tim 2:14; 1 Cor 11:3) and he failed to carry out the responsibilities of that role. Let's face it; Adam blew it. Big time.
Here's my point. Adam bears the blame for the sin condition of all subsequent humans (except Christ) because he failed to carry out his God-given responsibilities. He didn't stand in defense of his wife. He didn't stand in opposition to an attack on God. Instead of opposing sin, he condoned and furthered it. And, guys, we are so ready to do the same. We fail to love our wives as Christ loved the Church, giving Himself up for her (Eph 5:25), and we fail to sanctify her by the washing of the Word (Eph 5:26) and we fail to love her as we love ourselves. We do not stand ready to answer her questions (1 Cor 14:35) and we do not honor her as a joint heir (1 Peter 3:7). We might be willing to complain about her lack of obedience (Eph 5:22-24,33; 1 Peter 3:1), but we don't stand ready to defend her or support her or comfort her. Instead, we are often perfectly willing to give in to her rather than call her to something better. Adam abrogated his God-given responsibilities and the result was sin and death for the rest of humanity. What is the result of our abrogating ours?
We have clear instructions on our God-given responsibilities. Let's not let serpents or pride or laziness or inactivity or lack of faith or just simple sinfulness prevent us from acting on them. Don't be that kind of Adam.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
The Lord's Day
There was a time when I was growing up that you just planned not to do much on a Sunday. You could probably find a gas station or a restaurant open here and there, but the malls (new in those days) weren't open and most other businesses were closed. No one worked on Sunday except emergency jobs (fire, police, hospital workers, etc.). There was a time that they even had "blue laws" in which most states did not allow alcohol sales on Sunday. (In fact, Washington D.C. had one of these "blue laws" on the books until it was repealed in 2013. What was up with that?)
There was a time when Christians took seriously the Scripture that says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates" (Exo 20:8-10) Since they viewed Sundays as "the Lord's Day," the Christian Sabbath, there was to be no work on Sundays. (I knew a guy in the '90's who believed that taking Saturday off was wrong. "Six days you shall labor," he said.) So they regarded Sunday as a day that belonged to God, not them.
We've come a long way since then, haven't we? Every day is our own. We might go to church on Sunday, although we might interrupt that practice if the kids have a soccer game or something. We'll go on Sunday if we can, but, look, a lot of us have jobs that require that we work on Sundays. What are we to do? Our society has no regard for Sunday and Christians seem to have followed suit, whittling it down to the stick of a "church service" as long as it doesn't interfere with anything else we want to do.
Scripture refers to the first day of the week as "the Lord's Day." We've largely taken that from him. We Christians, I mean. What would it take to actually regard the first day of the week as "the Lord's Day"? How would that change our lives, our thinking, our outlook? What does it say about us that too many of us can't be bothered to even gather with God's people once a week, let alone set aside a day for Him? It bothers me, and I'm not just talking to you. I don't believe I'm doing it justice, either.
There was a time when Christians took seriously the Scripture that says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates" (Exo 20:8-10) Since they viewed Sundays as "the Lord's Day," the Christian Sabbath, there was to be no work on Sundays. (I knew a guy in the '90's who believed that taking Saturday off was wrong. "Six days you shall labor," he said.) So they regarded Sunday as a day that belonged to God, not them.
We've come a long way since then, haven't we? Every day is our own. We might go to church on Sunday, although we might interrupt that practice if the kids have a soccer game or something. We'll go on Sunday if we can, but, look, a lot of us have jobs that require that we work on Sundays. What are we to do? Our society has no regard for Sunday and Christians seem to have followed suit, whittling it down to the stick of a "church service" as long as it doesn't interfere with anything else we want to do.
Scripture refers to the first day of the week as "the Lord's Day." We've largely taken that from him. We Christians, I mean. What would it take to actually regard the first day of the week as "the Lord's Day"? How would that change our lives, our thinking, our outlook? What does it say about us that too many of us can't be bothered to even gather with God's people once a week, let alone set aside a day for Him? It bothers me, and I'm not just talking to you. I don't believe I'm doing it justice, either.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
News Weakly - 6/29/19
Hostile Environment
Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg faced angry protesters over a shooting in his city. They told him that if he didn't fire his police officers, he didn't care about black lives and wouldn't get black votes. Now, mind you, I'm not a Buttigieg fan, so this isn't about him. However, the fact is that the incident is under investigation and the officer involved is on administrative leave and South Bend, Indiana, as far as I know, is still in America, so the police officer in question is still innocent until proven guilty. The demand for immediate firing (and whatever further punishments they deem fit) indicates that our country is now a hostile environment ... for American jurisprudence.
License to Kill
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers vetoed four abortion bills passed by the Republican-controlled legislature last week. Oh, it wasn't a surprise. He ran as a pro-abortion candidate and promised to veto them. "'Everyone should have access to quality, affordable healthcare, and that includes a mother's right to kill,' Evers said in a statement." Okay, so I changed the exact words. He obviously said "reproductive healthcare," but if they can change the language to mean something completely different ("reproductive healthcare" means "not reproducing" and "killing human beings"?), then I can, too. Especially if my language is closer to the truth.
One Small Step?
For the longest time the courts have held that property owners cannot go to federal court to find protection of the use of their private property when local courts don't give it. The Supreme Court took a monumental step last week and ruled to override that precedent. Now, this is property rights and not something that is that big, but the question still hangs in the air. If they're willing to override precedent there, where else might they do it? Like, say, Roe v Wade? (Note: I would suggest that without a move of God on the hearts of Americans, this isn't likely. Abortion isn't a legal problem; it's a "heart of man" problem.)
Indoctrination
GLAAD conducted its annual "Accelerating Acceptance" survey and found that people ages 18-34 are decreasingly comfortable with LGBTQ people. In that age group, the most recent level of those who would feel uncomfortable with an LGBTQ family member was at 36%, up from 24% in 2016. Their solution? Bring LGBTQ characters and stories to a world where male audiences are consuming content. So, is that propaganda or brain-washing? I'm not clear.
Exclusive Inclusivity
Remember Israel Folau? He is the Australian Rugby player that got his contract rescinded by Rugby Australia because he expressed a biblical view of homosexual sin. Folau (right or wrong) started a GoFundMe page to get contributions to recover his lost wages. He had collected more than $750,000 when GoFundMe Australia simply pulled the plug. They removed his page saying, among other things, that they were committed to "fostering an environment of inclusivity." Do not anticipate reason to prevail here. You cannot be inclusive by being exclusive.
Who's the Sensible One Now?
And why is self-proclaimed "unrepentant atheist" Peter Singer making more sense than Rugby Australia, the mainstream media, and even a lot of Christians? Why does he see that "the post no more expresses hatred toward homosexuals than cigarette warnings express hatred toward smokers"?
Democracy in Action
This is a weird story. Apparently 11 Republican lawmakers in Oregon are on the run. They're in hiding. Some have even left the state. "I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon," one senator told a Portland TV station. What's going on?
Well, the Democratic-dominated state senate is trying to vote on a climate bill, but with the absence of the 11, they don't have a quorum to take a vote. Unfortunately, there are "more than 100 other bills" waiting for funding and could possibly be scrapped. The runaways claim that the bill will hurt jobs and raise gas prices, but they don't have the slightest chance of voting it down. So they're on the run and the governor has authorized the state police to track them down. "It is absolutely outrageous," Gov. Brown said, adding "In Oregon, this is not how we solve problems." No, the way they solve problems is to arrest the opposition and force them to participate in a cause they fiercely disagree with. That is democracy in action. (For the sake of clarification, I'm not supporting the runaways here. It looks to me like neither side is in the right here. Besides, what in the world are Republicans doing in the leftist state of Oregon?)
An Un-American Utopia
The leadership of St. Louis Park, MN, voted unanimously to refuse to pledge allegiance to the United States. The goal is "to accommodate the city’s increasingly diverse population." That's the way to do it. Eliminate allegiance to the country that made it possible to make such a foolish thing to be done.
It's not new. The NBA is working at eliminating the term "owner" because a lot of players are black -- sorry, African-American -- and calling someone the "owner" of a franchise feels racist. You know, even if he is, like, the owner. As if the owner of a team or a business or a corporation actually owns his employees?
Or the story that Illinois is becoming the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana. Why? Well, it provides revenue for the state and clears the records of nearly 800,000 people convicted of possession. The sad truth is that offenders are "forced to live in permanent second-class citizenship." So sad. So the remedy is to make it legal. Now, tell me again what was the purpose of passing laws?
Following this line of thinking, we should eliminate anything "American" to avoid offending non-Americans, change any and all terms that are deemed offensive to someone somewhere (which would, in essence, eliminate most terms), and legalize anything that causes a negative impact on people should they violate the law against it. A better way forward, I'm sure.
Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg faced angry protesters over a shooting in his city. They told him that if he didn't fire his police officers, he didn't care about black lives and wouldn't get black votes. Now, mind you, I'm not a Buttigieg fan, so this isn't about him. However, the fact is that the incident is under investigation and the officer involved is on administrative leave and South Bend, Indiana, as far as I know, is still in America, so the police officer in question is still innocent until proven guilty. The demand for immediate firing (and whatever further punishments they deem fit) indicates that our country is now a hostile environment ... for American jurisprudence.
License to Kill
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers vetoed four abortion bills passed by the Republican-controlled legislature last week. Oh, it wasn't a surprise. He ran as a pro-abortion candidate and promised to veto them. "'Everyone should have access to quality, affordable healthcare, and that includes a mother's right to kill,' Evers said in a statement." Okay, so I changed the exact words. He obviously said "reproductive healthcare," but if they can change the language to mean something completely different ("reproductive healthcare" means "not reproducing" and "killing human beings"?), then I can, too. Especially if my language is closer to the truth.
One Small Step?
For the longest time the courts have held that property owners cannot go to federal court to find protection of the use of their private property when local courts don't give it. The Supreme Court took a monumental step last week and ruled to override that precedent. Now, this is property rights and not something that is that big, but the question still hangs in the air. If they're willing to override precedent there, where else might they do it? Like, say, Roe v Wade? (Note: I would suggest that without a move of God on the hearts of Americans, this isn't likely. Abortion isn't a legal problem; it's a "heart of man" problem.)
Indoctrination
GLAAD conducted its annual "Accelerating Acceptance" survey and found that people ages 18-34 are decreasingly comfortable with LGBTQ people. In that age group, the most recent level of those who would feel uncomfortable with an LGBTQ family member was at 36%, up from 24% in 2016. Their solution? Bring LGBTQ characters and stories to a world where male audiences are consuming content. So, is that propaganda or brain-washing? I'm not clear.
Exclusive Inclusivity
Remember Israel Folau? He is the Australian Rugby player that got his contract rescinded by Rugby Australia because he expressed a biblical view of homosexual sin. Folau (right or wrong) started a GoFundMe page to get contributions to recover his lost wages. He had collected more than $750,000 when GoFundMe Australia simply pulled the plug. They removed his page saying, among other things, that they were committed to "fostering an environment of inclusivity." Do not anticipate reason to prevail here. You cannot be inclusive by being exclusive.
Who's the Sensible One Now?
And why is self-proclaimed "unrepentant atheist" Peter Singer making more sense than Rugby Australia, the mainstream media, and even a lot of Christians? Why does he see that "the post no more expresses hatred toward homosexuals than cigarette warnings express hatred toward smokers"?
Democracy in Action
This is a weird story. Apparently 11 Republican lawmakers in Oregon are on the run. They're in hiding. Some have even left the state. "I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon," one senator told a Portland TV station. What's going on?
Well, the Democratic-dominated state senate is trying to vote on a climate bill, but with the absence of the 11, they don't have a quorum to take a vote. Unfortunately, there are "more than 100 other bills" waiting for funding and could possibly be scrapped. The runaways claim that the bill will hurt jobs and raise gas prices, but they don't have the slightest chance of voting it down. So they're on the run and the governor has authorized the state police to track them down. "It is absolutely outrageous," Gov. Brown said, adding "In Oregon, this is not how we solve problems." No, the way they solve problems is to arrest the opposition and force them to participate in a cause they fiercely disagree with. That is democracy in action. (For the sake of clarification, I'm not supporting the runaways here. It looks to me like neither side is in the right here. Besides, what in the world are Republicans doing in the leftist state of Oregon?)
An Un-American Utopia
The leadership of St. Louis Park, MN, voted unanimously to refuse to pledge allegiance to the United States. The goal is "to accommodate the city’s increasingly diverse population." That's the way to do it. Eliminate allegiance to the country that made it possible to make such a foolish thing to be done.
It's not new. The NBA is working at eliminating the term "owner" because a lot of players are black -- sorry, African-American -- and calling someone the "owner" of a franchise feels racist. You know, even if he is, like, the owner. As if the owner of a team or a business or a corporation actually owns his employees?
Or the story that Illinois is becoming the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana. Why? Well, it provides revenue for the state and clears the records of nearly 800,000 people convicted of possession. The sad truth is that offenders are "forced to live in permanent second-class citizenship." So sad. So the remedy is to make it legal. Now, tell me again what was the purpose of passing laws?
Following this line of thinking, we should eliminate anything "American" to avoid offending non-Americans, change any and all terms that are deemed offensive to someone somewhere (which would, in essence, eliminate most terms), and legalize anything that causes a negative impact on people should they violate the law against it. A better way forward, I'm sure.
Friday, June 28, 2019
The Gospel
Have you heard the story about Tarek El Moussa? Tarek is a reality series star of Flip or Flop. Back in 2013 a registered nurse was watching a marathon show, spotted a lump on Tarek's neck, and contacted the show's producers to suggest he get it checked out. It turned out that the nurse had rightly recognized the symptom of a tumor. It turned out that Tarek had Stage-2 thyroid cancer and today Tarek is in remission because of the anti-Tarek sentiment of this nosy nurse.
Oh, wait, that's not how we see that, right? Nope, that nurse was a hero, possibly saving his life. The guy had cancer, someone figured out the danger, and notifying him was a good thing. So why doesn't that work elsewhere?
Rugby player Israel Folau was fired from Rugby Australia for posting that homosexuals go to hell. Mind you, it's not Israel's idea. That one comes straight out of the Bible (1 Cor 6:9-10). (He quoted it in the article.) Rugby Australia canceled his contract because they wouldn't tolerate hate. So warning El Moussa that he might have cancer was kind and even heroic, but warning people about the sin of homosexual behavior that the Bible says results in eternal torment is hate? (And why are so many people that do not believe in hell so upset that he warns about a fake place?)
Here's what I'm not saying. I'm not arguing for Israel Folau. Folau has gone on to other things. He has been working hard to raise money for his legal defense, sued the organization, and been shot down by GoFundMe for trying to raise the money through them. I don't agree with Folau. Paul wrote, "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, so be sure to get good lawyers." Oh, no ... he didn't. The biblical perspective is 1) we will be persecuted (Phil 1:29; 1 Peter 4:19) and 2) thank God for it (Rom 5:3-5; 1 Peter 4:16, etc.). There isn't much "Fight for your rights!" in the New Testament. There is a lot of "rejoice in suffering" (Matt 5:10-12; James 1:1-4; etc.). I don't find a single reference to "go to court to get your just dues." Maybe there might be instances when there is a good reason to take your case to the public, but I don't see it here. Nor am I backing Folau's theology. He is touted as a Bible-believing Christian and a fundamentalist, but denies the Trinity, rendering him neither Bible-believing nor fundamentalist. Nor am I arguing for religious freedom. Since the beginning we've had to choose whether we would obey God or man (Acts 4:19-20).
Here's what I am saying. Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15). We were told to proclaim the Gospel (Mark 16:15) and, more importantly, make disciples (Matt 28:19-20). The Bible is full of warnings about the consequences of sin and we are commanded to love, and ignoring people headed for consequences of sin would not be loving. Folau probably didn't do the best job of expressing the Gospel, but we live in a world that is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and the cross (1 Cor 1:18). We err, I believe, by focusing solely on the sins of a small group called "homosexuals" today when there is a larger group called "unbelievers" who equally need to hear the bad news -- the wages of sin is death -- and the good news -- the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). But in no case is "Ah, let 'em alone to die in their sin and trespasses" a good thing. And we shouldn't be guilty of it. We won't be viewed as heroes like that nurse was, but let's also not be silent in the face of such suffering simply because it's not socially acceptable to speak up.
Oh, wait, that's not how we see that, right? Nope, that nurse was a hero, possibly saving his life. The guy had cancer, someone figured out the danger, and notifying him was a good thing. So why doesn't that work elsewhere?
Rugby player Israel Folau was fired from Rugby Australia for posting that homosexuals go to hell. Mind you, it's not Israel's idea. That one comes straight out of the Bible (1 Cor 6:9-10). (He quoted it in the article.) Rugby Australia canceled his contract because they wouldn't tolerate hate. So warning El Moussa that he might have cancer was kind and even heroic, but warning people about the sin of homosexual behavior that the Bible says results in eternal torment is hate? (And why are so many people that do not believe in hell so upset that he warns about a fake place?)
Here's what I'm not saying. I'm not arguing for Israel Folau. Folau has gone on to other things. He has been working hard to raise money for his legal defense, sued the organization, and been shot down by GoFundMe for trying to raise the money through them. I don't agree with Folau. Paul wrote, "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, so be sure to get good lawyers." Oh, no ... he didn't. The biblical perspective is 1) we will be persecuted (Phil 1:29; 1 Peter 4:19) and 2) thank God for it (Rom 5:3-5; 1 Peter 4:16, etc.). There isn't much "Fight for your rights!" in the New Testament. There is a lot of "rejoice in suffering" (Matt 5:10-12; James 1:1-4; etc.). I don't find a single reference to "go to court to get your just dues." Maybe there might be instances when there is a good reason to take your case to the public, but I don't see it here. Nor am I backing Folau's theology. He is touted as a Bible-believing Christian and a fundamentalist, but denies the Trinity, rendering him neither Bible-believing nor fundamentalist. Nor am I arguing for religious freedom. Since the beginning we've had to choose whether we would obey God or man (Acts 4:19-20).
Here's what I am saying. Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15). We were told to proclaim the Gospel (Mark 16:15) and, more importantly, make disciples (Matt 28:19-20). The Bible is full of warnings about the consequences of sin and we are commanded to love, and ignoring people headed for consequences of sin would not be loving. Folau probably didn't do the best job of expressing the Gospel, but we live in a world that is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and the cross (1 Cor 1:18). We err, I believe, by focusing solely on the sins of a small group called "homosexuals" today when there is a larger group called "unbelievers" who equally need to hear the bad news -- the wages of sin is death -- and the good news -- the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). But in no case is "Ah, let 'em alone to die in their sin and trespasses" a good thing. And we shouldn't be guilty of it. We won't be viewed as heroes like that nurse was, but let's also not be silent in the face of such suffering simply because it's not socially acceptable to speak up.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Leaders in the Church
Our Sunday morning group recently went through 1 Timothy 3, the defining "qualification of overseers" passage. (Biblically overseers ("bishops" in the KJV) and elders and pastors are interchangeable terms. If elders/pastors/overseers all refer to basic church leadership, I'll just abbreviate it as "EPO" to save my typing fingers.) While it all seems straightforward and clear, I find that it brings up more questions than you might have originally thought. Skim the list and see if you can anticipate some of them.
Husband of One Wife (1 Tim 3:2)
This is perhaps one of the most puzzling discussions you will encounter in this text. What does "husband of one wife" mean. On the surface it's clear -- the guy can only be married to one woman. Done! But hold on. Does that mean that he must be married? If that's the case, then neither Jesus nor Paul could have served in that capacity. "But they weren't," some tell me. Then you would also have to hold that when a pastor's wife dies, he has to step down, right? That doesn't seem right. Okay, so perhaps actually being married is optional. But "of one wife"? Some argue it's a reference to polygamy, but almost no one in the 1st century either in the church or even in the society in which they found themselves practiced polygamy. So was it like telling them, "No one can park camels in the parking lot"? You know ... it could have happened, but it just didn't. That seems silly. So they tell me, "That means that he is only married once." That seems fine until you carry it out to the next logical conclusion. What about the pastor whose wife dies and he remarries? Now he has been married twice! "Out you go!" No, of course not. So now they tell me that this is a reference to divorced and remarried men. They cannot serve as EPOs. Is that the case? What about the guy who is married at 18, his wife leaves him at 19, he meets Christ at 22, and is now a new creature, seriously. He is a living reflection of Christ in practice and the faith. "Sorry," you'd have to tell me, "his past excludes him from that role in the church." So what Christ forgives and remakes we cannot accept?
There is another version of this phrase. The literal translation is actually "one woman man." Could it simply be that the requirement for EPOs is that they be of a faithful character in their relationships with women? If he is married, he is wholly devoted to his wife. If he is not married, he doesn't have a roving eye. He isn't a "wolf." God knows (I mean that quite literally) we have enough of those in positions of authority in our churches. Could it be that this is a defining requirement for elders and pastors and it's not about being married or divorced or widowed? (By the way, I know of no one who argues that if a pastor's wife dies, he has to step down. I'm just pointing out that it's a logical conclusion if you hold that phrase a particular way.)
Now, does this "husband of one wife" therefore require that it be a male? It would seem that no matter how you end up interpreting the phrase in terms of "one wife," it is still mandatory that one qualification is that an EPO be a male (cp 1 Tim 2:11-15).
He must Manage his Household Well (1 Tim 3:4-5)
This one is pretty clear. We don't have a lot of dispute about its meaning. What we do have is a general disregard for this one. It says he should be "keeping his children submissive" and is predicated on "If someone does not know now to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" The reason I say it's largely ignored is that most people who have spent much time in churches know that stereotypically the worst kids in any given church are the pastor's kids. Yes, that's a generalization, but it is so often true. These are the kids that feel privileged to do what they please because "My dad's the pastor" and no one is telling them otherwise. But if Scripture teaches that a requirement for these EPOs is that they manage their house well with submissive children and the general truth is that pastors often dedicate so much time to their congregation that they neglect their families to some degree, wouldn't that disqualify them? If someone does not know now to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
Not be a Recent Convert (1 Tim 3:6)
Now "recent convert" is decidedly vague. I've heard, for instance, of child preachers. To me, any child is, by definition, a recent convert. But exactly how long is "recent"? Some try to work in something like "Enough time to have gone to seminary or Bible school," but Bible schools and seminaries didn't exist in Paul's day and no such requirement for EPOs is found in Scripture. We often require "has the proper education" in our list of prerequisites, but "the proper education" is an extrabiblical concept that cannot be confirmed by Scripture. So what is a "recent convert"?
There are a lot of very clear qualifications listed in this text (and largely repeated over in Titus 1:5-11). I'm not at all sure that we as a body of believers at any give church spend much time paying attention to them. How else do you find super rich pastors of megachurches ("not a lover of money"(1 Tim 3:3)), or pastors and elders who are sexual predators ("husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2)) or EPOs who are drunkards or violent or quarrelsome (1 Tim 3:3)? Why do so many churches suffer from leaders who are not "above reproach" (1 Tim 3:2) or "well though of by outsiders" (1 Tim 3:7)? Could it be that we're not paying attention to the Scriptures we claim? I think these qualifying characteristics are not "cookie cutter" traits; they require careful consideration on an individual basis. Still, if we're not willing to rock the boat on this clear biblical text, why would we be surprised when we find so many other problems in our churches that God's Word addresses so clearly? "It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God" (1 Peter 4:17).
Husband of One Wife (1 Tim 3:2)
This is perhaps one of the most puzzling discussions you will encounter in this text. What does "husband of one wife" mean. On the surface it's clear -- the guy can only be married to one woman. Done! But hold on. Does that mean that he must be married? If that's the case, then neither Jesus nor Paul could have served in that capacity. "But they weren't," some tell me. Then you would also have to hold that when a pastor's wife dies, he has to step down, right? That doesn't seem right. Okay, so perhaps actually being married is optional. But "of one wife"? Some argue it's a reference to polygamy, but almost no one in the 1st century either in the church or even in the society in which they found themselves practiced polygamy. So was it like telling them, "No one can park camels in the parking lot"? You know ... it could have happened, but it just didn't. That seems silly. So they tell me, "That means that he is only married once." That seems fine until you carry it out to the next logical conclusion. What about the pastor whose wife dies and he remarries? Now he has been married twice! "Out you go!" No, of course not. So now they tell me that this is a reference to divorced and remarried men. They cannot serve as EPOs. Is that the case? What about the guy who is married at 18, his wife leaves him at 19, he meets Christ at 22, and is now a new creature, seriously. He is a living reflection of Christ in practice and the faith. "Sorry," you'd have to tell me, "his past excludes him from that role in the church." So what Christ forgives and remakes we cannot accept?
There is another version of this phrase. The literal translation is actually "one woman man." Could it simply be that the requirement for EPOs is that they be of a faithful character in their relationships with women? If he is married, he is wholly devoted to his wife. If he is not married, he doesn't have a roving eye. He isn't a "wolf." God knows (I mean that quite literally) we have enough of those in positions of authority in our churches. Could it be that this is a defining requirement for elders and pastors and it's not about being married or divorced or widowed? (By the way, I know of no one who argues that if a pastor's wife dies, he has to step down. I'm just pointing out that it's a logical conclusion if you hold that phrase a particular way.)
Now, does this "husband of one wife" therefore require that it be a male? It would seem that no matter how you end up interpreting the phrase in terms of "one wife," it is still mandatory that one qualification is that an EPO be a male (cp 1 Tim 2:11-15).
He must Manage his Household Well (1 Tim 3:4-5)
This one is pretty clear. We don't have a lot of dispute about its meaning. What we do have is a general disregard for this one. It says he should be "keeping his children submissive" and is predicated on "If someone does not know now to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" The reason I say it's largely ignored is that most people who have spent much time in churches know that stereotypically the worst kids in any given church are the pastor's kids. Yes, that's a generalization, but it is so often true. These are the kids that feel privileged to do what they please because "My dad's the pastor" and no one is telling them otherwise. But if Scripture teaches that a requirement for these EPOs is that they manage their house well with submissive children and the general truth is that pastors often dedicate so much time to their congregation that they neglect their families to some degree, wouldn't that disqualify them? If someone does not know now to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
Not be a Recent Convert (1 Tim 3:6)
Now "recent convert" is decidedly vague. I've heard, for instance, of child preachers. To me, any child is, by definition, a recent convert. But exactly how long is "recent"? Some try to work in something like "Enough time to have gone to seminary or Bible school," but Bible schools and seminaries didn't exist in Paul's day and no such requirement for EPOs is found in Scripture. We often require "has the proper education" in our list of prerequisites, but "the proper education" is an extrabiblical concept that cannot be confirmed by Scripture. So what is a "recent convert"?
There are a lot of very clear qualifications listed in this text (and largely repeated over in Titus 1:5-11). I'm not at all sure that we as a body of believers at any give church spend much time paying attention to them. How else do you find super rich pastors of megachurches ("not a lover of money"(1 Tim 3:3)), or pastors and elders who are sexual predators ("husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2)) or EPOs who are drunkards or violent or quarrelsome (1 Tim 3:3)? Why do so many churches suffer from leaders who are not "above reproach" (1 Tim 3:2) or "well though of by outsiders" (1 Tim 3:7)? Could it be that we're not paying attention to the Scriptures we claim? I think these qualifying characteristics are not "cookie cutter" traits; they require careful consideration on an individual basis. Still, if we're not willing to rock the boat on this clear biblical text, why would we be surprised when we find so many other problems in our churches that God's Word addresses so clearly? "It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God" (1 Peter 4:17).
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
A Glitch in the Book
Christians believe that the Bible is God's Word, breathed out by God, reliable, and authoritative. This is all well and good, but what happens if you find a glitch in the Book?
I was reading along in Paul's first letter to Timothy when I came across this:
Of course, it isn't. Instead, I would argue that what we find is a glitch in modern society. According to the National Council on Aging, about 1 in 10 Americans from 60 on up have experienced some form of elder abuse. There is a problem with that statistic, however, because the estimate is that only 1 in 14 of them actually get reported. Estimates are that up to 5 million elderly Americans are abused each year. And all indications are that these numbers are on the rise. Given our current youth culture, this would seem like an obvious consequence.
As is too often the case, the world's way of thinking has also leaked into the church. At our church when our pastor left they handed out a questionnaire to find out what we want in a pastor and one of the common consensus items was, essentially, "not too old." There are churches today advertising themselves as "not your grandparents' church" because everyone knows that grandparents aren't cool and for church to be meaningful and relevant it has to be youth-oriented. I have on more than one occasion heard comments about churches that have a significant number of older members as being "on their way out." Often even in Christian church settings, the notion is "younger is better."
Scripture, unfortunately, disagrees with the world's perspective. God told Israel, "You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD" (Lev 19:32). He told them, "Honor your father and your mother" (Exo 20:12) which Paul repeated (Eph 6:2). Paul told Timothy, "Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father" (1 Tim 5:1). Job said, "Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days" (Job 12:12). Solomon counseled, "Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old" (Prov 23:22). With these and others, God's Word seems clear. God intended younger people to respect and learn from older people. Is it any wonder, then, that the god of this world would seek to counter that wisdom?
A glitch in the Book? No, not at all. What we are seeing is a generation worshiping youth at the cost of years of experience and wisdom that reside in the older generation. This cannot be good for society. But, then, who would expect the father of lies to be concerned about what God thinks or what's good for society?
I was reading along in Paul's first letter to Timothy when I came across this:
Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. (1 Tim 4:12)Clearly a mistake. Who would despise Timothy for his youth? Old people aren't particularly respected these days because we have almost exclusively a youth culture. I cannot count the numbers of shows, movies, sitcoms, etc. that are built on youth as the key players. There are lots of stories told in which the foolish adults -- parents, teachers, pastors, whatever -- are corrected by the wise children, the younger the better. Who in our society does not know that "old = stale" and "young = fresh"? Why would Timothy have to be told to not let anyone despise him for his youth? See? A glitch in the Book.
Of course, it isn't. Instead, I would argue that what we find is a glitch in modern society. According to the National Council on Aging, about 1 in 10 Americans from 60 on up have experienced some form of elder abuse. There is a problem with that statistic, however, because the estimate is that only 1 in 14 of them actually get reported. Estimates are that up to 5 million elderly Americans are abused each year. And all indications are that these numbers are on the rise. Given our current youth culture, this would seem like an obvious consequence.
As is too often the case, the world's way of thinking has also leaked into the church. At our church when our pastor left they handed out a questionnaire to find out what we want in a pastor and one of the common consensus items was, essentially, "not too old." There are churches today advertising themselves as "not your grandparents' church" because everyone knows that grandparents aren't cool and for church to be meaningful and relevant it has to be youth-oriented. I have on more than one occasion heard comments about churches that have a significant number of older members as being "on their way out." Often even in Christian church settings, the notion is "younger is better."
Scripture, unfortunately, disagrees with the world's perspective. God told Israel, "You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD" (Lev 19:32). He told them, "Honor your father and your mother" (Exo 20:12) which Paul repeated (Eph 6:2). Paul told Timothy, "Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father" (1 Tim 5:1). Job said, "Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days" (Job 12:12). Solomon counseled, "Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old" (Prov 23:22). With these and others, God's Word seems clear. God intended younger people to respect and learn from older people. Is it any wonder, then, that the god of this world would seek to counter that wisdom?
A glitch in the Book? No, not at all. What we are seeing is a generation worshiping youth at the cost of years of experience and wisdom that reside in the older generation. This cannot be good for society. But, then, who would expect the father of lies to be concerned about what God thinks or what's good for society?
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
An Opinion on Rules
I'm told that I'm too reliant on God's Word. I'm told that it's not a book of rules, that it's not really a rule for life. It's just ... oh, I don't know ... guidance, suggestions, ideas, possibilities. You do what you think is best.
This seems right to many, but I have a hard time correlating that idea with passages like this:
But, hey, I could be wrong. It's just my opinion, right?
This seems right to many, but I have a hard time correlating that idea with passages like this:
I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. (1 Tim 3:14-15)It doesn't sound like Paul was writing these things (Remember, Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16) with a "do what you think is best" intent. It sounds like he meant "I'm writing these things so you may know how to behave." It sounds like ... rules.
But, hey, I could be wrong. It's just my opinion, right?
Monday, June 24, 2019
The Meaningless Cross of Christ
This last week the Supreme Court ruled that a monument in Maryland could remain. The controversial monument is the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial in the shape of a large Latin cross intended to memorialize the 49 men from Prince George's County who died during the war. The American Legion commissioned it and the formal dedication took place in 1925. Not quite but almost a hundred years later (2017) the American Humanist Association sued to have it removed as a violation of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against them.
This may seem like a win for us. I think that the ruling is legally correct; it is not a case of establishment of religion. But if you ask me if I think it's a good thing, I would argue otherwise. The court ruled 7-2 that the monument meant nothing religious anymore. The monument didn't push Christianity as a State religion even though the cross is clearly a Christian symbol. It had been there so long that it didn't say "Christian" anymore. Familiarity, they said, made it neutral.
I say, then, that this isn't a win for us for that reason. We've arrived at a point of saturation in this country where the symbol of the cross and even the message behind it have become so familiar that it is now meaningless. "Nice cross. Nice jewelry. Whatever. Yeah, yeah, Jesus died for my sins. Whatever. Care for a cup of coffee?" So far have we come that even Christians don't see it as really significant. You wear a cross? So what? Doesn't mean anything anymore. More to the point, many who take the name of Christ these days find that of mild interest for themselves. "Yes, I'm a Christian. Aren't we all?" Studies suggest that a majority of Americans bear the name "Christian" (~75%) but an extreme minority (~5%) think that it makes any difference in their lives. Familiarity has bred contempt.
Don't let that be you. Don't be one that wonders, "What's the big deal?" Don't be one that is a casual Christian. The life of the believer is not casual; it is radical. And if, in your experience, it is not, you might want to reexamine that relationship, because Jesus came to change lives, not mummify them. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the cross is not connected to Christ. We must not concur, especially in our everyday lives.
This may seem like a win for us. I think that the ruling is legally correct; it is not a case of establishment of religion. But if you ask me if I think it's a good thing, I would argue otherwise. The court ruled 7-2 that the monument meant nothing religious anymore. The monument didn't push Christianity as a State religion even though the cross is clearly a Christian symbol. It had been there so long that it didn't say "Christian" anymore. Familiarity, they said, made it neutral.
I say, then, that this isn't a win for us for that reason. We've arrived at a point of saturation in this country where the symbol of the cross and even the message behind it have become so familiar that it is now meaningless. "Nice cross. Nice jewelry. Whatever. Yeah, yeah, Jesus died for my sins. Whatever. Care for a cup of coffee?" So far have we come that even Christians don't see it as really significant. You wear a cross? So what? Doesn't mean anything anymore. More to the point, many who take the name of Christ these days find that of mild interest for themselves. "Yes, I'm a Christian. Aren't we all?" Studies suggest that a majority of Americans bear the name "Christian" (~75%) but an extreme minority (~5%) think that it makes any difference in their lives. Familiarity has bred contempt.
Don't let that be you. Don't be one that wonders, "What's the big deal?" Don't be one that is a casual Christian. The life of the believer is not casual; it is radical. And if, in your experience, it is not, you might want to reexamine that relationship, because Jesus came to change lives, not mummify them. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the cross is not connected to Christ. We must not concur, especially in our everyday lives.
Sunday, June 23, 2019
The Practical and the Sublime
We often try to distinguish between theoretical Christianity and practical Christianity. You know how that goes. "All that doctrine and stuff is all well and good, but I need something that relates to me." The idea is that the theoretical and the practical don't really mix. There's all those highfalutin "Christianese" words like "justification" and "sanctification" and "the perspicuity of Scripture" (which, unfortunately, means that it's basically simple to understand -- couldn't they have chosen an easier-to-understand term for that?) and such, but what I need know is what I should do tomorrow and where my needs are going to be met. I mean, we're happy (theoretically) with all those cool doctrinal things, but what we want is where the rubber meets the road.
It's funny, then, how Scripture often seems to go in reverse. For instance, Paul wrote to Timothy, "I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim 3:14-15). Thank you, Paul. "How one ought to behave" is imminently practical. Just the kind of thing we need. Then he follows that with "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory" (1 Tim 3:16). Right from "how one ought to behave" to the wondrous glory of Christ. Without missing a beat.
It appears as if the two depend on one another. It seems that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are interlinked. (Yes, I know, a couple more of those "Christianese" words. "Orthodoxy" refers to the right way of thinking, in this sense about biblical doctrine. "Orthopraxy" is the right way of living -- right practice.) It appears that only when we get the right way of thinking about God and His universe can we get the right way of acting in it. Conversely, acting rightly in our existence leads us closer to the right way of thinking. In the 1st Timothy example above, Paul indicates that the glory of Christ was the truth, the reason for "the church of the living God" whose task is to be the support of the truth, and that task is accomplished by behaving as one ought to behave. We best defend God's truth when we live it, and we best live God's truth when we know it. A circle.
"Relevant." That's the word we keep using. "How is this doctrine stuff relevant?" "How is the sermon at church relevant?" "How is all this singing worship songs and gathering with believers relevant?" They are interlocked and self-feeding. One encourages the other and vice versa. Want to follow Christ? He is "the Truth" (John 14:6), so know the truth. What does knowing the truth lead to? A changed heart and a changed will and an intent to follow Him better. Round and round it goes, the practical and the sublime. Embrace them.
It's funny, then, how Scripture often seems to go in reverse. For instance, Paul wrote to Timothy, "I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim 3:14-15). Thank you, Paul. "How one ought to behave" is imminently practical. Just the kind of thing we need. Then he follows that with "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory" (1 Tim 3:16). Right from "how one ought to behave" to the wondrous glory of Christ. Without missing a beat.
It appears as if the two depend on one another. It seems that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are interlinked. (Yes, I know, a couple more of those "Christianese" words. "Orthodoxy" refers to the right way of thinking, in this sense about biblical doctrine. "Orthopraxy" is the right way of living -- right practice.) It appears that only when we get the right way of thinking about God and His universe can we get the right way of acting in it. Conversely, acting rightly in our existence leads us closer to the right way of thinking. In the 1st Timothy example above, Paul indicates that the glory of Christ was the truth, the reason for "the church of the living God" whose task is to be the support of the truth, and that task is accomplished by behaving as one ought to behave. We best defend God's truth when we live it, and we best live God's truth when we know it. A circle.
"Relevant." That's the word we keep using. "How is this doctrine stuff relevant?" "How is the sermon at church relevant?" "How is all this singing worship songs and gathering with believers relevant?" They are interlocked and self-feeding. One encourages the other and vice versa. Want to follow Christ? He is "the Truth" (John 14:6), so know the truth. What does knowing the truth lead to? A changed heart and a changed will and an intent to follow Him better. Round and round it goes, the practical and the sublime. Embrace them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)