Why Pray?

When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He prefaced it with this.

"When you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." (Matt 6:7-8)

Most people think of prayer as our efforts to tell Him what we want. Oh, sure, they'll say it is more than that. We also use prayer to praise Him and to express gratitude and to confess sin. All that good stuff. But, by and large, prayer to most of us is our telling God what we want so He can give it. He can give it to us or He can give it to whomever else we're praying for, but it's so He can know what we want for ourselves and others. I suppose, if we're not paying attention too closely, that makes sense. It doesn't quite work biblically since "your Father knows what you need before you ask Him."

Okay, now, hold on. If He knows what we need before we ask, then what is the purpose of prayer? Well, hang on a moment. It gets worse. Paul says, "The Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words." (Rom 8:26) Okay, so God knows what we need before we ask and we don't even know how to pray. So, we might ask again, "What is the purpose of prayer??"

Here's what we do know. We know that prayer is commanded. We are supposed to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). Prayer (all of the Christian life) requires faith (Heb 11:6; Matt 21:22). We are to ask (Matt 7:7) and ask in Jesus's name¹ (John 14:13-14; John 16:23-24). We even know that we are supposed to be persistent in prayer (Luke 18:1-8). But isn't that all telling us the same thing? Isn't that all telling us that prayer is our asking from God what we want so He'll give it to us? And haven't we just determined that He already knows?

The word translated "pray" in the New Testament means essentially "to wish toward". It is, therefore, an expression of wishes or will. In that sense, what we've come to suspect -- prayer is telling God what we want -- is actually true. But only in that sense. We know that God knows all things (1 John 3:20; Psa 147:5; Isa 46:9-10). That would include your requests. So you aren't informing Him of something He doesn't know. It is said that prayer changes things, and I don't dispute it, but one thing that it does not change is God's knowledge or God's will. So, what then? Prayer is our effort to draw near to God (James 4:8). It is our process of communicating with God. It isn't, as in human interactions, a way of informing God, but a way of exposing ourselves to Him. It is our opening up of ourselves to Him. It is our opportunity to express to Him what He already knows but wants to hear from us. That would include our confession of sin, our gratitude for His kindness, our rejoicing in His glory, and, of course, our supplications.

Now, we should also keep in mind that some things prevent us from praying properly. James says that we don't get what we ask for when we pray with selfish motives (James 4:3). That ought to give us pause. Husbands are warned that failing to properly live with our wives with respect and understanding hinders our prayer (1 Peter 3:7). While God judicially forgives our sin, Scripture tells us that harboring sin inhibits our communication with God (Psa 66:18). We are told to resolve conflicts with people before praying (Mark 11:25). And, of course, a lack of faith is a prayer problem. "Whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. (Heb 11:6)

It is my suspicion that we don't pray enough. It is my suspicion that I don't pray enough. (I would think that "pray without ceasing" isn't something that any of us do.) But the fact that God wants us to be in constant communication with Him ought to be something in which we would rejoice. And knowing that "The prayer of a righteous person has great power" (James 5:16) ought to encourage us to pray. There are surely tools and methods that help, but what God is looking for is people who wish to honor Him by opening themselves up to Him. We can do that through prayer. He can use that. Besides, we're commanded to do it. Those should be sufficient reasons to pray.
________

¹ Be careful. That is not a formula. "In Jesus name, Amen" is not some magical incantation that gets you what you want. To ask "in the name of" Christ is to ask for the purposes of and on behalf of Christ. That is, "If this can be done based on Christ's purposes and for Christ's glory, please do it." Agreeing with Christ and His will. It is a position of subservience to Him.

Just Sharing

I've never hidden the fact that I'm convinced, for biblical reasons, that reformed theology is true. (Don't worry. This isn't an argument for reformed theology.) Of course, while many things -- the Trinity, birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, the authority of Scripture, salvation by grace through faith, etc. -- are things that all true Christians agree on, reformed theology isn't one of them.

It's a shame, too. I mean, I'm not really interested in debating the subject. I've offered clear biblical reasons for my conclusions. I've offered reasons why it's important to me, too. But I don't believe that if you don't agree you're not a true Christian, so I'm not willing to do battle over it. But it's a shame because it's so marvelous to me, and I really wish I could share it rather than debate it. I wish this was a place where I could share the wonders of God's Sovereignty (1 Tim 6:15; Psa 115:3; Psa 135:60; Prov 16:9; Prov 19:21) and His irresistible grace (John 6:35-36; Rom 8:29-30), the marvel that He would preserve His own, His choice to save some without something worthwhile in them (Rom 9:11,16), His unilateral regeneration (John 3:3; 1 John 5:1) to new life and the gifts of repentance (2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Phil 1:29), and so much more. I only wish.

There are those who will tell me that I'm not even a Christian with beliefs like these. Others assure me I'm following Man's teaching (and will likely provide a name for the man they have in mind). I've been tricked and confused. And I suppose I'd go along, except that I find it inescapably clear in Scripture, the only line of biblical reasoning that makes sense to me. I didn't pick it up from John Calvin or Augustine or some other teacher. I'm convinced by Scripture. Beyond that, I find the truths of these positions amazing, magnifying God. So I wish I could just share them with others and enjoy them with others. "Isn't this stuff wonderful?" "Yes, yes it is. Oh, did you notice this, too?" I'd love that. Too bad it has to be a conflict. I don't want it to be.

Two-percent Solution

Have you ever noticed how much effort we put into fixing problems without providing solutions?

Consider. Education is a problem. Kids need to be educated, to know how to read and write and do math and to think, to evaluate, even to learn. It's necessary for living. And it seems as if it's not happening. So, our solution? Well, let's 1) remove religion because that gets in the way and 2) give it more money because that will solve it. We'll be sure to obscure learning in the name of learning and then, having eliminated the original values included in school, we'll pick new ones like "diversity" and "tolerance" all while being sure to eliminate their original meanings and intents. So, we've solved the problem, right? Well, no, we haven't. But we're sure working on it. With nothing that actually addresses the problems of education. Plagiarism, bullying, how to evaluate learning, misbehavior, even values to teach -- lots of genuine problems in education that our "solutions" are only making worse.

How about healthcare? That is a big one. Seriously. People who need it can't get it because of "pre-existing conditions" or because of financial problems. Well, now, that is a problem. How do we fix that? Well, we produce a new system whereby people must buy insurance. Wait ... what? Yeah, that sounds weird, so we'll just call it a "tax". And we'll require that insurance companies accept people with pre-existing conditions. Yes, to be sure, that will drive prices up for everyone (which exacerbates the problem, doesn't it?), but it's necessary to solve the problem. And, good news! More people are insured now. I'm pretty sure that it has actually helped a few people who needed help. But I'm equally sure that it has done absolutely nothing for millions of Americans who couldn't afford it before, are now insured, and still can't afford it. Yes, they have insurance. No, they can't use it. The deductibles are too high and they still can't afford to go see a doctor. Problem solved? Well, if you listen to the government, we're well on our way. If you pay attention, we're not even approaching a solution.

Recently we've turned our attention to this major problem, a "gun violence epidemic". Okay, now, I won't debate whether any such thing exists. I won't discuss actual numbers or statistics or ... you know ... reality. Let's just take this "epidemic" at face value and go with it. What is the solution to the "massive illegal use of guns"? That's easy. Make more rules. If they're getting them illegally now, we can stop that by making it illegal. If they're using them illegally now, we can curb that by making it illegal. Repeatedly one side asks, "How will any of these rules solve any of the problems we're seeing?" and the chirping of crickets in response is deafening. But we have the solution! Make it harder to get guns legally, and that will prevent people from obtaining and using guns illegally. Worse, make guns harder to get, and that will make gun violence decrease ... without any apparent impact on violence except, as some studies suggest, to increase it. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't have stricter gun laws. Not the point. The point is that it's not a solution.

Just examples. I'm sure if you spend just a moment looking around and thinking about it (something our educational system no longer equips kids to do) you can find lots of your own examples. You show up at the doctor's office with a flesh-eating virus and he provides the "solution" of a band aid and some pain killers. "Doctor, that's not a solution!" "Why not? Doesn't it feel better?" Yes, yes it does. No, it's not a solution. But you'll be paying a lot for that band aid and pain killer and the visit to the MD. Like we are for all the other non-solutions that make us feel better without solving things.

Forgive Me?

Jesus said,

"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." (Luke 17:3-4)

What does "repent" mean? We can use a dictionary and find out that it means "sincere regret or remorse for one's wrongdoing." Okay, fine, but is that what the Bible means with the term? Not exactly. The Old Testament has a couple of words that can be translated "repent". One (nâcham) means literally "to sigh" and refers to being sorry, but the other (shûb) means more at turning away. The first is a change of mind, so to speak, while the second is a change of direction. (The ESV, for instance, does not translate nâcham as "repent", but as "change of mind".) The New Testament uses exclusively some form of the word μετανοέω -- metanoeō -- which means "to think differently". Biblical repentance requires turning. There is a turn from and a turn to, a turn from evil and a turn to good. Ezekiel records God's words saying, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die?" (That "turn back" is shûb.) Isaiah quotes God as saying, "Cease to do evil, learn to do good." (Isa 1:16-17) That's "turn from evil" and "turn to good". John the Baptist warned the Pharisees that they needed to "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance." (Matt 3:8) He didn't specify what that was, but clearly repentance produces results, changes, an alteration in how the repentant one acts and thinks.

So in the text from Jesus on forgiving a brother (physical or spiritual), He specifies "if he repents". Now, I'm not debating the whole "Do we have to forgive if they don't repent?" question. In fact, Jesus indicates here that you need to forgive if he says "I repent", so I'm not suggesting that we need to withhold forgiveness until there is fruit of repentance or any such thing. Not the point. I'm simply pointing out that "repent" is not merely "I feel badly." It is a genuine change.

All this to get to the problem of asking for forgiveness. I'm speaking here of interpersonal relationships, the ones that Jesus was addressing. I don't know if we really have a handle on how that is done. How many times have you heard something like, "I'm sorry that you felt bad about what I said"? That is not an apology. That's an accusation. "There was no reason to feel bad about what I said; I'm sorry (for you) that you did." The biblical version is confession (James 5:16). Oh, now there's an interesting word. In English the word comes from "con" -- with -- and "fess" -- to speak. That word means to agree with someone else about your error. Indeed, the Greek word means just that -- to agree fully. You see, that version of "ask forgiveness" means that I see it from their eyes and see from their perspective that I was wrong. I agree with them on that point. Asking for forgiveness, then, is not excusing or explaining my behavior, pointing out how it wasn't as bad as they thought, or indicating that they just misunderstood. It uses "I" to indicate the fault and "you" to indicate the wronged person. We so often use "I" to indicate how we weren't nearly as bad, if at all, as they thought and "you" to pass the blame off to them. This version recognizes their perspective and operates from it. "If I did something to upset you" is not the way to start it out. Confess. Agree with them that you caused them discomfort, pain, loss, or whatever. Now, of course, repentance -- a change in mind and action -- may require further steps. You may need to make it right. Remember, biblical repentance is a change of mind that produces a change in behavior. Asking for forgiveness -- confession -- is the start, not the end. Nor does repentance and confession guarantee forgiveness. But that's not the aim.

Basics
- Asking forgiveness is based on repentance, a change of mind and the actions that follow such a change.

- Asking forgiveness begins understanding their perspective. Whether or not you think what you said or did would or should hurt them doesn't matter. If you "sinned against" someone, it is based on their perspective. It is confession, agreeing with the other person.

- Asking forgiveness starts as an admission of guilt. "I take full responsibility." No excuses, passing the blame, explaining why it was their fault, too, or any such dodges. ("I was only kidding" isn't going to solve the problem.)

If you're the one to whom the apology is given, Jesus said to forgive. Indeed, Jesus said, "If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt 6:15) Forgiving others may be hard, but actually repenting and confessing is equally difficult. I suppose it requires, first, the mind of Christ (Phil 2:3-5). But, remember, for the Christian, humility is a virtue (James 4:10; 1 Peter 3:8; 1 Peter 5:6).

Applause

In a Christianity Today article they tell us the "worship wars" are waning. You know, all that disagreement about choirs or praise bands, bulletins or projection equipment, drums or organs. All that silly traditional stuff is on its way out. They mentioned that, while many churches held two services -- one for the "traditional" and the other for the "contemporary" -- that is on its way out, too. You get the new version or nothing. The trend, it seems, is toward more informality and more alignment with the popular culture's music and methods. Also noted, "Increasingly informal worship is part of a movement away from belief and doctrine." (And isn't it strange that the larger the church, the less each member gives?)

Well, I'm not wading into the "worship wars" here. It was something else that struck me, one thing I noticed from the article. "Applause is up 10%." The dictionary defines "applause" as "hand clapping as a demonstration of approval, appreciation, acclamation, or the like." Synonyms include "acclaim" and "praise". So that's "applause". You beat your hands together repeatedly to show approval or praise. And I'm wondering about that ... in church.

Applause in normal use is the expression of approval or praise for someone's performance. They did a good job; you applaud. They said something you liked; you applaud. They had a magnificent performance; you stand and beat your hands together for some time. All well and good. But how does that fit in church? To answer that, the question would need to be "What are you approving?" I've been in a service where someone is baptized, for instance, and when they come out of the water there might be applause. That would say, "I approve of your choice to obey, your opting to identify yourself with Christ's death and resurrection." I can see that. We are commanded to "encourage one another and build one another up" (1 Thess 5:11). But, of course, that is not likely the applause the CT article is referring to. No, that would more likely be applause for the musicians and singers. A special piece performed, a solo sung, that kind of thing. Does that fall under the "encourage one another" command? Maybe. Alas, I'm thinking that it does not.

In any performance there are three basic components. There is the director, the performer, and the audience. The director indicates what happens when -- coordinates things -- while the performers do the performance for the audience. Simple stuff. But in church who occupies those positions? In a Lady Gaga concert, the audience is clear and the performer is clear. And when the audience applauds, it applauds the performer, Lady Gaga. I believe that we've applied the same standard in church today so that the praise band or other performers are the ones on the stage and the audience is the congregation. Except, that misses entirely the purpose of a gathering of believers for worship. In church, then, the actual arrangement of roles should go something more like this. Begin with the audience. Who is the audience in worship? Well, it's not the congregation. It's God. Oh, now, suddenly everything shifts, doesn't it? So if God is the audience, who is the performer and who is the director? If God is the audience, the performer becomes the congregation and the director becomes those who are leading the performance. You can see that this is a shift in perspective from the world's view. And in the case of a concert, for instance, there's nothing wrong with expressing approval for a good performance. But if God is the audience in a church service, then it would just seem really strange for the performers to applaud the directors, wouldn't it?

Now, mind you, I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over applause in church. They do it. I don't. No big deal. What concerns me is not that people applaud for a good performance on the stage at church. What concerns me is that instead of a perspective of focusing our worship on God, we've shifted our attention to performers we like on stage. That is, there is a fundamental shift of focus in churches today of which applause for performers is only a symptom. And when you get down to it, so is all the rest. Choirs are out and bands are in because we like the bands better -- we, the audience. Bulletins are out and modern displays are in because we like the modern stuff better -- we, the audience. Organs are out and drums and electric guitars are in because we like those better -- we, the audience. Pleasing the audience is what's important, and that audience is not God. Applause, organs, and video displays aside, that is my real concern. Have we so merged our worship approach with the world's "entertain me" perspective that God and the truth are no longer our primary concern? The polls suggest that is a real possibility.

Advertisements

Our local Internet provider is coming out with a new, better, faster connection. They call it "Gigablast". And their advertising is ... strange. They show, for instance, a kid who has a whole range of strangely shaped food to serve. And at the end you find it's the kid's imagination. "3D printed food," the kid says, "that's what I'll do with Gigablast." Or a couple of children are romping around the house chasing a holographic pig until the little brother catches it and scores a holographic crown. The older sister says, "Holographic gaming; that's what I'll do with Gigablast." Umm ... people ... I don't know if you realize it, but "faster Internet" is not going to enable you to print food or create games. That requires technology we don't have ... and it's not the lack of speed on your Internet.

Kaley Cuoco, the popular star of Big Bang Theory, does a commercial for the Humane Society for the United States. She leads with, "I joined the Humane Society for the United States because I couldn't stand the thought of one more Canadian seal hunt." Ummm ... Kaley ... you do know that Canada is not the United States, right? I mean, the Humane Society for the United States is not the society that will change Canadian law. You know that ... right?

Along the same lines, there is a heart-rending commercial that tells us that the world is melting and polar bears are drowning. (Let's set aside for the moment the questionable validity of the claim.) Oh, my! That's horrible! What should we do? Sign their petition and you will save the polar bears. What? Really? What is the magic of this petition that merely signing it saves bears? I must know! (Oh, and whatever you do, do not check out what the petition you're signing is calling for. They want to petition the president to charge more for carbon production. Even the global warming scientists will tell you that the biggest problems are China and India and that, if the U.S. was to cease all production of greenhouse gases, the problem would not be solved. But, again, why bother with facts when there is a fake epidemic of drowning polar bears to fix?)

Along similar lines, one of those very sad commercials about starving children shows us pictures of children -- hungry, dying -- who "look into the face of death every day." Oh, that's not good. But, if you will give just $25 a month, you can provide life-giving food to a child who will "never have to look into the face of death again." Oh, now, this really is some remarkable food. They need it there, sure, but we need it here just as much. Feed them this food and they are immortal. Indeed, everyone they see becomes immortal. Really? "Never look into the face of death again"? That is fabulous food. Better even than the water Jesus offered that merely made it so they never thirsted again. And while I understand Jesus's claim, I have a feeling that this food is not real.

It's just an example, but Nutrisystem is ingenious in their advertising. "Lose up to 10 pounds in your first month!" "And a total of up to 5 inches!!" "Guaranteed!!!" Now, let's look at what they really offered. The "guarantee" is that you will lose up to 10 pounds in your first month and 5 inches overall. On the 5 inches, you should know that "overall" means that they measure your waist ... and your arms and your bust and your calves and your thighs and, well, all sorts of places. They're saying 5 inches accumulated from all those places, not 5 inches off your waist. But even with that, what is the claim? You will lose up to 10 pounds and 5 (accumulated) inches and no more. If, for instance, you gained an inch or 3 pounds, you would not have exceeded their claim. The only way you could cash in on their guarantee was if you were to lose 11 pounds or more than 5 inches. Because their claim is the most you can lose, not the expected amount. And that's an inducement to use their product.

Scripture warns of people's tendency to "accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires" (2 Tim 4:3), who are captivated because they are "weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses" (2 Tim 3:6), and "will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths" (2 Tim 4:4), "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7) These advertisements illustrate the claim. Let's not be bothered with reality or reason when the products they offer are so appealing. Save the seals, save the polar bears, save the children, and lose weight. If that was all it cost us, it would be sad. What they're charging is not the only cost. It's only a symptom. Because too many of us are losing sight of truth.

Jesus's Gospel

We hear quite often that Jesus was a nice guy, not some "fire and brimstone" preacher. You know, not like God the Father who scared people nearly to death at Mount Sinai (Exo 20:18-19). And this idea is perfectly defensible if you ignore the Scriptures. The Scriptures in which Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) The Word of God in which we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) The Bible that tells us Jesus's claim, "What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me." (John 12:30) As long as you ignore the fact that Jesus spoke more often of Hell than Heaven, you'll be fine with that.

So it's interesting when we come across Jesus's first message, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15) "Repent," was Jesus's first message. It means to change how you think. It isn't simply "feel bad about your sin". It is in a real sense "turn or burn". The literal meaning of the word here is "to think differently". Now that should make you think. Because apparently we're not thinking right and we need to think differently.

It was the same message of John the Baptist (Matt 3:2). Both men argued that it was time to change their thinking because "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt 3:2). (Note: Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" and Mark and Luke's "kingdom of God" are identical (compare Matt 5:3 and Luke 6:20). Matthew's is circumlocution -- avoiding the use of the word "God" -- as part of his Jewish upbringing.) So, what is this "kingdom"? Many would like to tell us it references the 1,000 year reign of Christ in the future. That is problematic because both John and Jesus said it was "at hand" and "2,000 years and counting" is not "at hand". So this kingdom has to be something that was "at hand". In fact, Jesus said it had already come in His lifetime (Matt 12:28). Daniel referred to this kingdom in Daniel 7:13-14 of which he said, "His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." So this kingdom is not temporary. What is it, then, that is "at hand" that should cause us to change how we think and act?

We know that the kingdom of God is already present (Psa 103:19). So there is a sense in which God's kingdom has always been present. But Jesus said it was "at hand", so this is a different nuance. We know this because we also know that not everyone can be a part of the kingdom of God (John 3:5-7). We know that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) So this "kingdom of God" is God's reign in God's people through God's Son. It refers here to the redeemed, the people of God. And this is where we find the need for repentance. This kingdom is the one available to "the poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3), those who recognize themselves as spiritually destitute and desperately in need of salvation. This condition produces mourning (Matt 5:4), humility (Matt 5:5), and a hunger and thirst for righteousness they don't possess (Matt 5:6). Thus, repentance is necessary.

Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15) What "gospel"? The good news Jesus preached beginning with "Repent!" was the gospel of the kingdom of God. "Unless one is born again," He said, "he cannot see the kingdom of God." Those who are born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9), so one who is born of God and, therefore, part of the kingdom of God falls under a new reign, that of Christ. it is the end of sin as a way of life and the beginning of the lordship of Christ in an individual life. That is a change.

Jesus loved. No doubt. Jesus was kind and gracious. No question. But love and grace cannot ignore the need of sinners for salvation. And Jesus did not ignore that. The gospel was that those who were born of the Spirit would enter the kingdom of God -- eternally. As opposed to the alternative, the Hell that Jesus warned against (Luke 13:3). It's good news when you tell someone who is headed the wrong way to turn around and go the right way. Some people just don't see it that way.

Find the Christian

The CNN headline reads, "Is America ready for a non-Christian president?" Apparently, while we have already had an African-American president and we could very well end up with a Latino or even female president in the very near future, America is not ready for a non-Christian president. Apparently CNN, better equipped than most to know, has determined that every president we've ever had has been a Christian. Oh, well, maybe not. They wonder about Jefferson and Lincoln. Lincoln, you see, never joined a church. Clearly not a Christian. And the author of the piece is concerned. America is not keeping up with the changing fabric of America.

Now, this may shock you, but I'm not so sure Lincoln was a Christian, either. Except ... I'm not sure at all about many of the presidents we've had. Hey, while something like 70% of Americans classify themselves as Christian, I'm not so sure about them, either. You see, in the polls you'll find 1) lots of people call themselves Christians and 2) the vast majority of them say it doesn't make much of a difference in their lives. And that, dear reader, isn't really possible.

Take, as an example, this amazing statement from John's first epistle.

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:9)

That's a big "cannot". It's not a "might not". It's "cannot". In fact, read through the entire epistle. It's full of things that make it abundantly clear that one who is "born of God" has a very clear life change. You cannot be born of God to new life and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit without changing at all. Can't happen.

In terms of American presidents, ask yourself, what did they do that was motivated by their following Christ? That might lead you to question as I do the Christian-ness of many presidents. But my point is not the presidents. My point is us. We tell ourselves we're Christ-followers. We tell ourselves -- 70+% of us do -- that we're Christians. So, does your life reflect that? What do you do that is motivated by your devotion to Christ? Convincing me isn't important, but you might want to be sure of it for your own benefit (2 Peter 1:5-11).

From a Bad Movie

I'm sure you've seen the scene repeated over and over in different movies. The bad guy has someone important in their power -- a loved one, a president, an innocent victim, whatever -- with the threat of deadly violence to them if the good guy doesn't drop his own carefully aimed, tightly held weapon. And how many times have we yelled at the screen, "Don't do it!"? Why? Because disarming yourself in the face of evil is stupid.

But, that's Hollywood. That's writers. I mean, it's fiction. Except it's not. Not when it comes to Christians in today's world.

These days they will be threatening something precious -- marriage, religious freedom, biblical truth, clear morality -- and tell us to put down our weapons. Put down your prayers. Put down your Scripture. Drop your religion. Throw aside your "flying spaghetti monster". And Someone is screaming, "Don't do it!" And a lot of us do it anyway.

"Well," the "wise" of this world will tell you, "you can't expect an unbeliever to accept your arguments based on Scripture when they deny Scripture." Except that Scripture says, "The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12) and "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17) and "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matt 4:4) and "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Rom 10:17).

"Don't pray!" the skeptic scorns. "Do!" Except that the Word of God says, "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17), "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God" (Phil 4:6), and "The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." (James 5:16).

"Where is your God now?" they taunt. "You're going to have to deal with us on our terms." Except the Word says that God is "the only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim 6:15) and assures us "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31).

Look, it makes perfect sense in the minds of writers of fiction that the good guy should set aside the only thing that is keeping the evil one from harming others and killing our protagonist. Perfect sense. Except it's nonsense. And when we agree to it in this spiritual warfare in which we're engaged, we're fools. And when the father of lies says, "If you drop your weapons no one will get hurt," please know that he's lying. As for me, I intend to keep my arsenal.

Where Do We Start?

It can be an almost knee jerk reaction among Christians when bad things happen. AIDS? It is God's judgment on the homosexual. Hurricane Katrina? That was God's judgment on the Gulf coast for their burgeoning gambling and increasing embrace of homosexuality, and their drug and alcohol trade. (Seriously, folks, I don't make this stuff up. Someone actually made the claim.) Then there was the 9/11 attack and the subsequent Benghazi attack. Judgment from God on America. Like some who came to Christ with a similar question.

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:1-5)

Clearly Jesus is saying that such events do not mark out God's judgment on the worst of sinners. As in the case of the man born blind (John 9:1-5), we don't know the reason for unpleasant events. We do know that we can't always assume it is God's judgment.

Notice Jesus's response to those who thought such things. "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Perhaps, then, we ought to ... you know, as followers of Christ ... do what He says. He said, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:5) Maybe we ought to examine ourselves first.

Of course, the root problem has always been present. "I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members." (Rom 7:22-23) As believers, made alive and indwelt by the Spirit, we don't want to sin, but we do. The danger is that we can end up searing our consciences (1 Tim 4:2) and become unaware of the magnitude of the problem.

So how did America, what we used to consider a "Christian nation", end up a hotbed for sexual immorality and licentiousness? Well, we're considering our own contributions here, so let's see what we can find. With the basic problem of the sin nature, American Christians have suffered from a long string of what is known as syncretism. Syncretism is the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, especially in philosophy or religion. Or, to put it in biblical terms, in the name of "reaching the world for Christ", we have often opted to love the world or the things in the world (1 John 2:15).

So when the world offered up a method whereby we could engage in sex without the problem of children (yes, we have often thought of children as a "problem") by the use of contraception, well, we embraced it. Today, suggesting otherwise is considered ludicrous. So we happily split sexual relations and reproduction and made sex into a pleasure source rather than the union of two people. Children became an option, not an expectation, let alone a blessing. We -- even we Christians -- were redefining "family".

The world taught us, "If it feels good, do it", and we have. Why not? What's wrong with pleasure? So while the world was packing on the "It's all about me" mentality, we tagged along. The notion of the "two-income family" was originally abhorrent, a "necessary evil", until we made it expected, then glorious. Today a "stay-at-home mom" is pitied or belittled. Why? Because "It's all about me" and she can't possibly be fulfilled if she is forced to stay at home with kids and housework. But, hey, how can we "give our kids a better living standard" if both of us don't work? As if "a better living standard" is somehow Christian.

We let the world split marriage. On one hand, "no-fault divorce" became acceptable. On the other, we -- we Christians -- bought the cohabitation argument. "It would be unwise to marry someone you've never lived with." So people calling themselves Christians today consider it no serious issue to live together without marriage and believe it to be wise, right in line with the world around them even if it is in direct opposition to God's Word.

Once we redefined sex as recreation rather than union and pleasure as a viable aim, sexual immorality came home to roost in the church. Pornography is not a problem the church does not encounter. It's a problem that reaches to every corner of the Christian realm. Many of us don't see it as sin. "Hey, I'm not actually having sex with any of them." Or so we tell ourselves. So if the guys at work are happy to share their latest porn discoveries (It used to be a shame to do that.), why not participate? And we so far obscure the purpose and meaning of sex from God's stated purposes that when someone trots it out to see, we consider it a foreign language or something.

Our list of failures is not short, fellow believers. We've seen in our world the decline of personal integrity. Consider, for instance, the vast numbers of complicated methods and tools put into place to protect your identity and bank account alone. That is not because of the prevalence of "basically good" people. It's because of the ubiquity of people without integrity. But, from a time when "a Christian business" used to be viewed as a reasonably good assurance of a business with integrity, we've arrived at the place where many people are skeptical if it declares itself a Christian business because they are not likely to be reliable.

Some Christians have used biblical texts to argue in favor of parental and spousal abuse. As if that makes any sense at all. But that's in our laps, too. We've turned Christianity into our own self-centered pleasure palace, finding ways in the church to focus on income, career, self-fulfillment, personal, momentary excitement and pleasure, a "What can I get out of it?" mindset, and the always-present "If it feels good, do it." Do you doubt it? Try asking the worship team why they play the songs they play rather than other traditional ones. I think you'll find that their primary reason is because their songs "feel better".

Worst of all, we seem to have taken our eyes off the ball. We appear to have missed the point. The prize is Christ. Not more people in the seats at church or more money in our wallets or more pleasure in life. Not a better marriage or sex life or social standing. We've been looking for something else, something better. When our churches are spending thousands on missions and millions (billions?) on church buildings, there's a problem. You know, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:34) So we Christians campaign against the spread of Islam in America or the "gay agenda" or the evils in our schools and cities when what we ought to be doing is 1) living Christ (Matt 5:16) and 2) sharing Christ (Mark 16:15). Instead of investing in stuff -- our personal pleasures and preferences -- we ought to be investing in people. You know, making disciples (Matt 28:19-20) and building one another up (Rom 15:2; Eph 4:11-16).

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we do indeed face difficult times in America. Sin is not only rampant, but embraced, encouraged, and appreciated. That's a problem. But our problem is us. We need to remember Jesus's words. "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Oh, maybe not eternally, but it's not like we're not deserving of the temporal judgment God might give to a society that we have helped to embrace sin in a grand scale. I don't believe that 2 Chron 7:14 -- "[If] My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land." -- is a promise from God for American Christians. On the other hand, I think we can be absolutely certain that any of God's people who are not humbling themselves, praying, seeking His face and turning from their wicked ways ought to do just that. Let there be repentance on earth and let it begin with me.

The Harsher Jesus

Here's one for you, folks. Did you know that Jesus only spoke harshly to the conservative fundamentalists of His day? To everyone else He was ... nice. Or that's what they tell me.

Now, of course, it's easy to come to that conclusion ... as long as you don't bother reading in the Bible about what Jesus actually did. I mean, as long as the "Jesus" you have in mind is that smiling one or, better, the laughing one or, wait, even better, the "thumbs up" one, I'm sure that image will hold up fine. The biblical image isn't quite like that.

Jesus often spoke harshly against hypocrites. You know what a hypocrite is, right? No, wait ... I suspect you may not. A lot of people think of a hypocrite as someone who speaks of the wrongs that others do but does them himself. When a parent tells a child, "Don't do that" and the child says, "Did you do it when you were young?" and the parent says, "Yes", folks, we have a hypocrite. Except, that's not a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person that claims righteousness he or she doesn't possess. They hold others to a standard they don't hold for themselves. And Jesus spoke harshly against those.

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:5)

You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matt 15:7-9)

And, of course, the Pharisees and Sadducees were hypocrites. There are a lot of harsh words for their hypocrisy. But it is not for their conservative views or "fundamentalism". On that Jesus said, "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:20) Do you see what He's saying? "These guys are standing before you with the highest righteousness available. You'll need to exceed that." How far? "You must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48) He said of them, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." (Matt 23:23) Yes, they're hypocrites. Yes, they missed justice and mercy and faithfulness. But they were faithful to tithe mint, dill, and cumin! "These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." He said of them, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." (John 5:39-40) That is, they were right to search the Scriptures. Their failure was that they didn't come to Christ.

Now, clearly Jesus had harsh words for hypocrites and especially for hypocritical religious leaders. But don't think He reserved it all for them. It wasn't the Pharisees whom He chased out of the Temple twice with a whip (John 2:14-17; Matt 21:12-13); it was money changers. And His first message to the world was not "neither do I condemn you", but "Repent" (Matt 4:17). Some people (not Pharisees) came to Him with a troubling question. What were they to make of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices? Jesus didn't offer comforting words. His response was, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3) Whoa, Jesus, that's not very nice. Perhaps some of His harshest words were against those who mislead His people. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42) Harsh, Jesus, really harsh.

Did Jesus speak harshly to the Pharisees? Yes, yes He did indeed. For their conservative religious views? Absolutely not. It was their hypocrisy that He spoke against. It was their "white-washed tomb" status, the "clean on the outside but dirty on the inside" persona. He didn't avoid the fact that the woman at the well was an adulteress (John 4:16-18) and He made sure to tell the woman "caught in adultery" to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). He didn't comfort the rich young ruler who sought eternal life, but held him to the highest standard (Matt 19:21-22). Jesus told His disciples, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6) I mean, that's pretty exclusive, pretty harsh, not inclusive or tolerant. And that was to His disciples. So, yes, He had harsh words for hypocrites, and many of the religious leaders of His day were just such hypocrites. But you, dear reader, be careful. Don't buy that nonsense line that "Jesus only spoke harshly to the conservative fundamentalists of His day." Because that isn't a mistaken idea; that is a lie.

You Planned This?

When I was a kid, Fritos had their own mascot. He was called the Frito Bandito. Some of their commercials included the bandito trying to break in to steal fritos. He and his sidekick would go through various gyrations to end up losing, beaten to a pulp, and lying in a heap. At the end of one of them, the Frito Bandito says, "That didn't go like I planned it." His sidekick asks, "You planned this?" Sometimes we want to ask God that question.

The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps. (Prov 16:9)

If we examine Scripture, however, it appears that God plans it all.

Many plans are in a man's heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand. (Prov 19:21)

There isn't a day of your life that was not previously ordained.

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa 139:16)

The Bible is clear that God accomplishes what He intends to accomplish.

"I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted." (Job 42:2)

And we can be quite certain that it's good.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Rom 8:28)

We have a tendency to think that if we're good little Christians, everything will work out fine. And we try. And often they don't. And we ask -- maybe not consciously, but we ask -- "You planned this?" Think of Jesus who asked, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me" (Matt 26:39) and it didn't. Think of Paul who begged to have a thorn in his side removed (2 Cor 12:8) and it wasn't. Lots of people believed without seeing the promise (Heb 11:13). And we want to ask, "You planned this?"

And He will answer, "Yes, yes, I did. And it came off exactly as I planned ... and it was good."

I need to know that. As we face ridiculous political choices and seemingly insurmountable race conditions and growing immorality and rising anti-Christian sentiments and ... well, you know what I'm talking about ... as we face these things, we need to know that He has the will and the power to accomplish exactly what He intends, even when so many pains and questions and crises loom, to accomplish it completely, and to accomplish good.

Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You. (Jer 32:17)

The Rebuke

I saw a movie recently about the power of prayer. Good stuff, really. Well, I mean, that prayer is powerful. And it's a good idea to 1) know your enemy (Hint: it's not that other political party, whichever that might be, or those rotten gay folk, or the liberal media or ...) and 2) plan to pray. I'm not entirely sure about a literal prayer closet, but, hey, if it works, who am I to say? I mean, if it gets you to talk to God, I'm all for it.

There was a scene, however, that baffled me. Not because it was in the movie, but because I've heard it before and really can't figure out the concept. The character in the movie went around the house and rebuked Satan. The idea was that he was there and could be kicked out of the house by telling him so. Oh, I don't mean to oversimplify. The power of God and all. But I can't figure out where this "I rebuke you, Satan" tactic comes from. Certainly not Scripture.

We know, from Scripture, that Satan is a fallen angel. In fact, the prime angel. Thus, he is a created being. Apparently a lot of Christians believe that this being is omnipresent. Why? But they're rebuking him in Cincinnati and rebuking him in Orlando and rebuking him in Arkansas. (I think he's more welcome in some places than others, though. For instance, I'm not at all sure anyone's rebuking him in Washington D.C.) I mean, the Bible is abundantly clear that he is dangerous. I don't mean to minimize that. But as a created being, he is not omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent. In fact, Jesus said all authority was granted to Him (Matt 28:18), so that kind of lowers Satan's authority a bit, doesn't it? And we do know that demons followed Jesus's commands when He was on earth. So it would seem to be the case that Satan is not the ultimate authority or power.

But this whole rebuking thing ... where does that come from? We are commanded to resist Him (James 4:7) after submitting to God. And we are told that we are at war with him (Eph 6:12), but that requires armor (Eph 6:13-17), not a rebuke. We're supposed to be on our guard (1 Peter 5:8). There is this interesting statement in 1 John where he writes, "We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." (1 John 5:18) That makes it sound like our protection from the evil one is God, not a well-placed rebuke.

Besides a few references to Jesus rebuking Satan, there is one other reference with the phrase in it. Jude writes, "Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" (Jude 1:9) So even Michael is unwilling to rebuke Satan, but leaves that to the Lord.

I get it. I do. Things can look really bleak. We need help and we recognize it. We do have an enemy in Satan and his demons. And we want some sense of control. We want things to change and we want them to change now. But when we assume we have the control that we have never been given, I wonder about the wisdom of assuming that position. When the archangel was unwilling to do it, perhaps you and I ought to reconsider the notion of rebuking Satan ourselves. Oh, maybe you're closer to God than I am (or Michael, apparently), and you know when and how to do it. I think I'll just go in my prayer closet, submit to God, resist the devil, and see if he doesn't flee. Oh, and Scripture. That appeared to be a favorite method of Christ (Matt 4:1-11). That will be my strategy.

Resolution

Here's a New Year's resolution for you.

I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Phil 3:8-11)

Now, mind you, that may not be the most comfortable resolution. I mean, "lose weight" or "be kinder" or "get a better job" are all well and good, but "to know the fellowship of His sufferings"? Not comfortable. And that is accomplished by "being conformed to His death." Not comfortable at all.

The question, then, is this. Do you see knowing Christ Jesus as something of surpassing value? Paul said he counted all things as loss compared to the value of knowing Christ. For him that included heritage, zeal, even moral excellence. I suspect we more often value stuff or power or people or the like. Do you see knowing Christ Jesus as more valuable than all that?

Today is my 23rd anniversary. I highly value my wife. I highly value my children. I need to value knowing Christ more than I value them, than I value anything or anyone else. That begins with being conformed to His death. Good New Year's resolution.

Year in Review - 2015

So 2015 is coming to an end. Often a good time to review and reflect.

First, the blog. According to the statistics, in the approximately 3,480 days I've been doing this, I've posted 3566 articles and had 407,000 pages read since they started counting in 2010. As for what people are reading, still at the top of the list ... Hard Sayings - "Sell all your possessions". Including 142 comments. You can guess why, I'm sure. It would be a difficult one that any sincere Christian might want to research and a good "gotcha" for any skeptic to use. Oddly enough, The History of the Choir is still at #2 of all time. I have no idea why. There can't be that many students of choirs. Of interest of late is Gender Complementarity. Since our culture no longer believes in that, I guess that might be of interest to some.

I also find it odd to find my source of audience. Oh, well, of course, the primary source is no surprise. That would be the United States. But coming in at #2 is Russia, and that is over twice the #3, Ukraine. Seriously? The former Soviet Union is my second best source of readers? Very strange. It's actually kind of cool.

Readership is down of late. I don't take it personally. Part of it, I suppose, is that I don't allow the singularly most controversial voice to comment anymore. His mere presence artificially inflated the numbers. But more to the point, I think, is the fact that I've said most of it before and, anyway, people lose interest after awhile. It's the nature of the human being.

But what about the year? Well, we've seen a "gun violence epidemic" which is defined as "the news media showing every possible gun violence they can find, at least when it fits their paradigm". (Statistically, gun violence in America has been dropping since its peak in the mid-1990's, but let's not bother with statistics, right? We know what is true; the media tells us so.) We have a refugee crisis. It's a crisis because on one hand several very bad groups are making a mess of things and on the other hand some of those very bad groups may be hiding among the refugees waiting to infiltrate. What's a body to do? We have demonstrated our national insanity this year by both eliminating marriage as a viable entity in favor of something that is not marriage (not even those who favor the redefinition of marriage to include people of the same gender deny that this is a redefinition) and then embracing as "heroic" the absolute lunacy of "gender confusion" (simple science will tell you what gender these people are). We have the whole "black lives matter" thing going on where, although it is awful that some police officers act in a racist manner, it has become a sham because the only black lives that matter to this movement are the ones they choose. None of them, for instance, are campaigning against the vast numbers of black children murdered in the womb -- far more than any other race. I don't see any marches attempting to stem the black-on-black murders that predominate murders in the black community. Those lives don't matter. Just the ones that do. Oh, and there's the whole exploration of Mars and Pluto going on which, on one hand, sounds really important and, on the other, seems really ludicrous. I mean, do we really need to know if there was water on Mars when we can't figure out how to stop ISIS or figure out what to do about those refugees, for instance? To me, Pluto pales in comparison.

So as 2015 slips off the last page of the calendar and we turn over to a new year, I find, once again, the absolute need to trust in a Sovereign God. Because, frankly, I'm pretty sure Obama, Putin, Hillary, or Trump will be unlikely to produce answers to the real problems we face. But God does. Starting with the Gospel. I should tell someone about that.

Preach the Word

Fresh off of being told we Christians need to show more grace, I came across this.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. (2 Tim 4:1-2)

Now, of course, if the Bible is not a book about God's will for our lives, then this has nothing to say. I, of course, operate from the premise that it is. And here Paul is instructing Timothy to show more grace in his speech. No ... wait ... that's not what he says at all. With God as his witness, he charges Timothy to "preach the word." What word? Well, the unfortunate chapter break between 2 Timothy 3 and 4 might obscure that. What word?

In the previous chapter Paul was warning that difficult times were coming (2 Tim 3:1). Rampant sin (2 Tim 3:2-4), false teachers (2 Tim 3:5-6), those who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7) Sounds a lot like our day. In contrast, then, Paul tells Timothy, "You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them." (2 Tim 3:14) What word? "the things you have learned and become convinced of." But wait! There's more. It is right here that Paul tells Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17) That word. The Word of God, Scripture, as he learned it, not like those who are always learning and never coming to the knowledge of truth.

And how is he to "preach the word"? He is to "be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." Now, I have to tell you, that does not sound like a command for Timothy to be more gracious. Reprove, rebuke, exhort, and do it with great patience (keep it up).

Why? Why is Paul telling Timothy this? He says why in the next verses. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths¹." (2 Tim 4:3-4) Why preach the word ... that word learned from Paul and from his grandmother? Why reprove, rebuke, exhort, and all with great patience? What's the big deal? Because they're not going to like it. Isn't it interesting that Paul does not say they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own line of thinking? No, it's not about reason, Scripture, logic, unity ... any of those things you might think. It's desires. "Tell me what I want to hear so I can do what I want to do." Well, now, that's a little odd, isn't it? Because that sounds like "gracious speech". And Paul considers that a bad thing.

We are the keepers of the good news. This is true. But good news is not good until it is contrasted with the bad news. No one wants bad news. So in order to express the grace of God in sending His Son to save us, we need to tell people the bad news. We need to preach the word -- the word as it has always been understood and taught, the Scriptures as God-breathed -- in season and out of season, with much patience as we reprove, rebuke, and exhort. Not because they'll like it; because they won't. But we still need to do it. Because we're commanded to. Because they need it. Because God can use it.
________

¹ Isn't it interesting that Paul says they'll "turn aside to myths"? Sure, that means that they buy into lies and myths (like Secular Humanism and ...). But it's interesting because a lot of them have decided that the Bible is littered with myths. That is, they are self-consciously turning in their Bibles to myths.

Zing!

Remember the TV series, The West Wing? Maybe not. It aired from 1999 to 2006. It featured Martin Sheen as President Josiah Bartlet, a left-wing Democrat. There is a famous episode where President Bartlet lets loose on a visitor, a Dr. Jenna Jacobs, played by Claire Yarlett, who is playing a conservative talk show imitation of Dr. Laura Schlesinger. He singles her out in the crowd and asks her about her position that homosexuality is an abomination.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you are here. I am interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police? Here’s one that is really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions would you?

Zing! Well, he sure put her in her place, didn't he?

Now, as it turns out, Dr. Jacobs has no comeback and Hollywood wins the day, and that's because this is what the writers wanted. And because the president was so pithy and so effective, lots of people have used those very same arguments ... you know, as if they made sense. No one asked the president, "So, you're opposed to Old Testament laws. If you're against Leviticus 18:22, I suppose then that you're in favor of adultery (Lev 18:20), incest (Lev 18:6-17), bestiality (Lev 18:23), and sacrificing babies (Lev 18:21)? I mean, well, you're in favor of sacrificing babies to the god of convenience and you're opposed to Old Testament laws, so I just figured you'd want to be consistent." No one asked, "Excuse me, Mr. President, why do you assume that 'homosexuality' and homosexual actions are the same thing?" or "If you assume that planting mixed seed (Lev 19:19) is punishable by death, do you also assume that tripping a blind man (Lev 19:14), slander (Lev 19:16), or bearing a grudge (Lev 19:18) are equally worthy of capital punishment (since nothing in the text calls for it)?" Most conveniently, not one single person mentioned, "But, Mr. President, it was Paul who wrote 'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.' (1 Cor 6:9-10)." In other words, Mr. President, your serious misrepresentation of Scripture doesn't make your case.

Still, to lots of anti-Christian, anti-Bible folk, President Bartlet was brilliant.

Not to be outdone, The Big Bang Theory is a show that has been popular for some time. The primary personality is Sheldon Cooper, a character both brilliant and foolish. He earned his PhD at the age of 16, but can't seem to figure out the basics of normal human interaction. In one of their Christmas episodes, we were treated to this exchange.

Penny: Hey Sheldon, are you and Leonard putting up a Christmas tree?
Sheldon Cooper: No, because we don't celebrate the ancient pagan festival of Saturnalia.
Penny: Saturnalia?
Howard Wolowitz: Gather round, kids, it's time for Sheldon's beloved Christmas special.
Sheldon Cooper: In the pre-Christian era, as the winter solstice approached and the plants died, pagans brought evergreen boughs into their homes as an act of sympathetic magic, intended to guard the life essences of the plants until spring. This custom was later appropriated by Northern Europeans and eventually it becomes the so-called Christmas tree.

Well, now, hey, if Sheldon said it, it must be true, right? I mean, he is smarter than anyone else, right?

Except that he's not. For instance, the Biblical Archaeological Society suggests that the celebration of Christmas on December 25 does not have its origins in Saturnalia. Indeed, early church fathers complained that Saturnalia was stealing from Christmas, not vice versa. (Note the feast of the birth of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, was not established until 274 A.D by the Roman emperor Aurelian.) The custom of the Christmas tree was not from notions of "sympathetic magic" in the pre-Christian era, but from 16th century Germany. One story is told of a missionary by the name of Boniface who, preaching the gospel to the Germanic people who worshiped trees, chopped down a sacred oak tree to demonstrate that their worship of the tree was false. The oak fell on a pine sapling which bent under the load, then sprang back to life. He called the tree the "Christ tree" because it symbolized Christ's supremacy over false gods. There was an ancient custom of a Yule tree as described by Sheldon, but there is no evidence of any connection between the Yule tree and the Christmas tree. So while Sheldon's rant sounds wise and demolishes Christmas, it's actually not factually correct.

Still, to lots of anti-Christian, anti-Bible folk, Sheldon Cooper was brilliant.

Look, I'm not surprised that people buy this stuff wholesale without even examining it. Sin rots the brain (Rom 1:28). The default condition of the unbeliever is hostility toward God (Rom 8:7). In fact, we all like to hear things that support our position. So this isn't really about anti-Christian, anti-Bible folk, homosexual behavior, or Christmas. It's about you and me. You see, we are equally susceptible to this "They said what I wanted to hear" kind of thinking. I know people who latched onto the whole "NASA found Joshua's Missing Day" story as if this proved the Bible. It didn't. It wasn't even reasonable. So we're all susceptible to this. Don't do it. Don't buy into things without examining it. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

"What's wrong with those people?"

You may have asked it or heard it. You know, that mother who, of all things, leaves her baby in the car while she goes drinking or the kids who steal the disabled boy's special wheel chair or the father who beats his infant to death because she didn't eat her food or whatever insane news item is hitting the screen at the moment. It seems as if they've slipped a cog, that they're out of touch with reality, that they cannot be sane and do such insane things. "What's wrong with those people?"

We're not left in the dark about such things. The Bible gives us an answer.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools ... and exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Rom 1:22,25)

There is a term for it. Anthropocentrism. All things begin with Man. All things are about Man. Man is the end of all things. If this is true, then there is nothing at all wrong with those people. They're just "doin' what comes natur'ly". They're certainly doing what comes biblically. Having set aside the Creator as the center of all things, we now serve ourselves, the creature.

But, look, pointing fingers at "them" isn't of any use. And we Christians know better, right? We're not centered on Man; we're centered on Christ! Or ... are we?

I don't know why, but I'm always surprised when I find God-fearing Christians operating from an anthropocentric theology. They define God from a starting point of Man and structure biblical doctrines from the starting point of Man's beliefs. They speak of Christ, but formulate their practices around self -- self-satisfaction, self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement, and so on. God is not who God says He is; He is what they think He is even if it violates what He says. First and foremost, God cannot be anything toward Man that they would deem negative toward Man. Love, grace, yes, indeed! Wrath or justice? Man forbid! You see, God owes us. It is not uncommon to hear well-meaning Christians speaking of God's need for us.

Of course, in our rush to put God at the center, we need to be careful not to remove Man. God didn't make us for no reason; He made us for a good purpose. After all, we just celebrated the Incarnation when God sent His only begotten Son on our behalf. Jesus came to give us abundant life (John 10:10). So we're not irrelevant. But we aren't the primary issue.

Pointing fingers at "them", whether it is "those unbelievers" or "those believers", doesn't much help. We need to figure out what's wrong with ourselves. And that is our own tendency toward serving the creature rather than the Creator. It is the basis for the sin that dwells within us. It is the self that needs to be executed rather than reformed. And while we cannot do that in others, we can certainly seek to do so in ourselves. Or, I can on my own behalf by the work of the Spirit.

Strength and Weakness

During the Cold War America and the Soviet Union had an interesting philosophy dubbed MAD -- mutually assured destruction. The idea was "peace through strength." That is, if the other guy was pretty sure that you'd clobber him if he tried anything, he wouldn't try anything. Seems a bit strange, but, given the fact that no nuclear exchange ever took place despite the tensions, it appeared to have worked.

Oddly enough, "peace through strength" is not the Christian position. Get this.

He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor 12:9)

Let's call that "peace through weakness."

I know. It's counterintuitive. We really want people to be well, healthy, strong. We want to avoid pain, both on our behalf and for those whom we love. That's normal. But Paul here is telling us that when we are weak, we can see His strength better. Therefore, "when I am weak, I am strong." (2 Cor 12:10)

It kind of puts things in a different light. We look around at the growing rumbles against our freedom of religion and think, "We have to do something! But what?" And God says, "My power is perfected in your weakness." We count the days to the next election and can't figure out which lousy candidate to vote for. And God says, "My power is perfected in your weakness." Every time we run into our own shortcomings, we give God a chance to shine. And He does.

I still pray that people I care about be healthy and strong. I still pray for the leadership of our country. I still plan to vote (at least for now). But it's a lot easier, considering all the weaknesses we have, to rest in the One whose strength is revealed in our weaknesses and in those weaknesses, then, we are actually strong. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Things I Don't Get

A coworker walked into a conversation between another coworker and myself. The topic at hand was the nonsensical tweet from Planned Parenthood about how "every child deserves the opportunity to live up to their God-given potential." Nonsensical given their tendency to kill a large number of children. "Oh," the newcomer said, "abortion has given lots of women better lives."

I didn't know what to do with that. I didn't know how to think through it. Killing babies is good if it makes someone "better off"? I mean, purely in terms of numbers, if murdering a baby in the womb gave ... let's be generous ... 75% of women a "better life" (and we'll be generous with that term, too), it would mean that while 100% of the babies killed had no life at all, only 75% had a "better life". That is, statistically more babies were killed than lives "improved". But the sheer magnitude of the claim boggles my mind. I can only conclude, "It's acceptable, even laudable, to kill babies if it makes people happier." Astoundingly enough, even the religious left will hold to this idea. While bemoaning our "narrow-mindedness" and "hate" for other sins they support, they will doggedly defend killing babies as something as narrow as "a woman's choice" and consider themselves "more loving" for the murder they endorsed. These are things I don't get.

I met a young man the other day. He was planning to go into the ministry. He attended a well-known, conservative church. He was studying to become a pastor. "Not the traditional kind," he told me. He was planning to be "bivocational". You know, like how Peter, James, and John were fishermen and Apostles or Paul was a tentmaker and an Apostle and Evangelist. That's well and good. And then it turns out that he is living with his girlfriend (not wife). Now, this guy wasn't uninformed. His church and His Bible said that sexual immorality was sinful. He knows of the clear statement that those who are sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-10). His Bible, just like mine, says, "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body." (1 Cor 6:18) But he's pretty sure it's okay now to be sexually immoral and a pastor because, after all, times have changed.

I cannot imagine how this works. "Here's the deal, God. I'll tell You which of your commands I'll accept and You can evaluate me on those, but the ones I reject are off limits. I will be glad to be pleasing to you in the commands from you that I allow. You're just going to have to get up to speed -- to come into the 21st century. Look, get a copy of Microsoft Word and revise Your Bible because clearly it's outdated. I can do that for You if You like. In fact, for my own purposes, I already have." Now, I don't expect people who reject God to follow God's commands. That wouldn't be reasonable. It's more difficult for me to think that way about people who claim to want to follow Jesus. But to see this kind of "thinking" from someone who wants to be a pastor is just something I don't get.

There are lots of ideas out there about lots of things. Some I agree with. Some I agree with after changing my own ideas. "Well, now, that makes sense. I guess I was wrong." Some I disagree with, but still understand. "I see where you get the idea that baptizing infants is biblical; I just don't agree." But there is an entire other set in which I scratch my head and say, "Sorry ... I'm not following that at all." Mind you, I'm not here to question these people. I'm talking about the ideas. I'm just wondering how much "reasoning" goes into these positions and how much is more "feeling", "intuition", or something else.