Much has been said about now President-elect Obama regarding his pro-abortion position. Many pro-lifers are concerned now that he is taking office. What can we expect in the arena of legalizing and expanding what we believe to be the killing of babies?
On the other hand, Christians are debating exatly what we should be doing in the realm of politics and legislating morality. Should we be deeply involved with reforming our culture to be more in line with biblical views or should we be focusing on the Gospel and not concerning ourselves so much with political action?
I've never fully answered this question in my own mind. I can see the arguments on both sides. I think there is a necessity for Christians to vote, for instance, as a God-given responsibility, and, in so doing, to do so with biblical principles in mind. But I still think that the ultimate answers to our problems as a nation are not found in passing good laws and electing the "right people." So I have to lean in the other direction.
I believe, as I said, that we are obligated to vote. That's my belief. I know, on the other hand, that we are obligated to preach the Gospel, to make disciples. That is no small distinction. I cannot find the command, "Thou shalt vote." ("Of course, not. When King James was around, they didn't vote!") No, that's not what I mean. I see little in the Bible about involving ourselves with government. I see much about obeying God and loving my neighbor. I see the explicit command to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20). (Note that the "therefore" in that verse is predicated on "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18). Another reason to question the depth to which we need to be involved politically.)
In the final analysis, I do not believe that better laws make better people. I do not believe that "the right politician" makes a better country. I do not believe that the problem of abortion is caused by a failure of government. Therefore, I do not believe that passing better laws or electing people more in tune with my values will solve these problems. What we need is not "right laws." What we need is "changed hearts." Changed hearts come about by the work of God, and the work of God uses the Gospel -- "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16).
So I would like to suggest to all those who are concerned about perhaps the most pro-abortion president to hit the scene, maybe we ought to take our eyes off the political goal and reset it to the spiritual goal. We believe that prayer changes things. That's a good place to go. We believe that changed hearts makes changed lives. Spreading the Gospel is a good place to produce that change. And I think, if we slow down enough to think about it, we would all agree that changed laws don't change minds nearly as effectively as God does when He gets hold of people. Perhaps we should spend our efforts in what we are explicitly commanded rather than ranting about the political realm about which we find very little biblical comment. We are commanded to pray for government. We are commanded to make disciples. We are commanded to preach the Word. Perhaps that is a better direction to take.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Tough Times
It only takes a few moments of the news and you know we're in rough times with tougher times ahead. It can be pretty easy to end up worrying. Now, I can offer the "wisdom of the ages" my mother offered me -- "Worry must make a difference; 99% of what you worry about doesn't happen" -- or I can try to offer something more substantial.
For those of you who believe that "God is a gentleman" who doesn't interfere in Man's free will and simply operates where people let Him operate, I don't suppose I'll be of much help. For those of you who believe that God has not subjected Himself to His creation but, instead, remains sovereign, I have some reminders for you while you're watching the news or contemplating current events. Remember that it is God "who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11). Remember that there is nothing too difficult for God (Jer. 32:37). Remember, "the king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will" (Prov. 21:1).
If times look bleak to you, remember who's really in charge, and remember that He loves you. Telling yourself the truth when you feel something else is a good thing.
For those of you who believe that "God is a gentleman" who doesn't interfere in Man's free will and simply operates where people let Him operate, I don't suppose I'll be of much help. For those of you who believe that God has not subjected Himself to His creation but, instead, remains sovereign, I have some reminders for you while you're watching the news or contemplating current events. Remember that it is God "who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11). Remember that there is nothing too difficult for God (Jer. 32:37). Remember, "the king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will" (Prov. 21:1).
If times look bleak to you, remember who's really in charge, and remember that He loves you. Telling yourself the truth when you feel something else is a good thing.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Signs
I heard a comedian the other day that made me laugh. He talked about the gay marriage question. "I don't understand all the hubbub about gay marriage. My motto is 'Live and let live.' I mean, if a gay guy wants to marry a gay girl, why should I interfere? Who knows? Maybe they'll cancel each other out and have a heterosexual kid who has an eye for fashion!" He made me think about other funny things in life.
My childhood was a product of the 60's, but I didn't grow up with the "Question Authority" mantra of that era. Instead, I grew up with the "Obey Authority" advice, and I carry it through to today. You can imagine, then, how sometimes signs can cause me problems.
I was driving out of a parking lot one day and saw a sign that said "No right turn." My first thought was "That's unenforceable." Why? Well, how would an officer know? How could a police officer know what way was the right way for me to go? I tested my theory. The right way for me to go from that parking lot was left. I waited until there was a police car nearby and turned left. No ticket. See? I turned the right way even though the sign told me I wasn't allowed to and there were no negative repercussions. They shouldn't make rules they can't enforce.
The other day I walked to an intersection that I often pass through and noticed a sign on the corner: "No pedestrian crossing." Now, I have a strange way with words sometimes. My mother says it's a sign of intelligence. My kids say I'm just twisted. You can decide for yourselves. I thought, "'Pedestrian' -- lacking imagination, commonplace, ordinary." So I went across doing cartwheels. Of course, the officer writing the ticket explained to me that it actually meant "a person traveling on foot." Next time I'm going to try it on horseback.
Last week I was walking along a section of roadwork where there was a row of those traffic barriers. I noticed a sign on the back of each one. It read, "Do not steal. It is illegal to steal this barrier." What genius! I need to find out where to get signs like that! Imagine a burglar breaking into my home and picking up the television to steal it only to find a sign that warns him that he can't steal it because it's illegal. He'll put it back, frustrated. Sure, he's a thief, but that doesn't mean he is going to break the law, right?
Of course, that's nonsense. And it's no wonder. We even have the authorities breaking the law. I have seen several street light poles here with signs posted on them that say, "Do not post signs here." Now, wait! If they can, why can't I? I want to put my own sign there that says, "Okay, I won't." I don't suppose they'd be amused.
My obedience to authority, however, prevents me from doing that kind of thing. It leaves me confused when the sign on the door of the toilet stall says "Do not put anything but toilet paper in the toilet." That kind of defeats the purpose of a toilet, doesn't it? It leaves me baffled when I see a sign that says "Observe all signs." How am I even going to know where to find them all? And how am I going to get inside a building when one of the doors says "No entry"? Sure, there is another door next to it, but that one isn't marked. Am I supposed to assume something there?
It's difficult, sometimes, being me.
My childhood was a product of the 60's, but I didn't grow up with the "Question Authority" mantra of that era. Instead, I grew up with the "Obey Authority" advice, and I carry it through to today. You can imagine, then, how sometimes signs can cause me problems.
I was driving out of a parking lot one day and saw a sign that said "No right turn." My first thought was "That's unenforceable." Why? Well, how would an officer know? How could a police officer know what way was the right way for me to go? I tested my theory. The right way for me to go from that parking lot was left. I waited until there was a police car nearby and turned left. No ticket. See? I turned the right way even though the sign told me I wasn't allowed to and there were no negative repercussions. They shouldn't make rules they can't enforce.
The other day I walked to an intersection that I often pass through and noticed a sign on the corner: "No pedestrian crossing." Now, I have a strange way with words sometimes. My mother says it's a sign of intelligence. My kids say I'm just twisted. You can decide for yourselves. I thought, "'Pedestrian' -- lacking imagination, commonplace, ordinary." So I went across doing cartwheels. Of course, the officer writing the ticket explained to me that it actually meant "a person traveling on foot." Next time I'm going to try it on horseback.
Last week I was walking along a section of roadwork where there was a row of those traffic barriers. I noticed a sign on the back of each one. It read, "Do not steal. It is illegal to steal this barrier." What genius! I need to find out where to get signs like that! Imagine a burglar breaking into my home and picking up the television to steal it only to find a sign that warns him that he can't steal it because it's illegal. He'll put it back, frustrated. Sure, he's a thief, but that doesn't mean he is going to break the law, right?
Of course, that's nonsense. And it's no wonder. We even have the authorities breaking the law. I have seen several street light poles here with signs posted on them that say, "Do not post signs here." Now, wait! If they can, why can't I? I want to put my own sign there that says, "Okay, I won't." I don't suppose they'd be amused.
My obedience to authority, however, prevents me from doing that kind of thing. It leaves me confused when the sign on the door of the toilet stall says "Do not put anything but toilet paper in the toilet." That kind of defeats the purpose of a toilet, doesn't it? It leaves me baffled when I see a sign that says "Observe all signs." How am I even going to know where to find them all? And how am I going to get inside a building when one of the doors says "No entry"? Sure, there is another door next to it, but that one isn't marked. Am I supposed to assume something there?
It's difficult, sometimes, being me.
Friday, November 07, 2008
What Have We Learned?
This will start out sounding political, but my thoughts here aren't actually on politics. I'm actually considering ramifications. I'm wondering what the election results tell us about Americans.
For quite some time now there have been fears that if America failed to elect Barack Obama there would be race riots. The feeling was that the only reason we would not elect him was that he was a black man. It was racism and racism alone that would prevent Americans from electing him. Now, I always thought that was nonsense -- my objections were never on the basis of race -- but I don't wish to discount public sentiment. So ... now that we've elected a black man for president, can we say that racism in America is dead?
Now, I know that we can't. Rules of logic don't work that way. In logic, not proving one position does not necessarily validate the opposite. So, if we can say that racism didn't cause Obama not to be elected, we cannot say that racism is dead. Still, I have to wonder. Can we say that racism is not as much a part of the fabric of America that it once was? I've talked to several people over the last several months about racism in America who claim that it's just as bad, if not worse, as it ever was. Doesn't this election suggest that it's not so? I suppose there is a feeling in me that suggests that turnabout should be fair play. If not electing Obama proved racism, it seems like electing him proves "not racism." Unfortunately, I'm suspecting that we won't get "fair play" in this case. It's a "no win" for non-racism here. If we don't elect a black man, we're racist. If we do elect a black man ... well, we're still racist. I have to wonder.
In this election there were several states that decided the outcome by shifting their previous position. There were no states that shifted from previously Democrat to currently Republican. There were several that shifted from Republican in 2004 to Democrat in 2008. Is this an indicator of American perspective? The typical Republican side is a typical conservative side. By that I mean that typically the Republican side wishes to conserve original political conditions. The typical Democrat side is typically more liberal or "progressive." As indicated by Obama's stump speeches, they don't want conditions to remain the same; they want change. Does this shift by some eight previously Republican states mean that America is turning away from original ideals and moving to new ones? While the heartland of America, literally "middle" America, is still fundamentally Republican and basically conservative, are there larger numbers of Americans that are leaning toward more change? Is, for instance, capitalism falling into more disfavor than it was previously? Is the class warfare becoming worse, where more people view "rich" as "bad" and more people think "I deserve more of what they have"? Is America headed toward a more isolationist perspective? It makes me wonder.
Then there's this whole "marriage" thing. The argument in Arizona was, "We already shot it down two years ago. Why are we doing it again?" The resounding answer, apparently, is, "We didn't vote on this two years ago. It was a different issue." It appears, in Arizona, that the majority of voters want to keep the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Is that a political statement, a commentary on running a campaign, or does that say something about the views of Arizonans? But before you answer, what about California? I think the perception has been that Californians are, generally, more liberal. They're, well, more "pro-gay." Most of America (and a loud part of California, I think) assumed that they would terminate that divisive Prop 8 with prejudice. (Sorry ... trying to have fun with words there.) Now they've passed a constitutional amendment that affirms the longstanding and traditional definition of "marriage." And you can throw in Florida with something like a 60% to 40% margin. It makes me wonder (again). Does this say what I think it says? It appears to me that a majority of Arizonans (you know, those who "already voted on this") and a majority of Californians (you know, those who are "the most liberal") along with Florida now and others before have decided that marriage should actually be defined as a union of one man and one woman. Is that a commentary on the views of Americans? Does the majority of America still think that marriage is between a man and a woman, and "same-sex marriage" is not the same thing? And I'm wondering, along the same lines, about those who believe that we should define terms as the majority does. If America still views "marriage" in the longstanding and traditional way, does this change their opinion?
I'm not really wondering so much about politics here. I'm not wondering about who got elected and what it means to America. I am wondering about what the results of the voting says about American viewpoints. I suspect that it says more than we immediately recognize. I also suspect that it says more than we're willing to admit.
For quite some time now there have been fears that if America failed to elect Barack Obama there would be race riots. The feeling was that the only reason we would not elect him was that he was a black man. It was racism and racism alone that would prevent Americans from electing him. Now, I always thought that was nonsense -- my objections were never on the basis of race -- but I don't wish to discount public sentiment. So ... now that we've elected a black man for president, can we say that racism in America is dead?
Now, I know that we can't. Rules of logic don't work that way. In logic, not proving one position does not necessarily validate the opposite. So, if we can say that racism didn't cause Obama not to be elected, we cannot say that racism is dead. Still, I have to wonder. Can we say that racism is not as much a part of the fabric of America that it once was? I've talked to several people over the last several months about racism in America who claim that it's just as bad, if not worse, as it ever was. Doesn't this election suggest that it's not so? I suppose there is a feeling in me that suggests that turnabout should be fair play. If not electing Obama proved racism, it seems like electing him proves "not racism." Unfortunately, I'm suspecting that we won't get "fair play" in this case. It's a "no win" for non-racism here. If we don't elect a black man, we're racist. If we do elect a black man ... well, we're still racist. I have to wonder.
In this election there were several states that decided the outcome by shifting their previous position. There were no states that shifted from previously Democrat to currently Republican. There were several that shifted from Republican in 2004 to Democrat in 2008. Is this an indicator of American perspective? The typical Republican side is a typical conservative side. By that I mean that typically the Republican side wishes to conserve original political conditions. The typical Democrat side is typically more liberal or "progressive." As indicated by Obama's stump speeches, they don't want conditions to remain the same; they want change. Does this shift by some eight previously Republican states mean that America is turning away from original ideals and moving to new ones? While the heartland of America, literally "middle" America, is still fundamentally Republican and basically conservative, are there larger numbers of Americans that are leaning toward more change? Is, for instance, capitalism falling into more disfavor than it was previously? Is the class warfare becoming worse, where more people view "rich" as "bad" and more people think "I deserve more of what they have"? Is America headed toward a more isolationist perspective? It makes me wonder.
Then there's this whole "marriage" thing. The argument in Arizona was, "We already shot it down two years ago. Why are we doing it again?" The resounding answer, apparently, is, "We didn't vote on this two years ago. It was a different issue." It appears, in Arizona, that the majority of voters want to keep the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Is that a political statement, a commentary on running a campaign, or does that say something about the views of Arizonans? But before you answer, what about California? I think the perception has been that Californians are, generally, more liberal. They're, well, more "pro-gay." Most of America (and a loud part of California, I think) assumed that they would terminate that divisive Prop 8 with prejudice. (Sorry ... trying to have fun with words there.) Now they've passed a constitutional amendment that affirms the longstanding and traditional definition of "marriage." And you can throw in Florida with something like a 60% to 40% margin. It makes me wonder (again). Does this say what I think it says? It appears to me that a majority of Arizonans (you know, those who "already voted on this") and a majority of Californians (you know, those who are "the most liberal") along with Florida now and others before have decided that marriage should actually be defined as a union of one man and one woman. Is that a commentary on the views of Americans? Does the majority of America still think that marriage is between a man and a woman, and "same-sex marriage" is not the same thing? And I'm wondering, along the same lines, about those who believe that we should define terms as the majority does. If America still views "marriage" in the longstanding and traditional way, does this change their opinion?
I'm not really wondering so much about politics here. I'm not wondering about who got elected and what it means to America. I am wondering about what the results of the voting says about American viewpoints. I suspect that it says more than we immediately recognize. I also suspect that it says more than we're willing to admit.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Photography Break
Just thought I'd take a break today from too much politics or theology or controversy and put up some of the pictures I've taken over the past few years.
Parrots in Orange, California
A Black Phoebe
A Praying Mantis with failed camoflage
The B2 Bomber
Parrots in Orange, California
A Black Phoebe
A Praying Mantis with failed camoflage
The B2 Bomber
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Bible on Politics
Too often "Christian" gets associated with "Republican" or something equally disconnected. Too often Christians get caught up in "vote for ___" instead of Christianity. The Bible doesn't endorse any American political party or political candidate. On the other hand, the Bible is also not completely silent on the topic. Now that you've voted -- now that the choice is made -- remember what the Bible does say on the topic.
So, regardless of whether or not your candidate was elected, what are Christians to do now?
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. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Rom 13:1-5).Whether you believe "My candidate didn't make it and we're all lost" or you believe "My candidate did make it and we're saved," the truth is that God allows authorities their place for His purposes. To look ahead and claim "It is God's will that ___ be elected president" is impossible, but to look back and claim that "God's will was accomplished" is certain. That's the biblical perspective.
So, regardless of whether or not your candidate was elected, what are Christians to do now?
I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way (1 Tim 2:1-2).Those of you who exercised your God-given obligation and voted, your task now is to pray for the leaders of our country. Those of you who did not, your task now is to pray for the leaders of our country. We may not always agree on theology and we may not always agree on politics, but we can agree that there is a need to pray for the leaders of our country. Let's agree to do that in earnest.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Nothing More Than Feelings
I have felt for a long time a particular way. I know, in my head, that it isn't the right way to feel. So I have never told anyone I felt that way. Besides, it comes and goes. Why bother? Then, the other day, I told someone. I told him because he was expressing almost the same thing to me. Maybe, just maybe, he could understand this feeling I've had. And he did. In fact, it turned out that he shared a similar feeling. And I got to thinking ... how many other folks share a similar sense and just don't tell anyone because, well, we're not supposed to feel this way? And what if, just because we're not sharing it because we're not supposed to feel this way, we are missing out on help that others can give who have felt the same or have something with which to address it?
So here it is. Understand, first, that it is a feeling. I don't personally put much stock in feelings. Feelings are generally a product. Bad feelings are products of bad thinking and good feelings are products of good thinking, generally thinking. (By "bad" and "good" thinking, I don't mean "improper" and "proper" thinking. I mean the perception that things are bad or good generally produces bad or good feelings.) How I think is much more important than how I feel. Sometimes, however, I feel like I'm not God's favorite child.
I have to explain that further. I don't feel like I'm an abused little child in God's economy. I don't feel like He's being mean to me. I don't feel as if I'm mistreated or disliked or even short-changed. I just feel like ... I'm not one of His favorites. I know lots of people who have relationships with God that are extremely warm and dynamic. They have a drastic need and God meets it dramatically. They have a problem and God swoops in to fix it. You know those kind. They say, "Well, Lord, You know the need here. I don't have enough to make it to the end of the month. If I'm going to pay the bills, You'll have to provide." And then, somehow, out of nowhere, an unexpected check comes in the mail for exactly the amount they needed for that month. Oh, sure, you've heard those stories before. God supernaturally protected them or miraculously healed them. They prayed, "Lord, please make my car start" and it did. There are the kinds of Christians that you really want praying for you because whatever they pray for God seems to provide. You know those people. But it never happened to me.
Like I said, though, I don't feel like I'm being short-changed. If I got from God what I deserved, I couldn't bear it. And generally speaking my life is pretty good. I don't feel as if He's mean to me. I don't begrudge the others what He does for them. I'm sure He's perfectly free to give as He wishes to whomever He chooses however He pleases. That's perfectly fine with me. I'm not abused. He's not beating me. I'm not talking about a sense of discipline, for instance. I generally know when that happens. It's just that, well, I'm not His favorite. If I am around one of His favorites, He might do something nice for me to benefit them. And, sure, He is always doing nice things for me. I mean, I'm still living and breathing, aren't I? I have a job and food and shelter and transportation, don't I? I'm relatively healthy. I have a good wife. See? I'm not abused or short-changed or any such thing. Still, when the car gets wrecked I know He's not putting a check in the mail to pay for it. When the TV tells me, "You could win a million bucks!" I know they're not talking to me because God doesn't do that in my life. Nor am I questioning His ability to do so. I know He can do it. I just don't think He's willing when it comes to me.
As I said, it's a feeling. Generally speaking, when I stop feeling like that long enough to tell myself the truth, it goes away. It's just one of those faulty tapes I play in my head sometimes, a mistaken notion that God loves you a lot more than He loves me. But I don't put a lot of stock in feelings, so I shut off that tape whenever I think about it and play a different one, a grateful one for the kindness God has shown me over the decades. It's more reasonable, more helpful, and more ... well ... true. But I do wonder if there aren't more of us out there that sometimes feel that way but don't want to tell anyone because we're not supposed to feel that way ...
So here it is. Understand, first, that it is a feeling. I don't personally put much stock in feelings. Feelings are generally a product. Bad feelings are products of bad thinking and good feelings are products of good thinking, generally thinking. (By "bad" and "good" thinking, I don't mean "improper" and "proper" thinking. I mean the perception that things are bad or good generally produces bad or good feelings.) How I think is much more important than how I feel. Sometimes, however, I feel like I'm not God's favorite child.
I have to explain that further. I don't feel like I'm an abused little child in God's economy. I don't feel like He's being mean to me. I don't feel as if I'm mistreated or disliked or even short-changed. I just feel like ... I'm not one of His favorites. I know lots of people who have relationships with God that are extremely warm and dynamic. They have a drastic need and God meets it dramatically. They have a problem and God swoops in to fix it. You know those kind. They say, "Well, Lord, You know the need here. I don't have enough to make it to the end of the month. If I'm going to pay the bills, You'll have to provide." And then, somehow, out of nowhere, an unexpected check comes in the mail for exactly the amount they needed for that month. Oh, sure, you've heard those stories before. God supernaturally protected them or miraculously healed them. They prayed, "Lord, please make my car start" and it did. There are the kinds of Christians that you really want praying for you because whatever they pray for God seems to provide. You know those people. But it never happened to me.
Like I said, though, I don't feel like I'm being short-changed. If I got from God what I deserved, I couldn't bear it. And generally speaking my life is pretty good. I don't feel as if He's mean to me. I don't begrudge the others what He does for them. I'm sure He's perfectly free to give as He wishes to whomever He chooses however He pleases. That's perfectly fine with me. I'm not abused. He's not beating me. I'm not talking about a sense of discipline, for instance. I generally know when that happens. It's just that, well, I'm not His favorite. If I am around one of His favorites, He might do something nice for me to benefit them. And, sure, He is always doing nice things for me. I mean, I'm still living and breathing, aren't I? I have a job and food and shelter and transportation, don't I? I'm relatively healthy. I have a good wife. See? I'm not abused or short-changed or any such thing. Still, when the car gets wrecked I know He's not putting a check in the mail to pay for it. When the TV tells me, "You could win a million bucks!" I know they're not talking to me because God doesn't do that in my life. Nor am I questioning His ability to do so. I know He can do it. I just don't think He's willing when it comes to me.
As I said, it's a feeling. Generally speaking, when I stop feeling like that long enough to tell myself the truth, it goes away. It's just one of those faulty tapes I play in my head sometimes, a mistaken notion that God loves you a lot more than He loves me. But I don't put a lot of stock in feelings, so I shut off that tape whenever I think about it and play a different one, a grateful one for the kindness God has shown me over the decades. It's more reasonable, more helpful, and more ... well ... true. But I do wonder if there aren't more of us out there that sometimes feel that way but don't want to tell anyone because we're not supposed to feel that way ...
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Testing of Your Faith
It is my suspicion that if you have never questioned what you believe, you may not actually believe it. Well, perhaps that's not fully accurate, but the truth is that we always act on what we truly believe.
James has an interesting phrase that we very often hear but don't take in. He says "the testing of your faith produces steadfastness" (James 1:3). If you haven't had your faith tested, there is a good chance that you lack "steadfastness."
Believing what you believe is easy when it's not challenged. The question is what do you do with what you believe when it gets difficult? Imagine, for a moment, a loved one, a dear person, who is an avowed atheist. They reject God wholly. Oh, you still love them. Maybe they're family. Maybe a friend. And, seriously, they're such nice people. But their eternal condition is in peril. And then ... they die. Now, the loss of a loved one is a difficult thing to face on its own. A loss of a loved one eternally is much, much harder. So what do you do now? Do you re-examine your theology and wonder about loopholes to "Jesus is the only way"? Do you question the wisdom or goodness of God? I'm not talking about the feelings. I'm talking about ... "the testing of your faith." Do you continue to believe what you did before or do you question it?
What about when your son declares himself a homosexual? Or your high-school daughter comes up pregnant? Or you lose a spouse? Or you are told you have cancer? Do these things change your belief in God or do they affirm it?
How about this? You read and say you believe that "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose." Great! So ... when unpleasant things occur, do you complain or do you expect that God causes all things to work together for good? You say that you agree with the Bible. So, when meet trials of various kinds, do you "count it all joy" (James 1:2-4) or do you waver (James 1:6)? Do you expect good things from God when bad things happen?
All of us need our faith tested. All of us need our faith "tuned." All of us need times of trials so that we can find out those areas that we say we believe but, when face to face with difficulties, find that we aren't really convinced. Sometimes you'll find you were believing the wrong thing (like, perhaps, "God only allows nice things for His people"). Sometimes you'll find that you weren't actually believing what you said you were believing. Sometimes -- and these times are so precious -- you will find yourself crowded into the arms of the Only One who can ultimately comfort you. It's good for us. Trust me ...
James has an interesting phrase that we very often hear but don't take in. He says "the testing of your faith produces steadfastness" (James 1:3). If you haven't had your faith tested, there is a good chance that you lack "steadfastness."
Believing what you believe is easy when it's not challenged. The question is what do you do with what you believe when it gets difficult? Imagine, for a moment, a loved one, a dear person, who is an avowed atheist. They reject God wholly. Oh, you still love them. Maybe they're family. Maybe a friend. And, seriously, they're such nice people. But their eternal condition is in peril. And then ... they die. Now, the loss of a loved one is a difficult thing to face on its own. A loss of a loved one eternally is much, much harder. So what do you do now? Do you re-examine your theology and wonder about loopholes to "Jesus is the only way"? Do you question the wisdom or goodness of God? I'm not talking about the feelings. I'm talking about ... "the testing of your faith." Do you continue to believe what you did before or do you question it?
What about when your son declares himself a homosexual? Or your high-school daughter comes up pregnant? Or you lose a spouse? Or you are told you have cancer? Do these things change your belief in God or do they affirm it?
How about this? You read and say you believe that "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose." Great! So ... when unpleasant things occur, do you complain or do you expect that God causes all things to work together for good? You say that you agree with the Bible. So, when meet trials of various kinds, do you "count it all joy" (James 1:2-4) or do you waver (James 1:6)? Do you expect good things from God when bad things happen?
All of us need our faith tested. All of us need our faith "tuned." All of us need times of trials so that we can find out those areas that we say we believe but, when face to face with difficulties, find that we aren't really convinced. Sometimes you'll find you were believing the wrong thing (like, perhaps, "God only allows nice things for His people"). Sometimes you'll find that you weren't actually believing what you said you were believing. Sometimes -- and these times are so precious -- you will find yourself crowded into the arms of the Only One who can ultimately comfort you. It's good for us. Trust me ...
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Ligonier Conference - Pg 4
You know, I never actually finished my series from the Ligonier conference here in Arizona. You can rest assured I gave you the best stuff, but the rest was pretty good as well. Ligon Duncan answered the question, "Should the Church embrace Post-Modernism?" It was a short speech. "No." Okay, he went into what it was and why we shouldn't, but we all knew the answer. And R.C. Sproul gave a good talk on "What is the Gospel?" which, sadly, appears to be a difficult question these days for too many Christians.
The one I did want to tell you about, though, was from John MacArthur. He answered one of the standard questions: "Is Jesus the Only Way?" but he didn't answer it from the standard direction. Sure, there are positive statements to the fact that Jesus is the only way. Passages like Acts 4:12, John 14:6, Acts 17:30, and 2 Thess. 1:7-9 are unavoidable, and when taken as a whole, the question is pretty much answered. MacArthur, on the other hand, approached it from the other direction. What has man-made religion produced? What happens when Man tries other approaches?
In Romans 10:1-4, Paul prays for Israel's salvation. He acknowledges their "zeal for God." They were, after all, God's covenant people. What was their approach? How would they get to God? "Not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Rom 10:3). That, in short, is the standard human method of religion -- establish your own righteousness. Be "good enough" to get to heaven. We all know that "good people" go to heaven and "bad people" go to hell. It's the standard human approach. And it's wrong. Humans naturally lower God's righteousness and elevate their own and end up with a warped, distorted view of self and sin. In fact, we all suffer from that problem.
One of the standard approaches to alternative religions is "natural theology." The idea is that human beings can discover God naturally through the things around us. Romans 1 has an interesting passage on the topic:
And, of course, we find that the Bible makes some pretty harsh claims about humans finding the path to God. Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth is full of tough stuff. Humans see the Gospel as foolishness (1 Cor 1:18). "The world through its wisdom did not come to know God" (1 Cor 1:21). Indeed, despite all our thinking to the contrary, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). When you see words like "does not" and "cannot," it's not possible to come to the conclusion "but they do." Then there is the passage in 1 Cor 10:20. According to Paul, human religion is demonic.
There are plenty of statements in the Bible that require Christians to conclude that Jesus is the only way to God. Many have tried to wiggle out of them. It's not working. Even if you can get there by hook or by crook, you'll find that the Bible holds humans as naturally hostile to God, indicted by natural revelation, and worshiping only demons. Instead we have God's alternative to human religion -- "the called" (1 Cor 1:24), "the chosen" (1 Cor 1:27), and "by His doing" (1 Cor 1:30). In other words, the Bible says both that Jesus is the only way and there is no other way.
The one I did want to tell you about, though, was from John MacArthur. He answered one of the standard questions: "Is Jesus the Only Way?" but he didn't answer it from the standard direction. Sure, there are positive statements to the fact that Jesus is the only way. Passages like Acts 4:12, John 14:6, Acts 17:30, and 2 Thess. 1:7-9 are unavoidable, and when taken as a whole, the question is pretty much answered. MacArthur, on the other hand, approached it from the other direction. What has man-made religion produced? What happens when Man tries other approaches?
In Romans 10:1-4, Paul prays for Israel's salvation. He acknowledges their "zeal for God." They were, after all, God's covenant people. What was their approach? How would they get to God? "Not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Rom 10:3). That, in short, is the standard human method of religion -- establish your own righteousness. Be "good enough" to get to heaven. We all know that "good people" go to heaven and "bad people" go to hell. It's the standard human approach. And it's wrong. Humans naturally lower God's righteousness and elevate their own and end up with a warped, distorted view of self and sin. In fact, we all suffer from that problem.
One of the standard approaches to alternative religions is "natural theology." The idea is that human beings can discover God naturally through the things around us. Romans 1 has an interesting passage on the topic:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Rom 1:18-20).There, see? Says so right there. What is most often missed, though, is not simply that Man can discover God in nature, but that he misses it. The revelation of God in nature is real, to be sure, but it is not salvation; it is damnation. It removes excuses. And as Man ignores the revelation of God in nature, he declines into sin (Rom 1:21-32), not godliness. (I thought it was interesting that the very first sin that follows Man's refusal to acknowledge God -- the first thing to which God "gave them over" -- is sexual sin ... lust. Seems like the most common sin today, doesn't it?) Natural Revelation, then, leads only to depravity.
And, of course, we find that the Bible makes some pretty harsh claims about humans finding the path to God. Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth is full of tough stuff. Humans see the Gospel as foolishness (1 Cor 1:18). "The world through its wisdom did not come to know God" (1 Cor 1:21). Indeed, despite all our thinking to the contrary, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). When you see words like "does not" and "cannot," it's not possible to come to the conclusion "but they do." Then there is the passage in 1 Cor 10:20. According to Paul, human religion is demonic.
There are plenty of statements in the Bible that require Christians to conclude that Jesus is the only way to God. Many have tried to wiggle out of them. It's not working. Even if you can get there by hook or by crook, you'll find that the Bible holds humans as naturally hostile to God, indicted by natural revelation, and worshiping only demons. Instead we have God's alternative to human religion -- "the called" (1 Cor 1:24), "the chosen" (1 Cor 1:27), and "by His doing" (1 Cor 1:30). In other words, the Bible says both that Jesus is the only way and there is no other way.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
The Poor You Have With You
Serious question, folks. I am, once again, a guy with more questions than answers.
There is a concept in Christianity called "the social gospel." I don't like the term, but I understand its meaning. The reference is to the things we Christians are supposed to do for the people around us. You know ... take care of widows, feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in prison. It's stuff like what Jesus mentioned in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46). The difference in this parable between sheep and goat is that sheep discovered that "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." Did what? That "social gospel" stuff. "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." I won't even question whether we are supposed to do these things. I'll take it as a given. Genuine Christians understand that we are to lay aside self and give to others.
So, I read this in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 -- "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Now I have a dilemma. There are, obviously, those in need who are willing to work but can't find any. I understand that. We should help them. But there are those who are not willing to work. Some of them are intentionally homeless, counting on the kindness of strangers to give them enough to get by. Some have found themselves, for whatever reasons, out of work and then find that unemployment and welfare are just about enough to get by, so why bother? In other words, there is a segment of "needy" people who will not work. So ... what is our responsibility to them? Are we violating this command in 2nd Thessalonians if we give to them? Or are we honoring Christ? Is it true that there are actually people with whom we might come in contact who should not be helped? How do you correlate this?
There is a concept in Christianity called "the social gospel." I don't like the term, but I understand its meaning. The reference is to the things we Christians are supposed to do for the people around us. You know ... take care of widows, feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in prison. It's stuff like what Jesus mentioned in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46). The difference in this parable between sheep and goat is that sheep discovered that "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." Did what? That "social gospel" stuff. "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." I won't even question whether we are supposed to do these things. I'll take it as a given. Genuine Christians understand that we are to lay aside self and give to others.
So, I read this in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 -- "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Now I have a dilemma. There are, obviously, those in need who are willing to work but can't find any. I understand that. We should help them. But there are those who are not willing to work. Some of them are intentionally homeless, counting on the kindness of strangers to give them enough to get by. Some have found themselves, for whatever reasons, out of work and then find that unemployment and welfare are just about enough to get by, so why bother? In other words, there is a segment of "needy" people who will not work. So ... what is our responsibility to them? Are we violating this command in 2nd Thessalonians if we give to them? Or are we honoring Christ? Is it true that there are actually people with whom we might come in contact who should not be helped? How do you correlate this?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Truth in Advertising - NOT
Something that I have found ... distasteful ... over this and most other election cycles is the simple fact that our "truth in advertising" laws don't apply to political ads. I'm not addressing here candidates or propositions I oppose or defend. I'm talking about simply being honest.
Where I live there are several controversial propositions on the ballot. I'm seriously disappointed by the fact that several are intentionally deceitful. One proposition, called "the Majority Rules proposition," sounds so democratic. The truth is that if it passes it will eliminate almost any possibility to pass citizen-initiated propositions. That's because, while it claims to operate on a "majority rules" system, it actually requires a majority of registered voters to rule on a proposition. If 50% of the registered voters don't show up, it can't pass. In this proposition, non-voters are counted as "no" votes. That's not actually "majority rule." Another is a "Stop Illegal Hiring" proposition that, as it turns out, actually eases the ability of companies to hire illegal aliens. One is a "Payday Loan Reform" proposition. It has been touting for weeks now that it will offer great reform to the payday loan industry here in Arizona. Day after day they trot out "hard-hitting" ads about how this "tough proposition" will root out the bad payday loan companies and make major changes to the industry. Nice! We want that. But wait! It turns out that in two years the industry will be outlawed from the state entirely. Huh? No one mentioned that in the ads for this proposition. And then you look at the "paid for by" tag and ... what? This proposition has been floated by and paid for by ... the payday loan industry. Now wait! That doesn't make sense! No, it doesn't. And when you read the proposition carefully you find that it "limits" the industry to charging more than 400% interest and running more than one concurrent loan to any given customer. Now that is hard-hitting reform! NOT! It's plain and simple deceit by an industry trying to secure its future in a state that is about to remove it. It is not truth in advertising.
Another proposition is clear enough, but the ads aren't. It is simply a "Freedom of Choice Act" where a law would be enacted that would prevent the government from forcing citizens to choose a particular health care plan. That's it. It insures our freedom of choice on health care ... you know, in case someone comes into office that tries to force a "universal health care" plan on everybody and limit our choices to that. Ads against it include one by the governor (who favors "universal health care") who says "It will limit our choices." Well, it will limit our choice to demand that everyone be part of universal health care, maybe. Somehow, it seems, women ought to have their freedom to choose to kill unborn babies untouched, but our freedom to choose a doctor should not be defended. That seems ... dishonest.
Advertisements for and against candidates are really hard to follow. One candidate in particular apparently ignores and stands on principles. Huh? Yes, one ad against him says, "He ignores principles." Another ad for him says, "He stands on principles." Oddly, both ads cite the same source ... the local newspaper. Now, people, really, he can't do both. He is either a man of principles or he isn't. Someone is lying. At the very least, someone is "shading the truth" (a euphemism for lying). One that is particularly disturbing to me is this series of attacks on several candidates based largely on their "support for a national sales tax." "Don't we already have too many taxes?" they complain. "It does away with corporate income tax," they claim. Well, yeah. It also does away with personal income tax, death taxes, and the like. The national sales tax is intended to shift the taxation situation from income to outgo, from what you make to what you spend. But they don't tell you that. They try to convince you that these people are simply trying to take more money from you and let those evil corporations off. The national sales tax idea may or may not be a good idea. It's merits and problems ought to be discussed. But misrepresenting it will not serve that process, and this is not "truth in advertising."
My real problem with the intentional deception that is political advertising is the simple premise that Americans are stupid. The notion is that we will not examine the issues, not investigate the candidates, not read the propositions. We will simply do what the loudest and longest commercials tell us to do. It smells like Hitler's "Tell a lie big enough and long enough and people will believe you." It feels like "You people are too stupid to figure out the truth for yourself, so just do what we tell you." Unfortunately, I'm afraid there are indeed too many people today who, brought up on a steady diet of TV instead of reading and learning, will do just that. I suppose, then, that I'm most disturbed by the appearance that these political liars have a genuine premise with which to lead the sheeple of America.
Where I live there are several controversial propositions on the ballot. I'm seriously disappointed by the fact that several are intentionally deceitful. One proposition, called "the Majority Rules proposition," sounds so democratic. The truth is that if it passes it will eliminate almost any possibility to pass citizen-initiated propositions. That's because, while it claims to operate on a "majority rules" system, it actually requires a majority of registered voters to rule on a proposition. If 50% of the registered voters don't show up, it can't pass. In this proposition, non-voters are counted as "no" votes. That's not actually "majority rule." Another is a "Stop Illegal Hiring" proposition that, as it turns out, actually eases the ability of companies to hire illegal aliens. One is a "Payday Loan Reform" proposition. It has been touting for weeks now that it will offer great reform to the payday loan industry here in Arizona. Day after day they trot out "hard-hitting" ads about how this "tough proposition" will root out the bad payday loan companies and make major changes to the industry. Nice! We want that. But wait! It turns out that in two years the industry will be outlawed from the state entirely. Huh? No one mentioned that in the ads for this proposition. And then you look at the "paid for by" tag and ... what? This proposition has been floated by and paid for by ... the payday loan industry. Now wait! That doesn't make sense! No, it doesn't. And when you read the proposition carefully you find that it "limits" the industry to charging more than 400% interest and running more than one concurrent loan to any given customer. Now that is hard-hitting reform! NOT! It's plain and simple deceit by an industry trying to secure its future in a state that is about to remove it. It is not truth in advertising.
Another proposition is clear enough, but the ads aren't. It is simply a "Freedom of Choice Act" where a law would be enacted that would prevent the government from forcing citizens to choose a particular health care plan. That's it. It insures our freedom of choice on health care ... you know, in case someone comes into office that tries to force a "universal health care" plan on everybody and limit our choices to that. Ads against it include one by the governor (who favors "universal health care") who says "It will limit our choices." Well, it will limit our choice to demand that everyone be part of universal health care, maybe. Somehow, it seems, women ought to have their freedom to choose to kill unborn babies untouched, but our freedom to choose a doctor should not be defended. That seems ... dishonest.
Advertisements for and against candidates are really hard to follow. One candidate in particular apparently ignores and stands on principles. Huh? Yes, one ad against him says, "He ignores principles." Another ad for him says, "He stands on principles." Oddly, both ads cite the same source ... the local newspaper. Now, people, really, he can't do both. He is either a man of principles or he isn't. Someone is lying. At the very least, someone is "shading the truth" (a euphemism for lying). One that is particularly disturbing to me is this series of attacks on several candidates based largely on their "support for a national sales tax." "Don't we already have too many taxes?" they complain. "It does away with corporate income tax," they claim. Well, yeah. It also does away with personal income tax, death taxes, and the like. The national sales tax is intended to shift the taxation situation from income to outgo, from what you make to what you spend. But they don't tell you that. They try to convince you that these people are simply trying to take more money from you and let those evil corporations off. The national sales tax idea may or may not be a good idea. It's merits and problems ought to be discussed. But misrepresenting it will not serve that process, and this is not "truth in advertising."
My real problem with the intentional deception that is political advertising is the simple premise that Americans are stupid. The notion is that we will not examine the issues, not investigate the candidates, not read the propositions. We will simply do what the loudest and longest commercials tell us to do. It smells like Hitler's "Tell a lie big enough and long enough and people will believe you." It feels like "You people are too stupid to figure out the truth for yourself, so just do what we tell you." Unfortunately, I'm afraid there are indeed too many people today who, brought up on a steady diet of TV instead of reading and learning, will do just that. I suppose, then, that I'm most disturbed by the appearance that these political liars have a genuine premise with which to lead the sheeple of America.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Tribute
I'll be traveling tomorrow -- a trip to California. It's not a pleasure trip. My wife and I will be attending a funeral. One week ago my wife's mother passed away. I'd like to take a moment to introduce you to my mother-in-law.
She came into this world on December 1, 1933 in Glencoe, Minnesota. Born Donna Mae Howe, she married John Sustacek (pronounced soos-ta-chek) in September, 1951. They moved to California in 1956 with two little children and stayed.
Donna was a "liberated woman." By that I mean that she was free of all the garbage that so many other women have picked up since. While so many today think that the only truly liberated woman is the one encumbered by the need to be a corporate climber, Donna had the most fulfilling job. She was a homemaker. Now, don't pass that off too quickly. She was a true homemaker. While John went off to work and provided the income for what was to be six children, Donna made a home. She sewed clothes, made costumes at Halloween, gardened -- growing fruits and vegetables -- remodeled and repainted, painted, stitched, fixed. She did what was needed to make a home. Beyond the practical, she made a home atmosphere. To this day she has a host of kids, now adults, who grew up thinking of her home as their second home, her as their adopted mother. Many of her girls' boyfriends would often return long after ending their relationships with her daughters just to visit "Mom Sustacek." This place was a home. While her grandchildren had homes and families, many of them still think of "Gramma's" place as their second home. Donna was a true homemaker and she did it very well.
Donna Sustacek was a truly remarkable woman. She was the product of an earlier generation. She was careful with their money while remaining generous to a fault. She would find deals at garage sales or second-hand stores for things she knew her daughters or her neighbors or her grandkids would love and snatch them up to give them. She loved people. She came from that older community mind when you cared about your neighbors and they cared about you. She took part in organizing neighborhood parties and providing meals for people in need. There was the annual 4th-of-July block party for which she would organize, decorate, and participate with vigor. In her last days, neighbors would come to her side or sing outside her window, her beloved friends to the end. The vast numbers of people whose lives she touched became evident when the family set about trying to notify interested parties about the funeral. There were old boyfriends that her daughters had dated and still kept in touch. There was an old girlfriend from her grandson's earlier dating. There were neighbors who had lived in other neighborhoods and never lost touch, friends and family throughout the country, and people from around the world.
A couple of years ago, Donna suffered a stroke. There were difficult times for her, but she battled back to become herself again. Donna was always a fighter. She would fight for her family, fight for her home, fight for her values. She fought the stroke. But in the months that followed, the doctors discovered cancer near her heart and lungs. A year after her stroke, she was again in physical trouble. There was pneumonia and cancer and the effects of cancer treatment. But she fought back again, and prevailed. Early this year she faced the fight against death again. Doctors were certain in April that she was not long for this world. Her family gathered to say goodbye. Of course, Donna was still a fighter. She stayed through May when I visited her when I went to my older son's college graduation. Though weak and being fed by a tube, she promised to remain until I could come back in June. She kept her promise when I came out for my son's wedding. Beyond "hanging on," she improved. In the months that followed she gave up the hospital bed they had brought into the house for her and, though weak, she continued to improve. In late September they bought a small RV because she wanted to go to her grandson's football games, but needed a place to rest at times. They planned to travel to Texas to see their newest granddaughter in early October. Then she was hit again with pneumonia. In the hospital, she suffered a heart attack. Then the doctors discovered the cancer had returned in force. It was wrapped around her heart. The doctors said she was dead ... her body just didn't know it. On Friday they stopped giving her water. She insisted on going home to die. They assured her she wouldn't survive the 5-mile trip. But Donna was a fighter to the end. She did make it home. She hung on desperately until every last one of her children made it to her side and said their goodbyes.
Donna Mae Sustacek died on October 23, 2008, almost a week after the doctors determined she was dead and longer than most say you can survive without water. I don't know what kept her going so long. Maybe it was that she was a fighter. Maybe it was her big heart. She lapsed into a coma five days before and went peacefully in the evening. She is survived by her husband, John, her six children, Michele, Margo, Maureen, John, Jeff, and Mindy, her twelve grandchildren, her four great-grandchildren, and the host of various and sundry people who will always think of her as "Mom Sustacek" regardless of their blood relationship with her. A wife, a mother, a grandmother, a true homemaker, a fighter, a neighbor, a seamstress, artist, builder, worker, cook, fixer of all things ... Donna was a larger-than-life woman. She will be missed.
It is said that there is no "expiration date" on people. It isn't true, you know. Everyone expires. If you, like me, believe in God, everyone expires when they're supposed to. It doesn't always make you feel better at the time. It doesn't make their passing immediately less painful. It doesn't make it pleasant. Still, it's good to know that our dear Mom Sustacek will always be dearly loved, fondly remembered, and went at exactly the right time. She left this world last week, but she will not leave our memories or our affection ... ever.
She came into this world on December 1, 1933 in Glencoe, Minnesota. Born Donna Mae Howe, she married John Sustacek (pronounced soos-ta-chek) in September, 1951. They moved to California in 1956 with two little children and stayed.
Donna was a "liberated woman." By that I mean that she was free of all the garbage that so many other women have picked up since. While so many today think that the only truly liberated woman is the one encumbered by the need to be a corporate climber, Donna had the most fulfilling job. She was a homemaker. Now, don't pass that off too quickly. She was a true homemaker. While John went off to work and provided the income for what was to be six children, Donna made a home. She sewed clothes, made costumes at Halloween, gardened -- growing fruits and vegetables -- remodeled and repainted, painted, stitched, fixed. She did what was needed to make a home. Beyond the practical, she made a home atmosphere. To this day she has a host of kids, now adults, who grew up thinking of her home as their second home, her as their adopted mother. Many of her girls' boyfriends would often return long after ending their relationships with her daughters just to visit "Mom Sustacek." This place was a home. While her grandchildren had homes and families, many of them still think of "Gramma's" place as their second home. Donna was a true homemaker and she did it very well.
Donna Sustacek was a truly remarkable woman. She was the product of an earlier generation. She was careful with their money while remaining generous to a fault. She would find deals at garage sales or second-hand stores for things she knew her daughters or her neighbors or her grandkids would love and snatch them up to give them. She loved people. She came from that older community mind when you cared about your neighbors and they cared about you. She took part in organizing neighborhood parties and providing meals for people in need. There was the annual 4th-of-July block party for which she would organize, decorate, and participate with vigor. In her last days, neighbors would come to her side or sing outside her window, her beloved friends to the end. The vast numbers of people whose lives she touched became evident when the family set about trying to notify interested parties about the funeral. There were old boyfriends that her daughters had dated and still kept in touch. There was an old girlfriend from her grandson's earlier dating. There were neighbors who had lived in other neighborhoods and never lost touch, friends and family throughout the country, and people from around the world.
A couple of years ago, Donna suffered a stroke. There were difficult times for her, but she battled back to become herself again. Donna was always a fighter. She would fight for her family, fight for her home, fight for her values. She fought the stroke. But in the months that followed, the doctors discovered cancer near her heart and lungs. A year after her stroke, she was again in physical trouble. There was pneumonia and cancer and the effects of cancer treatment. But she fought back again, and prevailed. Early this year she faced the fight against death again. Doctors were certain in April that she was not long for this world. Her family gathered to say goodbye. Of course, Donna was still a fighter. She stayed through May when I visited her when I went to my older son's college graduation. Though weak and being fed by a tube, she promised to remain until I could come back in June. She kept her promise when I came out for my son's wedding. Beyond "hanging on," she improved. In the months that followed she gave up the hospital bed they had brought into the house for her and, though weak, she continued to improve. In late September they bought a small RV because she wanted to go to her grandson's football games, but needed a place to rest at times. They planned to travel to Texas to see their newest granddaughter in early October. Then she was hit again with pneumonia. In the hospital, she suffered a heart attack. Then the doctors discovered the cancer had returned in force. It was wrapped around her heart. The doctors said she was dead ... her body just didn't know it. On Friday they stopped giving her water. She insisted on going home to die. They assured her she wouldn't survive the 5-mile trip. But Donna was a fighter to the end. She did make it home. She hung on desperately until every last one of her children made it to her side and said their goodbyes.
Donna Mae Sustacek died on October 23, 2008, almost a week after the doctors determined she was dead and longer than most say you can survive without water. I don't know what kept her going so long. Maybe it was that she was a fighter. Maybe it was her big heart. She lapsed into a coma five days before and went peacefully in the evening. She is survived by her husband, John, her six children, Michele, Margo, Maureen, John, Jeff, and Mindy, her twelve grandchildren, her four great-grandchildren, and the host of various and sundry people who will always think of her as "Mom Sustacek" regardless of their blood relationship with her. A wife, a mother, a grandmother, a true homemaker, a fighter, a neighbor, a seamstress, artist, builder, worker, cook, fixer of all things ... Donna was a larger-than-life woman. She will be missed.
It is said that there is no "expiration date" on people. It isn't true, you know. Everyone expires. If you, like me, believe in God, everyone expires when they're supposed to. It doesn't always make you feel better at the time. It doesn't make their passing immediately less painful. It doesn't make it pleasant. Still, it's good to know that our dear Mom Sustacek will always be dearly loved, fondly remembered, and went at exactly the right time. She left this world last week, but she will not leave our memories or our affection ... ever.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
NSF
This is not original. A friend of mine in the banking profession sent me this. I thought it was funny enough to pass on.
Dear Sirs,
I recently received a notice on one of my checks that said "insufficient funds." In view of what is going on internationally with banks at the moment, I was wondering if you could advise me. Does that refer to me or to you?
Sincerely,
A depositor
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
World View
I know ... I've already whined about not wanting any more politics at my house. I know ... I've already voted. But that post was intended as humor. Besides ... I have a scoop. So maybe some of my readers who haven't yet voted might benefit from this information.
Overheard: "Most of Europe wants America to elect Obama."
At work, we recently had a visitor from Europe. Of course, he was fascinated by all the political flurry, so he was discussing politics with some of our people. That's what he said. I found it interesting. My first thought? "Hmmm, so why would Europe want us to elect Obama?" There are possibilities. There are many differences in viewpoints among Americans when it comes to voting, but one thing that almost all Americans have in common when they vote is a central motivation: "What is best for America?" Sure, often it is more correctly, "What will benefit me more?" And obviously we are not in agreement on what is best for America. Still, it is a benefit for America that is in mind. So ... what about Europe? Are they thinking, "Obama will be the best for America"? I thought that would be a bit odd, considering the amount of anti-American sentiment abroad. Rather than guess at the answer, I simply asked him. He told me what I thought would be the answer.
According to this European, most of Europe wants America to elect Senator Obama because it will be to the greatest detriment to America. No, no, that's not quite what he said ... but it was close. Actually he said, "If Obama is president, America will diminish its worldwide influence. America will stop being the massive international presence that it is. Europe wants to do what they want to do without America's input, and they believe that Obama will do that."
This makes sense, given that nearly everyone admits that Senator McCain is the leader in foreign policy expertise. It makes sense given Senator Obama's desire to "talk" rather than act. It is my feeling that if, God forbid, we had another terrorist strike on our soil, we'd get a resounding message from President Obama. "Don't you guys do that again! I'll give you such a severe talking to! Don't think I won't!"
Maybe America thinks that a diminished America would be a good thing. I don't know. I can't actually imagine it. But those outside America would love to see the last superpower go away. Oh, we don't have to fall. No. Just ... be quiet. And given the apparent absence of the United States in any biblical prophecy of end times, I would think that this might be disturbing to American Christians. Given American pride, I would think that this would be disturbing to all Americans. Or maybe not. Maybe a silenced America is good for America? I can't see it.
Overheard: "Most of Europe wants America to elect Obama."
At work, we recently had a visitor from Europe. Of course, he was fascinated by all the political flurry, so he was discussing politics with some of our people. That's what he said. I found it interesting. My first thought? "Hmmm, so why would Europe want us to elect Obama?" There are possibilities. There are many differences in viewpoints among Americans when it comes to voting, but one thing that almost all Americans have in common when they vote is a central motivation: "What is best for America?" Sure, often it is more correctly, "What will benefit me more?" And obviously we are not in agreement on what is best for America. Still, it is a benefit for America that is in mind. So ... what about Europe? Are they thinking, "Obama will be the best for America"? I thought that would be a bit odd, considering the amount of anti-American sentiment abroad. Rather than guess at the answer, I simply asked him. He told me what I thought would be the answer.
According to this European, most of Europe wants America to elect Senator Obama because it will be to the greatest detriment to America. No, no, that's not quite what he said ... but it was close. Actually he said, "If Obama is president, America will diminish its worldwide influence. America will stop being the massive international presence that it is. Europe wants to do what they want to do without America's input, and they believe that Obama will do that."
This makes sense, given that nearly everyone admits that Senator McCain is the leader in foreign policy expertise. It makes sense given Senator Obama's desire to "talk" rather than act. It is my feeling that if, God forbid, we had another terrorist strike on our soil, we'd get a resounding message from President Obama. "Don't you guys do that again! I'll give you such a severe talking to! Don't think I won't!"
Maybe America thinks that a diminished America would be a good thing. I don't know. I can't actually imagine it. But those outside America would love to see the last superpower go away. Oh, we don't have to fall. No. Just ... be quiet. And given the apparent absence of the United States in any biblical prophecy of end times, I would think that this might be disturbing to American Christians. Given American pride, I would think that this would be disturbing to all Americans. Or maybe not. Maybe a silenced America is good for America? I can't see it.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Synod of Dort
Ever wonder where that whole "Arminianism versus Calvinism" thing came from?
John Calvin died in 1564. Then came Jacobus Arminius. Born in 1560, he became a professor of theology at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands in 1603 until his death in 1609. By his day, Reformed Theology was the theology of the Protestant Church, especially in the Netherlands. Arminius studied under Beza, Calvin's successor, and generally agreed with Calvin's positions. There were, however, a few points with which he disagreed. Primarily, he thought that Predestination and Unconditional Election made God out to be the author of evil. He argued that Election was about believers and was, as such, conditioned on faith (a position that has become known as "Middle Knowledge"). He questioned the Perseverance of the Saints but agreed with Total Depravity. However, he had promised to remain true to the doctrines of the Church and never taught publicly against them. He did, on the other hand, share his concerns privately with some of his students. These followers grew restless and, after his death, filed what is called a "Remonstrance." This was a formal statement of grievances for the Church.
In 1618 the Church called a synod in the city of Dordrecht to address the official grievances of the followers of Arminius. The gathering was known as the Synod of Dort. The Remonstrants listed five points with which they differed with Calvin's theology and the official doctrines of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. Mixed in the fray were governmental issues. The students of Arminius were also concerned about an issue similar to "states' rights" and sought to decentralize the government. Another issue was what is called "anti-confessional humanism," the disagreement with Total Depravity and the certainty of the ultimacy of Man's Free Will. They wanted to eliminate confessions as the rule of the Church and replace it with individualism. This tended to confuse rather than clarify the questions.
The synod met with more than 100 church leaders in attendance from all over Europe and held some 180 sessions to discuss the issues. The Remonstrants were ultimately defeated and expelled from their churches. The resulting Canons of Dort became part of the confessional standards of the Dutch Reformed Church. The affirmation of the five issues that have since become known as "The Five Points of Calvinism" provided a coherent position for the Church. The model of the synod, in fact, was seen so favorably that it was the same model used by the makers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).
Two important points I see in this little historical account. First, the questions were asked and answered. I've been told by more than one person, "If they couldn't solve this in all this time, what makes you think you can figure it out now?" The notion is mistaken in two areas. In the first place, it was solved. The Church met, examined the issues, and came to a conclusion. The fact that some people don't like the conclusion doesn't mean that there is none. The other problem is this: The lack of an "acceptable conclusion" doesn't mean that we should either stop looking for answers or assume there are none.
The second point -- and very important -- is in those who point to the controversy and say, "See? You Christians can't agree!" The truth is that the primary source of this particular conflict was Calvin's Institutes of Religion, a four-volume work on the doctrines of Christianity. There is a massive amount of information in these volumes. To argue "You Christians can't agree" is to completely ignore the vast quantity of agreement. Arminius disagreed with three or four issues. The Remonstrants disagreed with five. Just five. Where else are you going to find a large group of individuals who agree on everything except five points?
The roar of the debate is sometimes loud. The apparent anger from folks on both sides of the issue is sometimes hot. The truth, however, is that, with the exception of fringe folk, both sides agree with the other on most issues, and both sides agree that the other side is likely in the fold, even if the other guys are slightly confused on a couple of areas. So when you go to debate the issues, remember that charity is important, that respect is required, and that there is far more on which you agree than you disagree. It might help to decrease the heat and shed more light.
John Calvin died in 1564. Then came Jacobus Arminius. Born in 1560, he became a professor of theology at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands in 1603 until his death in 1609. By his day, Reformed Theology was the theology of the Protestant Church, especially in the Netherlands. Arminius studied under Beza, Calvin's successor, and generally agreed with Calvin's positions. There were, however, a few points with which he disagreed. Primarily, he thought that Predestination and Unconditional Election made God out to be the author of evil. He argued that Election was about believers and was, as such, conditioned on faith (a position that has become known as "Middle Knowledge"). He questioned the Perseverance of the Saints but agreed with Total Depravity. However, he had promised to remain true to the doctrines of the Church and never taught publicly against them. He did, on the other hand, share his concerns privately with some of his students. These followers grew restless and, after his death, filed what is called a "Remonstrance." This was a formal statement of grievances for the Church.
In 1618 the Church called a synod in the city of Dordrecht to address the official grievances of the followers of Arminius. The gathering was known as the Synod of Dort. The Remonstrants listed five points with which they differed with Calvin's theology and the official doctrines of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. Mixed in the fray were governmental issues. The students of Arminius were also concerned about an issue similar to "states' rights" and sought to decentralize the government. Another issue was what is called "anti-confessional humanism," the disagreement with Total Depravity and the certainty of the ultimacy of Man's Free Will. They wanted to eliminate confessions as the rule of the Church and replace it with individualism. This tended to confuse rather than clarify the questions.
The synod met with more than 100 church leaders in attendance from all over Europe and held some 180 sessions to discuss the issues. The Remonstrants were ultimately defeated and expelled from their churches. The resulting Canons of Dort became part of the confessional standards of the Dutch Reformed Church. The affirmation of the five issues that have since become known as "The Five Points of Calvinism" provided a coherent position for the Church. The model of the synod, in fact, was seen so favorably that it was the same model used by the makers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).
Two important points I see in this little historical account. First, the questions were asked and answered. I've been told by more than one person, "If they couldn't solve this in all this time, what makes you think you can figure it out now?" The notion is mistaken in two areas. In the first place, it was solved. The Church met, examined the issues, and came to a conclusion. The fact that some people don't like the conclusion doesn't mean that there is none. The other problem is this: The lack of an "acceptable conclusion" doesn't mean that we should either stop looking for answers or assume there are none.
The second point -- and very important -- is in those who point to the controversy and say, "See? You Christians can't agree!" The truth is that the primary source of this particular conflict was Calvin's Institutes of Religion, a four-volume work on the doctrines of Christianity. There is a massive amount of information in these volumes. To argue "You Christians can't agree" is to completely ignore the vast quantity of agreement. Arminius disagreed with three or four issues. The Remonstrants disagreed with five. Just five. Where else are you going to find a large group of individuals who agree on everything except five points?
The roar of the debate is sometimes loud. The apparent anger from folks on both sides of the issue is sometimes hot. The truth, however, is that, with the exception of fringe folk, both sides agree with the other on most issues, and both sides agree that the other side is likely in the fold, even if the other guys are slightly confused on a couple of areas. So when you go to debate the issues, remember that charity is important, that respect is required, and that there is far more on which you agree than you disagree. It might help to decrease the heat and shed more light.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
For Good
For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly (1 Peter 2:19).I've had a rough couple of weeks lately, so I'm putting these up for my benefit, likely, more than for yours. Something for me to remember. Oh, and any of you out there who is facing difficulties and hard times, maybe it will be a good reminder for you as well, especially on this day of worship.
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him (James 1:2-5).
And we know that God works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).
In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:6-7).
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Goal
I've heard this far too often: "Why do you Christians feel like you need to force your beliefs onto us?" I can imagine that this is often the feeling an unbeliever gets from us. We're adamant that this is the right thing, certain that Christ is the only way, and positive that our views and values are good for everyone. Now, that sounds arrogant ... and forceful.
Of course, there are two things missing from that perspective. The first is ... what if it's all true? You see, if it is true that human beings are sinners, destined for damnation, in need of a Savior, then we would be remiss in telling them ... all. If godly living makes for better living, it isn't arrogant to say so. If Jesus really is the only way, then saying it is true isn't arrogant ... it's true.
The other missing component is hinted at in the first. If it is true, then we would be remiss in telling them. That is, if the people around us about whom we care are in danger of God's wrath, in what sense would it be kind or loving to ignore it? Anyone who has ever lost a loved one and is fairly confident that they didn't go to heaven when they died can understand what I'm talking about. It's not vindication. It's not "I told you so." It's grief upon grief. There is the personal loss of that loved one compounded by the eternal loss. It is unpleasant ... and that is intended as an extreme understatement. So the primary motivation isn't "We want to hammer you with the truth." The primary motivation is love.
Lest you think I'm just pulling this rabbit out of a hat, you'll find the same thing in Scripture. In Paul's first letter to Timothy, he tells him to stay in Ephesus for a few reasons. One of them is to "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:3). That is, one of his primary purposes in Ephesus was to correct false teaching. Paul is not unclear on the aim of this command:
The goal is not to force our beliefs onto others. The goal is to defend the truth (Jude 1:3) because we care about those around us. Now, it is likely a given that those around us will continue to think of us as "forcing your beliefs on us," but you, Christians, remember that the mark of a true follower of Christ is love. Let that be your primary motivation.
Of course, there are two things missing from that perspective. The first is ... what if it's all true? You see, if it is true that human beings are sinners, destined for damnation, in need of a Savior, then we would be remiss in telling them ... all. If godly living makes for better living, it isn't arrogant to say so. If Jesus really is the only way, then saying it is true isn't arrogant ... it's true.
The other missing component is hinted at in the first. If it is true, then we would be remiss in telling them. That is, if the people around us about whom we care are in danger of God's wrath, in what sense would it be kind or loving to ignore it? Anyone who has ever lost a loved one and is fairly confident that they didn't go to heaven when they died can understand what I'm talking about. It's not vindication. It's not "I told you so." It's grief upon grief. There is the personal loss of that loved one compounded by the eternal loss. It is unpleasant ... and that is intended as an extreme understatement. So the primary motivation isn't "We want to hammer you with the truth." The primary motivation is love.
Lest you think I'm just pulling this rabbit out of a hat, you'll find the same thing in Scripture. In Paul's first letter to Timothy, he tells him to stay in Ephesus for a few reasons. One of them is to "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:3). That is, one of his primary purposes in Ephesus was to correct false teaching. Paul is not unclear on the aim of this command:
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith (1 Tim. 1:5).The purpose for Timothy to correct false doctrine and those who teach it is love. In Galatians 6:1 and James 5:19-20 we are called not to merely correct errors, but to "restore" or "bring back" wandering brothers. It is not for vindication; it is because we care. Indeed, the hallmark of a Christian is love (John 13:35). The fact that it is often not true among Christians is not a contradiction to the veracity of the statement, but an indictment of those calling themselves Christians.
The goal is not to force our beliefs onto others. The goal is to defend the truth (Jude 1:3) because we care about those around us. Now, it is likely a given that those around us will continue to think of us as "forcing your beliefs on us," but you, Christians, remember that the mark of a true follower of Christ is love. Let that be your primary motivation.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Jesus Doeth All Things Well
God has a variety of ways that he dealt with the needs of His people.
Take, for instance, the hemorrhagic woman. All she did was touch the hem of Jesus's garment. Without any apparent conscious effort on His part, she was healed. Then there was the man born blind. He corrected His disciples misconception. "Was he born blind because his parents were sinful or because he was sinful?" "Neither. He was born blind to the glory of God." And He healed the man on the spot. When Elijah needed sustenance, God provided daily food deliveries by birds. When that ran out, He provided just what Elijah, the widow, and her son needed to eat every day. Just enough.
Then there was the feeding of the 5,000. The disciples came to Jesus with a problem. "Send them away. They need to eat and we can't feed them." His remedy? "You feed them." "We can't!" they protested. "What do you have?" He asked. A boy's lunch ... that was all. So He blessed it and handed it to them ... and they had 12 baskets left over.
Most of my life has been the latter. I can't recall an instantaneous healing or a "miraculous" remedy. Instead, it has seemed, all my life, that Jesus has said, "You handle it." And when I've complained, "I can't!", He's simply taken what I had and used it to just get me through ... always, it seems, with a little extra left over.
It's not the most comfortable place to be ... always trying to solve seemingly impossible problems with inadequate means. On the other hand, I know, like the hymnist, that "whate'er befalls me Jesus doeth all things well." I guess I need to keep that in mind a lot.
Take, for instance, the hemorrhagic woman. All she did was touch the hem of Jesus's garment. Without any apparent conscious effort on His part, she was healed. Then there was the man born blind. He corrected His disciples misconception. "Was he born blind because his parents were sinful or because he was sinful?" "Neither. He was born blind to the glory of God." And He healed the man on the spot. When Elijah needed sustenance, God provided daily food deliveries by birds. When that ran out, He provided just what Elijah, the widow, and her son needed to eat every day. Just enough.
Then there was the feeding of the 5,000. The disciples came to Jesus with a problem. "Send them away. They need to eat and we can't feed them." His remedy? "You feed them." "We can't!" they protested. "What do you have?" He asked. A boy's lunch ... that was all. So He blessed it and handed it to them ... and they had 12 baskets left over.
Most of my life has been the latter. I can't recall an instantaneous healing or a "miraculous" remedy. Instead, it has seemed, all my life, that Jesus has said, "You handle it." And when I've complained, "I can't!", He's simply taken what I had and used it to just get me through ... always, it seems, with a little extra left over.
It's not the most comfortable place to be ... always trying to solve seemingly impossible problems with inadequate means. On the other hand, I know, like the hymnist, that "whate'er befalls me Jesus doeth all things well." I guess I need to keep that in mind a lot.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Amending Marriage
More than one state is facing an amendment to marriage. What is really at stake here? First, marriage is on the chopping block. We already allowed the watering down of marriage from "one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation" to be "one man and one woman ... for apparently more or less recreational purposes" or something like it. The next step is "If it is primarily for feeling good, then who cares who is involved?" And if it is purely for good feelings, then clearly there is no need for commitment, for fidelity, for procreation, for any of that. In other words, all essential meaning is stripped from the word. "Marriage" has always meant the union of a man and a woman and, as such, has symbolized any union. It could be two companies that become one. It could be two pieces of a whole that become part of that whole. It could be the union of lyrics and music that make a song. But it has always meant "a union," where two become one. Should the meaning of the term "marriage" now change again to include same-sex "marriage," no meaning of "union" can be included (as all "marriage" becomes naturally soluble -- more so than today). Marriage, then, is at stake when we move from its longstanding and traditional definition of "the union of one man and one woman."
There is more at stake, however. In America, same-sex "marriage" is legal in 3 of 50 states. Of all countries in the world, it is legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain. That's 6 out of approximately 193 recognized countries. In the U.S., then, it's 6%, and in the world it is slightly over 3%. So ... why is it that our national media seems to portray it as "normal," expected, universal, and those of us who are opposed are backwards and out of step? In fact, two very common terms are used among homosexuals to describe the two groups: "straight" and "queer." There is no ambiguity in the terms. "Straight" is normal and "queer" ... is not. Yet those who see it as not normal are viewed as "queer" in some sense. Why? Why is it that liberal groups on the fringes of Christianity and other religions have decided to create a theology that is more inclusive than has existed in Christianity since its beginnings both in Judaism and then in the first century and following? This kind of argument is the same kind of things we're seeing here in Arizona over Proposition 102. Two years ago a proposition was offered to restrict marriage to a man and a woman ... and to eliminate benefits for domestic partners. The measure was barely defeated, and it was never about marriage; it was about benefits for heterosexuals. Now they're arguing "We already voted on this!" No, we didn't. And it's the same kind of argument today. While an extreme minority argue that it's the norm, that extreme minority is represented as a majority and their use of the term "normal" makes it normal. "We've already decided this," they argue. "Why are you so out of step? "Christianity has always been inclusive," they contend. "Why are you trying to change it?"
What, then, is at stake here? Obviously the definition of marriage is at stake. Its longstanding and traditional definition has been edged further and further from the norm and now they're ready to simply boot it out of our moving car and call you who disagree "backwards" and "judgmental" for, you know, having an opinion. Marriage is at stake. But more than marriage, Christianity is at stake. First, the standard sola scriptura view that says that the Bible is our sole source for faith and practice will need to be thrown away because the fringe groups identifying themselves as "Christian" while arguing against any historical Christianity will become the mainstream. Already the media is confused about what Christianity teaches because some who name themselves such teach something different. Your Bible, then, would be basically useless. There is something "new" that replaces it -- our own opinions. Beyond that, those who would still hold to their Bibles as authoritative would be relegated to the outside. We would be "lepers" of old, separated as "unclean." We would be the "fringe," while normal becomes defined by the fringe. It is not inconceivable (because it has been suggested already) that we would even be viewed as dangerous to society.
Some think, "It's no big deal. Let them have their word. It won't affect me." It's a naive position to take. Redefining that which is "queer" as "normal" and that which is "normal" as dangerous is not a small item. Allowing an extreme minority to dictate to the rest of the world what they will and will not be allowed to think is not a small item. Redefining "evil" as "good" and "good" as "evil" is a definite effect. And don't think I'm being alarmist. It is, in fact, the expectation from Scripture (Isa 5:20).
There is more at stake, however. In America, same-sex "marriage" is legal in 3 of 50 states. Of all countries in the world, it is legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain. That's 6 out of approximately 193 recognized countries. In the U.S., then, it's 6%, and in the world it is slightly over 3%. So ... why is it that our national media seems to portray it as "normal," expected, universal, and those of us who are opposed are backwards and out of step? In fact, two very common terms are used among homosexuals to describe the two groups: "straight" and "queer." There is no ambiguity in the terms. "Straight" is normal and "queer" ... is not. Yet those who see it as not normal are viewed as "queer" in some sense. Why? Why is it that liberal groups on the fringes of Christianity and other religions have decided to create a theology that is more inclusive than has existed in Christianity since its beginnings both in Judaism and then in the first century and following? This kind of argument is the same kind of things we're seeing here in Arizona over Proposition 102. Two years ago a proposition was offered to restrict marriage to a man and a woman ... and to eliminate benefits for domestic partners. The measure was barely defeated, and it was never about marriage; it was about benefits for heterosexuals. Now they're arguing "We already voted on this!" No, we didn't. And it's the same kind of argument today. While an extreme minority argue that it's the norm, that extreme minority is represented as a majority and their use of the term "normal" makes it normal. "We've already decided this," they argue. "Why are you so out of step? "Christianity has always been inclusive," they contend. "Why are you trying to change it?"
What, then, is at stake here? Obviously the definition of marriage is at stake. Its longstanding and traditional definition has been edged further and further from the norm and now they're ready to simply boot it out of our moving car and call you who disagree "backwards" and "judgmental" for, you know, having an opinion. Marriage is at stake. But more than marriage, Christianity is at stake. First, the standard sola scriptura view that says that the Bible is our sole source for faith and practice will need to be thrown away because the fringe groups identifying themselves as "Christian" while arguing against any historical Christianity will become the mainstream. Already the media is confused about what Christianity teaches because some who name themselves such teach something different. Your Bible, then, would be basically useless. There is something "new" that replaces it -- our own opinions. Beyond that, those who would still hold to their Bibles as authoritative would be relegated to the outside. We would be "lepers" of old, separated as "unclean." We would be the "fringe," while normal becomes defined by the fringe. It is not inconceivable (because it has been suggested already) that we would even be viewed as dangerous to society.
Some think, "It's no big deal. Let them have their word. It won't affect me." It's a naive position to take. Redefining that which is "queer" as "normal" and that which is "normal" as dangerous is not a small item. Allowing an extreme minority to dictate to the rest of the world what they will and will not be allowed to think is not a small item. Redefining "evil" as "good" and "good" as "evil" is a definite effect. And don't think I'm being alarmist. It is, in fact, the expectation from Scripture (Isa 5:20).
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Purpose of Church
I suppose I have a skewed view on some things. Okay, some would say many things. My mom used to say I am out in left field (well, she included herself in that), but I think it's more like right field. You know, the place that no one hits to. Today's "some things" is about the Church.
So why is it that churches seem to miss this? They seem to be fairly good at gathering congregants, but how about disciples? What makes a person part of a church rather than simply going to church?
Most churches are easy to visit. It's simple to come and go. Especially mega-churches. Who knows if you're there or not? Making people a part of the church is something different. There are, in my view, two primary things that make people part of a church. First, there is the connection of shared labor. Being fed is important -- vital. The primary purpose of Sunday morning service is the preaching of the Word. Milk is necessary at the beginning, but the author of Hebrews expects believers to move on to solid food (Heb 5:12-14). But believers are gifted by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:7) and expected to exercise that gifting in the Body. That's called "ministry." That's not just the job of the minister; it's the job of each believer, and it's the job of the church to give each member the place to function in that gift. The second factor is that of family. The highest hallmark of a Christian is love for one another (John 13:35). We are brothers and sisters in Christ. As such, there ought to be family ties between believers.
You know ... just like the first church:
Imagine that ... a church that 1) is devoted to the Word (the teaching of the Apostles' teaching, 2) fellowship, 3) meeting together constantly, 4) meeting each others' needs, and 5) worshiping together. That's not a church you're likely to leave easily. That's one I'd like to find.
11 And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Eph 4:11-16).This passage is the foundational one that forms my perspective of the purpose and function of the Church. I know, I know, it's not the normal one. The normal one is the idea that the Church exists to make converts. I don't see that here. I understand that evangelism is the command to Christians, but it seems to me that the purpose of church is "to equip the saints for the work of ministry." It is discipleship (Matt 28:19). (Notice that the Great Commission is not to make converts, but to make disciples.) It is fellowship (Heb 10:25). Indeed, Hebrews 10 says something similar to the Ephesians passage.
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Heb 10:23-25).Very similar. The goal here of gathering together is to assist each other in holding fast the confession of our hope, to stir one another to love and good works, to encourage one another. In other words, the goal is to build believers, to equip saints, to make each part work properly in the Body.
So why is it that churches seem to miss this? They seem to be fairly good at gathering congregants, but how about disciples? What makes a person part of a church rather than simply going to church?
Most churches are easy to visit. It's simple to come and go. Especially mega-churches. Who knows if you're there or not? Making people a part of the church is something different. There are, in my view, two primary things that make people part of a church. First, there is the connection of shared labor. Being fed is important -- vital. The primary purpose of Sunday morning service is the preaching of the Word. Milk is necessary at the beginning, but the author of Hebrews expects believers to move on to solid food (Heb 5:12-14). But believers are gifted by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:7) and expected to exercise that gifting in the Body. That's called "ministry." That's not just the job of the minister; it's the job of each believer, and it's the job of the church to give each member the place to function in that gift. The second factor is that of family. The highest hallmark of a Christian is love for one another (John 13:35). We are brothers and sisters in Christ. As such, there ought to be family ties between believers.
You know ... just like the first church:
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved (Acts 2:42-47).(Oh, and note, by the way, who it was that "added to their number day by day." Are you sure that's the primary job of the church?)
Imagine that ... a church that 1) is devoted to the Word (the teaching of the Apostles' teaching, 2) fellowship, 3) meeting together constantly, 4) meeting each others' needs, and 5) worshiping together. That's not a church you're likely to leave easily. That's one I'd like to find.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)