Happy Mother's Day

It's Mother's Day! I can't think of a better opportunity than this to tell you about my mother?

I have a hard time talking about my mom to any great extent without getting emotional. It's because I love her so much. God was very gracious to me when He selected my parents. My mom is a prime example.

Mom and I have always enjoyed a special relationship. She has always been willing to discuss anything at all with me. I could ask her questions about the Bible or questions about sex and expect answers with equal candor. She never seemed to berate me for my questions when other moms might have. And she never withheld answers like other moms might have. You know the ones. "Why don't you ask your father?" I never got that from my mom unless she actually didn't know the answer. And that wasn't very often.

My mother is quite unique. Generally speaking, women tend to be more emotional and men more logical. (I did say "generally speaking", didn't I?) One of the really obvious places to see this phenomenon is in church. More women go to church than men. More women are excited about church than men. The only difficulty with this is that women tend to not think as deeply as men on the topic of spiritual things. They might be excited. They might be knowledgeable. But digging deep doesn't seem to be a priority. (Again, for any female I may be on the verge of insulting, I know that there are exceptions and I did say "generally speaking".) My mother is an exception, and a wonderful one at that. No one is more "in love" with God than she is. I mean that in the purely worldly sense. She has all the emotions of love toward God that one would expect and hope for. She can't make it through a good worship time in church without pulling out a tissue to dab at tearful eyes. God just moves her. But she has equal depth. She enjoys digging into the Scriptures. "What does that mean?" "How does that work with this?" And she knows her Scripture. So like a "logical male", she is busy figuring things out, tossing contradictions and weaving an intricate truth structure that fits all the scenarios. While many people base their beliefs on how they feel and stand firm despite any evidence to the contrary, she will change what she believes when she is given a perspective that demands it. It provides a great deal of ground for my mom and I to have lengthy and very pleasurable theological discussions. This is one major aspect of our "special relationship" I mentioned before.

Mom shares a deep concern that I have for discipleship. As far back as I can recall, she has been mentoring younger women. She has involved herself in their lives for years and years. She has taught them the Scriptures, modeled for them what she believes, and given them even the hard principles. Teaching someone to seek to be happy at all cost is easy. She has taught them to seek to be everything that God wants them to be, even if it means doing things that are less than pleasurable. Indeed, the greatest advocate of wives submitting to husbands that I have ever known is my mother. While so many today are questioning it, she looks at it, scratches her head, and says, "Well, that's what it clearly says. How can anyone question it?" Today she is mentoring my youngest sister and a friend of hers. That might seem a little odd to some people, but it is grounds for admiration and gratitude from my perspective.

I don't know. As it turns out, as I think of my mom, I don't really have the tools to tell you how much I appreciate her, how much I respect her, or how much I love her. My wife is the only woman in this world that has greater love from me. My mom tells me about how she hasn't yet arrived at perfection. I suspect she knows whereof she speaks ... but those of us out here have a hard time seeing it. Given her history (which I won't go into here), her upbringing, her experiences, she is a stunning model of God at work in a person, a picture of sanctification. When I wonder "What does sanctification look like?", I have only to look at her and see an fine example.

I am grateful for my mother. I hope for all the best for her today and every day. I doubt that any son has a better mom than I do. I thank my God for her in my prayers.

Great Is Thy Faithfulness

Great is Thy faithfulness, O God, my Father.
There is no shadow of turning with Thee.
Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not.
As Thou has been Thou forever wilt be.

Great is Thy faithfulness! Great is Thy faithfulness!
Morning by morning new mercies I see.
All I have needed Thy hand hath provided.
Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me.

The immutable nature of God is a lost attribute to us today. It was easily forgotten in biblical times. Samuel had to remind Saul that God was not like us - not a man who changed His mind. (1 Sam. 15:27-29) In our ever-changing world and our shifting personal viewpoints we see God sometimes as capricious, unpredictable, certainly uncertain. We hardly know what to expect next, and we view each event as an obstacle. But God's faithfulness is a leading topic of Scripture. This hymn dwells on God's unchanging nature.

It is God's immutability that makes Him faithful, trustworthy. What God has purposed He will do. (Jer. 4:28) There is no promise He won't fulfill. God is completely reliable. With God, His immutability is absolute. There isn't a mere sense of faithfulness, but unwavering consistency. It is His unchanging nature that makes Him eternal. His constant nature ties into His omniscience, for God cannot change what He knows, since He knows all. His plans never fail because He is unchanging. The name "Rock" applied to God points to this attribute. (e.g., Isaiah 26:4) God is faithful beyond our comprehension.

God cannot change. That means nothing I do will cause Him to love me less - or more. His compassions never fail (Lam. 3:22,23), nor are they increased. My choices do not surprise Him, nor do my circumstances catch Him off guard. God is changeless.

"Great is Thy faithfulness." So immense is His faithfulness that I could never comprehend it. Every day a new aspect of His changeless perfection can be revealed new to me. He provides all I need, whether I know what that is or not. His constant care for me is part of His constancy. "Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me."

Summer and winter and springtime and harvest,
Sun, moon, and stars in their courses above,
Join with all nature in manifold witness
To Thy great faithfulness, mercy, and love.

Don't let the meter of the poem cause you to lose the meaning of the words. Summer, winter, spring, fall, these join with all nature in witness to God's faithfulness. The consistency of the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars - which operate with such precision as to be standards for accurately keeping time - join with all nature in witness to God's faithfulness. These and more all point to an marvelously faithful God whose attention to detail and our needs despite our sin condition clearly demonstrates His mercy and love, themselves unchanging.

Several hymns point to nature as proof of God's attributes (e.g., "How Great Thou Art", "Fairest Lord Jesus", etc.). Scripture itself concurs. (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20) This particular selection of natural occurrences is used as specific evidence of God's faithfulness. As day goes into day, season into season, as constant as the stars, as consistent as all of nature, so faithful is God. We never question whether the sun will rise tomorrow. It always has. It will again. God is more faithful than the rising of the sun. It is this faithfulness of God that enabled David to fight Goliath. When Saul asked David why he should be able to handle the fight, David pointed back to God's prior faithfulness. (1 Sam. 17:33-37) If God did it before, surely He could do it again. If God has ever cared for my needs, He will always care for my needs because He is faithful. If He has ever enabled me to do His will, He will always do so because He is faithful. Experience proves it. Nature proves it. God is faithful.

(A note of caution here. Two terms often misunderstood that I used in the last paragraph are the terms "my needs" and "God's will." We have an exceedingly skewed view of our needs that God never obligates Himself to meet. And God's will does not conform to our twisted viewpoint. It is an opportunity to revise my thinking when God doesn't meet my "needs," because clearly my idea of needs must have been wrong. God cannot be wrong, nor can He fail to accomplish His will.)

Pardon for sin, and a peace that endureth,
Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide,
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow,
Blessings all mine with ten thousand beside.

Look for a moment at the blessings outlined in this verse. "Pardon for sin . . ." It isn't until we realize our true sin condition that this becomes such a big deal, but when we see God and recognize our utter hopelessness, this suddenly becomes a monumental blessing. My sin is pardoned! ". . . a peace that endureth . . ." God promises peace to those who trust in Him. It is a natural result of being in His Spirit (called the "fruit of the Spirit"). His peace, like His faithfulness, doesn't waver. It endures. Regardless of the turmoil that necessarily surrounds our lives, His peace is there. (John 14:27; Phil. 4:6,7; Gal. 5:22,23) "Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide." Imagine that! God, Himself, is walking beside me. Beyond that, He is within me! That is marvelous! His presence brings real joy ("cheer"), another natural result of being in His Spirit. His constant company serves as a beacon, my source of sure direction. What better guide in life than the Author of life? (For a shining example of joy in turmoil, see 2 Cor. 8:1,2) "Strength for today . . ." God promises us His strength. If God is for us, who can be against us? What cannot be accomplished when operating in the strength of the Omnipotent? (Eph. 6:10) ". . . Bright hope for tomorrow . . ." In a convoluted world of hopelessness and chaos, God provides a hope. God's hope is not mere wishing. His hope is a sure thing. It is only a hope because it is not yet accomplished in our experience, but God is faithful, and it is certain. Someday we will be with Him. What a blessed hope! (Heb. 6:17-20)

God's faithfulness extends to me personally. In fact, the awesome faithfulness of God is the assurance I have of salvation and heaven. The list of blessings provided in my relationship with God is guaranteed in God's faithfulness. Since He is unalterable, He will do them. In Christ, Paul says, God's promises are "yes" (2 Cor. 1:18,19). Pardon for sin. God's unfathomable peace. God's presence in my everyday life. (God's presence in my everyday life! That should give me pause.) Strength, His strength. (It is God who works in you both to will and to do His good works. Phil. 2:13) (I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Phil. 4:13) A hope. (This is no small thing in today's world, but hope brings endurance, the ability to bear difficult circumstances, and knowing God brings that hope.) "Blessings all mine with ten thousand beside." Why would a Christian's life be characterized by anything but joy in view of God's faithfulness and the absolute certainty of His blessings?

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross

When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it Lord that I should boast save in the death of Christ my God.
All the vain things that charm me most I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet, sorrow and love flow mingled down.
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, or thorns compose so rich a crown?

Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were a present far too small.
Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all.

Another Isaac Watts hymn, this one was written in 1707. It was written to be part of the communion service. Most of Watts' hymns were based on various Psalms. This one, however, is extremely personal.

Isaac Watts knew God. His great love for God is evidenced in many of the hymns we have received from him. His secret is out in this one. "When I survey the wondrous cross . . ." Watts knew God because He knew where to look. We are aware of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, but how much time do we spend looking it over? Watts surveyed it . . . often.

There's nothing like a look at the cross to gain perspective in our lives. In that single event all of life comes into focus. We can suddenly see clearly our own sense of pride, our feelings of superiority, our self-righteousness, our self-centeredness. One look at Christ on that tree, and we quickly amount to very little. What can we offer Him in view of His sacrifice? What have we done to deserve such love? The answer, painfully, is nothing. God's love for us is a direct result of His own nature, an event completely outside of our influence.

The human animal is a strange creature. We are logical beings who use our brains to accomplish our ends. We have an amazing capacity, however, to think logically to the wrong conclusion. A prime example of our faulty logic is the almost schizophrenic view we hold of ourselves. Modern psychology tells us that 99% of us suffer from poor self-esteem. We hold an opinion of ourselves that is too low. Generally the church today agrees. However, at the same time, most of us believe ourselves to be better than others. Our outlook is correct while others who disagree are wrong. We aren't as bad as other people. Our thinking drives us from truth - in both directions. We believe we aren't as good as others, but we certainly are better than others. God's view says that we are all good for nothing, worthless sinners facing an angry God. No one is "good." But, He goes on to say, in Christ we have a new identity, His identity, which gives us immense worth because He is in us. Suddenly we are worthwhile, "good" individuals, simply because of the worth and good inherent to Christ and present with Him in us.

Watts points to the answer to self-esteem advocates. "Look at the cross." Do you believe you're good for nothing, useless, of no value, without capabilities? God says otherwise. You are disagreeing with God, and that is arrogance. Look at the cross. See what Christ did. His sacrifice on the tree proves His love in ways we can't comprehend and verifies our worth to Him. A low self-image contradicts His opinion. Do you think you are better than others, accomplishing more, somehow superior? Look at the cross. Christ's death was for you. You needed it, badly. The only value you hold, the only good of which you are capable, comes from that event. The other things Watts terms "vain." We hang our hats on vanity, on acquisitions or accomplishments or abilities. These, he says, are vain. The only thing of any worth is my salvation by His death, and His love for me.

Paul urges us to renew our minds. (Rom. 12:1, 2) He commands us not to conform to the world. The word "conform" indicates an outward shaping of our lives not truly representative of the inward person. We have this crucified and risen Savior in us. The world's view of our worth or lack of it is entirely inconsistent with God's view and our new nature. Instead, he says, we must be transformed by the renewing of the mind. "Transformed" means to change from the inside out. In other words, our outward lives should reflect our inner nature, the nature of God within us. This transformation occurs in renewing the mind. To renew the mind means to make new and different the thinking processes we use every day by viewing God's truth. This must be an ongoing, continuous, process. An easy place to begin that process is by realigning our perspective with a look at the cross.

I can hardly recount the story of the crucifixion, even to myself, without getting misty-eyed. Doctors tell us that Jesus endured every kind of injury known to medicine except for broken bones. Abrasions, contusions, lacerations, punctures, separated joints, etc., etc. ... every kind of physical torment. He was unrecognizable as a man when He hung there, so beaten and bruised was He. Further, He hung naked, an emotional torment that we hardly grasp today because of our cultural outlook. Every breath was torture, every movement agony. But the only record of Him ever crying out was at that moment when the Father withdrew from Him. His suffering is beyond my experience or even imagination. And He did it ... for me! Did ever such love and sorrow meet?

Christ did it because of sin - our sin. Satan's sin was pride. "I will be like the Most High." Eve's sin was pride. "God knows if you eat the fruit you will be like Him." Our sin is pride. We believe we are something. We are not. Still we focus on ourselves, boasting in accomplishments and abilities given liberally by an amazingly loving God. Jeremiah says that if we are going to boast, it should be in this -- that we know God. (Jer. 9:24) The cross points us away from a positive view of us. It points us to our vanity, our self-centeredness, our arrogance in the face of the Almighty.

The hymn also gives the answer to our problem of sin. As Christians we stand forgiven. That's a finished work. Nothing more can be done. Christ's death on the cross was complete. When we sin, then, no amount of penance, no amount of resolve, no amount of effort will make things better. Watts' answer is in the second verse. "Sacrifice them to Thy blood." Confession, agreement with God, is the answer. We agree that God is God and we are not. We agree that He is right and we are wrong. And we agree to go His way. That occurs only by His direct intervention. The sin is covered by the blood of Christ. There is one answer to the Christian's problem of sin -- repentance.

What an amazing thing, this cross of Christ! The depths of His pain on our behalf practically shouts the heights of His love. The perfection of His sacrifice loudly declares the perfection of His forgiveness. And the love He bears for such as we is astounding. Love so amazing, so divine, demands all that I have and am. No less is enough. Nor is that enough. It is simply all I have to give. And "all" is what He requires. How can we, who owe so much, withhold anything from One who loves us so much?

Watts concludes that the love demonstrated by Christ on the cross demands my all. Why? The driving factor of salvation is grace. The driving factor of Christian living is gratitude. It is this sense of gratitude, this love for One who loves us beyond our capacity to understand, that brings about the abundant Christian life. Ours is not meant to be a duty-bound life of moral codes and strict guidelines. Ours is a grateful response to a loving God. Because of all He has done on our behalf, we should want to please Him. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Note that keeping commandments is a response to, a result of loving Him. We don't keep His commandments to love Him. Loving Him causes the natural effect of obedience. How can we, who owe so much, withhold anything from One who loves us so much?

Time at the cross. That's what we need. We need to survey it. Look at the pain He endured. Look at the agony He bore on my account. Look at the love graphically demonstrated there. See the grace, and the completeness of the sacrifice. Recognize your own contribution of sin, and your ongoing struggle with pride that necessitated His death - He who knew no sin. And let gratitude to Him guide your attitudes and actions.

Rock of Ages

I've had some feedback that says, "Do more of those hymns." Besides, Mother's Day is coming, and my mom loves the hymns. So you all get to enjoy them as well.

Rock of Ages
Augustus M. Toplady

Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee.
Let the water and the blood, From Thy wounded side which flowed.
Be for sin the double cure: Save from wrath and make me pure.

Could my tears forever flow, Could my zeal no languor know,
These for sin could not atone - Thou must save and Thou alone.
In my hand no price I bring. Simply to Thy cross I cling.

While I draw this final breath, when my eyes shall close in death,
When I rise to worlds unknown, And behold Thee on Thy throne,
Rock of Ages cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee.

This hymn written by Augustus Toplady in 1776, was part of a debate with John Wesley. Wesley believed it was possible to attain a condition of sinlessness and enter into a perfect rest. Toplady was a follower of John Calvin's teachings and held that there was nothing in man that could make him good enough to enter God's rest in this life. "Rock of Ages", then, points to the completeness of Christ and contrasts it with the complete inadequacy of man.

Verse one designates Christ as the Rock. There is a clear reference to the passage in Exodus 33, 34 where Moses, in the cleft of the rock, saw God. (Exo. 33:18-23) It was only there, in a rock broken for Moses, that he could tolerate the presence of God. So it is today. That broken Rock is Christ.

The verse goes on to cover the efficacy of the sacrifice. The blood represents the payment of death required by God's justice and paid in Christ's death. The water represents the cleansing that follows Christ's payment on my behalf. Toplady called it a "double cure": saved from God's wrath by my vicarious death with Christ, and made pure wholly in His forgiveness, completely apart from my actions or abilities.

Verse two contrasts Man's inadequacy with Christ's adequacy. The best I can do is not good enough. Deep, heartfelt repentance does not atone for sin. Undying zeal for God does not atone for sin. Each of us owes a certificate of debt (Col. 2:14) that cannot be repaid within ourselves. Salvation, payment of my debt, resides solely in God's hands. My only hope is God and His mercy.

Like so many others, his final verse looks to that final, blessed rest. And like so many others, this hymn sees that event rather differently than we do. This view of God carries a reverence and awe largely lacking in today's church. When Isaiah described his vision of God in Isaiah 6, even the sinless angels who attended God covered their faces in His presence. Toplady sees God in a similar light. Though forgiven and purified, there is no cavalier attitude in the presence of God. Our only hope is the Rock of Ages, broken for us, in which we hide.

Footprints

I was all set to start up on the hymns again, but recent events have caused me to think about something, and perhaps it would be a valuable thought process for you as well.

The buzzword of the day is "carbon footprint". What kind of a carbon footprint are you leaving? The idea is to ask yourself how much you are affecting the global environment. Now, if you've read me for very long, you'll know that I'm not deeply concerned about that question. But it begs a similar question. What is your life footprint?

Several years ago my wife's parents celebrated their 50th anniversary. People came from all over the country to celebrate with them. Their children rented a hall to accommodate them all. You see, her parents have a large life footprint, affecting many people in a positive way. Similarly, we celebrated my parents' 50th anniversary four years ago. We had to pare down the list of who to invite among their friends because there were just too many to accommodate. When my parents travel, they have to decide how many of their multitudinous friends and relatives they will visit at any given place because they seem to have a crowd of people they know wherever they go. They have a large life footprint.

After my grandfather's funeral, my brother and I discussed the idea. How large a footprint are we leaving? Whose lives have we touched? How have we impacted those around us? My wife and I joked about making plans for my 50th birthday some time ago. I told her, "You could invite all my friends ... but I'm not sure either would show up." It was good for a laugh, but it wasn't good in terms of a life footprint.

We are called to be a light in the world. Christians are told to "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). There is an old line: "If you were to be arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" We aren't to go quietly here on this earth. We are to be known for our love (John 13:35). We are to be "Good Samaritans" (Luke 10:25-37). We are to have a positive relationship with our Father, to be sure, but we are also supposed to leave a positive footprint in our world.

I don't care much about my carbon footprint. I don't really think much about that. I do care about my life footprint. I do want to make a positive impact. When I go to be Christ, I hope to leave behind people whose lives I've impacted for good and who will, in turn, impact others for good. I want to hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant." I want to properly use that which God has given me to invest in others. Right now I'm not sure I'm achieving that goal. Are you?

Post-Modern?

Post-modernism ... it's the buzzword today. It's the "in thing" to the intellectual elite which, of course, means that it is also the "in thing" for those who value the intellectual elite. On the other hand, it is the "enemy" to the Church. (I don't use the capital "C" there lightly.) It stands in direct opposition to 2000 years of Christianity.

The question for most, of course, is "What is it?" Obviously post-modernism follows on the heels of ... say it with me ... modernism. Therefore, by way of contrast, we can look at modernism and find out a little about post-modernism. Modernism was a product of the Enlightenment, the rosy 19th century movement that held that there is truth, that we can know it, and if we know the truth, life will get better. Science and education reigned in this movement. It flew in the face of Christianity because Christianity held that only through Christ could you personally get better, and the world would never get better. Enter the 20th century and wars on the scale that had never been imagined. Things, it seemed, were not improving. They were deteriorating. Enter post-modernism. Sitting on the back of modernism, post-modernism denies truth. While modernism said that finding the ultimate truths would lead us to paradise, post-modernism says that there are no ultimate truths. First on the hitlist for the post-modern mind is words. Words, they say, have no intrinsic meaning. They mean whatever you want them to mean. If this is true, then it obviously follows that texts have no meaning. Regardless of what the author meant, the texts only mean what you think they mean. The next obvious conclusion is the death of what is called the "metanarrative". A metanarrative is the "grand scheme of things", the "big picture". It is that which explains ... everything. Christianity, for instance, is a metanarrative, explaining the origins of the species, the reason for life, the source of morality, the way we are to live and why we don't, and so on. Well, if words have no intrinsic meaning and texts only mean what you want them to mean, then the metanarrative is a lie. All that is only means whatever you want it to mean. The other fundamental in this post-modern viewpoint is that logic is meaningless. This should be obvious once you start examining the post-modern view ... because all of it flies in the face of logic. They use words (which they claim have no real meaning) to argue for their interpretation of texts (which they claim have no real meaning) to give their own metanarrative (which they claim doesn't exist) that all that is truly is without fundamental meaning ... an argument from logic. (That is, if nothing is true, then I cannot be regarded as false because I hold a differing viewpoint ... and the disagreement disappears in a post-modern puff of logic.)

Christians are largely unaware that this perception is out there. The problem is this. Being unaware, they are also unaware that it is creeping into the church. Let's look at some examples. Have you ever been to a Bible study where you read a verse and ask, "So, what does that mean to you?"? That's a post-modern approach. The Bible is truth, and what it means it means. What it means to you is irrelevant. What we need to find is what it means, not what it means to you. The approach "What does it mean to you?" is a post-modern approach. Or how about the death of certainty? In our world and in growing amounts in our churches there is the perception that it is wrong to believe that you are right. That is perceived as "arrogant". True Christians are humble, and they would never suppose that they were right while everyone else was wrong. Never mind that this is in direct contradiction to the Bible. James says, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (James 1:5-8). You see, Christianity holds that we can know the truth (John 8:32). If God says it and we say, "Well, actually we can't know it", that is arrogant. Yet uncertainty is being heralded as virtue in too many church circles. It's wrong to be exclusive. It's wrong to be sure. The only right, humble thing to do is admit that you could be wrong. And to claim that the Bible is what God says ... that's arrogant.

Evangelicals tried to hold their ground against modernism, and they did for some time. It was only as it passed that they got swept into it. We used to believe that a relationship with Christ informed by the Word of God was what was important. We've come to believe that education and apologetics was the key. If we could just inform people, they'd see the truth. That's modernism, not biblicism. Exit modernism and enter post-modernism. Evangelicals have held their ground ... but as the rush continues, we've started to cave. The Emergent Church tries to argue that Christ certainly saves all who call on Him, but He'll likely save others as well -- certainly not this exclusive claim of Christianity. That's post-modernism. You don't have to go far in the "Christian blog" world to find "Christians" arguing that "There is no reason to think we are right; everyone could be right." That's post-modernism. Without us paying much attention, it is leaching into our churches and our thought processes.

Where does this assault come from? It comes from the same place that modernism and Darwinism and all the other anti-Christian "isms" came from: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field" (Gen. 3:1). You see, Satan has always had the same agenda. His first attack was on Adam's wife. His approach was to question God. "Did God actually say ...?" His approach hasn't changed. After the arrival of the Second Adam on the scene, Satan has shifted his attack to this Adam's wife, but the approach is the same. "Did God actually say ...?" Did God actually create everything (as He claims and as denied by Darwin)? Is God really the focus of all that is (as He claims and as denied by the self-esteem movement)? Is Christ the Truth (as He claimed and as denied by post-modernism)? It's not that Satan can end the truth. God said it. Christ promised to "build My Church." It's not that this will end. But if Satan can mitigate it, mix it up, and put us on the defensive, well, perhaps that will slow it down.

Let's not do this. Let's not allow the shift. We need to be ready to make a defense, but more importantly we need to know the Truth. That includes knowing the truth in a mental way, sure, but more importantly it means having a personal relationship with the Truth -- Christ. We need to be about the process of renewing our minds, but if we focused more on that relationship and what it means in our life and character, and less on the debate, we just might be ahead in this game instead of being "like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind."

Facing the Hard Questions

Last Friday we said goodbye to my last grandparent. It was a difficult time for many of us. And it spawned some thoughts for me.

It seems as if we prefer quite often to avoid the hard questions. "Where was God when that terrible thing happened?" "Why does God send people to Hell?" "What makes you think you're right when everyone else is wrong?" There are a lot of difficult questions that swirl around Christianity, and it seems as if most Christians prefer to avoid them. However, I think there are things in the Bible that might contradict our overwhelming capacity to ignore the tough questions:

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person (Col. 4:6).

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Tim. 4:2).

Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that we are commanded to be ready with answers. Now, I'm not suggesting that we should all have answers that will convince the skeptics. (Hint: No such answers exist.) What I'm suggesting is that each one of us should have researched the questions enough to have answers that satisfy us. We should have answers to give rather than simply spouting responses we've heard and never considered.

Where did this come from? My grandfather was not, by his own admission, a Christian. So, the surviving family show up, among whom was another member of the family who was also not a Christian. I started thinking about that in anticipation of the trip. I wondered if he considered that walking into a funeral for someone who wasn't saved would open him up to interrogations -- well meaning, of course -- about his spiritual condition. "How do you handle this?" "Believing as you do, how do you respond when someone you love dies?" "Is there any way you can make sense out of this senseless death?" I realized, however, that a thinking non-believer would be perfectly able to counter my imagined questions with equally difficult questions. "How do you handle this? You believe that he died without Christ and is damned. How do you ease the pain? How do you answer the question of how God could allow this?" And I was faced with questions that were difficult for me to answer.

Now, I am a person that doesn't like leaving things like that hanging. Some people are perfectly happy with spouting truisms that deflect the question without personally engaging the answers. Some people are perfectly happy never asking the hard questions. But I'm not either of those. I may not be able to convince others, but if I don't have answers that satisfy me, I'm not comfortable. Mind you, sometimes the answer is "God is God and I am not and I won't be able to answer that," but that's perfectly satisfactory in some cases. So I worked through the questions he "asked" me to my own satisfaction. I wonder how many others have done that?

We are commanded to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom. 12:2). We are told that spiritual maturity is "for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil" (Heb. 5:14). Yet too many Christians today wallow about in mediocre thinking processes, unwilling to ask and answer the hard questions, content with letting others do the dirty work. It's not just misguided. It's not merely unwise. It's wrong. We are commanded to give answers, to be ready at all times to make a defense. I suspect that much of the harsh words that come from Christians to their interrogators comes from a position of hidden unease. When you are not sure of your own answer, it is likely that you will react with emotion rather than "gentleness and reverence." Maybe that's something we should work on.

Minding Fences

Fences. They're everywhere. Robert Frost said, "Good fences make good neighbors." Fences are good. They have their purpose. I'm wondering, though, at what point they become a problem. My particular pondering is about children.

We are fencing fiends when it comes to children. There are fences around pools to keep them out. There are fences around yards to keep them in. We put fences on stairs to keep them off. And we use a plethora of devices to control access. There are child-proof bottles (which, as we all know, can only be opened by children) and child-proofed homes. We put locks on drawers and cabinets and anything we don't want them to access. We install child-proofing on our computers to keep them from going places they shouldn't go. We put up fences everywhere to protect our children.

The basic function of a fence, whether it be an actual fence or some of these devices I've mentioned, is to mechanize restrictions. The function is to be there when you aren't and do what you won't (because you're not there). Of course if you're standing there you will prevent the child from running into the street, but what about when you're not? Of course if you're in the kitchen and the child tries to get under the sink and drink Draino you'll stop her, but what about when you're not there? And the problem is that parents are present, but not omnipresent. Turn away for a second and children are quick little beauties. They'll be into that stuff in the blink of an eye ... almost literally. So we construct mechanisms to block them since parents can't be everywhere at once.

And I begin to wonder ... is that good? I'm torn. I see the necessity. It is saving lives -- little lives. That's good. But how much are parents relying on devices to do what they are supposed to do? Think of it this way. Before they came up with handy child locks on door knobs, drawers, and cabinets, what did parents do? How did any kid survive homes like that? I'm thinking that parents weren't any more omnipresent then than now, so how did they manage to get by? Well, it seems that they trained their kids. At a very young age, as these little cuties started to become mobile, parents would keep a close eye on their children and start to train them. They would train them to avoid certain dangerous places. They would train them to obey. This one is of particular importance. They would train them that "No!" meant "Stop now!" and they would count on that child stopping when that command was shouted. It was work, sure. It took early vigilance. It took some inflicting of pain on occasion to seal the point. It wasn't easy. But what they ended up with was a child-proofed ... child. This child would not go places she shouldn't because she was trained not to. This child wouldn't be in the steak knives or the refrigerator while mom's back is turned because he was trained not to. And as Dad talked to a neighbor out front while Johnny toddled around the yard, a barked "Stop!" command would actually stop Johnny steps from the street instead of requiring Dad to sprint madly across the yard to snatch him from the road because he ignored his father's words.

Mechanical protection for children may be a good thing, but this is what I wonder. At what point do they learn to avoid these problems without mechanical devices? At what point do they learn to respect the authority that God has put in their lives? At what point does a parent start developing their character to reduce or eliminate the need for such devices? Maybe it is supposed to happens someplace, but based on the majority of kids I see today in our stores and parking lots and neighborhoods and all, it doesn't seem to be. Instead, we just have to keep inventing better fences. Is that really how we want to equip our children?

Gas Out

The crazies are at it again. I've received this call to attempt to lower our price of gasoline. Here's what they tell me:

NO GAS...On May 15th 2007

Body: Don't pump gas on May 15th
Body: ...in April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.

On May 15th 2007, all Internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.

There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the Internet network, and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up.

If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil company's pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.

If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldn't) resend this to all your contact list. With it saying, "Don't pump gas on May 15th"

Leaving off the poor grammar and all, let's examine the logic for a moment. Here are the primary assumptions of this line of thinking. There are 73 million Americans on the Internet (who, we assume, all drive cars). They will pay a minimum of $30 (the number actually works out to something like $31.40) per tank of gasoline. Presumably May 15th was selected because all 73 million Internet users who drive would normally all go to the gas station that day. (Now, I could be wrong on this point. It may simply be that the assumption is that all 73 million get gas every day, in which case any day would do.) Further, it would appear that there is actually only one oil company, and that single company is "the Middle Eastern oil industry." (You see, if there were more than one, you'd have to divide that $2.292 billion over multiple companies. Further, apparently no company from which those 73 million might buy gas is getting oil from Texas, California, Alaska, or any other American-based oil source.) Oh, and it appears that this oil company, whoever it is, takes all of the money you pay in gasoline. There are no taxes, no fees, no wages paid to employees, nothing at all. It all goes into the pockets of the elite rich leadership of this fictitious oil company.

Further, this $2.292 billion is intended to hurt this company (whichever company that is). That means that 1) the company has no reserves to ride out one day in which people don't buy gas, and 2) none of those 73 million need the gas they didn't buy that day. You see, if they needed that gas, then they would either buy it the day before or the day after and all the money of that single day would be recouped in those other days. And it seems quite obvious that when a single company announces profits (that is, income over and above the cost of doing business) of $10 billion for a quarter, a single day's hiccup of $3 billion that is recovered on either the day before or the day after wouldn't even phase them in the least. Again, this assumes that it is one company. You see, if there are, say, 10 companies involved, then the single loss of any given company would average out to one tenth of that amount (which would also be recovered on the day before and/or the day after), and these accumulated companies would each have stores in the billions of dollars of profits with which to simply ride out that single day. (The other problem I have is that I find it hard to believe that "the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up." Mine doesn't. My wife's doesn't. I filled up my son's truck the other day; that one didn't. I was with my brother when he filled his; that one didn't. What "average car" are they considering?)

Now, I understand the idea. We're mad about gas prices. It seems largely arbitrary. It appears to be some sort of extortion. We cannot do without gasoline, so they will charge us whatever they can get away with. It does seem odd, however, that while the oil companies take perhaps 10% of the dollar you spend on gas, the government is getting closer to 17%. So who is the bigger problem? And while I don't doubt that oil companies are making far more than they should, what would we recommend they do?

Consider reality. If the oil companies are making ten cents on every dollar you spend at the pump for gas, then the impact on them on this fictional one day crusade would be one tenth the amount listed. That amount would be spread out over all companies. Whatever amount that might be, it would be recovered by gas purchases on the day before or the day after. No one would blink an eye.

The claim that "in April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight" is nonsense. It just doesn't make sense. If we wanted to make a dent in a gas company's pocketbook, it would have to look more like this. 1) We would need to select a target. It would have to be one company and all the companies that buy gas from that one company. 2) We would all need to stop buying from that source -- all. 3) We would all need to stop buying from that source for some time. It might take a month or more. It might need to be permanent. (If the Ford Motor company can continue to take annual losses in the millions of dollars and stay in business year after year, how long do you suppose an oil company with billions of dollars of profit built in can survive?) Note that the result of such a move would cause one company to either go out of business or lower its prices. The upshot would be that the employees of that company would lose and we'd all be paying big prices at the pump elsewhere, possibly even higher than before because we've eliminated some competition.

These types of things make us feel better, but they have no effect. We're all a bit upset about the price of gasoline here. It hurts. It really does. And it seems a bit unfair to hear that the companies that are costing us so much to get from here to there are making record profits at our expense. But we live in a free enterprise system. We are capitalists. We don't get the option of saying, "We can be capitalists, but they can't." What we are seeing is the natural result of capitalism without morality. It is the nature of our free society. Until we are ready to end our free society, it's what we have to deal with. A "gas out" won't do what they are suggesting it do. Perhaps people should take a moment and think it through. It feels good ... but it does nothing. That just seems like foolishness.

Looking Out For #1

The normal human mindset is "looking out for #1." By that we mean ... me! In this instance, #1 is me and the rest of you are somewhere down the list. Most people live their lives believing "It's all about me." Of course, this doesn't correlate with a biblical perspective (even though many who purport to follow the biblical perspective also have this erroneous view), and it doesn't correlate with reality. Logically, we can't all be "#1." Some of you have to be in secondary state. We might magnanimously suggest that "You can be #1 to you and I will be #1 to me," but sooner or later our interests are going to clash ... and one of us will not be #1.

Despite Whitney Houston's assurance that "learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all," I would suggest that there is a higher calling, a true #1 that we need to look out for. That would be God Himself.

In Paul's epistle to the church at Ephesus, he outlines an amazing compilation of spiritual blessings with which we are already blessed:

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, ⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love ⁵ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. ⁷ In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, ⁸ which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight ⁹ He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him ¹⁰ with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him ¹¹ also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, ¹² to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. ¹³ In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:3-14).

This is truly an astounding list, and there is a lot to see in there, but what I'm looking at right now is why. Why has He "blessed us with every spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ"? It's a marvelous list of blessings, to be sure, but what is God's motivation? Well, I think He makes it abundantly clear. Repeatedly Paul says that He did it for "the praise of His glory."

The truth is that all that is was designed to magnify God. Creation tells of His glory. His works tell of His glory. Everything revolves around Him. Even history is His story. From the start it was "in the beginning, God" and it has always been thus. God is saying, "It's all about me." Jesus prayed, "Glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You" (John 17:1). That is, even Jesus glorified was intended to glorify God. If there is anyone that exists who is self-centered, it is God.

"Oh, no!" you say. "That's a sin!"

Well, it would be ... if it was a lie. If you, for instance, said, "It's all about me", that would be false. The universe doesn't revolve around you. It's not all about you. You are not the being of supreme importance. God, on the other hand, is! If He were not self-centered, He would be an idolater. If He were not self-centered, He would be telling a lie because He is the center of all things. He created all things. He holds all things together. It is all about Him.

Our inversion of exactly who #1 is often gets in our way. We think that He owes us something. We think that He should be like us. We think that He must meet the same standards that we do. The truth is the opposite. The truth is that He owes us nothing at all and we owe Him everything. Anything He gives us is a gift, not an entitlement. We are in His image, not Him in ours. He is not like us. And He makes the standards. No, let's be clear. He is the standard.

All this to say that I think we really do need to be looking out for #1. However, if we are going to be effective at that worthy task, we need to keep ourselves clear on exactly who that is. It is the Creator, God Himself, and not us. The clearer we keep that in our minds, the better off we will be.

The Job of Parent

Someplace along the way the job description has changed. It used to read, in brief, something like this: "Train up a child in the way he should go" (Prov. 22:6). It used to include things like discipline (Heb. 12:7) and instruction (Eph. 6:4), keeping children under control (1 Tim. 3:4), "exhorting and encouraging and imploring" (1 Thess. 2:11), and correction (Prov. 29:17). Oh, sure, there is the absolutely necessary "love" and the keenly important "do not exasperate", but it seems to me that the job description of the position of "Parent" has changed. Today it is more like "Be a buddy" and "Remove any obstacles that might prevent them from growing into whatever they might want to be." The old "Lines are our friends" has become a laughable concept, and real, loving parents today are required to set their children free without guidance or limitations to be all that they really want to be, regardless of what that may be.

I suppose I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic. "All that they really want to be" -- that's the goal. If that means a mass murderer or drug dealer, so be it. You can't impose guidance or limitations on them. That only prevents them from growing. Did you know that there are some who would even prevent parents today from expressing religious beliefs to their children? They are calling it "child abuse" because parents burden these poor little minds with concepts like this before they even have the chance to develop their own ideas. You beast!

Look around you. Parents everywhere are surrendering their parental duties and seeking desperately to become their child's friend. It is abundantly clear most places you care to go where children and parents are found who it is that runs so many households -- the children. Parents are baffled at how to get them to behave. I was asked when mine were little, "How do you get them to mind you so well?" When I told them it takes love and discipline, they would say, "I spank my child, but it doesn't do any good." I would suggest that's because so many have bought into the "child abuse" line. You don't want to hurt them; you just want to get their attention. A little pat on that diaper-padded behind ought to do. Who's kidding whom?

The Bible disagrees. Solomon, considered a wise man, wrote appalling things like "Do not hold back discipline from the child. Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die" (Prov. 23:13) and "He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently" (Prov. 13:24). Of course, they're only appalling in today's "kids rule" atmosphere. So Christians have to decide. Are they going to side with modern philosophies of child-rearing ... or with God's opinion of how to train the beings He created?

I know where many will immediately go. "Look at the horrible child abuse we see because of this kind of teaching." I'm with you there. But abuse of a concept doesn't nullify the concept. And spanking a child (where their backside actually hurts) -- applying the board of education to the seat of learning, so to speak -- isn't abuse. It's only abuse in today's perceptions. I actually heard a parent say that it is child abuse to take away a toy from a child who is banging a sibling over the head with it. Child abuse? In what sense of the word??

Parents are defecting in grand numbers. They are bugging out of the fight. They refuse to follow God's prescription for raising children and have decided instead that it's better to be nice. Diplomacy is the best approach. You don't "train," "exhort," "discipline," or "correct." These are all too unkind. If you ever hear your child tell you, "I hate you!", you've failed. Use a tool that would actually cause pain on a child???? That's wrong, likely criminal, and surely abusive. But why, oh, why is this new, kinder, gentler set of parents not producing better offspring? Why is it that their "time outs" aren't producing more contemplative, compliant children? Why is it that the only lack of limitations so many kids with this upbringing seem to have is the lack or moral limitations? If the modern perception of how to raise kids is right ... why isn't it working?

Of course, the real question here is not for the general public. The real question here is for parents who are Christians. Are you going to buy into current perceptions or will you choose God's stated concepts? I ask because when you argue, "Oh, spanking that poor little child is abuse", you're arguing, "Oh, God is abusive!" Are we as humans and parents going to tell God, "Yeah, you were okay for awhile, but we've finally figured out a better way. Nice try!"? Or are we going to say, "Yeah, I have been trying to do this by methods that are lies and I need to start doing it the way God intended."? And the Number One job of every parent is teaching our children the truth about God. Handing that off to Sunday School or someone else is an abdication of our God-given responsibility.

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and 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. And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deut. 6:4-9).

Will that make you popular with your kids? Likely not. Will they like it? I doubt it. But if we don't discipline our kids when they need it with the discipline God commands, and teach our kids the truth "when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up," the consequences to them, to you, and to all if us will be dire. The rewards, on the other hand, are grand.

You choose. Parent or buddy. God's way or the world's. You decide.

McDonnell Douglas Warranty Card

Yeah, McDonnell Douglas is no longer around, but this has been circulating for years. I thought it was worth a chuckle at least.

McDonnell Douglas Warranty Registration Card

Thank you for purchasing a McDonnell Douglas military aircraft. In order to protect your new investment, please take a few moments to fill out the warranty registration card below. Answering the survey questions is not required, but the information will help us to develop new products that best meet your needs and desires.

1. Salutation
[_] Mr.
[_] Mrs.
[_] Ms.
[_] Miss
[_] Lt.
[_] Gen.
[_] Comrade
[_] Exalted
[_] Classified
[_] Other
First Name: ________________ Initial: ____ Last Name:________________
Code Name: ________________

2. Which model of aircraft did you purchase?
[_] F-14 Tomcat
[_] F-15 Eagle
[_] F-16 Falcon
[_] F-117A Stealth
[_] Classified

3. Date of purchase (Year/Month/Day): _____/___/___

4. Serial Number: ______________________

5. Please indicate where this product was purchased:
[_] Received as gift / Aid package
[_] Catalog / Showroom
[_] Independent arms broker
[_] Mail order
[_] Discount store
[_] Government surplus
[_] Shop-At-Home Network
[_] Classified
[_] eBay

6. How did you become aware of the product you purchased?
[_] Heard loud noise, looked up
[_] Store display
[_] Espionage
[_] Recommended by friend / relative / ally
[_] Late night cable TV advertising / infomercial
[_] Political lobbying by manufacturer

7. Please indicate the three (3) factors that most influenced your decision to purchase this product:
[_] Style / appearance
[_] Speed / maneuverability
[_] Price / value
[_] Comfort / convenience
[_] Kickback / bribe
[_] Recommended by salesperson
[_] Company reputation
[_] Advanced Weapons Systems
[_] Backroom politics
[_] Negative experience opposing one in combat

8. Please indicate the location(s) where this product will be used:
[_] North America
[_] Iraq
[_] Aircraft carrier
[_] Europe
[_] Middle East (not Iraq)
[_] Africa
[_] Asia / Far East
[_] Misc. Third World countries
[_] Classified

9. Please indicate the products that you currently own or intend to purchase in the near future:
[_] Color TV
[_] VCR
[_] ICBM
[_] Killer Satellite
[_] CD Player
[_] Air-to-Air Missiles
[_] Space Shuttle
[_] Home Computer
[_] Nuclear Weapon

10. How would you describe yourself or your organization? (Indicate all that apply)
[_] Communist / Socialist
[_] Terrorist
[_] Crazed
[_] Neutral
[_] Democratic
[_] Dictatorship
[_] Corrupt
[_] Primitive / Tribal

11. How did you pay for your McDonnell Douglas product?
[_] Deficit spending
[_] Cash
[_] Suitcases of cocaine
[_] Oil revenues
[_] Personal check
[_] Credit card
[_] Ransom money
[_] Traveler's check

12. Your occupation:
[_] Homemaker
[_] Sales / Marketing
[_] Revolutionary
[_] Clerical
[_] Mercenary
[_] Tyrant
[_] Middle management
[_] Eccentric billionaire
[_] Defense Minister / General
[_] Retired
[_] Student

13. To help us better understand our customers, please indicate the interests and activities in which you and your spouse enjoy participating on a regular basis:
[_] Golf
[_] Boating / sailing
[_] Sabotage
[_] Running / jogging
[_] Propaganda / misinformation
[_] Destabilization / overthrow
[_] Default on loans
[_] Gardening
[_] Crafts
[_] Black market / smuggling
[_] Collectibles / collections
[_] Watching sports on TV
[_] Wines
[_] Interrogation / torture
[_] Household pets
[_] Crushing rebellions
[_] Espionage / reconnaissance
[_] Fashion clothing
[_] Border disputes
[_] Mutually Assured Destruction

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your answers will be used in market studies that will help McDonnell Douglas serve you better in the future - as well as allowing you to receive mailings and special offers from other companies, governments, extremist groups, and mysterious consortia. As a bonus for responding to this survey, you will be registered to win a brand new F-117A in our Desert Thunder Sweepstakes!


Comments or suggestions about our fighter planes? Please write to:

McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
Marketing Department Military,
Aerospace Division

IMPORTANT:
This warranty card is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor, or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this warranty card is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. If the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this warranty card, although the sheltie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your equipment you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this warranty card in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.

The Ethanol Puzzler

I'm taking a break for a short time from the hymnody (partly to see if there is any feedback) and will write a few items on things that are on my mind. One that puzzled me recently was this whole ethanol thing.

How does this work? Arizona State University did a study recently to figure out why tortillas were rising in price so drastically in Mexico. As it turns out, the price of the cheapest "bread" in Mexico has steeply risen because of the demand for corn ... in the United States. Yeah, we have this massive demand for ethanol from corn, so we're driving up the price of corn in Mexico to get it. Of course, we're driving up the price of corn in America as well. And this has its ripple effect. Poor people in Mexico find it harder to afford their own cheap food. In the U.S., the corn that would have fed our beef costs more, so beef goes up. The corn that we would have eaten is more expensive. And it doesn't stop at corn or beef.

Since the demand for corn is raising the price of corn, there are more farmers growing corn. Makes sense. But they are doing so at the cost of other crops. So now there is less of these other crops, and the decrease in their supply increases their cost. And then there are those other places that corn is used. They feed corn to pigs. Check your pork prices. They feed corn to chickens. They keep chickens for their eggs. As the cost of feeding chickens go up, so will that chicken breast and dozen eggs. And so on. In our drive to ease our demand on petroleum, we are driving up prices everywhere. And will we become dependent on other countries for corn?

I don't get it, really. There has always been ethanol in gasoline, at least for some time now. For as long as I can remember there has been a sign on the pumps I visit that tell me there is 10%. Now, they're trying to boost that, but it takes a different engine to consume a higher ethanol percentage in the fuel. How many of us have them? And if we did, where would we find the higher ethanol fuel? That's not readily available yet. So here we are, driving up the prices of basic food in countries around us and in our own country, with a demand that doesn't yet exist for a product we can't yet fully use in an attempt to get us off the oil that we will continue to demand anyway. In what world does this make sense?

In Remembrance

A programming note: I will be joining other bloggers tomorrow in observing a day of blogging silence to remember those who lost their lives at Virginia Tech. Regular blogging will resume on the 1st of May. (May Day! May Day!) Just letting people know I didn't vanish, there are no problems, and all is well with the world (so to speak).

At The Cross

Verse 1
Alas, and did my Savior bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I?

Chorus
At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away.
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day.

Verse 2
Was it for crimes that I have done He suffered on that tree?
Amazing pity! Grace unknown! And love beyond degree!

Verse 4
But drops of grief can ne'er repay the debt of love I owe.
Here, Lord, I give myself away. 'Tis all that I can do!

Isaac Watts was one of the more prolific hymn writers. "At the Cross" was written in the early 1700's and reflects a clear understanding of who God is, sharply contrasted with who we are. (The chorus was added later.)

The first verse sets the tone for the entire attitude of the song. Note, first of all, the names applied to Christ: Savior and Sovereign. On the personal side He is the Savior, the One who has redeemed me. On the universal side He is Sovereign, the Ultimate Ruler of all. It is only by facing God in truth that we can see ourselves in truth.

We have replaced the truth of God and His character with our own faulty opinions. When we substitute anything less than God for God, it is called idolatry. But when we diminish God, we are no longer able to accurately measure our own sinfulness. We can no longer see the depths of our depravity. Isaac Watts had a clear picture of this Sovereign who could rightly demand perfection, as well as his own distance from that standard. That we no longer see either clearly is evidenced in the current rendition of the hymn. Watts recognized himself as a worm in view of God's Sovereignty and holy nature. Our hymnals changed the line to read "...someone such as I." We don't know who God is anymore, and we are unable to recognize the depths of our depravity.

Where can we get the insight that we seem to lack? "At the cross," the hymn says. What a mind-boggling revelation it is to actually realize that this sovereign Savior, this Holy One ("sacred") died for me! In the hymn, this revelation comes by faith, by placing confidence in that truth. The result, he says, is happiness. What is happiness? Happiness is the perception that circumstances are good. Note the word "perception." Circumstances could be good, but we might perceive them as bad. Circumstances could be neutral, but we might perceive them as good. Perception is not necessarily truth. Is his perception truth? Are circumstances good? How can they not be? My Sovereign died for me! The Ruler of the universe loved me enough to give His life for me. Furthermore, because of who God is, that is, sovereign, He can say that all things work together for my good. (Romans 8:28) Therefore, any perception other than this is false.

Today's worldly, psychologized theology would warn Watts not to write the second verse. He was already in trouble with them for the comment about being a worm. "Now," they'd say, "let's not dwell on the past. You know, leaving behind the old..." But he uses his clear picture of his own sinfulness ("crimes") to catapult him further into adoring God. Beyond this, his use of the term "crimes" displays an awareness of the true nature of sin. Sin is not "doing bad things" or a character flaw. They are not mere mistakes, slip-ups. We are not "little lost lambs," but rather rebels with weapons in hand. Sin is criminal, a transgression against God, a crime; specifically, sin is the ultimate treason against the Sovereign Lord. Look through a thesaurus sometime, and you will find some good words for it. An offense, a violation, an outrage, villainy. But, not having committed any such crime, Christ suffered and died on my place anyway. Suddenly the mercy and grace and love of God exceed our comprehension. (Eph. 3:17-19) We can only glimpse the surface of God's incomprehensible love.

The fourth verse is the application phase. We have seen that God is sovereign. We have seen that we are worms. We see that we are criminals deserving death whose crimes are paid for. Now what? No amount of remorse will cover it. Watt calls it a "debt of love." This debt of love is the basis of Christian attitudes and actions. Because of my love for this great God, I want to please Him. How is that done? All I can do is give myself away.

Giving my self away is an unpopular concept in our culture. Self-esteem is a growing cult in the church. "I'm okay, you're okay" is the "healthy" viewpoint. We are all trying to take better care of ourselves. But God, and this hymn, stands in direct opposition to this. Jesus calls us to deny ourselves. (Matt. 16:24) Paul says to reckon ourselves as dead. (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:1-5) Paul calls on us, in view of the sovereignty of God (Rom. 8-11), to offer ourselves as living sacrifices. (Rom. 12:1) Despite our culture, it is the only reasonable choice when we recognize who we are, who God is, and what He has done for us.

We, in the modern-day church, are sadly lacking a clear view of God and a clear view of sin. We have substituted a diminished image of God and an enhanced image of ourselves. We need to return to the cross. We need to live there. We need to see Who hung there. We need to recall why He hung there. We need to respond in sacrifice of self. We desperately need a renewing of the mind, a transformation, a shaking off of our conformity to the world. (Rom. 12:2) A Christianity that is palatable to the world will not be palatable to God.

Be Still, My Soul

Be still, my soul! The Lord is on thy side.
Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide,
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! Thy best, thy heavenly friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

Written by Katharina von Schlegel in 1752, the hymn displays a trust in a God almost unheard of today. Why? What did she know that we have lost?

One of the most common commands to action in Scripture is "Wait." "Stand firm." "Be still." These are all the same concept. Why? "Be still, and know that I am God." In knowing God there is peace. Why? Because of who He is, but also because He is at your side.

How did Katharina von Schlegel view God? To her He was present and personal. She saw order and provision, and she saw Him as the sole source of order and provision. She saw Him as immutable and faithful, an anchor in a stormy world. She saw Him as the best possible choice, as a real friend, and wise enough to know the course to true joy.

Just as important as her view of God was her view of life. How she saw God directly impacted how she saw life. She saw that life was difficult, painful -- in her terms, a cross. But to her it was nothing to either deny or shrink from. Because her all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God was at her side, she could bear patiently and allow God to order her world and provide for her needs.

Even here we lose our way. Of course, we say, God will provide for our needs. But we mean something entirely different than God does in His promise for provision. We have turned to a God who will give us what we want rather than to a God to whom we must surrender ourselves. We believe that He is there to satisfy us. David Wells says that we have learned this in our American consumer mentality. "In the marketplace, everything is for us, for our pleasure, for our satisfaction, and we have come to assume that it must be so in the church as well."¹ The current prevalent belief is that God is there for our indulgence, and when he fails to give us what we want, He is no longer our friend. "We imagine that for those who love God and are called according to his purpose, all things work together for their satisfaction and the inner tranquility of their lives." But the fact is that God has promised suffering - because He loves us and wants the best for us. He will meet the needs He knows we have. He will use difficult circumstances to provide for our good. But it is only when we recognize the loving character of God that we can face harsh conditions with joy, knowing that He has our utmost in mind.

Katharina's viewpoints are vastly different from the average Christian today. While we speak of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving, wise God, we tremble at the slightest disturbance in life. It is said that you are motivated by what you believe, and our motivation is self-preservation because we don't really believe that God is capable or reliable. It seems that most of us don't know the God that Katharina knew. We need to. We need to see Him in history, see Him in our experience, see Him in His Word, and see Him in others. We will be unable to reflect Him if we never view Him, never see Him as He is. It is the reflection of Him that is our goal. And when we view Him as He is, we can choose to proceed through painful circumstances, standing on His capabilities and love, and obtaining the prize He had in mind for us, perfection.

Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake
To guide the future as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake.
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! The waves and winds still know
His voice who ruled them while He dwelt below.

The question of God's sovereignty has been a raging debate in the church throughout the years. Is God really in charge? What about predestination? Where does man's free will come into play? The real question is, is God truly sovereign?

The hymnist looks to His sovereignty as an ultimate anchor. "Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake to guide the future as He has the past." A key to the confidence we can have in God is in that simple sentence. How can we be sure God will "guide the future?" Because He has guided the past (Isa. 25:1). We see it in history. We see it in Scripture. We see it in our own lives. The fact is God's track record, whether we recognize it or not, is absolutely perfect.

It is God who we trust. It is His character, His proven character, in which we have confidence. We trust His goodness to do good. We trust His omniscience to know what that is and all that it entails. We trust His omnipotence to carry out His plans. When we fear anything or anyone other than God, we are saying, "I'm not sure You can be trusted here, God."

The author had another source of confidence in God. She looked to the scriptural record. We can be still in our souls because of the proof in Scripture. Her prime example is Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4:35-41). The passage says Jesus rebuked the wind and sea, and it became perfectly calm. The reaction of the disciples was increased fear, for real terror is the presence of the Holy with the unholy. If we know God, circumstances are inconsequential because they are in His hands. It is God we must fear (Deut. 4:10; Psa. 111:10; Eccl. 8:12; 12:13; Heb. 10:31).

Be still, my soul! The hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord.
When disappointment, grief, and fear are gone -
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul! When change and tears are past,
All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.

It is fascinating to me the consistent forward look of hymn writers. A majority of their songs and poems look to our ultimate union with God, either in His return or our death. Is this because of their great sorrow in life? Are they all suicidal? I don't think so. I think it is because of the immense joy set before them in the presence of God.

Most hymns point to God at work. There is great confidence in His work here and now. But to be with Him, united, perfect! Indeed, I believe it is this forward look that helped them toward their views of God. To recognize the here and now as satisfactory is possible because of who God is (Phil. 4:11-13). To see this as temporary makes it all the more enjoyable (Phil. 1:21-24). And anticipating being in God's presence in the future prevents too great an attachment to the present (Matt. 6:19-21). What cause to rejoice - to be someday in the presence of God!

Katharina ties it all together in this last verse. "Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored." Why be still? Because then, ultimately, the uncertainties and pains of life will be gone. We will know safety and blessing. "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor. 13:12)

What cause to be still? In a word, God. His faithfulness and providence, His love and sovereignty, and the absolute certainty of being with Him. Be still, my soul!

¹ David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland, pp. 114 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)

How Great Thou Art

O Lord, my God, when I, in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

Then sings my soul, my Savior, God, to Thee,
"How great Thou art! How great Thou art!"
Then sings my soul, my Savior, God, to Thee,
"How great Thou art! How great Thou art!"

This (one of my all-time favorites) was originally a poem entitled "O Store Gud" written by a Swedish pastor after experiencing the might of God's nature in a thunderstorm and the beauty of God's nature in the forest and stream he speaks of in the second verse. He wrote it in 1886, but it was translated in the 1930's by a missionary to Russia, Reverend Stuart K. Hine. Reverend Hine added the third verse in Russia, and the fourth in England.

The song is a prayer. One of the fascinating aspects of this prayer is that there are no requests. It is a prayer of adoration. This is almost unheard of in our time. We are a generation of self-centered people who defend and encourage self-centered attitudes and actions. We are the focal point of our own universe. Even in our prayers we are asking God for what we want, for what would make us happy. This prayer focuses entirely on God and His greatness.

Let's listen in as the hymnist talks to God. Note first the address: "O Lord, my God." "Lord" speaks of God's sovereignty, His lordship. In theological terms, it speaks of the transcendence of God, the God above all.

"Lord" isn't a familiar term to modern day Americans. We are an independent nation that worships freedom and independence. We prefer not to recognize anyone as master over us. We have no present-day role to use as an example of the meaning of the term. But we must learn to recognize -- "realize" (that is, to make that which is true real to ourselves) -- that God is Lord. This isn't an opinion. This isn't an option. Any view that strays from the position of God's absolute sovereignty is in error.

The second aspect of the address, "O Lord, my God," is the term "my". To call Him God is correct. There is none other. He is the one and only God. But the term "my" personalizes the relationship between God, the Sovereign, and me. Theologically, this speaks to His immanence.

Martin Luther said that Christianity is a religion of personal pronouns. We constantly read expressions like "my God," "My people," "my Lord." This points to the personal facet of God, the amazing truth that God is interested in me. No other religion in the world carries this concept of personal relationship. But Jesus said that God knows the number of hairs on my head. That's personal. He wants us to know Him. That's astonishing. We can pray with Moses, "Teach me Thy ways, O Lord, that I might know Thee." (Exo. 33:18-23)

The prayer goes on to recognize God through creation. This is a common occurrence in Scripture (e.g., Psa. 19; Rom. 1:20). All of creation points to its Maker. All created things bear the fingerprints of their Creator.

One consideration of nature is "worlds". The word covers many concepts. Above us there are a myriad of galaxies, stars, solar systems -- worlds. But in the microscopic level there are chemical structures made up of molecular structures comprised of atomic structures -- worlds. In our world there are food chains, life cycles, ecosystems, weather patterns -- worlds. God’s hands, the hymnist says, made each of these. (This takes us back to the personal God.) And each of these, as in the thunderstorm, is a picture of God's power.

The only reasonable response to a glimpse of this sovereign, yet personal, transcendent, yet immanent God is, "How great Thou art!" The hymnist sings it with his innermost being, his soul. The soul encompasses one's mind, will, and emotions. A glimpse of God must impact us at these deepest of levels, or it wasn't real. The soul turned toward God has no room for self.

And when I think that God, His Son not sparing,
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

Paul says "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) The recurring theme of God's love appears all through Scripture (e.g., John 3:16; Phil. 2:5-11; Rom. 8:32). It seems, however, that we have taken that grace for granted, as if we somehow deserve God's love. The hymnist didn't see it that way. "I scarce can take it in," was his thought.

Romans says that God was perfectly willing to reveal His glory by demonstrating His wrath (Rom. 9:22). We have gone to great effort to earn His wrath (Romans 6:23). We are, according to Scripture, God-haters (Rom. 8:7; James 4:4). Yet, Christ demonstrated grace - unmerited favor - on the cross. If I have personal worth, intrinsic value, then there is no grace. He merely practiced wise economy. But the fact is Christ died for us because He wanted to, not because I was so valuable.

"On the cross . . . He bled and died." Crucifixion was the worst way to die. Physically, it was designed for the utmost in pain and torture without immediate death. The whipping, the nails, the continuous physical torture of merely breathing while every bone came out of joint, all designed for slow death. Emotionally, it was devised to humiliate. It was a public torture in which the criminal carried his own instrument of death. He hung naked on the cross in front of all that watched. But the only record of Christ crying out was at the spiritual torment of the cross. At the moment of separation from His Father, He cried, "My God, why have You forsaken Me?" He had never been separated from God. He had never known sin. Yet He became sin for us.

Perhaps most remarkable about that day on the cross was the simple, inescapable fact that Jesus chose to do it. No one required it of Him. He could have said, "No." The hymnist recognized this fact. "My burden gladly bearing, He bled and died to take away my sin."

How can we see this and not answer with the writer, "Then sings my soul, 'How great Thou art!'" When we take for granted the immense love and grace demonstrated on the cross, we display our ignorance and self-centeredness.

When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart!
Then I shall bow in humble adoration
And there proclaim, "My God, how great Thou art!"

The last verse is a common concept among hymn-writers. Many hymns looked to the return of Christ, to the day that we would be with Him. It was a joyous thought. The prospect of being in the presence of the Almighty God, the company of our Lord and Savior, was too wonderful to imagine.

We were designed for that condition. It was Adam's original condition in the garden, walking with God. We are incomplete here without that fellowship, so we immerse ourselves in spurious pursuits to fill that void. Meanwhile, Jesus promised to prepare for our arrival (John 14:2,3). What delight to know that He is anticipating our coming! Would that we would see it with such joy.

Hine had no misconceptions about that day. We have ideas of sightseeing in heaven or visiting with biblical characters. He saw his proper response to God's presence as bowing in "humble adoration." Bowing to anyone is not a popular concept in our culture. We are proud people who defer to no one. But Scripture readily reveals that this is the most common position of anyone who came in contact with God. We have failed to see the difference between coming boldly into the presence of God and coming arrogantly into the presence of God. That we can stand in His proximity at all should utterly amaze us. Somehow we have contracted a cavalier attitude that God is some "big guy" upstairs who winks at our sin because He loves us. We mustn't fall into that thought trap.

The hymn is aptly titled, "How Great Thou Art!" It speaks of God's sovereignty as Lord - His transcendence - as well as his personal care for us - His immanence. In it we see Him as the joy of our souls and the sole worthy focus of our hearts. And we see ourselves as needy, sinful people. We see the need to turn the eyes of our souls to Him. He must increase, and I must decrease.

Precious Lord

For centuries in the church, the song of choice was the classic hymn. In the 1960's, a new type of song began to gain ground. Today we call it the chorus or praise song. And today it is the song preferred by most churches.

Choruses are often written straight from Scripture. Verses from the Psalms are particularly popular. Others express the writer's deep personal affection for God. They come in all varieties, all styles, and with an assortment of messages. They are, for the most part, easily learned, easily memorized, and easily sung.

Choruses have their place. They are quick to bring to mind a Scripture that we may have difficulty memorizing or to redirect our thoughts to God. But these songs tend to be brief, and, therefore, shallow. They don't deal deeply with the subjects they surface. Many lean toward feelings about God rather than truth, and toward what He can do for me rather than who He is. They tend to be, in the words of Hebrews, milk rather than meat.

Hymns are sometimes bulkier songs with more verses, harder words, and more complex melodies. They require deeper thought and closer attention. Many were written in a different time with a different language. But they seem to delve further into the truths of God, who He is, and how that would affect me. They are from a different culture than the modern day "ME generation," and seem to be less infected with that disabling malady. They aren't concerned with political correctness or the therapeutic conventions of modern society. They aren't troubled over my self-esteem or feelings. They aren't afraid to ask the listener to think or to stand in the presence of God and see truth.

We need this meat. The church is in disrepair largely because we in modern America won't think, won't take the time to look, listen, or hear the word of God. We have the right opinions of God, but we don't have the right heart, the right passion for Him. Hymns have the capacity to touch that passion.

Because of this, some years ago I started undertaking this little project to see what can be learned about God, truth, and all that it touches as displayed in hymns. I picked some of my favorite ones and examined what I saw there. I thought I'd write a book about it, perhaps. Well, being the self-disciplined (apparently not) guy that I am, I never finished it. And being the self-confident (obviously not) guy that I am, I figured "Who would actually want to read something like this?"

I personally enjoyed what I did finish and others who have read it enjoyed it as well, so perhaps I'll share some of it with you. The working title of the book was "Sound Bites" as I used this technique to fulfill the command to teach and admonish with hymns (Col. 3:16) Maybe you think hymns are boring and dry. Hopefully that might change. Maybe you have no use for hymns. Perhaps I can feed you some appreciation. You may be one who never quite understood them. I might offer some insight. If you find it of interest, let me know and I'll do more. If not, I can just keep it to myself. I have all these years anyway. So this is the first installment in a series that may follow that I call "Hymnody."

Precious Lord

Precious Lord, take my hand. Lead me on, help me stand.
I am tired, I am weak, I am worn.
Through the storm, through the night,
Lead me on to the light.
Take my hand, precious Lord, lead me home.

When my way grows drear, precious Lord, lead me near,
When my life is almost gone.
Hear my cry, hear my call.
Hold my hand, lest I fall.
Take my hand, precious Lord, lead me home.

Thomas Dorsey was born in Georgia, the son of a Baptist minister, in 1899. As a young man, he played blues and jazz music in local clubs in Chicago. Then, in 1921, he met Christ. God led him to use his musical talents to minister to others. He became a renowned leader of music for revival meetings, and became known as “the father of gospel music”.

One evening, Thomas was scheduled to lead music in a revival in St. Louis. He was hesitant to go because his wife, Nellie, was not well and was pregnant with their first child. He felt a strong urge to stay home, but he felt he was obligated to go and set out for the meeting. The next night, after he finished the song service, he was handed a telegram telling him that his wife had died. He hurried home, but his newborn son died the night he arrived.

Thomas was deeply grieved and questioned God. He wandered about in a fog for some time, even considering returning to secular music. As he considered the events, he concluded that the urging he had sensed to stay home that night was God speaking to him, so he agreed to walk more closely with Him. Shortly thereafter he wrote this song.

A moving, extremely personal hymn, this song sees God in the role of Comforter. We all like to think of God in that light. His love, His comfort, His peace, these are all aspects of God we long for. They are, in fact, among those things He has promised to His children. But the author recognizes further aspects of truth.

There is the recognition of our utter helplessness outside of God's presence. We believe that generally we are capable individuals. God indicates that apart from Him we can do nothing. It is apart from God that we experience "burnout." It is away from Him that we stray into our own will, not His. All we can do is not good enough.

The second aspect is that trials happen. The hymn makes no attempt to avoid them. "Through the storm, through the night..." Human nature tends to flee difficulty. Our reflexes make us withdraw from pain. But God's presence allows us to actually go through difficulties and pain. (Isa. 43:2) The fact is, along with love, joy, and peace, Christians are promised suffering. But if God is reliable, capable, wise, and loving, suffering is a secondary issue, a joy in itself. (James 1:2-4) It is a demonstration of God's love. (Heb. 12:3-10) It is necessary and, with God at hand, bearable.

The third aspect is the recognition of more. Our mind set is here and now. Yesterday is just a memory. Tomorrow hasn't come. But the hymn writer's eyes are beyond all that. The hymn looks to home. An familiar proverb says, "Home is where the heart is." The hearts of those who know God long to be with Him and anticipate with joy that day when we get to see Him. We are citizens of heaven, just visitors here. It is home that we long for.

These are the aspects that sustain us here on earth. We see our utter helplessness but know God is completely capable. We endure hardship with our precious Master alongside, inside, following His paths, standing in His strength. We recognize that ultimately this world is not our home. This helps return perspective to all of life. It is in the presence of God here and ultimately at Home that we long to be.

The Baby in the Bathwater

One of the key points of the Reformation was sola scriptura -- the position that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. This position was taken over against the three-fold authority that the Roman Catholic Church recognized (and still does): 1) The Bible, 2) The Church, and 3) Tradition.

A lot of non-Catholics have worked hard at tossing the baby out with the bath water. In their mad rush to catapult anything that resembles "Catholic" (including the word "catholic"), it seems that we have been ejecting things of value. The easiest one of these is the word "catholic," which simply means "universal." There is surely a "universal church" comprised of all Christians everywhere. Non-Catholics have difficulty realizing that the "catholic Church" is not the same as the "Roman Catholic Church." So when they hear in the Apostles' Creed, "I believe in ... the holy catholic Church," they squirm, not realizing that it's simply a reference to the Church Universal and not a tacit nod to Rome.

The one that I am having difficulty with is Church history. For some reason, there is a sense today that the history of the Church -- "Orthodoxy" -- has little value. Ignore creeds. Don't even pay attention to Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, or any of those old dead guys. We need to ignore all that stuff and just use the Word. On the face of it, it's not very bright. I mean, if there were people in the past who had depth, why shouldn't we benefit from it? But when I look at it further, it seems more than "not very bright." It seems dangerous.

Jesus, speaking of sending the Holy Spirit, said, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). The Spirit of truth came at Pentecost. That means that the Holy Spirit has been at work in believers since Pentecost directing them to the truth. And that means that the truth has been available since Pentecost. It seems to me, then, that I should be able to track whatever doctrine I choose from today all the way back through Church history to the Bible and find it confirmed by true believers throughout. I know; maybe it gets dim at times. I know that there were dark times when the true Church was hard to find. I know that there are times when not much was written. But it seems to me that there should be a continuous set of points throughout documented Church history that confirms the basic truths that we call "Christianity."

So here we are in the 21st century and we are quite comfortable, for the most part, with tossing that baby out with the Roman Catholic bathwater. Who cares what history tells us? What does it matter what other men of God believed in times past? For example, so what if Darby was the first one in over 1800 years of Church history to suggest that the Rapture would occur at the beginning of the Great Tribulation? Of what consequence is it that no one prior to the 20th century figured out that Paul did not mean that women shouldn't be pastors? Well, it bothers me. It bothers me to think that we have figured things out some 2000 years after Christ that those closer to His time couldn't see. It bothers me to think that the Spirit seemed either incapable or unwilling to lead them into all truth, but waited for our day. I don't know ... it just seems rather arrogant of us to say, "Well, sure, they believed all that stuff ... but we know better now."

Don't misunderstand. It's not all your beliefs I'm pointing at. It's not like you are the problem -- not me. I recognize, for instance, that the concept of Infant Baptism was a given in Church history until fairly recently. I know that today's largely symbolic Communion was much more real in Church history. I understand that baptism was much more significant for them than it is to us today. So I struggle with this stuff myself. What makes me think that my positions which differ from historic positions are right when they were all wrong? It makes me uncomfortable.

We live in a time when a lot of Christians are tossing out things that we shouldn't be willing to so easily lose. There is rampant anti-intellectualism. "Don't think; just feel." Never trust scholars. That kind of thing. We cannot afford to toss out our minds. There is the "No creed but Christ" crowd which, oh, by the way, is a creedal statement. We shouldn't be so willing to jettison the hard work and wisdom of men of God in times past who distilled doctrines we desperately need today into clear statements of what we believe. Then there are those who argue that Church history is irrelevant. I can't help but wonder what was preventing the Holy Spirit from doing what Christ promised He would if that is the case. I'm not arguing in favor of the three-fold system of authority that the Roman Catholic Church holds. I'm simply suggesting that much of it has value, and discarding it is unwise. And I'm wondering how far I am willing to go to hold a position counter to the wise and godly men and women who have gone before me. It just kind of bothers me.