The War in Iraq

"War" is defined as "a conflict carried on by force of arms." Oh, sure, it can be used as a description of just about any conflict, but when we speak of "World War II," for instance, we're speaking primarily of a conflict of armies. When we went to Korea in the 50's, it wasn't called "war"; it was called a "police action." So was Vietnam. Sometimes we send troops to events that end up in conflicts that are not called "wars." We didn't, as an example, call it "war" when we sent troops to assist in Somalia, even though some of our soldiers were killed in the fighting. So not every use of arms is classified as "war."

One of the primary issues in the 2008 election is "the War in Iraq." I'm having a tough time with that term. When we invaded Iraq, it was a war. Our forces took on Saddam's forces. It was one nation's army against another nation's army. That is the classic definition of "war." And then ... it was over. The people of Iraq celebrated the fall of Saddam and his government. The troops put down their arms and ran or surrendered. It was over. President took his renowned if not infamous photo op in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. It was over.

Of course, it wasn't over. The fighting continued. More Americans died. Americans continue to die. But the question is, "Can we call it war?" You see, it is no longer a battle between two armies. As much as the Press would like to call them "insurgents", it's not as much of "an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority" as it is a group of terrorists intent on preventing Iraq from becoming its own nation. Americans are no longer fighting an army; they're fighting criminals. These are not warriors; they're hit-and-run cowards. Any battles are at the behest of American forces because the terrorists prefer to vanish rather than fight. Can we really call this a war?

I'm tired of hearing it called that. I don't think it is a war anymore. I don't think we're fighting anything that resembles an army. We're trying to provide stability in an unstable place. We're operating as a heavily armed police force. We're training the Iraqis to take over what we're doing and they're doing it. But unless we're willing to call it "war" when the Iraqi police and army do it, can't we stop calling it "the war in Iraq?" Frankly, I think the term is too big for the current events. It was a war, but now it's just a police action. Can't we drop that term?

April Fool's Day

For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Cor. 1:18).

Maybe ... just maybe, given Paul's words, we should claim April 1st as our own? Maybe not.

Liver and Onions

A fellow Arizonan named T.J. Pennock runs a blog called Liver and Onions. The blog is painful in its absolute, unvarnished hatred for Calvinists. There isn't anything else going on there. It's all about how bad Calvinism is. If you are of the Reformed persuasion, you are not merely a "Calvinist" -- you are a "Calamite", which appears to be Mr. Pennock's idea of comparing Calvinists to sodomites. For favorite books he lists, "The Bible and other anti-Calvinist literature" as if no one who believes that stuff could have gotten their ideas from the Bible. It's not a simple disagreement for T.J. It's serious. And there is no dialog with T.J. because, well, if you disagree, you're evil.

He's been at this for years. You have to admit he's dedicated to this bitter hatred. But ... why does it have to be that way? When did it become necessary to assassinate those with whom they disagree? Oh, I understand fully that this is the world's approach. But why do we see it in Christian circles? Why do Christians have to be so mean?

I don't get it. "Mean-spirited" isn't one of the fruits of the Spirit as I recall. Oh, wait ... there it is. You'll find, in the list of "works of the flesh" as "enmity, strife ... dissensions, divisions" (Gal. 5:20). How odd! Somehow "Hate the sinner along with the sin" doesn't quite sound right at all. And when this kind of "in house" disagreement is trotted out on the Internet for everyone to see, it's just sad and embarrassing. These things ought not be.

It is important to contend for the truth (Jude 1:3), but it is equally important that we not be contentious. It is important that we defend what we believe, but always with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). Wrong ideas need to be exposed, especially for the brethren, but it must always be for the purpose of turning a brother to the truth (James 5:19), not trampling him underfoot. I mean, seriously, in what world is it likely that abusive terms and a complete lack of charity are viewed as likely ways of assisting a loved one toward the truth? Surely we can do better than that, brothers and sisters. (Oh, and you Calvinists who are equally nasty ... I'm talking to you, too.)

A Plea to Women

Ladies, I'm writing this to you as a plea. I'm begging. I know you don't often hear a guy beg a woman -- we're much too macho for that -- but I'm begging. We men desperately need your help. We have some "design flaws", some gaps, some rough spots that we cannot seem to overcome. Oh, I suppose "flaw" isn't the right word. We were specifically designed this way by our Maker. So it appears that we have some parts, behaviors, tendencies built in that God intended to be matched, altered, and modified by women. And, ladies, we men are in desperate need of your help to do that.

What I'm asking for isn't an easy thing. It's frankly very difficult. Sometimes it will appear impossible. I am certain, however, that it will alter male behavior for the good and provide you with satisfaction, security, and a sense of well-being you hadn't anticipated.

You see, you have within yourself the capacity to make a radical change in the world. This is, as you might guess, somewhat rare. Most people don't have the ability to change the world. You do. Perhaps one of you can only change your world, but it would be no small change. And it cannot help but have a ripple effect. Others will see it and want it. Two of you doing this task can multiply the effect. The more that do it, the more massive the effect becomes. But it doesn't result in a simple "make my life better" in any case. It has far-reaching effects in your life as well as the lives of your children, your family, your marriage, your husband, even in his life away from home. It is a very rare power you possess and I am begging you to make use of it.

What is this power? It will sound strange, I suppose, even unnatural to some, but it is irrefutable. It may sound like nonsense, perhaps unwarranted, maybe even unwise. But it is a phenomenal power. Here it is: Wives, respect your husbands.

"Oh, that garbage," some of you might say. "Yeah, yeah, we've heard that from you guys for too long." Maybe ... but I'm not the one who said it. It's God's command: "Let the wife see to it that she respect her husband" (Eph. 5:33). Unless you want to suggest that the God we serve is a sexist, maybe we can drop that objection. I'm quite sure, however, that the other one is just at the tip of some tongues. "Respect must be earned!" Very popular line. Very popular feeling. And, if it is true, we have to conclude that for God to command it makes God a very unfair, unreasonable being. You can't command something if they haven't earned it. It's not right! Or is it? In 1 Peter 3 this same respect is called for "even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1). Lousy husbands, according to God, still must be respected. It's a command from God.

But listen, ladies, I'm not begging for this because it's simply a command. I'm not begging for this simply because God says it and you must do it. Frankly, stated that way, that should be enough. But I'm not stopping there. I'm begging for it because of the benefits it provides for both us guys and you women. The effect of this type of behavior from a wife is truly phenomenal. Now, I know ... you don't get us men. We're a mystery. But let me clue you in -- a woman that shows us respect ... you have no idea what that does to a guy.

A man who has a wife who accepts and admires him unconditionally is a man who knows few limits. A man who has a wife who esteems him, who simply considers him a valuable person, is a man who is satisfied. This man would find adultery repulsive. He would find time with his wife to be a joy and doing things for his wife a pleasure. It's not necessary to nag this guy; he has a wife who is grateful for what he does for her. Seriously, do you know a guy who won't perform above and beyond when he is being cheered on by an adoring fan? I don't think women realize what happens to a man when a wife asks, "What do you think this passage of Scripture means?" and actually wants to know. I don't think a wife understands the effect on a husband when she says, "Why don't you go the way you think is best? I trust your driving." Women don't really comprehend the wonderful effect on a guy when she expects the best out of him and respects him.

Men aren't looking for doormats. They are in desperate need for respect. Some go seriously wrong in their search for it. Others simply stop looking. Most are someplace in between. But let me tell you, ladies, if you would simply do what God asks -- and I know that's not an easy thing to do -- and respect your husbands, there would be radical changes occurring. So I'm begging you. It's in your best interest. It's certainly in our best interest. It's in the best interest of your family. And it's in the best interest of our culture and society. You, women, hold this power and this key. Respect your husbands, and you have the potential to make big changes in all sorts of areas in life. How about it? Take a chance on God's command. Maybe He knew what He was saying.

Worship

Worship ... what is it? The dictionary is helpful: "The activity of worshipping." Thanks. That clears things up. But, seriously, what is it? Generally, worship is reverence, love, and honor. Technically it can be offered to anyone we care to reverence, love, and honor. A sappy guy may worship at the feet of his beloved girl. An idolater may worship anything at all. But biblical, Christian worship is focused solely on God. God alone is authorized in Scripture to receive that reverence, love, and honor that we refer to as "worship."

The word originally comes from the Old English term, "weorthscipe". Maybe, if you pronounce that, you can see its intended thought: "worth-ship." That's right, worship is intended to apply worth to the recipient. And for Christians, that "worth-ship" is supposed to be applied to God alone. The term for this is "latria," defined as "that worship which is given to God alone." Now, take that term, "latria," and stick it at the end of other terms and you'll find something interesting. "Idol"+"latria" gives us "idolatry" -- worship that is intended for God alone, but given to idols instead. Interestingly, the term has lots of English offsprings. "Autolatry" is the worship of self. "Astrolatry" is the worship of stars. "Demonolatry" is the worship of demons. "Arborolatry" is the worship of trees. "Hagiolatry" is the worship of saints and "heliolatry" is the worship of the Sun. What's my point? My point is that it is so incredibly easy for us to shift away from "latria" -- worship fo God alone -- to just about any other thing.

We are pitiful worshipers, actually. We can worship God, which is great, but we can also worship idols of all sorts. We can worship cars or women or money or sex or power or ... the list is endless, it seems. We all have our varieties of idols that we worship. The top of every list, however, is "self." We are, by nature, worshipers of our own desires, our own selves. The problem, unfortunately, is that we tend to inject just about anything at all in that space we refer to as "worship", even when we're trying to worship God. Instead of a sole focus on the Creator of the Universe, the Lord of lords, the God of gods, the Alpha and Omega ... we're paying attention to the praise band or the fine-sounding choir. With one eye on God, we have the other on the trappings, the sound, the feel. We forget that worship is assigning worth to God and begin to think that it's "feeling good" toward God ... which is simply self-worship -- How do I feel?

It is a confusing thing for us. I understand that. You see, when we draw near to God, He draws near to us. When we turn our eyes upon Jesus, it definitely affects our perceptions and feelings. When we turn our focus on the magnificence and glory of the Almighty, it cannot but change our emotions. But before long we seek that change in emotions rather than the glory of God itself and substitute the creature for the Creator.

When you worship today, keep that in mind. It's not about you. It's about Him. It's not about the music or the trappings. It's about Him. It's not about how you feel toward God. It's about God. Don't substitute idolatry for worship. Truly worship. He has sufficient glory and worth to demand it. To God be the glory!

The Regulative Principle of Worship

One of the points in Reformed theology that is often overlooked is the idea called "the Regulative Principle of Worship". The principle is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (WCF XXI:I).

While most of our behavior and living principles are viewed in terms of Christian liberty, the idea for worship is that it is highly regulated by God. In other words, the two -- Christian living and Christian worship -- are viewed in opposite terms. Christian living is viewed as "That which is not forbidden is allowed" while Christian worship is "That which is not commanded is forbidden."

There are reasons for this distinction. In Leviticus 10 we read the story of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons. They brought "strange fire" to offer to God. As a result, they were consumed by fire from God. Their crime, it seems was that they "offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them" (Lev. 10:1). Aaron was horrified and complained to Moses. Moses's response was this: "It is what the LORD spoke, saying, 'By those who come near Me I will be regarded as holy, and before all the people I will be honored'" (Lev. 10:3). The answer made Aaron keep silent. From events like these it becomes clear that God has specific requirements in worshiping Him that are not for all people or all circumstances. The more popular passage that is quoted to support the Regulative Principle of Worship is God's words in Deut. 12:32 -- "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it." The prevalent view is that to offer to God any other worship than that which He has commanded is idolatry.

I think the principle has merit. (I wrote a series of blogs on it back in July, 2006, beginning with this post and ending with this one.) On the other hand there are problems with the principle. First, how do you apply it consistently? You see, there are no commands in Scripture for, as an example, churches. There was a Tabernacle followed by a Temple, sure, but no churches. God didn't have His people build places of worship in each town. No such command is offered. They did it, but it's not in there. If you look at the Westminster Confession, they list very few things for worship. There is prayer with thanksgiving (WCF XXI:IV). Then it includes this:

The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner (WCF XXI:V).

That's it, folks. Not only is your praise band excluded, but so is your contemporary Christian songs. But don't lose heart. So is the organ, the piano, and the traditional hymnal. Musical instruments are not allowed, and the only songs that may be sung are from the Psalms. The sacraments are in, but the offering is out. Fasting is in, but those announcements about what is going on at church are out. Preaching is definitely in, but those video screens some of you use or the dance or drama groups ... definitely out. And you know all those special gatherings some of you like to have? Out, certainly out. No Wednesday night prayer meeting. It's not commanded. You ought not do it. Some churches have Saturday services. Certainly not allowed.

And so it goes. This principle, if installed and followed to the letter, would result in a radical change in our churches. It would first require that our churches be consolidated. One in each city, I suppose, since we can find New Testament examples. Certainly not two, let alone hundreds. The "megachurch" concept would be a given in any large city because there would only be one in each city. Instruments would be gone. While many would cheer the end of the "seeker sensitive service", they would be surprised by the removal of all hymnals, pianos and organs. There would be no Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, Thanksgiving, or any other service other than Sunday mornings. (I suppose you could stretch it to all day Sunday.) There would certainly be no Evolution Sunday, to be sure, but along with that we'd need to toss out all the other things we recognize such as pro-life or anti-racism days. I don't know how they do it, but those that argue for the Regulative Principle seem to comfortably ignore many of the rest of the Old Testament commands God gave regarding worship. They don't observe Passover or the Feast of Unleavened Bread or the Festival of Booths or ... well, you get the idea. These are all God-given commands for His worship, but they've conveniently decided that God ... well ... changed His mind about them.

I don't know. I have a great deal of respect for the principle, but I have a real problem with the application. Just as people can easily abuse the principle of Christian liberty, I fear that it is real easy to abuse the Regulative Principle of Worship. Unfortunately, when I make that suggestion, I sound like, "Did God say?" and will be ignored by those who hold to it. Too bad. I wish we could figure this thing out better. I think there's something there, but not necessarily what I'm being offered as "it".

Confusing Facts

There you have it. Is a transgender really transgender or is he/she still the original gender.

There is a news item from the London Telegraph about a couple in Oregon. The wife had previously undergone a hysterectomy, so she was unable to have children. So when she married her "husband" and decided they wanted children, the best option they came up with was to have "him" carry the baby.

"What??!!" you're surely asking. Yes, that's the story. You see, "he" is a transgender male. He was born a female. Feeling like she should have been a male, she underwent medical treatments to make her more "male". She had her breasts removed and took hormone therapy to make her more male. (She did not make any changes to her reproductive organs.) Then, as a "man", she married her wife. Now "he" has been artificially inseminated and is carrying a baby due to be born July 2.

Does anyone find this confusing? I know I do. Apparently "male" and "female" is defined simply as "whatever I feel like." It is not defined medically as "the gender your organs make you" or "the chromosomes you carry". It is simply defined as "how I feel." If you feel like you're male, you are male, and if you feel like you're female, you're female. Your body type, reproductive systems, hormone production, and all are simply ... wrong.

Of course, this is working out just about everywhere you look. Are we in a recession or are we not? Well, it all depends on how you feel. Are we at risk from terrorists or are we not? That depends on how you feel. Is there truth to the claims of Christ or is there not? If you feel like there is, there is; otherwise, of course not. Is marriage between a man and a woman, or is it between whomever wishes to call it "marriage"? Go with your feelings on that.

Slowly, but with gathering momentum, we are stripping out everything that has any meaning. When we get to the point that we cannot reasonably define "male" and "female" I think it's pretty clear that we cannot define much of anything. A rock is only a rock as long as you feel like it is. It could be a flower if you feel that way. I once raised a rabbit with my cats. It acted like a cat. It ate cat food and used the cat box. It felt like a cat. I guess it was a cat. Truth has no meaning when it is felt rather than reality. And all reality is being defined by our emotions. Talk about building a house on sand. Personally, I think I should be declared Emperor of America so I can clear all this up ... because I feel like it.

Faith in Crisis

What is faith? If you talk very long to an atheist, you'll likely get a limited response. Archie Bunker suggests "Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." One of the most common definitions of faith is "Believing something you know isn't true." Of course, both of these are inaccurate. Everyone knows that faith is really defined as "firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof." That's where it is left. That's where most people will go. That's even where most Christians will go. For many people "Faith is believing what you want to believe, yet cannot prove." It's a nice place for them to be. They don't have to give a reason for what they believe because there is no reason by definition. (Oddly, although they define faith as lacking reason, they will still try to use reason to defend their faith.) Of course, to a thinking person it would mean the death of the intellect, an act of mental suicide. So some reject faith out of hand.

To me, these are quite inadequate methods of defining or describing faith. For some reason, it seems, faith must be defined differently when it comes to religion than in other places in life. Religion tends to require "lack of evidence" but the rest of life has no such demand. If I tell my wife, "I have faith in you," I'm expressing trust. It would be foolish to trust someone without reason. I've spent sufficient time to know that she's trustworthy and, so, I trust her. That's evidence that produces faith. Faith says, "I know this up to here so I can expect this in the future."

There is a well-known story of a French tight-rope walker named Blondin. He made his name by walking across Niagara Falls on a rope. The story is told of a time when walked across and the crowd gathered to watch. Then he walked back and picked up a wheelbarrow. "Who believes I can walk across with this wheelbarrow?" he asked. Some raised their hands. And he walked across with the wheelbarrow. On the other side he picked up several large sacks of flour and made the return trip. Everyone applauded. So he asked, "Who thinks I could walk across with a man in this wheelbarrow?" Most raised their hands. "Who will get in the wheelbarrow and go across with me?" The story is told that only Harry Colcord, Blondin's manager, would ever consent to go across with him.

The story is told to illustrate biblical faith. It is an accurate illustration. What is biblical faith? It is not "that you believe what nobody in his right mind would believe." It is not believing something for which there is no evidence. Despite the popularity of such an answer, even among Christians, it is not accurate. In the illustration, the crowd had sufficient evidence. They saw him walk the rope without a problem. They saw him walk the rope with a wheelbarrow. They saw him walk the rope with weight in the wheelbarrow. There was sufficient evidence to convince them that it could be done. There was not absolute proof, but there was sufficient evidence.

Biblical faith is like that. It is not belief in a vacuum. It is belief with evidence. There are reasons for believing. Reasons do not negate faith. The only difference between biblical faith and the faith of that crowd is that biblical faith takes that final step -- it gets in the wheelbarrow. There are reasons to believe what we believe. Without such reasons -- without evidence at all -- the whole concept of apologetics is nonsense. Atheists demonstrate faith when they assert there is no god. They don't have proof. They follow their own line of reasoning and, believing this much is so, they conclude there is no god. They can't prove it; they believe it ... and place their weight on that wheelbarrow. But it is still unproven.

I'm tired of being told that faith is anti-intellectual. I'm tired of being told that faith and reason are incompatible. I'm tired of having my terms defined for me. "Here ... 'faith means belief without evidence' ... okay, now you work with that." It leads to the wrong questions and the wrong problems and the wrong answers. We who believe God should not allow those who do not define for us what we mean. It terminates any chance of explanation, of "being prepared to make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15).

It is true that we do not play on the field of physical evidence alone. It is true that we will run into things that are beyond our understanding. If there is a God, it is required. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. True Christians will always live in a world guided by faith. However, that faith is shaped and directed by evidence. It holds to reason, but doesn't allow reason to pass judgment on the content of faith. Instead, it allows reason to offer meaning and means for ways to pass on understanding of its content. Like Blondin, we walk a careful tightrope of faith. It is not devoid of reason, but it is not solely based on reason. When we subject faith to evidence, then evidence becomes our sole source. When we divorce faith from evidence, then the defense we are called to make for faith becomes meaningless. Reason will, at times, confront the incomprehensible. That doesn't damage faith because faith is the basis, with reason as its support. This type of faith has sustained theism for all time and despite the best efforts of the skeptic, it remains intact. So, what are you going to believe -- the anti-Christian's definition of your faith or the truth?

President Bush's Resignation Speech

I'm not a big fan of President Bush, but neither am I on the "hate Bush" bandwagon like so many I know. However, this has been making the email rounds and I thought it was humorous. I also thought there was some points of truth to it that are worth thinking about.
_______________________

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maineiac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. Although satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush SHOULD give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' I'm not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too incredibly lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this "Bush Lied; People Died," garbage either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be "discovered." Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named "Clinton" established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the Cold War, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and they're all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a "long and difficult fight" amounts to a single season of Survivor.

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, you're on your own.

Prayer Changes Things

It's a bumper sticker I've seen. It's a billboard I've seen. It's a common proverb I've heard. And, I have to agree, it's a truth. Prayer changes things. The sovereign God of the Universe has, amazingly, ordained that He would use the prayers of His people to bring about change. Using our requests as a key or an enabling of some sort, He chooses to answer prayers offered according to His will to bring about change.

What does prayer change? Prayer changes landscape. We know this from Jesus's comments about mustard seed of faith moving mountains. Prayer changes circumstances. We all have heard or even experienced divine healings, immediate rescue from painful events, or protection in hard times. One thing that prayer changes of which we are less aware is the person praying. When we participate in God's work by obeying the command to pray at all times and get the blessing of seeing those prayers answered, we are changed. When we pound the throne of God as we are commanded, whether or not the request is granted, we are changed. Prayer teaches us a more careful dependence on God. So, there is no doubt that prayer changes things.

I was recently reminded that there is one thing that prayer does not change, and, oddly enough, a whole lot of Christians don't seem to know this. Prayer does not change the mind of God. Now, lots of people will argue with that. It seems rational that if I ask and God answers it is because my request changed His mind. There are scriptural events where it appears that God changes His mind when His people ask. To be fair, there are even explicit scriptural statements like "the Lord repented" when someone begs something of Him. One of the prime examples is in Exodus 32. God told Moses about Aaron's golden calf. He was going to destroy Israel for her sin (Exo. 32:7-10). Moses begged God not to do it (Exo. 32:11-13). And the Scriptures report, "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Exo. 32:14). "Come on," you say, "can it be any clearer than that?"

Here's the problem. If, indeed, our prayers can actually change the mind of God, then we have no God. Here's why. God is declared by Scripture to be immutable (unchanging) and omniscient (all-knowing). Scripture states clearly, "I am the LORD, I change not" (Mal. 3:6). First, if He knows everything, what do you suppose we finite beings can tell Him that might alter His perspective? "Oh, thanks for telling Me that," you can imagine Him saying, "I hadn't considered it." Did the omniscient God not know that Moses would say, "Why should the Egyptians say, 'With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth'?" (Exo. 32:12)? Had He not already considered His promises to Abraham (Exo. 32:13)? Did Moses actually tell God something God didn't know or had forgotten? Is that even remotely conceivable? If so, then we don't have an omniscient God. And if our prayers actually change God's mind, God lies when He makes the claim, "I change not." Further, if our requests change His mind, what about the times we don't ask? What did He miss then? If our prayers are capable of changing God's mind, then God is not omniscient, not immutable, and not faithful. He is an incompetent liar.

What alternative would I offer? I see these passages about God "repenting" as simple human language. It is simply a reference to human perception. God appears to be going in this direction ... and now He appears to have changed directions. It's not that He didn't plan the change of directions; it's that He appears to have changed directions. We use this type of language often, especially in regards to God. We speak of the eyes of God looking to and fro, although a spirit being has no optical sensors. We speak of the hand of God being on someone even though a spirit being has no hands. So when God changes directions, even if it was His plan to turn at Point X, we would speak of it in terms of "repenting". Newer translations use terms like "relenting". He removed the pressure He was applying.

You may wish to argue that prayer can change God's mind. You may like the idea. You may even insist that it's biblical. If it is, however, I think you'll end up without a God you can trust. Prayer does indeed change lots of things. It changes things around us. It changes us. But if it changes God, He is undone, and so are we. We ought to think carefully before insisting on that hazy-minded, changing god.

Live a Lot

Driving down the Interstate in southern Louisiana, I saw the billboard (multiple times) that said, "Live a lot." Now, if you looked closely enough, the small print said that it was an advertisement for a large casino in the area, but the bold print caught my eye. "Live a lot." It got me to thinking about Jesus's words:

I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly (John 10:10).

Now, there are plenty of folks around that are happy to tell you that this is a promise from Jesus that we should live a full and happy life, rich in health and wealth. I'm not seeing that. I find that to be a narrow view of "life". Others feel like they've been shortchanged because their experience of the Christian life has been a life more restricted, not more abundant. They've experienced real suffering, real loss, real pain, real hard times, and they think, "This is life more abundantly???" I understand that feeling, but it makes me wonder if that reflects what Christ meant about having a more abundant life. And there are a lot of us that identify with Paul's struggles in Rom. 7. We want to live godly lives yet still agonize over our ongoing struggle with sin. Now, how is that "abundant life"? I've actually read some people who said that this was Jesus's call to take better care of yourself. That seems like a real long shot. So what was Jesus talking about?

There are several ways to apply Jesus's concept of the "more abundant life". First, of course, is the term "eternal life". That's what He came to bring. That's certainly "more abundant life" than "eternal death", the result of sin. Second, there is the fact that we have additional life in Christ -- the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. According to Phil. 2:13, God in us generates the willingness and ability to do that which pleases Him. Clearly those without the Spirit lack those components. Therefore, they lack that much life. Paul writes that we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2), and that we now have "Christ in you". That's the mystery (Col. 1:27) that sets us apart from everyone else. Now that is "more abundant life" -- having the resurrected Savior in us. The Christian life, in fact, is Christ's life then lived out by Christ now in us. Seriously, life in those terms doesn't get more abundant.

I suspect that one aspect of the abundant life that we largely miss is the one found in Ephesians.

Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen (Eph. 3:20-21).

Paul exceeds his capacity to express the size of the idea here. "Exceedingly abundantly above" is the phrase. "Super super beyond." Not really beyond. Not really really beyond. God is able to go really, really, really beyond. Beyond what? Beyond our requests; beyond our imaginations. You go ahead and dream about what God could do in your life ... and He can exceed it. Good stuff. But don't stop there. How does God exceed what you can even dream about your life? "According to the power that worketh in us." This isn't a theoretical. This isn't an "out there" thought. This is an actual power that is currently at work in us. God can exceed what you can dream by simply employing the power He already has at work in you. Imagine that! We struggle. We pray. We dream. We wish. We work and we fail. Everyday life can feel mundane, but the truth is that there is nothing that God cannot accomplish in our lives, even beyond what we can imagine.

So, go ahead! Live a lot! Push the boundaries of what you think you can do for God. Slip off those borders that you put on things. "Oh, I could never do that for God. That's outside of my possibilities." No, it's not. If you can conceive it, He can do it and more. "Sure, I've heard or seen Him do it in others' lives, but not mine." If you can conceive it, He can do it and more. Go ahead! Live ... a lot!

If I was the only one

Something Joni Eareckson Tada said during the conference has stuck with me for several days now. She told of the kind hearted pastor who told her when she was a young person, "If you were the only person on earth, God would have sent His Son to save you."

We've all heard that, I suppose. I know I have. And I get the sentiment that is supposed to come across there. "God loves you so much! You're so special!" I won't try to debate the truth of the statement or the sentiment. I'd be arguing in a vacuum, just as the statement does. But Joni pointed out a very important truth in the statement. One perspective says, "You're so special to God that He would have sent His Son just for you." The other says, "Your sin alone is so heinous that it, all by itself, would have required the death of the Son of God to remedy."

Something to think about as we celebrate His death and resurrection on our behalf.

Where's the Experience?

It has been nice avoiding politics lately, but I just have to ask. I'm really not getting it. Someone, please, tell me.

Over and over in the Clinton v. Obama race I keep hearing that Hillary has the experience needed. She has laid claim to 35 years of experience. I even heard a retired general who supports her say that this was his primary reason for supporting her. She has 35 years of experience. What is she talking about? What experience is she claiming? What is the experience that has swayed the general to her side?

Hillary Rodham Clinton was born in 1947. She started out as a lawyer after graduating from Yale in 1973. In 1975 she did a brief bit as a Congressional legal counsel, then married Bill Clinton. She was the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 - 1981 and again from 1983 - 1992. She was First Lady of the United States from 1993 - 2001. She was involved with organizations like WalMart as well as an organization that promoted children's health care. She failed to push through her "Hillarycare" plan for universal health care in 1994 but helped establish SCHIP in 1997. She has served as a senator for the state of New York since 2000.

I see some experience as a lawyer, some experience as a wife, and some experience in politics. Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He has worked in community organizations and as a civil rights lawyer. He served the Illinois Senate from 1997 - 2004 and has been a U.S. Senator since 2004. It doesn't seem to me that there is a vast difference in political experience between the two. Further, it doesn't seem to me at all that Hillary can count up "35 years of experience" simply by virtue of having graduated from Yale 35 years ago.

There was a commercial that shouted, "Where's the beef?!" I want to know, "Where's the experience?" If we were looking to elect a First Lady, I'd say she has more experience at that than just about anyone I can imagine. But "First Lady" is not the same thing as "political experience". Now, back in Bill Clinton's era, I remember seeing bumper stickers that said, "Impeach President Clinton ... and her husband." Maybe that's it. But if that's it, she can only serve two terms ... can't she?

The Little Red Hen

When I was young, I heard the story of the little red hen. She wanted to make some bread, so she asked some of her barnyard animal friends to help her. The story goes through all the steps, from planting the wheat to baking bread. And at every step of work, her barnyard friends refused to help. Then she asked, "Who will help me eat my bread?" Of course, they all wanted to help, but she refused to let them. The moral was clear. If you aren't willing to do the work, don't expect to enjoy the rewards.

I work at a university. I was mulling over the strange fact that there are no students on campus this week; it's Spring Break. It used to be called "Easter Vacation". That was the origin of the week-long time away from school. It was to observe Holy Week. If you think about it, there is no rational explanation for Spring Break. The kids didn't get a break a month after coming to school in the Fall. They just came off Winter Break (which, of course, was originally called "Christmas Vacation"). They don't need the time off. But they get it because it is tradition. The same is true of Christmas time. They get a couple of weeks off school to celebrate ... well, nothing, really, because Christ has been banned from public schools.

It seems as if we didn't learn the lesson of the little red hen. We enjoy a great deal of benefits from Christianity. It was Christianity that spawned the United States. It was on the basis "inalienable rights" that were endowed by the Creator that this country was formed. It has been Christian morality that has maintained our form of government.

So, here we are, in 21st century America. We've decided we don't want to help plant wheat. We're not going to thresh the wheat. We're not even going to bake the bread. We're throwing the source of so many good things out the window as "bad religion." Still, we think it is our right to keep the good things without the basis on which we get them. We don't seem to realize that if we reject the basis of the blessings we enjoy, we will lose them.

It seems as if too many Americans never picked up the wisdom of one little red hen.

Obama and His Pastor

It appears that Obama is successfully distancing himself from his "offensive" pastor without actually putting any distance between them. That's fine. His first cut at it was his assertion, "He's my pastor, not my political advisor." He went on to give that fine speech about race relations and that quite noble sounding "I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother" line of thinking, which, honestly, I understood. But that first line, that first cut ... is that bothering anyone as much as it is me?

Here's the thinking: "I choose where I go to church. I choose a church that reflects my views and beliefs. If I stay at a church, it's because I'm largely in agreement with that church. If I stay with a church for 20 years, it's because of solid agreement. But, I want you all to know, just because I went to that church for 20 years and listened to that pastor for 20 years, there's no reason to think that it will affect my political views."

I suppose in some circles that's commendable. "Don't let your religious worldview affect your political worldview. Keep religion out of politics." To me that's utter nonsense. A worldview is a way of viewing the world. If it doesn't affect my political worldview, it isn't a worldview. If your religion isn't a worldview, it is of no value.

You see, your religious view informs everything. It shapes your morality. It determines if it's right to abort babies or preferable to give mothers the option to do so. It sets your priorities on healthcare versus personal freedom, government control versus individual responsibility, which laws are good and which are bad, and on and on and on. If, on the other hand, it does not shape any of your perspectives, it's a lie. Either you are lying to yourself or you are lying to us, but if your religion makes no difference in your views on life, it's not real.

So, what are we to believe? Mr. Obama has tried to win over Christians by assuring us he's a Christian. Now he has tried to ward of racism charges by assuring us that, even though he's a Christian, it makes no difference in his views on life. That's not "Christian". (It's not "Jewish" or "Moslem" or any other religion you choose.) It's nonsense. So which is it? Is he a Christian who actually espouses the views he has repudiated and is lying about it, or is he not a racist but not a Christian? It seems to me he can't have it both ways.

The Other Side of "Deserve"

I wrote the other day about "I deserve better". It was a reminder of what we deserve, a call not to think too highly of ourselves. There is another side of properly understanding what we deserve, a positive side.

In Paul's epistle to Rome, he mentions one of our problems: "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks" (Rom 1:21). A lack of gratitude is a serious problem we all seem to share. The primary reason for this lack is our sense of self -- "I deserve". We buy into a sense of entitlement and, then, since we are entitled to what we get, we are not grateful for it.

I just returned from an extremely pleasant, very comfortable trip across the South. We were in a motorhome with all the amenities. I didn't suffer in any sense. However, when you're sitting in a church parking lot for several days without any electrical connection or water source (et cetera -- I won't mention what that is), suddenly you become very careful with your supplies. You use electricity carefully. Showering is less frequent. You don't wash things as copiously. You're careful with everything you have. So this morning, in my own shower, it was pure joy to run the water for as long as I wanted. Mind you, that wasn't a long time. Still, simply to not have to think about a water source with which to bathe or the hot water I needed was a privilege. Before the trip, it was an "entitlement", essentially, in my mind. I mean, I had it with me always. What's the big deal? So today I was grateful for a shower.

I wish I could maintain that position. I wish I could keep in mind that what I deserve is punishment. The more I could keep that in mind, the more I would be grateful. I would be grateful for a job that pays the bills rather than resentful of the neighbor who makes more money. (If my neighbor is reading this, I was talking figuratively, not literally -- generally, not personally.) I would be grateful for running water and electricity rather than complaining about rising costs. I would be grateful for a church to go to rather than bemoaning the fact that the ones that are available aren't "perfect" ... whatever that means. I would be glad for the clothes I wear rather than hoping to show off something new, glad for the food I eat rather than wishing for steak instead of hamburger.

I wish I could maintain that position. I would be more concerned about helping a neighbor with less than maintaining my own comfort. I would be more intent on comforting a coworker with a difficult situation rather than worrying about my own ... which I deserve. (My mother shared this little nugget of wisdom with me on the trip: "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is ... stop digging.") I would be more available to my wife and kids and less concerned about the things that concern me.

Yes, I suppose it's a bit dreary to remember that I deserve nothing better than eternal damnation. I suppose it's daunting to think that every day I deserve nothing better than prolonged agony for my sin. Still, if I did, I think I would be better for it. I would be happier with what God gives, more grateful for what I do have, and more of a person who loves God and loves his neighbor. Oh, wait, I suppose I could say it would make me more like a Christian, couldn't I?

Home Again

Well, I'm home again. It was a great trip with wonderful fellowship with family (Seriously, I have a great wife and really exceptional parents and we enjoyed the time together far more than the average person would even dream is possible.) The conference in Florida was marvelous. If you missed any of my blogs in it, you can go back and read them. Better yet, go to Ligonier's blog of the conference. They apparently took better notes than I did. If you hurry, you can even watch the conference videos. Good stuff.

Last year I wrote a blog on Traveling Mercies where I asked what that meant. This year I realized that it was a perfectly suitable term if you keep in mind what we deserve. Life lessons, I guess. In the meantime, we enjoyed traveling mercies again.

So it should be blogging back to normal. I'll let you decided if that's good or bad.

The Lie

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen (Rom. 1:18-25).

This passage is Paul's initial description of the problem of sin. He goes on for a couple of chapters in Romans on this topic, but this is the first cut. The problem: The suppression of truth. What truth? Man knows who God is but refuses to honor or thank Him. As Man cut God out of His rightful place and assumes it himself, Paul says he "exchanged the truth about God for a lie." The Greek text isn't quite as broad. It actually says that Man exchanged the truth about God for the lie. What is the lie? The lie that all humans fall into is to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator.

Horrible, isn't it? Don't you wish those evil humans would get that straightened out? Are you aware that you and I, believers, suffer from the same problem? We're clearly aware of the problem of the lie, but that dastardly error will constantly try to sneak into our thinking, and we need to be conscious of it.

A popular question is when people wonder how it is that a loving God could send people to Hell. Clearly the premise of the question begins with the notion that people are deserving of God's love and not deserving of Hell. That is "serving the creature rather than the Creator." What is your mental response? Is it to try to come to some appeasement of poor God, or is it to recognize the justice of punishing the creature?

Many times Christians will run into statements in the Bible that have God doing things that they find distasteful. "God couldn't do that," they complain. This is another instance of serving the creature rather than the Creator. "God would not do what I think He shouldn't do." Or, to put it another way, "My understanding of what God will or will not do is superior than what He has said." When I refuse to submit my understanding of God to what God has said, it is serving the creature.

Lots of Christians complain that God choosing to save some and not others or God destroying the Canaanites means that God is not fair. The story of Uzzah, struck dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant, is so incomprehensible to some Christians that they have to relegate it to myth or explain it as a misunderstanding of the people at the time. "He scared himself to death," I've heard them say, "and people attributed it to God." You see, the creature deserves better. The creature has the right to be chosen. The creature shouldn't suffer God's immediate wrath. We are serving the creature rather than the Creator.

Humans have a problem. They want to elevate themselves above their Maker. Unfortunately, it's a human problem. We who should know better often suffer from that very same problem. We concur with God in the inner man, but then have problems with God because He does whatever He pleases. "That's not fair!" We dare not offer such a fist in the face of God! It would be wise of us to rethink our outrage on behalf of the creature and clear the decks to fight for the honor of the Creator.

I Deserve Better

Steve Taylor is one of my favorite Christian musicians. He did a song called "Cash Cow". The Cash Cow goes from the golden calf in the Sinai desert to the prosperity gospel today. He doesn't stop there. In the last verse he says, "I too was hypnotized by those big cow eyes the last time I uttered those three little words, 'I deserve better.'"

"I deserve better." It's a lie, you know. It's a product of our imagination, a result of our inflated view of our own importance. It's the natural end point of a thinking process that starts with "I will be like the Most High." We can conclude nothing different when we begin our reasoning with the unstated but common belief that the world revolves around me.

This mistaken position that is so common to most human beings leads to so many faulty conclusions. If we understood what we actually deserved, the question of "Why does God allow suffering?" would be instantaneously replaced with, "How can a just God allow the universe to continue another microsecond?" If we really grasped what we deserved, then arrogance would vanish and courtesy would be commonplace, a natural response from one lowly creature to another. If we could really get our minds around what we actually deserve, we would be on our faces thanking God for another single breath, another beat of the heart, another moment with a loved one. We wouldn't be sacrificing our precious life moments on getting ahead at work or trying to lord it over my wife or getting my husband to do what I want or complaining about that neighbor's barking dog. We wouldn't be assigning blame or taking credit. We would find, instead, a reordered set of priorities.

Maybe we need to pause at times in life and really consider, "What do I actually deserve?" If the wages of sin is death, if "the day that you eat it you shall die", if it is true that sin is an affront to the glory of God, perhaps we don't "deserve better". We don't deserve grace and mercy and love from God. We deserve the daily, unmitigated, ongoing wrath of God. The moment we forget that is the moment we drift into the morass of confusion in so many areas. Perhaps we should call to mind more often what we actually deserve. It would make us better, more grateful, more congenial people.

The Gospel is Good News

This last week has been a good opportunity to review the Gospel that we claim. It starts with the bad news. I suppose most of us aren't really aware of the bad news, even those of us who know the Gospel. We know, we know, sin ... yeah, yeah, but how bad can it be? It is an infinite transgression against an infinite God by a finite creation that wishes to be God. It is an attack on heaven. Each sin we commit is an act of treason against God, rightly deserving eternal torment.

You know we don't really understand that. You know it because there are so many who argue, "Oh, there's not really a Hell." You know it because there are so many that argue, "God loves everybody; He wouldn't do anything like that." We know it because when my mom says, "I really suffer from the sin of pride," I respond with, "Is that all you got?" "Is that all you got?" That's sufficient for damnation. Isn't that enough?

It is only when we get a clear glimpse of sin, its vileness, and the just response of a holy God that we can even begin to appreciate the good news. We aren't "misguided children", making errors as we go. We're armed sheep seeking to slay the shepherd. And the shepherd knows it. So what does he do? He makes gracious, merciful provision for us to be forgiven.

It is often argued that Christianity is not a religion; it's a relationship. For the most part, it's a moot point. Christianity, by definition, is a religion. Fine. But what a religion! We have a Savior who so loved us that He laid down His life on our behalf, receiving on Himself our sin and the just punishment for that sin. Then, on the basis of faith, He applies His own perfect righteousness to us and we arise, sinless in the eyes of the Father!

Imagine with me, for a moment, a little child. She stands shivering and alone in the rain. There is nowhere to go, no relief, no hope. Suddenly, in a lightning strike, a dark figure is illuminated in the shadow of a nearby tree. Frightened and on guard, she peers through the darkness. There is another flash and the little girl's eyes are opened. The figure is her mother, wrapped in a long, warm coat, waiting for her. She runs joyously into her mother's arms, holding tightly. The collision unfurls the coat and it settles around the shivering little girl, wrapping her in warmth and comfort. That's us. We stand without hope in the downpour. A scary figure appears before us -- Christ. Suddenly we are illuminated; He is for us! We run into His waiting arms, happy to be found by Him, and He wraps us in salvation and righteousness and peace with God.

When we cease to be amazed by grace, we can really get lost pretty easily. Remind yourself today of how bad sin really is and how amazing God's grace really is. Grasp, once again, the Savior as He calls you to cling to Him. The benefits are marvelous, but the relationship is without parallel.