Woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!

You know Tony Campolo, right? Pretty big name, actually. He was the spiritual advisor to President Clinton, an author, a speaker, evangelist, and a well-known "evangelical left". He was the subject of a heresy hearing in 1985 because of some of his assertions in his book, A Reasonable Faith. Because of the book, Campus Crusade for Christ and Youth for Christ cancelled his speaking engagements with them. He was found to be "naive" and "incautious", but not heretical. Now he has come out of the closet, so to speak. He has called for "the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church."

Well, of course, none of it has any biblical backing. I mean, he doesn't offer any explanation as to why, in his "countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil", he decided that the Church has always been wrong on this topic and the Bible does not say what it repeatedly says on the morality of homosexual behavior or the meaning of marriage. So why does he say he changed his mind?

It's interesting, first, why he said he was opposed before. He was always "somewhat ambiguous", he says, and believed that being ambiguous on the question helped him serve as "a bridge person" between homosexuals and Christians. So why change? Well, a key reason is his wife. She always favored same-sex unions and she encouraged him to do the same. Besides, he knows so many nice "gay Christian couples". Well, that should be good enough to convince anyone. Besides, we were always wrong on that whole "keep women out of leadership" issue, weren't we? Why not this one, too?

Campolo ends with, "I hope what I have written here will help my fellow Christians to lovingly welcome all of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters into the Church." I sincerely hope that what he has written won't serve to encourage "the least of these" to fall into temptation, deny Scripture, jettison the Church, or encourage further sin. I'm afraid that's a slim hope.

"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" (Matt 18:5-7)

The Great White Throne Judgment

Did you ever see The Final Cut? It was set in the future where everyone (almost everyone) has memory implants that record everything you ever did. Robin Williams plays a "cutter", someone who goes through those records when you die and makes a "final cut" of your life to give comfort and lasting memories for those who survive you. Of course, given the "uncut" version, with all its hidden sins, perversions, activities, and all, this can be quite a daunting task. In this movie, the person Williams was hired to produce a final cut for a guy who had less than stellar memories to cull through. It wasn't pretty.

The Great White Throne Judgment, as it is commonly called, happens at the end of this existence. It's outlined at the end of the Revelation.

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:11-15)

Now, I was told that Christians wouldn't be there for that judgment. We had a different one to face, but not that one. Why? Well, of course, because those at that judgment would be judged "according to their deeds." And we know that we are not. After having read the account, however, I have to say that I must disagree.

Notice, first, that the attendants were "the dead, the great and the small." Unless believers are not included in "the dead", I have to think we'll be there. But there is more. If you read it, you'll see that the final determination is not deeds, but "the book of life." "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Now, if Christians (those whose names are written in the book of life) are not present, this is a moot point, isn't it? I mean, if this judgment is solely about those who are not in the book of life, why mention it at all? What is the meaning of the "if"? No, I think that we'll be there. And I think that the final determination of our eternal abode is not our deeds, but whether or not our name is written in that book.

I was always told that we wouldn't be there. Christians had their own "judgment seat", where they would be sized up for rewards, not condemnation. You'll find that in 2 Corinthians. There we read, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Cor 5:10) This is an addition to the 1st Corinthians commentary where Paul said, "Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Cor 3:12-15) Well, look at that. As it turns out we will be required to give account of our deeds. In fact, we can "suffer loss" in that judgment, even though we are "saved, yet so as through fire."

I think that there is one judgment. I think that we will be at the Great White Throne Judgment. I think that those whose names are written in the book of life will avoid the lake of fire and those who are not will be thrown in to the lake of fire. I think that we will be rewarded for our deeds done for Christ and lose out on our "good works" that were not done for Christ. Same judgment.

Here's the thing. That Great White Throne Judgment is ... unnerving. Not because I fear damnation. I'm just thinking of all the things that I don't want my mom or my dad or my wife or my boss or my friends or ... a lot of people to know that I've done, that I'm ashamed of. Like The Final Cut, there is stuff I don't ever want known. In fact, the thoughts, the words, the motives, the actions--there is stuff I don't want to know. And all of that will be displayed on that day. Now, sure, my Advocate (1 John 2:1) will assure the court that "It is finished"--paid in full. That's not it. I just don't want to keep amassing those kinds of things that need to be paid for. I can clear my Internet history. I have no way to clear my own. I may have the book of life issue taken care of, but I need to be more careful about what goes in those other books.

No Condemnation

People like John 8--the story of the woman caught in adultery. They like it because Jesus doesn't judge the woman. And neither should we. We should, in the words of the most popular Bible verse of the day, "Judge not."

As it turns out, this isn't quite accurate.

The word, judge, means "to form an opinion or conclusion about." It doesn't necessarily include a sentence phase. It means at its core to discriminate in the sense of telling the difference. The word used in Matt 7:1 is κρίνω--krinō. It means to distinguish. "Condemn", on the other hand, isn't quite the same. It means "to express complete disaproval; to sentence someone to punishment." In John 8:11 the word is κατακρίνω--katakrinō. You can see that it is connected to the Matthew 7 word, but not the same. It means to judge against.

So, which did Jesus do in the John 8 story? They tell me He did neither. I disagree. In John 8:11 He says, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." The question was "Should we stone her?" (John 8:4-6). Stoning would be condemning. Jesus didn't condemn her, didn't sentence her to punishment, didn't judge against her. But He did judge her. He told her, "From now on sin no more." That is, "You have sinned; don't do it anymore."

The world wants us to shut up about sin. They try to point to Jesus for that. It just doesn't work.

It Depends on Where You Start

One of my favorite books of the Bible is Paul's epistle to Rome. In that book we see the most expansive doctrine of "the problem"--Man's sin condition--and the clearest explanation of "the solution"--saved by faith apart from works. We see the beauty of "dead to sin" and the sublime chapter 8, culminating in "God causes all things to work together for good" along with all "good" means in that context. We see the power of the Word (Rom 10) and the mystery of being grafted into Israel (Rom 11). Lots and lots of good stuff. Paul concludes that epistle with four chapters of practical application. At the beginning of chapter 12, he says "therefore", one of the biggest "therefores" in Scripture. That is, "In light of all that I have just said, you should ..." Founded on all that spectacular doctrine, Paul says we ought to act. These last chapters are Paul's practical applications of deep truths.

Early in this accounting of what we should do, Paul says this:

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. (Rom 12:9-13)

This is only the beginning of this terse list, fired like bullet points in response to God's greatness and His grace and mercy. But it's the start of the list, the first things that came to Paul's mind. It included things like "show hospitality" (Do you do that?) and "be patient in tribulation" (Does that mark your life?). Paul urged constant prayer and joyful hope. Like Christ, Paul argued that Christians out to love one another (see John 13:35).

Paul starts this list with the call for genuine love. Then he says this: "Abhor what is evil." Clearly, Paul comes from a different era because today's culture would call that "hate speech". We aren't supposed to "abhor what is evil". We're supposed to embrace it. We call that "tolerance". Hating evil is intolerant and judgmental. Paul disagreed. He sought first for genuine love, and Paul assumed that this would include hating evil and clinging to good.

If you read farther down you'll see Paul says, in this same list of things to do in light of the truth, "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. ... If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." (Rom 12:16-18) Well, now, that's a bit odd, isn't it? Oh, not for Paul, of course, but for our modern sensibilities. Our society would tell us that you cannot hate evil and live in harmony. You cannot--nay, must not--hate evil and "live peaceably with all."

Why is that? Why the disparity in perceptions? Paul says we should both love and hate: love each other and hate evil. Live in harmony, associate with the lowly, be at peace with all people, and hate evil. Our society says it cannot be done and the only way to love is to embrace people for all that they are without seeing anything evil. Why are the two views so divergent? Could it be that Paul is basing his view on the truth of God and our society is ... not?

Why Are You Here?

Today we go to church because ...

Why? Why are you here? For many, it's simply tradition. Lots show up for a good sermon and some singing. It's what we've always done. Or maybe it's something else. A good place to meet like-minded people for the sake of companionship. For some it's even less noble. A chance to show off, to present yourself in a positive light. "Look at me; I'm religious" or "attractive" or whatever.

The Bible says we gather for fellowship (Heb 10:25), to "hold fast the confession of our hope" (Heb 10:23), to "stimulate one another to love and good deeds" (Heb 10:24). We gather to "encourage one another and build up one another." (1 Thess 5:11) We gather to use our spiritual gifts for the edification of the body (1 Cor 14:12). Bigger than all that, "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel." (Heb 12:22-24)

Why are you in church today? Is it for you? Or is it for them and, most of all, for Jesus, "the mediator of a new covenant"? Are you singing a few songs and getting a helpful word, or are you joining with the all the saints to edify the body of Christ and worship the Savior? And if you're not in church today, why not? Which of these reasons is not sufficient to bring you?

All So Confusing

So, now that Bruce is no longer calling himself Bruce, it seems to just get more and more confusing. He made the unfortunate choice to call himself "Caitlyn". Unfortunate because I know a Kaitlyn. She's pregnant. So I asked my wife the other day, "When is Kaitlyn's baby due?" just after the story about Bruce calling himself Caitlyn and my wife was baffled. "He can't have kids!" Well, of course not. I was talking about the female Kaitlyn. Oh, now, see? Confusing. So he's now a she, but doesn't have--never had, never will have, could not have--the ability to bear children. But we're narrow when we suggest that "female" has a biological meaning.

In the story about Bruce/Caitlyn they mentioned several times (because the story was everywhere) about the change from "Bruce Jenner--Olympic athlete" to "Caitlyn Jenner--woman". And, again, I was confused. So, if Bruce Jenner has always been a woman trapped in a man's body, then what was she doing competing in men's sports? Will they require that she surrender her Olympic medals because they were acquired incorrectly? And will she be allowed to compete in women's sports in the future? Because I'm pretty sure that the male body--musculature, genetics, etc.--she inhabits is built different than a woman's body and would make it an unfair competition. All very confusing.

I cannot fathom a world where physical reality is simply determined by how any individual feels. The skeptics tell us we're nutty for putting our faith in what they like to call "the flying spaghetti monster" when we should be trusting to empirical science. And then they conclude that because he (or she) feels like he's a she (or he), it's true. So much for empirical science.

Here, think about it from this direction. Today's society is screaming at us that gender is fluid, that it's not some stupid binary thing, that it is whatever you think it is. My work sent out a questionnaire about diversity in the workplace which included a question of what gender I was. They gave me four choices. Facebook, they tell me, offers 50. So what's the big deal if a person is born in a male body and is actually female? Gender is meaningless. Gender norms are societal. It just doesn't matter! Oh, really? Then why is it necessary for Bruce to alter his body and assume the appearance and mannerisms of a woman? If gender doesn't matter, why bother? Just be. If gender is irrelevant, why is it an issue at all? I would think that, rather than demonstrating the irrelevance of gender, Bruce is proving that gender norms exist and that gender is important. But, hey, that's just me.

I'm telling you, it's all so confusing.

A Lesson from the Duggars

I'm sure you've all heard about the "evil" Duggar family. They're Christians, you see. Evil #1. They have "19 and counting" kids. Evil #2. Worse than Christian, they're on TV and tout conservative Christian values. They sheltered their kids from dangerous worldly influences, required modesty and femininity of their daughters and sexual purity of them all, even explained why their son, Josh, and his wife, Anna, saved their first kiss until they were married. Evil #3. Well, let's see, that's Strike 3, isn't it? You're out!

Of course, that's not how it worked. The Duggars did have their own show and they did remain of interest to people despite their quaint, conservative Christianity and homeschooled family and "backward" values. And then came Josh. Josh, I'm sure you've heard, made the national news when last month the public was told that when he was 14-15 years old he molested five girls, some of whom were his sisters. Well, now we have Evil #4 and the end of the Duggars.

It was unfortunate (read "stupid") that the media decided that a moral failure of this magnitude (and let no one tell you that a teenage boy molesting girls is not a massive moral failure) meant that the Duggars were a failure and their values were meaningless. It was brutal what today's god of truth, social media, opted to say about the Duggars--"stupid", "hypocrites", "justifying evil". But I doubt that anything I would say about it would make a difference to them.

I want to talk to you Christians about this. There is a serious lesson here. The Duggars, from all appearances, are the "real deal". They are sincere believers with biblical values. No one is perfect, and they are the perfect example, but who among us is without sin? If this family is a truly Christian family and if this kind of heinous sin can come out of a truly Christian family actually working hard to prevent it, what does this say about you and your family?

Christians, from a family perspective and from a personal perspective, the problem isn't just "out there". It's "in here". Too many Christian families don't take their responsibilities seriously and they leave their kids open to all sorts of influences from the world while failing to equip them for these evils. Some families are more serious about this. Regardless of which it is, it isn't enough, either in raising kids or in personal holiness. The threat is not merely the world. It is lust. It is pride, It is self.

In Romans 7, Paul describes himself.

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom 7:7-24)

(I know ... "TL/DR". Too much to read. But you can get the gist, right?)

The Apostle Paul describes himself as a "wretched man" who does not do the good he wants to do and does the sin he doesn't want to do. The problem, he says, is "Sin dwells in me." Folks, if you think you're better off than Paul, you're sadly mistaken. If you think you have better strategies than Paul in keeping yourself or your family from sin, you're deluded. As God told Cain, "Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it." (Gen 4:7)

I make no comment here on Josh Duggar, his actions, his responses, or the responses of his family. Not the point. The point is that sin is a problem. It's a problem for Josh, for his family, for you, and for your family. Instead of complacency or mechanisms, Paul commands us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) with the fact that "it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13) behind it. Sin doesn't negate truth. Failing is not hypocrisy. On the other hand, failing to work at holiness, both personal and for your family, is not wise. A lesson we can learn from the Duggars.

Gratitude

We are, as a race, sadly lacking in gratitude. Now, of course, I'm free to make claims like that all I want as long as I get to define the term and you don't, right? So let's see if we can agree on a definition here. The dictionary defines gratitude as "thankfulness". Yes, well, thanks much, dictionary. No, we can do better. It means to be warmly or deeply appreciative of kindness or benefits received. I don't think we would disagree with that. But, then, what does the definition mean? We understand that to be grateful is to be appreciative, but what is that? Well, that would depend on if you're talking economics or personal interaction. The word itself is rooted in the concept of economics--affixing a price. And we use it that way when the house we own goes up in price. It "appreciated". As it turns out, that is the concept of "appreciation" in human interaction as well. It is to apply a greater value to something. In this case, it would be to apply value to kindness or benefits rendered. And now we have arrived at a working version of "gratitude". To recognize the value of something given.

We are, then, as a race, sadly lacking in a the ability to recognize the value of what we are given. Think not? Look at the waste we incur. Look at the difficulty we have in teaching our kids to be grateful. Look at the indictment of God against mankind. "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Rom 1:21) I would say that God believes that we, as a race, sadly lack the ability to recognize the value of God and what He has given.

So, what is our problem? Is it that we have an over-inflated sense of entitlement? "You owed me that, so why should I be grateful?" Is it that our values are off? "I'd be grateful for a Maserati, but not so much for a Honda." Why do we have to teach kids that the things they are given are valuable--appreciated? And is the problem with them the same as the problem with us, only in a adult form? We tend to take the good things we're given for granted. We tend to be ungrateful. Why is that?

(Note: Some people might think this is a simple exercise in thinking things through. Given the opinion of Scripture on the subject, I think it's actually kind of important. See 2 Cor 4:15; Eph 5:3-4; Eph 5:18-20; Phil 4:6; Col 2:6-7; Col 3:17; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:18; 1 Tim 4:4; Heb 12:28; Heb 13:15.)

Wrong Answer

There is little doubt that the influence of (genuine) Christianity is on the decline in America today. We all know that. The Pew Research Center and Washington Post (among others) all affirm this. But we don't need polls to see it; it's right there.

What's the problem? The answer depends on where you're coming from, of course. If you're one who has never been a part of the Christian world or has defected from it, you might say, "We're waking up to the truth." If you're looking at it from the Christian perspective, however, the answer is different. As it happens, however, the answers from the Christian perspective vary also. One Christian deeply involved (and in love with) apologetics says this:

Christian leaders have nothing to say about the issues being debated in the mainstream culture. And once people get involved in the trendy sinful behaviors that are so widespread right now, it’s no wonder they dump Christianity. I’m sure it will surprise no one to say that I think that Christian leaders ought to be focusing more on issues like abortion, marriage, science, economics, foreign policy, climate change, etc. from a Christian perspective – since young people are leaving Christianity precisely on those grounds.

That's the answer. At least from the perspective of one who is sure that we win this by the proper arguments. I'm not at all sure that's the case.

In this view, the answer is in proper arguments and in addressing cultural issues without the Bible (because our culture, the argument goes, is opposed to the Bible). It's not enough to say, "The Bible is opposed to killing the unborn" or "God defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman" or the like. It is useless to tell your culture (or your kids who are leaving the church) "God says sex outside of marriage is a sin." The only possible solution is to explain to them why it's wrong ... and not with God's view in mind.

I consider this an "a-theist" approach. No, not an "I don't believe in God" approach. It's a "not-God" approach. First, God cannot be the issue ... even though He is the Creator, the King of Kings, the Judge of All the Earth, the only One authorized to tell us all what is and is not moral. Step off that platform and you're simply arguing from the same basis that the atheist does ... none. Second, it assumes God is not involved. "We've got to step in and handle this. We've got to say the right things, form the right arguments, produce the correct evidence. We've got to convince people that they're going in the wrong direction!" But the biblical version says that God is intimately, sovereignly, powerfully involved in our world. To a large number of genuine Christians, God is working at best with one hand tied behind His back--the hand that is "Sovereignty"--because He is forced to limit Himself to Man's Sovereign Free Will and Man's form of reasoning.

On the other hand, the Bible describes the problem as a sin problem. They are dead people (Eph 2:1-3), hostile to God (Rom 8:5-8), inclined only to evil (Gen 8:21), blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). It's not a failure of logic or information. It's a heart problem. The answer to that problem is Christ. And the Bible describes people as coming to Christ because the Lord opens their heart (Acts 16:14), because they are "appointed" (Acts 13:48), because they are "His sheep" (John 10:16), because they are given by the Father (John 6:37). Paul wrote, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Rom 10:17) The Bible says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb 4:12) Power for this solution, then, is in God Himself and in His Word.

I think it's clear that the world around us is becoming more hostile to Christ ... you know, like He said was the case. I think that we shouldn't be surprised if serious testing of our faith should occur (1 Peter 4:12). And with these assaults on Christianity and biblical values, I think we should expect that there will be those who go out from us (1 John 2:19) and there will be a decline of Bible-based, God-centered morality. But I'm quite certain it's not because we don't have the right secular arguments in favor of God and opposed to sin. Standing there is an a-theist position, and arguing with anti-theists from an a-theist position seems ludicrous at best. Me? I'd recommend you know your Bible, teach it to your kids, pray, and live it yourself.

What Is Love?

We use the word and no one bats an eye. We deftly distinguish between "I love pizza" and "I love my mother" without a problem. We will use the word to describe sexual relationships and a moment later to describe relationships in which no sex was ever considered. It is heavily but not always sexual in nature these days. Many people refer to "loving another" as a euphemism to "having sex with another" and these days "making love" is exclusively thought of in sexual terms. Ancient Greek had several words for "love" to include the sublime, the love of friends, the familial, and the erotic. The Bible, on the other hand, never mixes sex and love. Any emotion of biblical love is secondary to the choice to do it--to concern oneself with the best interests of the one loved.

But I'm not asking here what the Bible says about love. I have eyes. What I'm wondering is just what our culture thinks it is. Because I think the definition is extremely nebulous ... and perhaps fantastic when brought to light.

Almost everyone will tell you that love is chemistry. That is, it's some undefined mingling of preferences and attractions not even in the conscious mind that draws two people together. Perhaps even literal chemistry, involving hormones and pheromones. (There are the extreme materialists that would argue that love is nothing more than hormones, pheromones, and brain chemistry--pure chemical bonding.) Lust? Maybe a little, but not entirely. Love is caring about another. It is being attracted to another. Love attaches you to another. Dr. John Gray, author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, says that love is a feeling directed toward another that acknowledges their goodness. Many (perhaps unconsciously) see love that way. To be loved is to celebrate all that you are. Leo Buscaglia, AKA "Dr. Love", said, "Love is the ability and willingness to allow those you care for to be what they choose for themselves." The Beatles assured us that "All you need is love" and "Can't buy me love". The opposite of love is hate ... or fear ... or indifference. We're not really sure. More than one person has assured us that "love is all there is", as if that makes some sense.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entire entry on love that includes love as union, love as robust concern, love as valuing, and love as emotion. An entire entry. Love, you see, is complicated.

Perhaps love is like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." These days I'm not at all sure. And yet we use the term without a thought, applying our undefined definitions as readily to "I love my wife" as to "I love God" and even to "God is love". We nod and think warm thoughts and assume we've all been well understood. Somehow I don't think so. That's why I prefer the biblical version. Clearly defined. Carefully described. Unequivocal. On the other hand, it is in such disuse today that I'm not sure I can use that version and still be understood. Looks like it's time for another new word?

Learning from the Experience of Others

When you read through the Old Testament like you might read a book--all in one gulp--you might discover something interesting. People in those days were really stupid. No, really, look at it.

God told Adam not to do ONE THING. Adam did that one thing. God created the universe and put us in charge and we messed it up. God made Adam flawless and Adam produced flaws. Noah miraculously survived a worldwide flood ... and then got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. Abraham had the explicit promise of God that he would have a son ... and then he slept with Hagar (producing the son that became the father of Israel's enemies to this day) and lied repeatedly about his wife because he was scared. Of whom? Moses stood there talking to God in a burning bush and said, "I don't have the mouth to do what you command." Really, Moses? That's the position you want to take in the face of God? God split the Red Sea so Israel could cross on dry land and three days later they were complaining that Moses was bringing them into the wilderness so they could all die.

It's not small. It's not occasional. It's not, after a little while, even funny. Time after time after time people had direct, miraculous, undeniable interaction with the providence of God and time after time they forget, almost in minutes. Sometimes less. Elijah (you know, "super prophet") took on Baal's prophets and beat them in a fire fight (an actual fire fight). The people saw who was God, chased down the prophets of Baal, and killed them. You'd think Elijah would be on a high at this point, but some stupid queen said, "I'm going to kill you," and the next thing we find is Elijah sitting under a bush in the desert moaning, "I should never have been born." Come on, man! You just saw fire from heaven, called down by your little prayer, that consumed rocks. You're worried about Jezebel?? Worse, take Ahab. He asked Jehoshaphat, Judah's king, to go to war with him against their enemies. Jehoshaphat required a word from God. What word did they get? "Ahab, God is planning to kill you." So what did Ahab do? He went to war ... and died. Wow, there's a shocker, eh? Even Solomon, the wisest man ever, had 300 wives and 700 concubines (against God's injunctions against kings having multiple wives) and ended up an idolatrous old fool.

People in the Old Testament were what I would call terminally stupid. That is, their foolishness often got them killed. But, of course, it wasn't limited to the Old. There was Peter who spent some of the closest time with Christ of anybody and was heard to say, "No, Lord", as if that made any sense. Ananias was called on by God Himself to go talk to Saul. His response? "Um, Lord, perhaps you haven't heard how much evil he has done." Like God would smack His forehead and say, "Oh, man, how do I lose touch like this? Thanks for keeping Me up to date, Ananias. Never mind." And so it goes.

Of course, if you're not careful, you may think "It was all them" and miss entirely that we do this kind of stuff ... daily. As it turns out, God is daily providing and intervening and speaking and we are, for the large part, standing around complaining that God isn't doing enough and "Why do bad things have to happen to me?" It seems as if the entire Bible was written with the message, "God is really, really great ... and you need Him really badly." In Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth he writes about the Israelites in the desert and how badly they messed things up (1 Cor 10). He tells how God took care of them and they ended up being "overthrown in the wilderness." Then he says, "Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did." (1 Cor 10:6) Because, you see, we suffer, as a race, from the same stupidity that the Old and New Testament characters did. And, as it turns out, God really is marvelous, and we need Him very badly. Something to remember the next time you (or I) get ready to do something patently foolish.

Comfort

Jesus is coming! It is a repeated theme in Scripture. We believers ought to be excited. Many times we are. Sometimes (perhaps oddly), not so much.

Paul talks in his first epistle to the church in Thessalonica of the end (1 Thess 4:13-18). He tells that those who have died will rise again just as Christ did. He assures us that "the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout" (1 Thess 4:16), and that we will all be "caught up together" to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:17). He concludes, "Therefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thess 4:18)

What sublime comfort! The dead will rise. We will all meet Him in the air. It sounds glorious. But did you know it doesn't all sound glorious? Peter says that in the day of the Lord "the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!" (2 Peter 3:12) There is a reckoning coming in which the dead, great and small, will stand judgment before God's throne (Rev 20:12). "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:15) Sounds a bit drastic. And yet in all this John says, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." (Rev 22:20)

It is my suspicion that all of it is glorious and should be of great comfort to all believers. I think that any hesitation we might have is linked to our love for the world rather than our love for Christ. We can be a bit shocked by the cry of those who gave their lives for Christ in heaven: "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (Rev 6:10) I mean, isn't that a little ... bloodthirsty?

No. It is a longing for consummation, a love of God's justice, a deep desire for a culmination and completion in the presence of the King. It is a recognition that God is always right and an alignment of passions for His glory. An adjustment I suspect we all need to make.

Comfort, then, comes to those who are His to learn that He wins and we get to share in that. Good news!

Flying Things

Every so often I like to put up some pictures I've taken over the years because every so often someone seems to enjoy them.

The first is a B-17 ... flying over the house ... very low. It came from a nearby small airport and is part of the Arizona Commemorative Air Force (previously called the Confederate Air Force). They offer rides. I couldn't cough up the $800 they were asking.

Next up is a butterfly who was part of an amazing "third Spring" we enjoyed last October.

When the saguaros bloom here, they become a feast. I didn't even see the cactus wrens in the picture until I got it off the camera.

This one was taken at Avery Island in Louisiana. They have an area dedicated to wild great egrets.

Two mockingbirds were posing for me, but I was surprised when it turned out that one took flight for the picture. I thought it looked like the kind of thing a bird book would have. 

The bird is a white-winged dove. You wouldn't know it given the pink coloration. It took some digging, but I finally found out that they sometimes tag birds with dye that lasts a year or so, does no harm, and allows them to track the bird for awhile. Certainly bizarre to me.

There. Relatively short, not too controversial, maybe even a little enjoyable. You know, for a change.

Parenting

Have you ever seen the movie, Simon Birch? It's a story about two 12-year-old boys in 1964. Joe is a regular kid except that no one but his mother knows who his father is, and the other is Simon Birch, a diminutive kid not expected to live beyond his first week and, therefore, deemed a miracle. The running theme (among other things) is Joe and Simon trying to figure out who his father is. I won't give it away, but his father was someone he knew, someone peripherally involved, giving occasional instruction or advice, but not really part of his life. And I found it to be an appropriate illustration of many parents today. They are present, to be sure, but only peripherally involved.

Perhaps one of the hardest (and, often, most rewarding) job ever assigned is the job of parenting. So I find it a bit odd that we take the job so lightly. Perhaps it's a side effect of the current failure to grasp marriage as it includes the propagation of the species or perhaps it's due to the ever popular "it's all about me" concept, but we just don't seem to make kids our priority. And when we think we do, it's either too much or too little. It's the "helicopter parent" syndrome or the "I've got to work 80 hours a week to provide for my child" without actually being in your child's life.

The Bible says that fathers are responsible for their children. We are responsible to love our wives (Eph 5:25) and to bring up our children "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). It's our responsibility. So, to that end, I'd like to make some suggestions.

Prioritize
We are often overrun by the tyranny of the urgent. It has to be done now. The truth is that there are many important things that would take precedence over the urgent. We need to set our priorities. "Standard of living" is urgent, but not important. Your own personal pleasure is urgent, but not important. Work isn't everything. "Regard one another as more important than yourselves" (Phil 2:3), and begin at home.

Encourage
We're usually much better at finding fault than encouraging. We are commanded to admonish the unruly, and we parents typically get that, but we're also commanded to encourage the fainthearted (1 Thess 5:14), and a constant stream of "admonish" without "encourage" makes anyone "fainthearted". "Therefore, encourage one another." (2 Thess 5:11) "Encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called 'Today,' so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." (Heb 3:13) Or, as Paul puts it, "Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart." (Col 3:21)

Love
We know we're supposed to love our kids. Do it. Do it when they're good. Do it when they're bad. Do it when you're busy and distracted. Do it when you think there are other things more important or more pressing. Love always, even in the hard times.

Teach
We understand we're supposed to teach our kids. So we send them to school and to Sunday School and ... and we end up handing off our God-given responsibility to others. Teach your kids. Teach always. The command was "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." (Deut 6:6-7) Let's see ... "when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." That leaves ... no other time. Teach with words. Teach by example. Teach by living. Even when you allow others to teach them, be involved.

Live
The singularly biggest effect you will have on your kids will not be your words. It will be your life. Faith is lived. Anyone can tell what you believe by what you do. I remember the lesson from A Christmas Story where Ralphie was helping his father change a flat tire and blurted out, "Oh, fudge!", except, as the narrator tells us, it wasn't "fudge". Ralphie got in trouble for his profanity, but when they asked him where he learned it, he couldn't tell them the truth. He had learned it from his father. Without knowing it, his father had taught him more by example than with words. How you walk demonstrates what you believe. Bible, prayer, everyday morality, compassion, these things are lived more than spoken. You can say all the right things, but when you don't live them you nullify the lessons.

We know about a lot of this stuff. We know we're supposed to bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. We just forget sometimes that we have that assignment, not the Sunday School teacher or the youth group leader. We know that work isn't everything, but it's hard sometimes to tell it from our actions. We know it's important. Clearly we forget. It's clear because the next generation is looking more and more like the world and less and less like disciples of Christ. If we are to make disciples, teaching them to obey all the we have been commanded, it would be a good idea to let it begin at home. There's no time to waste.

Hasten the Day

I was reading in 2 Peter and came across the famous, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) Now, clearly, to insert "human beings" after "all" is a mistake. The context is "you" and is a reference to believers, so the idea that it is God's will for all human beings to come to repentance is violation of the text and a slight on His Sovereignty. However, that is not the point I'm trying to make here.

The context of 2 Peter 3:9 is "the last days" (2 Peter 3:3). In verse 9 he is writing about the return of Christ when he writes about the Lord not being slow. So moving beyond verse 9, we come to this.

Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! (2 Peter 3:11-12)

It's interesting the conclusion Peter comes to. "With a long view of life--the return of Christ in view--and a short view of this world--it will all be burned up--it ought to change how you live." How? "Holy conduct and godliness" for one. Then he says that we ought to be looking for the coming day of God. And we often don't. But it's that last one that caught my eye. We should also be "hastening the coming of the day."

Now, hang on! How is that possible? God will come when God will come. How do we "hasten" it?

The word used means to speed it, but the implication can be to "await eagerly" or "to urge on". We do that, for instance, when we pray, "Thy kingdom come" in the Lord's Prayer. John winds up the Revelation with the prayer, "Come, Lord Jesus." (Rev 22:20) We pray for it. That's the most obvious way. But I can think of another. Go back to verse 9. If God is delaying His return until "all" that He wills have come to a faith, then it would seem to me that our work at reaching people for Christ would be working toward "hastening the day". And isn't that what Jesus said? "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matt 24:14)

What about you? What are you doing to hasten the coming of the day of the Lord? It is, after all, a command.

Perfect Love

Whenever I suggest that we ought to "fear God" I seem to get an argument ... from Christians. What they'll tell me most often is "Perfect love casts out all fear." Oh, yes, and it's even a quote from Scripture, you see, so it's true. If I ask what they understand that to mean, they tell me, "God loves us perfectly, so we have no need to fear Him."

I'm having trouble lining this up. God told Israel, "Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see; who have ears but do not hear. Do you not fear Me? Do you not tremble in My presence?" (Jer 5:21-22) David wrote, "Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord." (Psa 34:11) Solomon wrote, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." (Prov 1:7) Paul, in his lengthy diatribe of the sin condition of Man, included this accusation: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom 3:18) The fear of God is in the Old and New Testaments. It is commanded and is an indictment against Man for failing to do so. Over and over and over. But here we have a verse that tells us that God's perfect love casts out fear and instantly we're able to delete an entire biblical theme. How can that be?

I think it's a mistake. I think we're misunderstanding. Here, let's look at the actual text.

¹⁶ We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. ¹⁷ By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. ¹⁸ There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. ¹⁹ We love, because He first loved us. ²⁰ If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. ²¹ And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also. (1 John 4:16-21)

The text is about perfected love. In what way is love perfected with us? It is done by abiding in Christ. Now, wait. Are we talking here about God's love for us? Is God's love for us perfected by our abiding in Him? Isn't that wrong? Yes, it is. The text isn't talking about God's love for us. It's talking about our love for God. Our love for God is perfected by abiding in Him.

How do we know this? Well, first, God's love is not conditioned on our perfect abiding. Second, notice what else it says. "Fear involves punishment." If this was talking about God's love for us, then we have a biblical contradiction. In Hebrews we read, "The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives." (Heb 12:6) And, look, don't we all know that love does not exclude punishment? This makes no sense if the text is about God's love for us. No, what it's talking about is our love for God. At what point do we no longer need to fear the chastisement of God? That is when we cease to fail to obey. And what is it that causes us to obey? Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Loving God perfectly produces perfect obedience. Perfect obedience means no fear of chastisement.

Does God, then, want us in constant, paralyzing fear? No. It should be there in reasonable amounts. Paul warned us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil 2:12) The idea that is often offered is "reverential awe", but that's a problem today because we have missed the original intent of "awe". In its obsolete form, it meant "fear or dread".  In its archaic form, it meant "the power to inspire fear." That awe. More modern use includes "overwhelming wonder", to be sure, but also "with dread". That awe. It is the rational and real recognition of the peril that comes from violating the Cosmic King's commands. If you're not afraid of that, you aren't sane.

It is true, then. Perfect love casts out fear. That perfect love in view, however, is our love for God. When we arrive at that perfect love, we arrive at the absence of fear. I have not yet arrived. Have you?

I Need a New Word

It just seems like yesterday my wife and I were married. Oh, no, we weren't married yesterday. It is ... let's see ... more than 22 years now. But I'm not talking about weddings. I'm talking about married. Because sometime in the first decade of the 21st century ... we stopped being married.

Now, calm yourself. My wife and I are still together. No divorce. Not even a hiccup. Still happily a couple. But sometime prior to 2008 the ground shifted and the earth opened up and swallowed "marriage". Oh, you and I still use the word. I mean, I still tell people I'm married and all. But the truth is that what I am to my wife that I term "married" is not what the culture at large means when they say "married." If I tell someone I'm married it's like describing what it's like to sit in a fire as "warm".

To be fair, I don't actually know what the term means today. While they went about wrenching it loose from its moorings and setting it adrift in this new direction, they didn't seem to set the sails, to keep the boating metaphor going. I mean, not only is it no longer what it used to mean, but it also seems that no one is able to explain to me what it means now let alone where it's going. They just tell me it doesn't mean what it has meant since time immemorial. And that's obviously true.

So, my wife and I are still ... hitched. We're still a couple. We're still husband and wife, united in one flesh for mutual support and for procreation for life. (Well, to be clear, we've done our procreation part.) I just don't have a word anymore for that thing. They took the perfectly good word I had and didn't bother leaving me a substitute. I wonder what word I can use now when I want to convey my marital status, since "single" is clearly wrong and "married" doesn't convey it properly anymore?

Memorial Day, 2015

What is bravery? Many think that it is the lack of fear. This isn't the case. Bravery is the willingness to face and endure danger. It is fear managed.

Memorial Day is a special day set aside to honor those who gave their lives in defense of our freedom. In this we honor the brave.

It's people like Sgt Dennis Weichel. In March of 2012 he was a Rhode Island National Guarsdman serving in the Laghman Province of Afghanistan. While riding in a convoy, he spotted some Afghan children picking up shell casings on the road. They would sell them to make money. Weichel got out to clear them from the convoy's path and most went, but one young girl ran back for one more shell. Weichel saw that she was in the path of a heavy armored truck. He intervened and succeeded in saving her from being crushed, but was run over himself. His fellow soldiers said that was just the kind of guy he was.

It's people like Major Kenneth Bailey. He served in the Marines in World War II. In September of 1942 he was on Guadalcanal defending the critically important airfield. His battalion was attacked on the right flank, but he held them off even after the main enemy group attacked. Facing superior enemy forces, Bailey rallied the troops in danger of taking flight and, with severe head wound, led his men in hand-to-hand combat to repulse the enemy and hold the field. Major Bailey died in the fight, but his undaunted courage inspired his men to hold out.

It's people like Captain Hilliard Wilbanks. Capt. Wilbanks served in the Air Force in Vietnam in a particularly hazardous role. He was an FAC, a forward air controller flying an unarmed aircraft over enemy locations to ensure accuracy of targeting and safety for nearby friendly troops. On one particular mission Wilbanks discovered a well-concealed and numerically superior hostile force preparing to ambush advancing rangers. Discovered, the Viet Cong attacked and pinned down the rangers. Capt. Wilbanks ignored the fact that his aircraft was unarmed and taking heavy ground fire and flew low over the advancing enemy inflicting casualties with the rifle he carried and fired out the side window. He repeatedly made low passes firing into the enemy until the rangers could withdraw to safety. Mortally wounded and flying a doomed aircraft, he crashed between the two forces and died on while being evacuated, having saved numerous friendly troops facing overwhelming forces.

This day, Memorial Day, is specifically set aside to honor that kind of bravery in people who served in the military and gave their lives on behalf of a grateful nation. Worth remembering.

The Love of God

The hymn, The Love of God, was written by, of all things, a Californian. Frederick M. Lehman was a California businessman that lost everything through business reverses. Surviving by working in a Pasadena packing house, he dwelt on a sermon about the love of God. As he worked, he composed a poem to God's love and when he got home he put it to music. But he had a problem. He only had two verses. Songs were supposed to have three. Then he remembered a poem someone had given him. It had been found written on a prison cell wall 200 years before by a prisoner who died in prison. No one knew who or why. But the contrast of "prison cell" and "the love of God" is striking when you read:

Could we with ink the ocean fill
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill
And every man a scribe by trade,

To write the love of God above
Would drain the ocean dry,
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
Tho' stretched from sky to sky.

It is just one of God's attributes--His love. He defines love. Love is part of everything He does. And while we sometimes get it wrong ("What is love?", "In what sense does God love everyone?", etc.), the truth and majesty of God's love is life-giving to me in times of difficulty as well as joy.

O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints and angel's song.

Reformation

The Reformation of the 16th century was intended not to "reform" the Church as in make it good again, but to "re-form" it as in to make it what it was originally intended to be. It wasn't a move forward; it was a move backward. It looks like America is attempting something similar, at least for children.

If you look at history, children weren't of particular value to most cultures. In biblical times, they were sacrificed to Moloch (2 Kings 17:30-31). God found it disgusting and warned against it, but Israel still picked it up (Ezek 16:20-21; Ezek 20:31) and it cost them dearly. In later times, they were considered chattel. Sell them or use them or do what you want with them. They are property for your use. The original story of Saint Nicholas involved a father who was planning to sell his daughters into slavery because they had no dowry. Abandonment, sexual exploitation, murder, slavery, all this and more was legal, normal, and acceptable in earlier times. Because, you see, children were not considered persons.

All this changed with Christianity. Jesus rebuked His disciples for sending children away and said, instead, "Let the little children come to Me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 19:13-14) Parents weren't to abuse or abandon their children; they were to teach them (Deut 6:7; Eph 6:4) and love them (Titus 2:4). So ingrained is this new view today that we read this and scratch our heads. "You have to command parents to teach and love their kids?" Yes, indeed. This idea is a product not of culture, but of Christianity.

But in 1973 we declared that the unborn children were not persons. They had no rights. Killing them was legal. And despite all efforts to change that, it remains the law of the land today, fiercely defended as a "women's rights" issue. While we stand outraged at the death of a single innocent child outside the womb, universally recognizing their worth and dignity as people, the law holds that only by exiting the womb is that worth and dignity applied. Prior to that, anything goes. We can make them and experiment on them. We can cut them up and throw them away. Our world is outraged that someone might suggest that these children have worth and dignity.

It's a reformation, of sorts. It's a return to pagan times when children were not persons and, therefore, not valuable. We call it "progress" and we have presidents and candidates rejoice in it, declare their intention to defend it, and even declare that religious beliefs must be changed^[1]. That's "reformation" in the very sense that the Reformers meant to reform the Church. It is a return to an earlier time, a re-forming. Unfortunately, it is a re-forming to a pre-Christian time when paganism ruled and children were not people. But in a day and age when Christianity is no longer considered a good thing, it is what we should expect. The real confusing thing is when we hear it coming from people who call themselves "Christian".
________

^[1] Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told the 6th annual Womens in the Word Summit, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."