The Bible is clear. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). Still, you will hear "Is the Bible really opposed to homosexuality?" There are multiple reasons for the question. First, some use it as a deflection. As long as someone is asking the question, they're free to continue as they were. Some use it as a dismissal. "You can't really know what the Bible says on the subject, can you?!" But some are caught up in the difference between lying with a male as with a woman and "homosexuality". The difference, they believe, is between an act and a lifestyle. Indeed, the Bible does not talk about a lifestyle on the subject, but the sexual act (Rom 1:26-27) that generally accompanies it. The Bible doesn't really talk much about lifestyles at all, but about actions. Only God, you see, can look on the heart.
It begs the question. What is "homosexuality"? I mean, I tend to think of it as "homosexual acts", but they don't. ("They" refers to everyone who understands "homosexuality" to be a lifestyle rather than an act or a desire.) So what is it? One of the things you hear quite often is that it's similar to race; it's an identity. It's something you're born with. Back in 2008, Michael Gross coined the phrase in The Advocate, "Gay is the new black." Race and sexual orientation are inexorably linked in the minds of many.
And still it begs the question. What is homosexuality? You see, with race and gender, you can actually find out. You can generally see and if you can't see you can easily run some simple tests. Genetic testing will tell you if the person is black or Asian, male or female, and even who their parents are. "Homosexual" isn't so easy. The only way you can tell is if someone says so. And that's not very definite. I remember the case of actress Cynthia Nixon who decided she would be gay. Wait ... that's not supposed to be able to happen, is it? Then there was the tale of Anne Heche who had the widely-publicized relationship with Ellen DeGeneres ... until they broke up. Then she married a guy, had a son, and six years later divorced. Last I heard she's still living with James Tupper ... a guy. So what was she? Was she a homosexual or not?
You certainly can't tell by actions, apparently. Gay rights advocates are up in arms over the connections being made between Jerry Sandusky and "homosexual". Yes, he's a pedophile. But he is exclusively drawn to males -- "same-sex". That would make him "homosexual". "No, no!" they cry. "Don't put him in our camp!!" But ... isn't that the definition of "homosexual" -- an attraction to the same gender?
Then, of course, there are the "others" that throw the whole thing farther out of the realm of definition. Is a transexual homosexual? Or how about "LUGs"? Have you heard of "LUGs"? The acronym is for "Lesbians Until Graduation" where certain females only engage in lesbian relationships until the graduate from college. Homosexual or not? What about the guys in prison? They consider themselves almost exclusively heterosexual, but they engage in almost exclusively homosexual sex in prison. Are bisexuals homosexual when they are attracted to the same gender and heterosexual the next moment when they are attracted to the opposite gender? It's not clear.
So, if "homosexuality" is "the new black", something akin to racial identity, something similar to gender, who decides who gets this particular identity? By what means do we determine that this person is indeed "homosexual"? We're planning to give them special rights. (I can't sue a store that won't let me in because I'm not wearing a shirt, but they can sue, say, a photographer who doesn't wish to photograph their commitment ceremony. That's special rights.) How do we determine who gets them? How do we decide with some certainty who indeed is the "new black"? I don't think it's nearly as clear as one might think.
Well, this won't sway anyone. "You're taking rights from a particular group," they'll say even if the group cannot be defined. "The Bible doesn't say much about it," they'll assure us, but when someone claims to agree with "biblical marriage", everyone knows right away that this is a contrasting definition from "same-sex marriage". And, despite the protests and complaints, everyone knows what the Bible says about the subject. It's a sin. Is it a condition from birth? Many would like you to think it is. But the Bible doesn't really care. The choice is not "To whom am I attracted?" any more than it is "Who do I hate?" In the latter case, the choice is "What will I do about it?" Oh, and look! It's the same in the former. It's not "race" or "gender" or "the new black". What you do about it is a choice regardless of its origin. And what the Bible (you know, God's Word) says about it is not unclear. What you think about me for saying such a thing isn't really important, is it? What I think is irrelevant. But you have to decide, "Do I go with what I want or with what God wants?" That really is the question in the end.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
The Problem of Abstinence
And the beat goes on. One side continues to pound that drum that we need to teach "abstinence only" to our young people (and the age definition of "young people" seems to keep dropping) and the other continues to pound their drum saying we need to teach "safe sex" because everyone knows that very few will remain abstinent. Indeed, the statistics side with the "safe sex" side. The concept of the "20-year-old virgin" has all but vanished and that age continues to drop. According to some estimates, the average age for first sexual contact in the U.S. is somewhere between 16 to 18 years old. And the suggestion is that we tend to be higher than many other countries. China is around 22 years old while Iceland is down at 15(.6, like that matters). But we Christians keep beating on that drum. "No, no! We need to teach abstinence!" I would like to suggest that perhaps we are missing the point as much as they are missing the mark.
In 2009, Mark Regnerus wrote a piece for the Washington Post on marrying early. In 2009, the average age for men to marry the first time was 28, up 5 years from 1970. According to the CDC, the age of first marriage keeps rising. This, they claim, is somewhat due to the large numbers of people living together before marriage which delays marriage. Then there is the whole pressure of "get an education" and "get a career" and all that -- "Make something of yourself before you settle down and give away your time and energy to a spouse and children." If nothing else, you need to have "the necessities of life" to marry. You know, a good job, good income, two cars, four TVs, a house, the Internet ... necessities. You don't want to be lacking when you get married, you know. So Regnerus suggested a different line of thinking. Of course, it depends on the person, but maybe, just maybe, people might consider getting married younger.
He met with stiff resistance, of course. Marrying young these days is considered taboo. Living with your "significant other", trying out the "marriage bed" before "marriage", self-absorption, self-interest, and personal pleasure of all varieties are considered normal, acceptable, even commendable. But marrying young? No!
It is my suspicion that, again, we've missed the point. Is marriage about love, self-fulfillment, pleasure, and a good sex life, or is it about something else? If it is, we will find it impossible to stand against those who are arguing for changing the concept of marriage because that's exactly their argument. And that is not a biblical understanding of marriage.
That, then, is the problem with the abstinence program. It is attempting to solve a problem -- premarital sex and teen pregnancy -- with a solution that doesn't match the real difficulty. What we are telling kids, essentially, is "Put off your personal pleasure until later." That's because marriage, you see, is for "personal pleasure", right? See the problem?
The Bible says, "It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor 7:9). The NASB adds in italics (meaning it's not in the text, but inferred) "with passion". Every commentary I could find agrees. The text is saying "It is better to marry than to burn with lust." Now, I ask you. When does a young man "burn with lust"? I can assure you it is long before 28 years old. The Bible, then, would seem to suggest here that marriage should occur at a younger age than our current culture accepts.
Oh, of course this isn't a biblical command. Of course it's not for everyone. And, of course it might not work at all today, given the fact that adulthood -- the level of mature responsibility required to be considered an adult -- doesn't occur until much later these days than in days gone by. But isn't that a different problem? Parents that aimed at maturing their children young enough to act as responsible adults by mid to late teens would do well in my opinion.
Of course, my opinion is seasoned with biblical views and is certainly not the modern one. Still, I would suggest that a biblical perspective on marriage is not one of self-fulfillment, personal pleasure, or warm affection, but matters that produce far better results and satisfaction. And I would suggest that we are not doing our children any favors by urging them to remain irresponsible children longer while immersing them in a sex-soaked world and telling them "Wait!" without good cause. Statistics for abstinence programs suggest that it's not working very well. Oddly enough, there are no statistics about the success of people who take a biblical stance, train up their children to be responsible adults at the earliest possible time, and marry with a biblical perspective of self-sacrifice, respect, and the love that Christ has for the Church. I wonder why?
In 2009, Mark Regnerus wrote a piece for the Washington Post on marrying early. In 2009, the average age for men to marry the first time was 28, up 5 years from 1970. According to the CDC, the age of first marriage keeps rising. This, they claim, is somewhat due to the large numbers of people living together before marriage which delays marriage. Then there is the whole pressure of "get an education" and "get a career" and all that -- "Make something of yourself before you settle down and give away your time and energy to a spouse and children." If nothing else, you need to have "the necessities of life" to marry. You know, a good job, good income, two cars, four TVs, a house, the Internet ... necessities. You don't want to be lacking when you get married, you know. So Regnerus suggested a different line of thinking. Of course, it depends on the person, but maybe, just maybe, people might consider getting married younger.
He met with stiff resistance, of course. Marrying young these days is considered taboo. Living with your "significant other", trying out the "marriage bed" before "marriage", self-absorption, self-interest, and personal pleasure of all varieties are considered normal, acceptable, even commendable. But marrying young? No!
It is my suspicion that, again, we've missed the point. Is marriage about love, self-fulfillment, pleasure, and a good sex life, or is it about something else? If it is, we will find it impossible to stand against those who are arguing for changing the concept of marriage because that's exactly their argument. And that is not a biblical understanding of marriage.
That, then, is the problem with the abstinence program. It is attempting to solve a problem -- premarital sex and teen pregnancy -- with a solution that doesn't match the real difficulty. What we are telling kids, essentially, is "Put off your personal pleasure until later." That's because marriage, you see, is for "personal pleasure", right? See the problem?
The Bible says, "It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor 7:9). The NASB adds in italics (meaning it's not in the text, but inferred) "with passion". Every commentary I could find agrees. The text is saying "It is better to marry than to burn with lust." Now, I ask you. When does a young man "burn with lust"? I can assure you it is long before 28 years old. The Bible, then, would seem to suggest here that marriage should occur at a younger age than our current culture accepts.
Oh, of course this isn't a biblical command. Of course it's not for everyone. And, of course it might not work at all today, given the fact that adulthood -- the level of mature responsibility required to be considered an adult -- doesn't occur until much later these days than in days gone by. But isn't that a different problem? Parents that aimed at maturing their children young enough to act as responsible adults by mid to late teens would do well in my opinion.
Of course, my opinion is seasoned with biblical views and is certainly not the modern one. Still, I would suggest that a biblical perspective on marriage is not one of self-fulfillment, personal pleasure, or warm affection, but matters that produce far better results and satisfaction. And I would suggest that we are not doing our children any favors by urging them to remain irresponsible children longer while immersing them in a sex-soaked world and telling them "Wait!" without good cause. Statistics for abstinence programs suggest that it's not working very well. Oddly enough, there are no statistics about the success of people who take a biblical stance, train up their children to be responsible adults at the earliest possible time, and marry with a biblical perspective of self-sacrifice, respect, and the love that Christ has for the Church. I wonder why?
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Bad Arguments
I read an article by Dr. Mohler over on CNN's Belief Blog the other day. He was giving his take on the whole Chick-Fil-A controversy. (He sees religious liberty under threat.) What struck me most was not his take on the brouhaha, but the comments that accompanied it. Last I checked there were 39 pages of comments ... more than I really had time to peruse. But I got the flavor of it.
There were some who were clearly in agreement with Dr. Mohler. Most were not. There were some that the Internet lingo refers to as "trolls", people who show up to give intentionally inflammatory comments for maximum disruption or argument. In this context, then, there would be a host of anti-God trolls floating about, ready to ambush repeatedly anyone who suggested that there was a God, let alone that Christianity might be true or that the Bible could be useful. Setting aside the "pro" folks and the trolls, the large number of protesting commenters was disturbing. No, not for their numbers. For their arguments. And I refer to the comments on this particular article not because of this particular circumstance or article, but because it so typical of the basic approach.
So here were some of the basic arguments used in the debate. "Marriage is a civil right." Really? Then why does the government have the right to deny it? (I'm not talking about denying it to "same-sex" people, but denying it to whomever they decide shouldn't be allowed to marry.)
"Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, 'abomination', the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman." No it isn't. "Unclean" is the word used to describe menstruating women, and "unclean" means "not clean" while "abomination" means something abominable. Not the same. (Further, there are things listed as "abomination to you" and things listed as "abomination to God", and those are not the same at all.) If you're going to try to use Scripture, use it correctly.
"There are few biblical references to homosexuality." Actually, there are far more explicit references and other implicit references than you might realize. It is so clear, in fact, that the use of the phrase "biblical definition of marriage" and "traditional family" is enough to incite an accusation of "anti-gay". The standard method of refuting the "sinfulness of homosexual behavior" is not "It's not in the Bible" but "We don't care what the Bible says" either explicitly or by deeming a particular topic no longer relevant. No, it's quite clear what the Bible thinks about the behavior.
"If you actually bother to read the Bible, you'll see that there a lot more definitions of marriage than just one man and one women." No, not true. There are marriage practices that included one man marrying one woman and then marrying another woman and then another woman (ad infinitum), but it was always "one man marrying one woman" that constituted marriage. None of the women were married or even related to each other. Marriage practices, the things that go on within the context of marriage, have varied widely over time -- how you get there, what you do when you're there, etc. But the definition has never changed.
"Christians need someone to hate on to prove they love their God. Time for the Lions to be fed again I think." It is a widely held view that Christianity and hate are irrevocably interlinked. It is taken as de facto. "Everyone knows it. Christians killed the Muslims in the Crusades. Christians burned witches in Salem. Christianity is a major killing religion. They're worse than the Muslims to be sure. As dangerous as they are, Christianity ought to be abolished and Christians killed." Sure, sure, rarely does anyone come to that final conclusion (althought the quote at the beginning of this paragraph is a quote, not a fantasy), but the basic "facts" are assumed. The necessity for assuming these "facts" is based on the reality that they're not facts. In the Crusades, Christians went to the defense of Christians being attacked by Muslims. No witches were burned in the Salem witch trials. And whatever you do, if you want to maintain the "evil of Christianity" position, do not compare the numbers of people killed "in the name of Christ" versus the number of people killed by explicit atheists. The contrast is staggering. (Beyond that, be sure to ignore the large numbers of charities, hospitals, shelters, and such by Christians.) Over against this "Christians need to hate" concept, the messages of Christ (you know, the leader of "Christianity") are things like "Love your neighbor", "They will know you are My disciples by your love for one another", and "turn the other cheek." When people claim to do things in the name of Christ and do things that violate Christ's words, it cannot be deemed "Christian".
This is a short list. There are many more. "Gays are born that way." "Gay marriage is the equivalent of interracial marriage." "Standing for traditional marriage is hate." "Christians don't know how to think." And so it goes. So I gave some concrete examples. They are direct quotes from the discussion on the article I referenced, but they are so very common. And because they are stated as fact, they are assumed to be fact. "It's on the Internet, so it must be true." No one bothers to fact check. No one bothers to point out the lies. No one bothers to admit the lies. "I read it on the Internet" is sufficient to make it "a factual argument". That it has all been plainly and clearly refuted is irrelevant. "You Christians are irrational; we are the rational ones." Better stated, "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right."
There were some who were clearly in agreement with Dr. Mohler. Most were not. There were some that the Internet lingo refers to as "trolls", people who show up to give intentionally inflammatory comments for maximum disruption or argument. In this context, then, there would be a host of anti-God trolls floating about, ready to ambush repeatedly anyone who suggested that there was a God, let alone that Christianity might be true or that the Bible could be useful. Setting aside the "pro" folks and the trolls, the large number of protesting commenters was disturbing. No, not for their numbers. For their arguments. And I refer to the comments on this particular article not because of this particular circumstance or article, but because it so typical of the basic approach.
So here were some of the basic arguments used in the debate. "Marriage is a civil right." Really? Then why does the government have the right to deny it? (I'm not talking about denying it to "same-sex" people, but denying it to whomever they decide shouldn't be allowed to marry.)
"Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, 'abomination', the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman." No it isn't. "Unclean" is the word used to describe menstruating women, and "unclean" means "not clean" while "abomination" means something abominable. Not the same. (Further, there are things listed as "abomination to you" and things listed as "abomination to God", and those are not the same at all.) If you're going to try to use Scripture, use it correctly.
"There are few biblical references to homosexuality." Actually, there are far more explicit references and other implicit references than you might realize. It is so clear, in fact, that the use of the phrase "biblical definition of marriage" and "traditional family" is enough to incite an accusation of "anti-gay". The standard method of refuting the "sinfulness of homosexual behavior" is not "It's not in the Bible" but "We don't care what the Bible says" either explicitly or by deeming a particular topic no longer relevant. No, it's quite clear what the Bible thinks about the behavior.
"If you actually bother to read the Bible, you'll see that there a lot more definitions of marriage than just one man and one women." No, not true. There are marriage practices that included one man marrying one woman and then marrying another woman and then another woman (ad infinitum), but it was always "one man marrying one woman" that constituted marriage. None of the women were married or even related to each other. Marriage practices, the things that go on within the context of marriage, have varied widely over time -- how you get there, what you do when you're there, etc. But the definition has never changed.
"Christians need someone to hate on to prove they love their God. Time for the Lions to be fed again I think." It is a widely held view that Christianity and hate are irrevocably interlinked. It is taken as de facto. "Everyone knows it. Christians killed the Muslims in the Crusades. Christians burned witches in Salem. Christianity is a major killing religion. They're worse than the Muslims to be sure. As dangerous as they are, Christianity ought to be abolished and Christians killed." Sure, sure, rarely does anyone come to that final conclusion (althought the quote at the beginning of this paragraph is a quote, not a fantasy), but the basic "facts" are assumed. The necessity for assuming these "facts" is based on the reality that they're not facts. In the Crusades, Christians went to the defense of Christians being attacked by Muslims. No witches were burned in the Salem witch trials. And whatever you do, if you want to maintain the "evil of Christianity" position, do not compare the numbers of people killed "in the name of Christ" versus the number of people killed by explicit atheists. The contrast is staggering. (Beyond that, be sure to ignore the large numbers of charities, hospitals, shelters, and such by Christians.) Over against this "Christians need to hate" concept, the messages of Christ (you know, the leader of "Christianity") are things like "Love your neighbor", "They will know you are My disciples by your love for one another", and "turn the other cheek." When people claim to do things in the name of Christ and do things that violate Christ's words, it cannot be deemed "Christian".
This is a short list. There are many more. "Gays are born that way." "Gay marriage is the equivalent of interracial marriage." "Standing for traditional marriage is hate." "Christians don't know how to think." And so it goes. So I gave some concrete examples. They are direct quotes from the discussion on the article I referenced, but they are so very common. And because they are stated as fact, they are assumed to be fact. "It's on the Internet, so it must be true." No one bothers to fact check. No one bothers to point out the lies. No one bothers to admit the lies. "I read it on the Internet" is sufficient to make it "a factual argument". That it has all been plainly and clearly refuted is irrelevant. "You Christians are irrational; we are the rational ones." Better stated, "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right."
Monday, August 06, 2012
The Point of Christian Liberty
I've written in the past about the doctrine of Christian Liberty. Basically, it goes something like this. That which is not forbidden or commanded in Scripture are matters of Christian liberty. Simplistic, perhaps, but that's the basic idea. Is it a sin to smoke cigarettes? I can't find a passage that addresses it, so I won't say. Is it wrong to have a glass of wine with dinner? I can't find a Scripture that tells me I can't, so I won't say. Christian liberty.
We, in fact, enjoy a great deal of liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17). We read such broad, sweeping statements like, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything" (1 Cor 6:12) and "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Gal 5:18). Lots of liberty.
Funny thing, though. There are multiple passages in the New Testament on Christian Liberty. There are whole sections like Romans 14 ("I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Rom 14:14).) and 1 Corinthians 10 ("All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify" (1 Cor 10:23).) along with a host of others. And many can support the doctrine of Christian Liberty from passages like these. The funny thing is that these passages, although they set out the concept, are not aimed at "That which is not forbidden or commanded in Scripture are matters of Christian liberty."
Without fail, the point of the doctrine of Christian Liberty is not "What am I free to do?" but "Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor" (1 Cor 10:24). Again and again we are told to do nothing in our liberty that doesn't build up our fellow Christians. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul argues that there is nothing at all wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols. "Food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat" (1 Cor 8:8). But that's not where Paul ends up. Instead he commands, "Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Cor 8:9). His conclusion, in fact, is "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble" (1 Cor 8:13).
That is the repeated theme of the doctrine of Christian Liberty. It is the concept of looking out for your fellow Christians. It is the freedom to be able to do something and forego that privilege in order not to cause a brother to stumble. It is the liberty to do what you ought rather than what you want. The message, then, is "You're free to do what you want when there is no command from God, but you should most often want to do what's best for others, because that is a command from God." And until you try it out, you'll never know how really liberating that truly is.
We, in fact, enjoy a great deal of liberty. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17). We read such broad, sweeping statements like, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything" (1 Cor 6:12) and "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Gal 5:18). Lots of liberty.
Funny thing, though. There are multiple passages in the New Testament on Christian Liberty. There are whole sections like Romans 14 ("I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Rom 14:14).) and 1 Corinthians 10 ("All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify" (1 Cor 10:23).) along with a host of others. And many can support the doctrine of Christian Liberty from passages like these. The funny thing is that these passages, although they set out the concept, are not aimed at "That which is not forbidden or commanded in Scripture are matters of Christian liberty."
Without fail, the point of the doctrine of Christian Liberty is not "What am I free to do?" but "Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor" (1 Cor 10:24). Again and again we are told to do nothing in our liberty that doesn't build up our fellow Christians. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul argues that there is nothing at all wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols. "Food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat" (1 Cor 8:8). But that's not where Paul ends up. Instead he commands, "Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Cor 8:9). His conclusion, in fact, is "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble" (1 Cor 8:13).
That is the repeated theme of the doctrine of Christian Liberty. It is the concept of looking out for your fellow Christians. It is the freedom to be able to do something and forego that privilege in order not to cause a brother to stumble. It is the liberty to do what you ought rather than what you want. The message, then, is "You're free to do what you want when there is no command from God, but you should most often want to do what's best for others, because that is a command from God." And until you try it out, you'll never know how really liberating that truly is.
Sunday, August 05, 2012
God is Love
There are a few things that everyone knows (or think they know) about God and Christianity. "It's a sin to do what I like." "Judge not!" Oh, and, "God is love." Everyone knows that. That's one of the complaints, in fact. "If God is love, why are there so many problems?"
The problem, of course, is not the assumption that God is love (1 John 4:8), but in our failure to comprehend either the statement ("God is love") or the meaning. I remember a "church" some decades ago that used "God is love" as their mantra. They understood it to be a statement of equivalency. That is, "There is something we all know as 'love'. That something is called 'God' in the Bible. So, whatever 'love' is God is." Oh, they had a wonderful time in their church, since the culture typically defines "love" as "sex". Yes, you get the picture. "God", to them, was "sex". And we have a total failure to comprehend either the statement or the meaning.
When the Bible indicates that "God is good", there is a substantial difference in that statement than when we use it about humans. With humans, a "good person" is one who conforms to a higher standard of "good". With God, "God is good" means "God defines good by His nature. He is the standard of good." The same is true with "God is love". It doesn't mean "There is something that is called 'love' and God does that something." That would be true about humans, but not God. In God's case, it means "God's nature defines what love is." Thus, "God is love" doesn't mean, as a statement, that God conforms to love. And the concept of love is not external to God, but defined by God.
J.I. Packer defines the love of God this way: "God’s love is an exercise of His goodness towards individual sinners whereby, having identified Himself with their welfare, He has given His Son to be their Saviour, and now brings them to know and enjoy Him in a covenant relation."1 Thus, you see, God's version of "love" is simply a function of Himself. It isn't some "warm affection" or "omnibenevolence". It is God's kind intention for our welfare at His own cost. It is a function of His goodness. In His efforts for our best interest, He created us, provides for our needs, gives rain to the just and the unjust, gives us laws and precepts, condemns sin, sacrificed His Son, and calls us into a relationship with Him. His wrath and His mercy, His justice and His grace, His severity and His kindness all are aimed at providing for us what is best. That is love.
________
1 J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), p. 111.
The problem, of course, is not the assumption that God is love (1 John 4:8), but in our failure to comprehend either the statement ("God is love") or the meaning. I remember a "church" some decades ago that used "God is love" as their mantra. They understood it to be a statement of equivalency. That is, "There is something we all know as 'love'. That something is called 'God' in the Bible. So, whatever 'love' is God is." Oh, they had a wonderful time in their church, since the culture typically defines "love" as "sex". Yes, you get the picture. "God", to them, was "sex". And we have a total failure to comprehend either the statement or the meaning.
When the Bible indicates that "God is good", there is a substantial difference in that statement than when we use it about humans. With humans, a "good person" is one who conforms to a higher standard of "good". With God, "God is good" means "God defines good by His nature. He is the standard of good." The same is true with "God is love". It doesn't mean "There is something that is called 'love' and God does that something." That would be true about humans, but not God. In God's case, it means "God's nature defines what love is." Thus, "God is love" doesn't mean, as a statement, that God conforms to love. And the concept of love is not external to God, but defined by God.
J.I. Packer defines the love of God this way: "God’s love is an exercise of His goodness towards individual sinners whereby, having identified Himself with their welfare, He has given His Son to be their Saviour, and now brings them to know and enjoy Him in a covenant relation."1 Thus, you see, God's version of "love" is simply a function of Himself. It isn't some "warm affection" or "omnibenevolence". It is God's kind intention for our welfare at His own cost. It is a function of His goodness. In His efforts for our best interest, He created us, provides for our needs, gives rain to the just and the unjust, gives us laws and precepts, condemns sin, sacrificed His Son, and calls us into a relationship with Him. His wrath and His mercy, His justice and His grace, His severity and His kindness all are aimed at providing for us what is best. That is love.
See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are (1 John 3:1).What wondrous love is this, oh my soul?!
________
1 J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), p. 111.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Just Wondering
As we all know, if you believe in the biblical definition of marriage and agree with the traditional family, you are an anti-gay, homophobic, narrow-minded, idiotic bigot. So I'm just wondering. If you believe that those who believe in the biblical definition of marriage and agree with the traditional family are all that, are you an anti-Christian, religion-hating, narrow-minded, idiotic bigot? I'm not sure on what basis it does not go both ways. You know ... just wondering out loud, so to speak.
Friday, August 03, 2012
On the Chopping Block
I've complained for years that marriage is under attack. If that was the only thing, I suppose I could be relieved. But our society today has put a lot of things on the chopping block that we're ready to get rid of. Some of them could be serious.
There is the whole problem of religious freedom that has been seriously attacked in some modern nations and is teetering on the edge of serious infringement in America. We already know that we're free to believe whatever we want ... just don't put it in the public square. (But ... what if my beliefs require that it be in the public square?) I read of a Christian who was sued because he was having Bible studies in his home and the HOA didn't allow it. There was the New Mexico photographer that viewed homosexual unions as immoral and opted out of providing services for such a ceremony, only to be sued for the choice. We've all seen the recent uproar because a COO of a fast food restaurant expressed his opinion as a Christian unrelated to the restaurant or its policies, resulting in mayors and community leaders banning the restaurant from their city limits. It's not new. It's not theoretical. And it's not improving.
How about the whole concept of innocence? I've never watched the Family Guy series because, well, I am deeply disturbed that "comedy" and even the word "family" would be associated with the concept of a toddler portrayed as a sexual sociopath with a lifelong goal of killing his mother. Stewie has engaged in carjacking, robbery, and murder and dreams of world domination. The series was sued back in 2007 by an actor named Art Metrano. He alleged copyright infringement because the show had a Jesus character performing Metrano's signature act. The court ruled that the show was not making fun of Metrano; they were making fun of Jesus. When a cartoon puts a toddler up as its prime humor with laughs predicated on sexual perversion, matricide, crime, and ridiculing Christ, you must begin to question where we will look for anything resembling innocence. But we're not done, are we? Now they've released the R-rated movie, Ted, the story of a stuffed bear, wished into life by a boy, that is now a beer-drinking, drug-using, foul-mouthed creature that shocks women with its sexual overtures. Or how about those string bikinis designed for little girls ages 2-10? Innocence, without a doubt, is on the chopping block.
We've pretty much said goodbye to heroes in our society. In earlier times we liked the "good guy", the shining symbol of virtue, strength, courage, defenders of "truth, justice, and the American way." No longer. Our heroes are reluctant at best. They're bad guys forced to do good things. They're rude Tony Starks who seem unable to avoid being heroes despite their distaste for such activities. They're bumblers and idiots who manage to do something good almost in spite of themselves. If they're happy to be capable and powerful figures, they're less likely be concerned at all about the innocent. Collateral damage. Too bad. "Hero" may not, technically, be on the chopping block, but it is certainly not what it used to be, and the honorable hero is considered boring or worse.
Another thing ready to be jettisoned, it seems, is the concept of a father. Years ago I remember a conversation where a woman questioned the notion of God as Father. "What if your father was a bad father? How is that a helpful image of God?" The reply: "We all know what a good father is supposed to be." I'm no longer sure that's true. Science assures us that men are no longer needed to provide sperm. The radical feminists are suggesting that we don't need fathers anymore. Modern "studies" assure us that we don't need father figures. And your daily news channel will tell you that "good fathers" are rare, even nonexistent, but "bad fathers" are everywhere. What's left of the image of a father is now distorted by feminism and social pressure. He's a guy who is "in touch with his feminine side" and "in touch with his inner child", no longer very masculine, and certainly no longer either a responsible or authority figure. It leaves people scratching their heads. "Now, what was that about 'God the Father'? Did you mean that as a good thing?"
Just a start, but what a list! Religious freedom, innocence, heroism and honor, and fatherhood along with marriage. Oddly enough, they all relate back to Christianity. Now, I'm not typically one who buys into conspiracy theories and all, and I wouldn't even begin to suggest that a group of people today are forming a conspiracy against society in general and Christianity in particular ... but it wasn't me who said, "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). I wasn't the one who wondered, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). It wasn't me who warned, "False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect" (Mark 13:22). So I would suggest we be watchful, because it doesn't look like we're headed in a particularly godly direction. Christianity, I would guess, is also on the chopping block.
There is the whole problem of religious freedom that has been seriously attacked in some modern nations and is teetering on the edge of serious infringement in America. We already know that we're free to believe whatever we want ... just don't put it in the public square. (But ... what if my beliefs require that it be in the public square?) I read of a Christian who was sued because he was having Bible studies in his home and the HOA didn't allow it. There was the New Mexico photographer that viewed homosexual unions as immoral and opted out of providing services for such a ceremony, only to be sued for the choice. We've all seen the recent uproar because a COO of a fast food restaurant expressed his opinion as a Christian unrelated to the restaurant or its policies, resulting in mayors and community leaders banning the restaurant from their city limits. It's not new. It's not theoretical. And it's not improving.
How about the whole concept of innocence? I've never watched the Family Guy series because, well, I am deeply disturbed that "comedy" and even the word "family" would be associated with the concept of a toddler portrayed as a sexual sociopath with a lifelong goal of killing his mother. Stewie has engaged in carjacking, robbery, and murder and dreams of world domination. The series was sued back in 2007 by an actor named Art Metrano. He alleged copyright infringement because the show had a Jesus character performing Metrano's signature act. The court ruled that the show was not making fun of Metrano; they were making fun of Jesus. When a cartoon puts a toddler up as its prime humor with laughs predicated on sexual perversion, matricide, crime, and ridiculing Christ, you must begin to question where we will look for anything resembling innocence. But we're not done, are we? Now they've released the R-rated movie, Ted, the story of a stuffed bear, wished into life by a boy, that is now a beer-drinking, drug-using, foul-mouthed creature that shocks women with its sexual overtures. Or how about those string bikinis designed for little girls ages 2-10? Innocence, without a doubt, is on the chopping block.
We've pretty much said goodbye to heroes in our society. In earlier times we liked the "good guy", the shining symbol of virtue, strength, courage, defenders of "truth, justice, and the American way." No longer. Our heroes are reluctant at best. They're bad guys forced to do good things. They're rude Tony Starks who seem unable to avoid being heroes despite their distaste for such activities. They're bumblers and idiots who manage to do something good almost in spite of themselves. If they're happy to be capable and powerful figures, they're less likely be concerned at all about the innocent. Collateral damage. Too bad. "Hero" may not, technically, be on the chopping block, but it is certainly not what it used to be, and the honorable hero is considered boring or worse.
Another thing ready to be jettisoned, it seems, is the concept of a father. Years ago I remember a conversation where a woman questioned the notion of God as Father. "What if your father was a bad father? How is that a helpful image of God?" The reply: "We all know what a good father is supposed to be." I'm no longer sure that's true. Science assures us that men are no longer needed to provide sperm. The radical feminists are suggesting that we don't need fathers anymore. Modern "studies" assure us that we don't need father figures. And your daily news channel will tell you that "good fathers" are rare, even nonexistent, but "bad fathers" are everywhere. What's left of the image of a father is now distorted by feminism and social pressure. He's a guy who is "in touch with his feminine side" and "in touch with his inner child", no longer very masculine, and certainly no longer either a responsible or authority figure. It leaves people scratching their heads. "Now, what was that about 'God the Father'? Did you mean that as a good thing?"
Just a start, but what a list! Religious freedom, innocence, heroism and honor, and fatherhood along with marriage. Oddly enough, they all relate back to Christianity. Now, I'm not typically one who buys into conspiracy theories and all, and I wouldn't even begin to suggest that a group of people today are forming a conspiracy against society in general and Christianity in particular ... but it wasn't me who said, "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). I wasn't the one who wondered, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). It wasn't me who warned, "False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect" (Mark 13:22). So I would suggest we be watchful, because it doesn't look like we're headed in a particularly godly direction. Christianity, I would guess, is also on the chopping block.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Chick-Fil-A
I did my "Chick-Fil-A" thing yesterday. I went to my local Chick-Fil-A for lunch. That was remarkable because I rarely go to lunch, let alone to Chick-Fil-A. But it was a solidarity day, a day to stand with others to say that we appreciate the company, its values, and the right of its management to hold their point of view and voice it. I have to say, though, that I was somewhat surprised.
I went early. I like to avoid the crowd. Turned out that wasn't possible. An hour before the noon lunch break, the line was out the door. By the time I got my food, it was out the door and out to the edge of the parking lot. That's saying something when you realize that this is Arizona and people were standing out there in nearly 100° heat without shade to get in there to get a sandwich. When we left, I took a gander at the drive-thru line. It went out the parking lot, across the larger parking lot, out the street and almost to the signal. It was probably a half-mile long. On the other hand, while there was a host of Chick-Fil-A supporters out there, I didn't see a single picketer. All positive.
As I said, I was somewhat surprised. The guy behind me in line told me, "I'm here to pick up 70 sandwiches that I ordered yesterday. I'm taking them back to work and handing them out." That's something. I was surprised by the volume of the support. Given that many wouldn't hear about the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day and many who did wouldn't particularly care and many who did wouldn't care enough to actually act on it, this seemed like an incredible number of people. And all around me I heard conversations telling me that these weren't just casual lunch-crowd folks, but genuine supporters. Sure, some were Christians in support of a Christian company with Christian values, but many were just there to say, "I support free speech even if I don't support what he said." It seemed, to my surprise, that the buycott was actually having an effect.
I don't anticipate that a good day of business for Chick-Fil-A will either make Chick-Fil-A a thriving organization or will stop foolish people from being foolish in their foolish complaints. I don't expect the tide of public opinion to change today. I don't even anticipate that an upswell of patriotism and Christian faith will make a better country tomorrow. It was just gratifying to see more people than I would have thought participating in a statement on the subjects of free speech, the freedom of religion, and support for traditional marriage and family. The food filled my stomach, but the sentiment warmed my heart.
I went early. I like to avoid the crowd. Turned out that wasn't possible. An hour before the noon lunch break, the line was out the door. By the time I got my food, it was out the door and out to the edge of the parking lot. That's saying something when you realize that this is Arizona and people were standing out there in nearly 100° heat without shade to get in there to get a sandwich. When we left, I took a gander at the drive-thru line. It went out the parking lot, across the larger parking lot, out the street and almost to the signal. It was probably a half-mile long. On the other hand, while there was a host of Chick-Fil-A supporters out there, I didn't see a single picketer. All positive.
As I said, I was somewhat surprised. The guy behind me in line told me, "I'm here to pick up 70 sandwiches that I ordered yesterday. I'm taking them back to work and handing them out." That's something. I was surprised by the volume of the support. Given that many wouldn't hear about the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day and many who did wouldn't particularly care and many who did wouldn't care enough to actually act on it, this seemed like an incredible number of people. And all around me I heard conversations telling me that these weren't just casual lunch-crowd folks, but genuine supporters. Sure, some were Christians in support of a Christian company with Christian values, but many were just there to say, "I support free speech even if I don't support what he said." It seemed, to my surprise, that the buycott was actually having an effect.
I don't anticipate that a good day of business for Chick-Fil-A will either make Chick-Fil-A a thriving organization or will stop foolish people from being foolish in their foolish complaints. I don't expect the tide of public opinion to change today. I don't even anticipate that an upswell of patriotism and Christian faith will make a better country tomorrow. It was just gratifying to see more people than I would have thought participating in a statement on the subjects of free speech, the freedom of religion, and support for traditional marriage and family. The food filled my stomach, but the sentiment warmed my heart.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Neon Words - Love
Dan wrote recently about "good", what it means, and how the word is abused and misunderstood. He called it a "neon word". I like that. There are many words today that serve as "neon words" to me. When they are used, they stand out because they are, in so many cases, misused.
One that stands out to me as a neon word is "love". We use it so loosely and eventually it seems to lose all meaning. Take, for example, the recent apology of the star of the Twilight series, Kristen Stewart. She was caught in compromising clenches with someone other than her current boyfriend.
Okay, over the top ... fine. But we love so much these days. We love pizza and we love America. We love our mothers and we love our dogs. We love our computers and we love our spouses. We love our cars and we love our children. Are any of these forms related? When we speak of "lovers", are we referring to people who feel warmly or are we talking of people who are having sex? Are these two concepts connected? Perhaps I was over the top with my example of Kristen Stewart, but surely you can see that we have so twisted the word "love" as to mean a large swath of things, mostly unrelated.
Step off, then, to the biblical rendition.
Sure, there are different forms of love. I don't want to complain too much. Following the lead of Greek, there is the romantic-erotic version, the "natural/familial affection" version, the "brotherly love" version, and the now-famous agape version. And, yes, the first three do not live up to the description offered in 1 Corinthians 13. The problem I'm addressing is not that there are multiple versions. The problem I'm addressing is that we use the terms so interchangeably and without thought that they become no versions at all. Did you know that there are people who think of the eros version -- the "erotic" form -- and include "beating, torturing, and abusing" as a perfectly good, justifiable, legitimate version of "love". (There is a bestseller on the subject if you doubt me.) You see, when we get there, we've lost all understanding of the concept at all.
What I'm getting at, then, is two-fold. First, be careful how you use the word. It means something. Don't abuse it so badly that it loses all content. Second, we -- each of us -- need to carefully and constantly ask ourselves, "Do I love anyone in the way that the Bible describes 'love'?" That question can be disagreeable.
One that stands out to me as a neon word is "love". We use it so loosely and eventually it seems to lose all meaning. Take, for example, the recent apology of the star of the Twilight series, Kristen Stewart. She was caught in compromising clenches with someone other than her current boyfriend.
I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I've caused to those close to me and everyone this has affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized the most important thing in my life, the person I love and respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm so sorry.Actually, Kristen, your actions indicate what is "the most important thing in my life" -- your personal pleasure. Further, "love" doesn't do those things to the one who is loved. That's not love.
Okay, over the top ... fine. But we love so much these days. We love pizza and we love America. We love our mothers and we love our dogs. We love our computers and we love our spouses. We love our cars and we love our children. Are any of these forms related? When we speak of "lovers", are we referring to people who feel warmly or are we talking of people who are having sex? Are these two concepts connected? Perhaps I was over the top with my example of Kristen Stewart, but surely you can see that we have so twisted the word "love" as to mean a large swath of things, mostly unrelated.
Step off, then, to the biblical rendition.
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails (1 Cor 13:4-8).How does this version of "love" fit with, say, Kristen Stewart's version? How does it fit with loving a good steak, loving your pet, or loving social media? Well, clearly it doesn't. Perhaps more disturbing, however, is the other side of that question. How well does it fit your form of loving your neighbor, your children, your spouse, your parents, your coworkers? The question I'm asking you to ask yourself is "Is there anything in my life that looks like that?"
Sure, there are different forms of love. I don't want to complain too much. Following the lead of Greek, there is the romantic-erotic version, the "natural/familial affection" version, the "brotherly love" version, and the now-famous agape version. And, yes, the first three do not live up to the description offered in 1 Corinthians 13. The problem I'm addressing is not that there are multiple versions. The problem I'm addressing is that we use the terms so interchangeably and without thought that they become no versions at all. Did you know that there are people who think of the eros version -- the "erotic" form -- and include "beating, torturing, and abusing" as a perfectly good, justifiable, legitimate version of "love". (There is a bestseller on the subject if you doubt me.) You see, when we get there, we've lost all understanding of the concept at all.
What I'm getting at, then, is two-fold. First, be careful how you use the word. It means something. Don't abuse it so badly that it loses all content. Second, we -- each of us -- need to carefully and constantly ask ourselves, "Do I love anyone in the way that the Bible describes 'love'?" That question can be disagreeable.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Just War Theory
To the pacifists among us, relax. I'm not going to discuss the Just War Theory. On the other hand, to the "judge not" folks, you might not like this.
In the late 14th or early 15th century BC, it appears that the rumor mills were in working order. Israel under Joshua had finished conquering Canaan and the land was all divided up as it should be. Joshua told the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh that they had done well, thank you very much, and they could go to their homes (Josh 22:1-6). They were going to be living on the east side of the Jordan, you see, but they had crossed the Jordan with the rest to help them take Canaan. That accomplished, they headed home. Unfortunately, before they crossed the Jordan, they stopped and built "a large altar" (Josh 22:10). Then they went home. Why "unfortunately"? Well, as soon as the rest of Israel heard about it, they took up arms. No, I'm not exaggerating. They weren't just filled with righteous indignation.
Now, if you read the rest of the account, you'll find out why. Before the shooting began (so to speak), they (wisely) chose to send a delegation to find out what in the world was going on! Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the priest, and a delegate from each of the 10 tribes went over and confronted their fellow Israelites on the east side of the Jordan. "What are you doing??!!" they said. "Why are you being unfaithful to God? Don't you remember Peor?" (Num 25 -- where they joined themselves to Baal and turned away God's anger by killing everyone who did ... and Phinehas was part of it.) "Don't you remember Achan? Look, guys, Achan's sin didn't only cost Achan. It cost all of us along with him and his family." In other words, idolatry hurts. It hurts everyone. And it cannot be faced with ambivalence or apathy. It demands a response.
Fortunately, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh agreed. They hadn't built the altar for sacrificial purposes. They built it to remind everyone that they were the Lord's, that they worshiped on the west side of Jordan, that they were part of Israel (Josh 22:21-29). It was okay. It was good. The dialog managed to avoid the war. Fine. Good. Happy ending.
The story serves as a great example of managing conflict. Tell the other what you think the problem is. Listen to their response. Work together at solving the conflict. All good things. But I really want you to come away with the passion for the glory of God and the hatred for idolatry that they had. It's not "a bad idea", "a sin", "a bad thing". It's horrible, dangerous to everyone around, worthy of doing battle. Our modern "Let's not say anything and maybe it will go away" approach isn't working. I'm not advocating taking up arms, but we can see in the decline of the country and the decline of the church that we lack the passion for God that we must have. "Do nothing" is not working well. Perhaps we ought to consider a more biblical approach (like, for instance, Rev 2:2; Matt 18:15-17; 1 Cor 5:9-13).
In the late 14th or early 15th century BC, it appears that the rumor mills were in working order. Israel under Joshua had finished conquering Canaan and the land was all divided up as it should be. Joshua told the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh that they had done well, thank you very much, and they could go to their homes (Josh 22:1-6). They were going to be living on the east side of the Jordan, you see, but they had crossed the Jordan with the rest to help them take Canaan. That accomplished, they headed home. Unfortunately, before they crossed the Jordan, they stopped and built "a large altar" (Josh 22:10). Then they went home. Why "unfortunately"? Well, as soon as the rest of Israel heard about it, they took up arms. No, I'm not exaggerating. They weren't just filled with righteous indignation.
When the sons of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the sons of Israel gathered themselves at Shiloh to go up against them in war (Josh 22:12).Now, of course, we don't get it today. "Really, guys? War?" If it had happened today, we would have said, "Hey, live and let live. Let them do what they want. It's not our problem." To those who got upset, we would have said, "If they want to degenerate into what you consider sin, what business is that of yours? Judge not! Let's just agree to disagree." And we would be wrong. War, in this case, could be just. War, in this case, would be right. If Reuben and Gad and Manasseh had set out to rebel against God and Israel, a war was exactly the right prescription.
Now, if you read the rest of the account, you'll find out why. Before the shooting began (so to speak), they (wisely) chose to send a delegation to find out what in the world was going on! Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the priest, and a delegate from each of the 10 tribes went over and confronted their fellow Israelites on the east side of the Jordan. "What are you doing??!!" they said. "Why are you being unfaithful to God? Don't you remember Peor?" (Num 25 -- where they joined themselves to Baal and turned away God's anger by killing everyone who did ... and Phinehas was part of it.) "Don't you remember Achan? Look, guys, Achan's sin didn't only cost Achan. It cost all of us along with him and his family." In other words, idolatry hurts. It hurts everyone. And it cannot be faced with ambivalence or apathy. It demands a response.
Fortunately, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh agreed. They hadn't built the altar for sacrificial purposes. They built it to remind everyone that they were the Lord's, that they worshiped on the west side of Jordan, that they were part of Israel (Josh 22:21-29). It was okay. It was good. The dialog managed to avoid the war. Fine. Good. Happy ending.
The story serves as a great example of managing conflict. Tell the other what you think the problem is. Listen to their response. Work together at solving the conflict. All good things. But I really want you to come away with the passion for the glory of God and the hatred for idolatry that they had. It's not "a bad idea", "a sin", "a bad thing". It's horrible, dangerous to everyone around, worthy of doing battle. Our modern "Let's not say anything and maybe it will go away" approach isn't working. I'm not advocating taking up arms, but we can see in the decline of the country and the decline of the church that we lack the passion for God that we must have. "Do nothing" is not working well. Perhaps we ought to consider a more biblical approach (like, for instance, Rev 2:2; Matt 18:15-17; 1 Cor 5:9-13).
Monday, July 30, 2012
Food Equity
I don't like guacamole. I'm sorry. I just don't. It's not a choice, really. I just don't like it. I don't like the texture or the taste or even the color. Guacamole has no appeal for me. Peanut butter, on the other hand, is really good. I like peanut butter on bread and on sandwiches and on crackers. It's good in candy bars and even right out of the jar.
It would appear, then, that I am being discriminated against. All those places offering guacamole are refusing to serve me a guacamole that looks and feels and tastes like peanut butter. They tell me that my rights aren't being violated. I can eat their guacamole any time I want. But I don't want guacamole. I want peanut butter. So telling me that I can eat their guacamole when they know I don't like it is not the same thing as saying I have a right to guacamole.
In view of the Fourteenth Amendment, I think I have had my civil rights violated. I think that I need Equal Protection. In my quest for Food Equity, I think they should be obligated to make a guacamole for me that looks and tastes like peanut butter. Until they do, I am a victim, a displaced citizen of American society, set aside and abused because I don't fall in the category of "normal guacamole lovers". It's unfair and I think there should be compensation for my distress. Let's see if we can get the laws changed. Let's see if we can redefine guacamole so it's fair to people like me. Where's my equal rights? Who will stand up for the misunderstood and discarded ones like me?
It would appear, then, that I am being discriminated against. All those places offering guacamole are refusing to serve me a guacamole that looks and feels and tastes like peanut butter. They tell me that my rights aren't being violated. I can eat their guacamole any time I want. But I don't want guacamole. I want peanut butter. So telling me that I can eat their guacamole when they know I don't like it is not the same thing as saying I have a right to guacamole.
In view of the Fourteenth Amendment, I think I have had my civil rights violated. I think that I need Equal Protection. In my quest for Food Equity, I think they should be obligated to make a guacamole for me that looks and tastes like peanut butter. Until they do, I am a victim, a displaced citizen of American society, set aside and abused because I don't fall in the category of "normal guacamole lovers". It's unfair and I think there should be compensation for my distress. Let's see if we can get the laws changed. Let's see if we can redefine guacamole so it's fair to people like me. Where's my equal rights? Who will stand up for the misunderstood and discarded ones like me?
Sunday, July 29, 2012
God is Good
Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good,It's a simple little prayer that so many little children have learned. "God is great, God is good. Let us thank Him for our food." Okay, so "good" and "food" don't really rhyme. But the idea is sound. God is good.
For His lovingkindness is everlasting (Psa 107:1).
"Good" is generally a relative term depending on a standard. A good meal is not the same as a good dog, and a good dog is not the same as a good man. The standard used determines "good". In the case of God, however, this is not the case. Jesus said, "No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19) because we all have standards to meet, but God is the standard. His character defines the standard by which "good" is measured ... and we all fall short (Rom 3:12, 23).
When it comes to God and "good", in fact, "good" appears to be the whole of His character. When Moses asked God, "I pray You, show me Your glory!" God answered "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you" (Exo 33:18-19). God's glory and His goodness appear to be synonymous. Good, then, is defined by God and resides in God. That's why David said, "You are my Lord; I have no good besides You" (Psa 16:2). That's why James wrote, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow" (James 1:17). That's why your good works bring glory to God (Matt 5:16).
God, then, defines good. He defines what is good behavior. He defines what are good circumstances. He defines what are good outcomes. All that is genuinely good is defined in who God is. Conversely, as the definition of "good", all that He is and does is good. That's how we can be quite certain that "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28). Good is not defined, then, as "pleasant circumstances", "health and wealth", happiness, or that promotion you wanted. God defines good.
As a result, we can be confident that what God does is good and that He works all things together for good. We can be sure that both suffering and pleasure come from the hands of a good God for our good and His glory and nothing can separate us from the love of God. His goodness gives us a resting place, a foundation.
God is good. God is good all the time.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
That's Good
By Dan
Someone proved recently that cats have nine tails. This is how he did it:
The word “good” has earned this distinction because when it is used, at least in certain discussions, it reveals a deception along the order of nine-tailed cats. The source of the problem it seems is twofold.
First, the word “good”, when you think about it, is appealing to a standard of some kind. No confusion there just yet. The problem enters when we consider the source of the standard, whether it is a subjective or an objective standard. For example, if someone says: “Chocolate ice cream is good” the word appeals to a subjective standard. It does not imply that the goodness of chocolate ice cream is, or ought to be, universally accepted by all people. But imagine if it did, or if the speaker, or hearer, or even thinker wasn’t sure. When we’re talking about ice cream such is easy to discern. But it’s not always quite so clear.
How about the sentence: “I am a good person”. Unlike the goodness of ice cream, this sentence appeals to an objective standard. While ice cream is subject to personal tastes, whether or not I am a good person is dependent on another standard completely; a standard that is independent of, and outside of, myself.
With a little thought we can see here how, if we confuse the source of the standard, not only will our communication suffer but so will our thinking. Consider for a moment the statement: “Mr. Smith is a good teacher”. What is most likely heard is that Mr. Smith conforms to some objective standard of good as it applies to the discipline of teaching. But the person saying this might well be communicating that Mr. Smith makes him feel good about himself while in Mr. Smith's class. Mr. Smith may well not be a good teacher at all but rather good in the art of personal relations. There’s no way the hearer can know without exercising a little curiosity by asking questions like "Why do you say that?” Or maybe you’ve heard something this: “If he’s a good teacher then what does a bad teacher look like?” Such questions are seeking to understand the standard being used.
We’ve all probably heard the phrase “God is good”? Does this statement appeal to a subjective or objective standard? Is He “good” because His character aligns with a definition of good derived from my personal desires? For the reality that these words represent to be successfully conveyed these questions must have answers. Does it perhaps appeal to a higher standard than even God? If so what standard does one appeal to in order that God might be judged as having measured up to it? Our own personal standard? What if, as I believe to be true, “God” is the standard? In that case we can rightly say with Job “Though He slay me, I will hope in Him”1, and it would make sense? But if God’s goodness is subject to our own personal preferences, then not only is God diminished, but so is the word "good". In such a case we can only say “God is good” when we get the promotion. But we can’t then also say “God is good” when we are subsequently fired for incompetence; that is unless God is unable to prevent it, which would not only mean that he is not sovereign, but also brings into question his ability to have orchestrated the promotion in the first place. It only stands to reason that if He was not able to cause the promotion He couldn’t very well be judged good for bringing it about could he? But that’s a different post. Suffice it to say for the sake of this one that if we believe that God can’t stop bad things from happening then it only follows logically that he can't cause good things to happen, and so therefore he can't really be good, at least not in the sense that we've generally understood "God is good".
Second, it doesn’t help that we live in a time in which all standards are relative. The idea that an objective standard exists has been rejected because it is believed that there isn’t one, or if there were one there might as well not be for we can never know what it is. With this view we need not examine our own lives according to any standard other than the one we create for ourselves… which would of course be subjective. Using this sort of reasoning a mother, having just been convicted of abusing her children, could still proclaim loudly to the court that she is a good person, as happened a few years back here in Arizona. Why shouldn't she say it? To what objective standard would anyone appeal to argue differently? We are all, after all, little cocoons wherein our own self-created reality, and its standards, aligns with our own desires. We can see why any suggestion that there is a "good" not subject to our personal tastes is met with fierce reaction, for it threatens our cocoonish little alternate realities.
But it gets more confusing yet. We are told that it is not good to impose our own standards onto others, and we are not to judge others either, as if the world outside our cocoon is now somehow subject to the subjective standards that exist on the inside. The fact that we feel better about ourselves because we are living up to a standard we create ourselves, for the purpose of making ourselves feel better about ourselves, hides the fact that we are now twisting ourselves into logical pretzels and are in reality functioning in the absurd world of 9-tailed cats.
In in such a world the very word “good” is obliterated and in many cases -- according to any given person's subjective framework -- it is no longer distinguishable from "bad" so that good for some becomes evil for others2. Yet in the cognitive dissonance of the contemporary mindset its destruction is not realized. The word lingers in our language as if there still were a standard from which its meaning could be derived, while at the same time that standard’s existence is denied. The language therefore becomes confused and communication between souls breaks down so that we live in a modern-day kind of Babel3.
In such a world it is then pondered, why are people these days so isolated? Why can’t we all just get along? Why is there such division and loneliness? One reason is that we have killed and dismembered a key and core concept. We have treated a foundational thing like "good" as if it were a pre-born child and ripped it from the womb of thought, and having thrown it into the trash bin, we celebrated the freedom to do so. But such freedoms are not free. They come at a price that apparently very few even realize we are paying.
________
Notes:
1 Job 13:15.
2 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!" (Isa 5:20-21).
3 "Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth" (Gen 11:9).
Someone proved recently that cats have nine tails. This is how he did it:
Imagine before you two boxes. In one box is nothing and in the other a cat. The primary premise is posed that “no cat has 8 tails”. Everyone agrees that no cat has 8 tails. The second premise is that a cat has 1 tail. Since no cat is in the first box and we agree that no cat has 8 tails, and since 1 cat is in the second box, and we agree that a cat has one tail, then we are left with a simple math problem: 8 + 1 = 9. So, cats have nine tails.We can see here that the words used, while not changing in their meaning, nevertheless become twisted so that they convey absurdity. While the absurdity is easy to see in this example, it isn’t always quite so easy to discern. Words convey realities. But as the meanings of common words twist and meander absurdity can sometimes overtake reality and even begin to seem plausible... if you don't look too close. It is for this reason that I have identified a handful of words for myself as “neon words”. They appear in my thinking like the neon "open" signs we see in storefronts. When I hear or read them I pay special attention so that my discernment may be sharp.
The word “good” has earned this distinction because when it is used, at least in certain discussions, it reveals a deception along the order of nine-tailed cats. The source of the problem it seems is twofold.
First, the word “good”, when you think about it, is appealing to a standard of some kind. No confusion there just yet. The problem enters when we consider the source of the standard, whether it is a subjective or an objective standard. For example, if someone says: “Chocolate ice cream is good” the word appeals to a subjective standard. It does not imply that the goodness of chocolate ice cream is, or ought to be, universally accepted by all people. But imagine if it did, or if the speaker, or hearer, or even thinker wasn’t sure. When we’re talking about ice cream such is easy to discern. But it’s not always quite so clear.
How about the sentence: “I am a good person”. Unlike the goodness of ice cream, this sentence appeals to an objective standard. While ice cream is subject to personal tastes, whether or not I am a good person is dependent on another standard completely; a standard that is independent of, and outside of, myself.
With a little thought we can see here how, if we confuse the source of the standard, not only will our communication suffer but so will our thinking. Consider for a moment the statement: “Mr. Smith is a good teacher”. What is most likely heard is that Mr. Smith conforms to some objective standard of good as it applies to the discipline of teaching. But the person saying this might well be communicating that Mr. Smith makes him feel good about himself while in Mr. Smith's class. Mr. Smith may well not be a good teacher at all but rather good in the art of personal relations. There’s no way the hearer can know without exercising a little curiosity by asking questions like "Why do you say that?” Or maybe you’ve heard something this: “If he’s a good teacher then what does a bad teacher look like?” Such questions are seeking to understand the standard being used.
We’ve all probably heard the phrase “God is good”? Does this statement appeal to a subjective or objective standard? Is He “good” because His character aligns with a definition of good derived from my personal desires? For the reality that these words represent to be successfully conveyed these questions must have answers. Does it perhaps appeal to a higher standard than even God? If so what standard does one appeal to in order that God might be judged as having measured up to it? Our own personal standard? What if, as I believe to be true, “God” is the standard? In that case we can rightly say with Job “Though He slay me, I will hope in Him”1, and it would make sense? But if God’s goodness is subject to our own personal preferences, then not only is God diminished, but so is the word "good". In such a case we can only say “God is good” when we get the promotion. But we can’t then also say “God is good” when we are subsequently fired for incompetence; that is unless God is unable to prevent it, which would not only mean that he is not sovereign, but also brings into question his ability to have orchestrated the promotion in the first place. It only stands to reason that if He was not able to cause the promotion He couldn’t very well be judged good for bringing it about could he? But that’s a different post. Suffice it to say for the sake of this one that if we believe that God can’t stop bad things from happening then it only follows logically that he can't cause good things to happen, and so therefore he can't really be good, at least not in the sense that we've generally understood "God is good".
Second, it doesn’t help that we live in a time in which all standards are relative. The idea that an objective standard exists has been rejected because it is believed that there isn’t one, or if there were one there might as well not be for we can never know what it is. With this view we need not examine our own lives according to any standard other than the one we create for ourselves… which would of course be subjective. Using this sort of reasoning a mother, having just been convicted of abusing her children, could still proclaim loudly to the court that she is a good person, as happened a few years back here in Arizona. Why shouldn't she say it? To what objective standard would anyone appeal to argue differently? We are all, after all, little cocoons wherein our own self-created reality, and its standards, aligns with our own desires. We can see why any suggestion that there is a "good" not subject to our personal tastes is met with fierce reaction, for it threatens our cocoonish little alternate realities.
But it gets more confusing yet. We are told that it is not good to impose our own standards onto others, and we are not to judge others either, as if the world outside our cocoon is now somehow subject to the subjective standards that exist on the inside. The fact that we feel better about ourselves because we are living up to a standard we create ourselves, for the purpose of making ourselves feel better about ourselves, hides the fact that we are now twisting ourselves into logical pretzels and are in reality functioning in the absurd world of 9-tailed cats.
In in such a world the very word “good” is obliterated and in many cases -- according to any given person's subjective framework -- it is no longer distinguishable from "bad" so that good for some becomes evil for others2. Yet in the cognitive dissonance of the contemporary mindset its destruction is not realized. The word lingers in our language as if there still were a standard from which its meaning could be derived, while at the same time that standard’s existence is denied. The language therefore becomes confused and communication between souls breaks down so that we live in a modern-day kind of Babel3.
In such a world it is then pondered, why are people these days so isolated? Why can’t we all just get along? Why is there such division and loneliness? One reason is that we have killed and dismembered a key and core concept. We have treated a foundational thing like "good" as if it were a pre-born child and ripped it from the womb of thought, and having thrown it into the trash bin, we celebrated the freedom to do so. But such freedoms are not free. They come at a price that apparently very few even realize we are paying.
________
Notes:
1 Job 13:15.
2 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!" (Isa 5:20-21).
3 "Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth" (Gen 11:9).
Friday, July 27, 2012
What You Cannot Say
I started doing some digging into this whole Chick-Fil-A kerfuffel and I am now thoroughly confused.
First, the story as we "know" it. Someone asked the COO of the organization, Dan Cathy, what their position was on gay marriage. He was opposed. Now several cities are preventing Chick-Fil-A from opening stores in their communities because they don't share the same values ...
As it turns out, no such story took place. On July 16, the Baptist Press ran a story about Dan Cathy as COO of Chick-Fil-A. Cathy admitted in the interview of being "guilty as charged" in standing on biblical and family values. "We don't claim to be a Christian business," he told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina because Christ died for people, not corporations. "But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles." So they do things like not opening on Sundays ... because that would be a biblical principle. And they invest in WinShape. WinShape is so named because their goal is to help "shape winners". So they have camps and retreats and foster care programs and marriage programs (helping people prepare for marriage, etc.) and such. So far, a non-story. Where did Cathy get himself in trouble? "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." That's it. No, seriously, that's all.
It was CNN's report on this on July 19th that started the fireworks. Here's what they said. "'Guilty as charged,' Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage." Is that what the Baptist Press reported? No, here is their line: "Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. 'Well, guilty as charged,' said Cathy when asked about the company's position."
Odd ... really odd. For some reason there wasn't a single word in the entire Baptist Press story that referenced "gay marriage". Not one. There were comments about "traditional family" and "the biblical definition of the family unit", but not a single word about "gay marriage". In a radio interview, Cathy was quoted as saying, "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we can try to define what marriage is all about."
So where do we stand now? It is "anti-gay" to support the traditional family. And apparently everyone (despite the lively and full disagreement that it is so) knows that "the biblical definition of the family unit" is "the union of a man and a woman" to the exclusion of "same-sex" unions. If you believe that the Bible is accurate, you are anti-gay. If you believe that the Bible is true, you do not share the values of Chicago or Boston or a host of loud protesters who want Chick-Fil-A out of business and out of sight. If you support the traditional family, you do not share the values of the majority and you are a narrow-minded, hateful bigot. So while people like Boston Mayor Menino are assuring everyone that "We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion", they do not mean the inclusion of the traditional family, the inclusion of biblical values, or the inclusion of people who hold a different view on whatever topic they have chosen to be their "intolerant" and "bigot" topic of the day. The dichotomy is seen in Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel who embraces Louis Farrakhan and ignores his blatant anti-semitism, but rejects Chick-Fil-A despite their affirmation of non-discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. And the "NOH8" ("No Hate") group is turning their hate on the company by calling for a total boycott.
And the cognitive dissonance just gets worse and worse.
Update
In today's CNN story, you can read about a comment on the story. "'How backward and ignorant ... how sad,' CNN reader Joe Brown said. 'No more Chick-fil-A for me. I am not in the stone-casting business as a Christian.'" Excuse me, Joe, but isn't boycotting a restaurant because their COO has a particular view that doesn't affect the restaurant and doesn't attack anyone exactly casting stones???
Update #2
As expected, San Francisco is joining in the mindless hate, but isn't it sad that "the city of brotherly love" is, too? From the letter written by City Councilman Jim Kenney to Chick-Fil-A, "Take a hike and take your intolerance with you. There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection." Seriously, folks, do you not see the dichotomy of "take a hike" and "City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection"???
First, the story as we "know" it. Someone asked the COO of the organization, Dan Cathy, what their position was on gay marriage. He was opposed. Now several cities are preventing Chick-Fil-A from opening stores in their communities because they don't share the same values ...
As it turns out, no such story took place. On July 16, the Baptist Press ran a story about Dan Cathy as COO of Chick-Fil-A. Cathy admitted in the interview of being "guilty as charged" in standing on biblical and family values. "We don't claim to be a Christian business," he told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina because Christ died for people, not corporations. "But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles." So they do things like not opening on Sundays ... because that would be a biblical principle. And they invest in WinShape. WinShape is so named because their goal is to help "shape winners". So they have camps and retreats and foster care programs and marriage programs (helping people prepare for marriage, etc.) and such. So far, a non-story. Where did Cathy get himself in trouble? "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." That's it. No, seriously, that's all.
It was CNN's report on this on July 19th that started the fireworks. Here's what they said. "'Guilty as charged,' Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage." Is that what the Baptist Press reported? No, here is their line: "Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. 'Well, guilty as charged,' said Cathy when asked about the company's position."
Odd ... really odd. For some reason there wasn't a single word in the entire Baptist Press story that referenced "gay marriage". Not one. There were comments about "traditional family" and "the biblical definition of the family unit", but not a single word about "gay marriage". In a radio interview, Cathy was quoted as saying, "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we can try to define what marriage is all about."
So where do we stand now? It is "anti-gay" to support the traditional family. And apparently everyone (despite the lively and full disagreement that it is so) knows that "the biblical definition of the family unit" is "the union of a man and a woman" to the exclusion of "same-sex" unions. If you believe that the Bible is accurate, you are anti-gay. If you believe that the Bible is true, you do not share the values of Chicago or Boston or a host of loud protesters who want Chick-Fil-A out of business and out of sight. If you support the traditional family, you do not share the values of the majority and you are a narrow-minded, hateful bigot. So while people like Boston Mayor Menino are assuring everyone that "We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion", they do not mean the inclusion of the traditional family, the inclusion of biblical values, or the inclusion of people who hold a different view on whatever topic they have chosen to be their "intolerant" and "bigot" topic of the day. The dichotomy is seen in Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel who embraces Louis Farrakhan and ignores his blatant anti-semitism, but rejects Chick-Fil-A despite their affirmation of non-discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. And the "NOH8" ("No Hate") group is turning their hate on the company by calling for a total boycott.
And the cognitive dissonance just gets worse and worse.
Update
In today's CNN story, you can read about a comment on the story. "'How backward and ignorant ... how sad,' CNN reader Joe Brown said. 'No more Chick-fil-A for me. I am not in the stone-casting business as a Christian.'" Excuse me, Joe, but isn't boycotting a restaurant because their COO has a particular view that doesn't affect the restaurant and doesn't attack anyone exactly casting stones???
Update #2
As expected, San Francisco is joining in the mindless hate, but isn't it sad that "the city of brotherly love" is, too? From the letter written by City Councilman Jim Kenney to Chick-Fil-A, "Take a hike and take your intolerance with you. There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection." Seriously, folks, do you not see the dichotomy of "take a hike" and "City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection"???
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Yes, Virginia, There is a God
Perhaps you've heard this report about a victim of the Aurora shootings. Petra Anderson, age 22, was at the movies that night when the gunman opened fire. She took three shotgun pellets in the arm and one through the nose, riding straight through her brain and lodging at the back of her skull. The doctors were not optimistic. She might survive, but she would likely have serious impairment of speech and motor and cognitive abilities.
Contrary to medical science, Petra is now out of the ICU. She is speaking, walking, and doing quite well, thank you very much. Why? As it turns out, Petra had a brain anomaly of which she was quite unaware. It didn't cause her any problem -- never would have. There was a tiny channel of fluid running through her brain. And the shotgun pellet entered this defect and followed it through her brain to the back of the skull, causing no brain damage.
Call it what you will. Anti-Christians are calling it "random". Skeptics are calling it "luck", "chance". Believers are calling it a miracle. Her pastor is calling it "prevenient grace", "God working ahead of time for a particular event in the future." I, of course, can't help but see the hand of God.
Now, before you raise your hands in praise to the Almighty and thank God that He saved this girl in a most amazing way, you need to ask yourself some very important questions. If you believe (as I do) that it was the hand of God, what about the other 12 ... the ones who died? What happened there? Did God intend for them to die? Or was He only able to save those He liked more than others? What about the others who were shot and injured? Couldn't He have prevented it? Or are His hands tied by Human Free Will? Look, even now Petra's family is not out of difficulty. Her mother is battling terminal breast cancer. God can save Petra, but not her mother? Before you play the "miracle" card here, you need to be able to answer these questions.
Me? I believe that everyone who died was part of God's plan. I believe that those who were shot were part of God's plan. I believe that God works all things according to the counsel of His will and not a single aspect of this event serves as an exception. I wouldn't even venture to guess what God's plan is in all the details of this event, but that doesn't mean I have to question God, His Providence, His goodness, or His omnipotence. I don't have any problem with those questions. I know, however, that a lot of Christians do. So while I'm rejoicing that God wonderfully saved this young girl in a remarkable way and I'm continuing to pray for the other victims and their families (as well as the gunman and his family), I can say with certainty that God is still on the throne, that He is still at work, that He will still work all things together for good.
You? You'll have to figure out where you stand. Events like this tend to produce three types of people. There are people like me who see it as an affirmation that there is a God in heaven who is still at work even in the worst that humans can do. There are those who live with cognitive dissonance: "Yes! God saved her miraculously! No! God didn't intend for any of it!" There are those who end up skeptics. "Wait a minute! Sure, it looks like a miracle, but what about the rest? Maybe there is no God." Comfort, confusion, or cynical hopelessness. Which are you?
Update
I just wish those guys over at Pyromaniacs would quit copying me.
Contrary to medical science, Petra is now out of the ICU. She is speaking, walking, and doing quite well, thank you very much. Why? As it turns out, Petra had a brain anomaly of which she was quite unaware. It didn't cause her any problem -- never would have. There was a tiny channel of fluid running through her brain. And the shotgun pellet entered this defect and followed it through her brain to the back of the skull, causing no brain damage.
Call it what you will. Anti-Christians are calling it "random". Skeptics are calling it "luck", "chance". Believers are calling it a miracle. Her pastor is calling it "prevenient grace", "God working ahead of time for a particular event in the future." I, of course, can't help but see the hand of God.
Now, before you raise your hands in praise to the Almighty and thank God that He saved this girl in a most amazing way, you need to ask yourself some very important questions. If you believe (as I do) that it was the hand of God, what about the other 12 ... the ones who died? What happened there? Did God intend for them to die? Or was He only able to save those He liked more than others? What about the others who were shot and injured? Couldn't He have prevented it? Or are His hands tied by Human Free Will? Look, even now Petra's family is not out of difficulty. Her mother is battling terminal breast cancer. God can save Petra, but not her mother? Before you play the "miracle" card here, you need to be able to answer these questions.
Me? I believe that everyone who died was part of God's plan. I believe that those who were shot were part of God's plan. I believe that God works all things according to the counsel of His will and not a single aspect of this event serves as an exception. I wouldn't even venture to guess what God's plan is in all the details of this event, but that doesn't mean I have to question God, His Providence, His goodness, or His omnipotence. I don't have any problem with those questions. I know, however, that a lot of Christians do. So while I'm rejoicing that God wonderfully saved this young girl in a remarkable way and I'm continuing to pray for the other victims and their families (as well as the gunman and his family), I can say with certainty that God is still on the throne, that He is still at work, that He will still work all things together for good.
You? You'll have to figure out where you stand. Events like this tend to produce three types of people. There are people like me who see it as an affirmation that there is a God in heaven who is still at work even in the worst that humans can do. There are those who live with cognitive dissonance: "Yes! God saved her miraculously! No! God didn't intend for any of it!" There are those who end up skeptics. "Wait a minute! Sure, it looks like a miracle, but what about the rest? Maybe there is no God." Comfort, confusion, or cynical hopelessness. Which are you?
Update
I just wish those guys over at Pyromaniacs would quit copying me.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Why?
The other day I overheard two college students discussing a particularly difficult course. They were plotting together on various means by which they could avoid the serious amount of work required while still completing the class and getting a decent grade. I wondered, "What is the aim here?"
"Why?" is a favorite question of mine. That's what I was wondering about these two. You see, what they were doing was simple. "We're trying to do the best we can to pass this class with a good grade." But why they were doing it would determine what they would do and how they would go about it. You see, if the "why" was "In order to learn all I can about this particular subject", then "the serious amount of work" would not be avoided because the goal was to gather the information, not merely to "pass the class and get a decent grade". Why you do something has a huge effect on what you do and how you do it.
I have always delighted in asking people why they believe what they do. Even when they agree with me on something, why they believe what they do is very enlightening. "Oh, you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven? Why do you believe that?" "Well, I heard it from my pastor." You see, that's radically different from, "Well, I heard the Gospel and God opened my eyes and I realized that it was the truth, so I submitted to it. Since then, my life has changed in marvelous ways." Both of these two imaginary people hold the same belief, but one will necessarily be much more tenuous than the other. Why you do something has a huge effect on what you do and how you do it.
"Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14).
When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, He gave really only one answer. It took two directions, but it was one thing. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and ... love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:37-39). It is the hallmark of being a Christian (John 13:35). It is the fulfillment of the law (Gal 5:14). Why do you do what you do? If it is not for love, then I would suggest it's going to fall short. If you encourage someone for something other than love, it's "a tinkling cymbal". If you give to the poor for some reason other than love, you gain nothing. If you correct your child's behavior without love, you're wasting your time. Love is the singular "why", the ultimate proper motivation. You can sing praises to God without love and it profits you nothing. But, motivated by genuine love (rather than the poor imitation we see so often today), you can do the smallest thing and it is an act of obedience, a moment of worship, a sweet fragrance to God.
Why you do something has a huge effect on what you do and how you do it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons won't work. But love is the right thing, the right reason. And when that is the motivation, all sorts of problems are solved and questions answered. Let all that you do be done in love.
"Why?" is a favorite question of mine. That's what I was wondering about these two. You see, what they were doing was simple. "We're trying to do the best we can to pass this class with a good grade." But why they were doing it would determine what they would do and how they would go about it. You see, if the "why" was "In order to learn all I can about this particular subject", then "the serious amount of work" would not be avoided because the goal was to gather the information, not merely to "pass the class and get a decent grade". Why you do something has a huge effect on what you do and how you do it.
I have always delighted in asking people why they believe what they do. Even when they agree with me on something, why they believe what they do is very enlightening. "Oh, you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven? Why do you believe that?" "Well, I heard it from my pastor." You see, that's radically different from, "Well, I heard the Gospel and God opened my eyes and I realized that it was the truth, so I submitted to it. Since then, my life has changed in marvelous ways." Both of these two imaginary people hold the same belief, but one will necessarily be much more tenuous than the other. Why you do something has a huge effect on what you do and how you do it.
"Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14).
When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, He gave really only one answer. It took two directions, but it was one thing. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and ... love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:37-39). It is the hallmark of being a Christian (John 13:35). It is the fulfillment of the law (Gal 5:14). Why do you do what you do? If it is not for love, then I would suggest it's going to fall short. If you encourage someone for something other than love, it's "a tinkling cymbal". If you give to the poor for some reason other than love, you gain nothing. If you correct your child's behavior without love, you're wasting your time. Love is the singular "why", the ultimate proper motivation. You can sing praises to God without love and it profits you nothing. But, motivated by genuine love (rather than the poor imitation we see so often today), you can do the smallest thing and it is an act of obedience, a moment of worship, a sweet fragrance to God.
Why you do something has a huge effect on what you do and how you do it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons won't work. But love is the right thing, the right reason. And when that is the motivation, all sorts of problems are solved and questions answered. Let all that you do be done in love.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Sex
I figured the title would get your attention ...
Greek philosophy always had a low view of the physical. The physical realm was meaningless at best and more likely evil. What was really important was the spiritual realm. Plato spoke of things like the "chairness", that spiritual reality that gave the physical chair its value. Some Christians, then, took their cue from Greek philosophy. Some keyed off the problems the Bible sees with "the flesh" as if physical was evil (not the biblical concept at all). Extremists like Mary Baker Eddy (and others) argued that our physical reality is merely what we think it is. Are you sick? It's just because you think you are. Reality is merely what you believe it to be.
The Bible never took that approach. After all, it was God who formed Adam -- gave him his physical nature. We know we die, but a resounding message of the Scriptures is that we will be resurrected, and that isn't just a spiritual thing. We will return to physical bodies. While "the flesh" in Scripture is a reference to the sin nature, our physical bodies actually have value to God, starting with the fact that we are in His image and concluding with the fact that we will always have physical bodies -- before and after this life.
Enter the problem of sexual immorality. Christians, apparently in large numbers, are succumbing to the world's sexual perspectives. "After all," they appear to reason, "it's what's in the heart that matters. If we love 'in the heart', what we do with our bodies is of little consequence." Paul, of course, disagreed. "Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh'" (1 Cor 6:16).
Sex and the body operate in a world that includes but goes beyond the mere physical. Sex is designed by God as a mystical union for you and one-and-only-one other person. It is a real image of the mystical union of Christ and the Christian -- the Christian and only Christ. It is designed as a creative union where the joining of the two actually produces something. In the spiritual union of Christian and Christ, it produces "fruit", a changed heart, "good works" that cause others to glorify God. In the physical union of humans, it produces "fruit", a union of heart and mind as well as actual offspring. Sex is designed to be a total investment. It is a union that is "'til death do us part". Breaking that union is like ripping off a body part (part of the real problem of divorce). Sex is a complete and irrevocable gift, an exposure of self in absolute nakedness without defense or protection, a lifelong uniting of two bodies and two souls. The "two will become one flesh" nature of the union makes it permanent, even if it isn't intended to be.
As a picture, then, of Christ and a Christian -- of the union of the Christian to Christ and Him alone for eternity -- and a living example of God at work in His creation and as an actual complete surrender and joining for life, sex is much more than recreation or pleasure. That it would be pleasurable, given its real significance, would seem to be a given since God is good, but to merely see the pleasure without the real significance is blindness.
Why should we wait for sex until marriage and then keep the marriage bed holy? Waiting tells yourself and everyone else of the real value of the body given by God for God's purposes. It tells everyone else of the genuine worth of the union of Christ to Christian, of the value of joining man and woman until death. It takes into account both physical and spiritual realities missed by those who indulge their lusts and whims for mere pleasure. Both chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage tell a strong story of the unspeakable worth of knowing Christ and our great gratitude for His gifts of bodies, soul, and spirit and the marvelous, mystical union of husband and wife. It's a picture worth showing, a story worth telling, and one all too rarely seen or heard, even among today's Christians.
Greek philosophy always had a low view of the physical. The physical realm was meaningless at best and more likely evil. What was really important was the spiritual realm. Plato spoke of things like the "chairness", that spiritual reality that gave the physical chair its value. Some Christians, then, took their cue from Greek philosophy. Some keyed off the problems the Bible sees with "the flesh" as if physical was evil (not the biblical concept at all). Extremists like Mary Baker Eddy (and others) argued that our physical reality is merely what we think it is. Are you sick? It's just because you think you are. Reality is merely what you believe it to be.
The Bible never took that approach. After all, it was God who formed Adam -- gave him his physical nature. We know we die, but a resounding message of the Scriptures is that we will be resurrected, and that isn't just a spiritual thing. We will return to physical bodies. While "the flesh" in Scripture is a reference to the sin nature, our physical bodies actually have value to God, starting with the fact that we are in His image and concluding with the fact that we will always have physical bodies -- before and after this life.
Enter the problem of sexual immorality. Christians, apparently in large numbers, are succumbing to the world's sexual perspectives. "After all," they appear to reason, "it's what's in the heart that matters. If we love 'in the heart', what we do with our bodies is of little consequence." Paul, of course, disagreed. "Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh'" (1 Cor 6:16).
Sex and the body operate in a world that includes but goes beyond the mere physical. Sex is designed by God as a mystical union for you and one-and-only-one other person. It is a real image of the mystical union of Christ and the Christian -- the Christian and only Christ. It is designed as a creative union where the joining of the two actually produces something. In the spiritual union of Christian and Christ, it produces "fruit", a changed heart, "good works" that cause others to glorify God. In the physical union of humans, it produces "fruit", a union of heart and mind as well as actual offspring. Sex is designed to be a total investment. It is a union that is "'til death do us part". Breaking that union is like ripping off a body part (part of the real problem of divorce). Sex is a complete and irrevocable gift, an exposure of self in absolute nakedness without defense or protection, a lifelong uniting of two bodies and two souls. The "two will become one flesh" nature of the union makes it permanent, even if it isn't intended to be.
As a picture, then, of Christ and a Christian -- of the union of the Christian to Christ and Him alone for eternity -- and a living example of God at work in His creation and as an actual complete surrender and joining for life, sex is much more than recreation or pleasure. That it would be pleasurable, given its real significance, would seem to be a given since God is good, but to merely see the pleasure without the real significance is blindness.
Why should we wait for sex until marriage and then keep the marriage bed holy? Waiting tells yourself and everyone else of the real value of the body given by God for God's purposes. It tells everyone else of the genuine worth of the union of Christ to Christian, of the value of joining man and woman until death. It takes into account both physical and spiritual realities missed by those who indulge their lusts and whims for mere pleasure. Both chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage tell a strong story of the unspeakable worth of knowing Christ and our great gratitude for His gifts of bodies, soul, and spirit and the marvelous, mystical union of husband and wife. It's a picture worth showing, a story worth telling, and one all too rarely seen or heard, even among today's Christians.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Price of Conviction
Dear Christian, if you thought you were safe because you were in a country founded by Christians, premised on God, and framed in Christian values, you were mistaken. And for those of you who are quite sure that we're over-reacting, at some point you must open your eyes. I've heard from some who say, "I'm opposed to your viewpoints, but I will fight for your right to hold them and your freedom to express them." Well, we'll see.
The headline: "Chick-Fil-A to be Blocked from Boston City, Vows Mayor.
Perhaps you've heard. Chick-Fil-A is a restaurant run by a family who are Christians. They are closed on Sunday. They try to charge fair prices for decent food. They not only call themselves Christians; they try to live it. So when they were asked, "What is your stance on same-sex marriage?" (and why the management of a restaurant chain is required to express their view on whether or not the concept of marriage needs to change is beyond me), they stuck with the biblical perspective. "Marriage is between a man and a woman."
In the spirit of American tolerance and our Constitutional right to exercise our freedom of religion, "Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has made a solid vow: to block Chick-Fil-A, a fast food restaurant known for its chicken sandwich, from the city." He won't block any other food chain; just this one. Why? "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population." It is "discrimination" to believe that for as long as there have been humans in all societies and in all religions marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. It is not discrimination if you pick out one restaurant and ban it because you disagree with its management on a topic unrelated to the business.
Don't worry, Christians. You live in a free country where your right to practice your religion cannot be infringed. Unless you cross the lines of the popular move at the moment. Unless you disagree with the viewpoint of some. Unless you wish to express an opinion that has no bearing on the business you run but runs counter to the authorities in your particular town. Christians, remember to count the cost. And count on it; there will be cost.
I'll be interested to see the protests lodged by the tolerant, non-Christian folk who believe that those who run Chick-Fil-A should be allowed to believe and express whatever their religious convictions require on a subject that has no bearing whatsoever on the business they run. I'll be interested to see, but I won't be holding my breath. That would just be stupid.
Update
Boston threatened to block Chick-Fil-A. Chicago is succeeding. "'Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,' the mayor said." No, Boston and Chicago values appear to be "We will not tolerate CEOs who have a point of view that differs from ours. That is our value." Is that a shared value of Bostonians and Chicagoans?
The headline: "Chick-Fil-A to be Blocked from Boston City, Vows Mayor.
Perhaps you've heard. Chick-Fil-A is a restaurant run by a family who are Christians. They are closed on Sunday. They try to charge fair prices for decent food. They not only call themselves Christians; they try to live it. So when they were asked, "What is your stance on same-sex marriage?" (and why the management of a restaurant chain is required to express their view on whether or not the concept of marriage needs to change is beyond me), they stuck with the biblical perspective. "Marriage is between a man and a woman."
In the spirit of American tolerance and our Constitutional right to exercise our freedom of religion, "Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has made a solid vow: to block Chick-Fil-A, a fast food restaurant known for its chicken sandwich, from the city." He won't block any other food chain; just this one. Why? "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population." It is "discrimination" to believe that for as long as there have been humans in all societies and in all religions marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. It is not discrimination if you pick out one restaurant and ban it because you disagree with its management on a topic unrelated to the business.
Don't worry, Christians. You live in a free country where your right to practice your religion cannot be infringed. Unless you cross the lines of the popular move at the moment. Unless you disagree with the viewpoint of some. Unless you wish to express an opinion that has no bearing on the business you run but runs counter to the authorities in your particular town. Christians, remember to count the cost. And count on it; there will be cost.
I'll be interested to see the protests lodged by the tolerant, non-Christian folk who believe that those who run Chick-Fil-A should be allowed to believe and express whatever their religious convictions require on a subject that has no bearing whatsoever on the business they run. I'll be interested to see, but I won't be holding my breath. That would just be stupid.
Update
Boston threatened to block Chick-Fil-A. Chicago is succeeding. "'Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,' the mayor said." No, Boston and Chicago values appear to be "We will not tolerate CEOs who have a point of view that differs from ours. That is our value." Is that a shared value of Bostonians and Chicagoans?
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Old Testament Salvation
"I like Jesus, but I'm not very fond of that God of the Old Testament." Ever heard that before? Or how about this? "Today we are saved by grace, but in the Old Testament they were saved by works." I'm sure, if you haven't heard that, you've seen it, understood it, or, perhaps, even thought it. But ... is it accurate?
As it turns out, the Bible has one, single message -- Jesus, the Christ. According to Paul, that was the promise "before the ages began" (Titus 1:1-3) ... which is before time. At the Fall (Gen 3) we see the promise of Christ (Gen 3:15) as an offspring of Eve. After that, the Old Testament is full of prophecies about the coming Messiah. But that's not actual presence. Was Christ present?
John wrote, "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known" (John 1:18). "Now, wait, John!" I can hear the protests. "We know better than that. Adam walked with God in the garden. The Israelites in the desert saw the cloud and the fire and saw God on Mt. Sinai. Didn't Moses see God? I mean, it says he did, right?" Well, it appears that John has a different perception of what actually took place. According to John, any time anyone "saw God" in the Old Testament, they were actually seeing Christ. "He has made Him known." Those who spoke with Adam and Abraham, Noah and Moses, the prophets and the people, were all "the only God who is at the Father's side," God, the Son, the Christ. And, look, don't we know that Jesus Himself confirmed this? Who was it that spoke to Moses at the burning bush? "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you"'" (Exo 3:14). What was it that Jesus said that made them want to stone Him to death? "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). No, they weren't going to stone Him for bad grammar. They knew what He just claimed. The One speaking in the Exodus account was none other than Christ Himself. And this shouldn't really be much of a surprise, since we know quite clearly that Jesus is "the Word" (John 1:1).
Beyond this there is the Old Testament character called "the Angel of the Lord". This particular entity shows up quite often. Unlike other angels who refuse worship, this one accepts it. Unlike other angels, this one is referred to as God (e.g., Gen 16:7-13). (Compare Exo 3 with Acts 7:30. Turns out the one in the burning bush was "the Angel of the Lord".) Look into this one some time. This is none other than the Pre-Incarnate Christ.
The fact is that Christ was throughout the Old Testament. Indeed, if you want to properly understand the Old Testament, you must look at it through this filter. The whole Bible is about Christ. Repeatedly in the New Testament Christ is found in the Old Testament. When the prophet wrote about Israel coming out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1), Matthew found Christ (Matt 2:15). Where the prophet warned of a "stone of stumbling" Paul and Peter found Christ (Rom 9:33; 1 Peter 2:7-8). Where Moses saw a sacrificial lamb and a scapegoat (Lev 16), the New Testament sees Christ (John 1:29). Over and over and over, Old Testament images and characters turn out to be Christ. The physical form, Jesus, appears on the scene at the beginning of the New Testament, but Christ has existed from before time -- eternally.
How, then, were those in the Old Testament saved? They weren't saved by obedience to the Law. The New Testament affirms that this could not happen (Rom 3:20). We might think they were saved by the sacrificial system, but the New Testament tells us that the sacrificial system was just an indicator, a pointer. Hebrews says, "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4). Paul says instead of God that "in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins" (Rom 3:25). That is, He put on hold the actual punishment of sin until the propitiation of Christ was in play. Then He applied that payment to those who trusted in God's propitiation for their sin. In Revelation we see it from the reverse perspective. There we read of "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world" (Rev 13:8). That is, the God who is not bound by time already had His Son, "the Lamb", classified as slain before the world began. Thus, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament pointed to a future event in time that was already an accomplished event to God and was the single event that provided salvation (by grace through faith) to all.
Still not buying it? How about this? In Acts 4:12 we read, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." If it is true that there was a large period of time in which men were saved by means other than Christ, then this statement is not true. Indeed, there will be many in heaven who can claim, "I am here because I followed the divine prescription of sacrifices and obedience." So it is not only those of us since Christ, but all who are saved by grace through faith; "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9). Abraham (Gal 3:8) was saved by the same mechanism that you were; by faith in Christ (Rom 4:3-8). His faith looked forward and yours looked back, but it is the same faith and the same focus and the same Person, the Lamb that was slain before the creation of the world. Now that's amazing grace.
As it turns out, the Bible has one, single message -- Jesus, the Christ. According to Paul, that was the promise "before the ages began" (Titus 1:1-3) ... which is before time. At the Fall (Gen 3) we see the promise of Christ (Gen 3:15) as an offspring of Eve. After that, the Old Testament is full of prophecies about the coming Messiah. But that's not actual presence. Was Christ present?
John wrote, "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known" (John 1:18). "Now, wait, John!" I can hear the protests. "We know better than that. Adam walked with God in the garden. The Israelites in the desert saw the cloud and the fire and saw God on Mt. Sinai. Didn't Moses see God? I mean, it says he did, right?" Well, it appears that John has a different perception of what actually took place. According to John, any time anyone "saw God" in the Old Testament, they were actually seeing Christ. "He has made Him known." Those who spoke with Adam and Abraham, Noah and Moses, the prophets and the people, were all "the only God who is at the Father's side," God, the Son, the Christ. And, look, don't we know that Jesus Himself confirmed this? Who was it that spoke to Moses at the burning bush? "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you"'" (Exo 3:14). What was it that Jesus said that made them want to stone Him to death? "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). No, they weren't going to stone Him for bad grammar. They knew what He just claimed. The One speaking in the Exodus account was none other than Christ Himself. And this shouldn't really be much of a surprise, since we know quite clearly that Jesus is "the Word" (John 1:1).
Beyond this there is the Old Testament character called "the Angel of the Lord". This particular entity shows up quite often. Unlike other angels who refuse worship, this one accepts it. Unlike other angels, this one is referred to as God (e.g., Gen 16:7-13). (Compare Exo 3 with Acts 7:30. Turns out the one in the burning bush was "the Angel of the Lord".) Look into this one some time. This is none other than the Pre-Incarnate Christ.
The fact is that Christ was throughout the Old Testament. Indeed, if you want to properly understand the Old Testament, you must look at it through this filter. The whole Bible is about Christ. Repeatedly in the New Testament Christ is found in the Old Testament. When the prophet wrote about Israel coming out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1), Matthew found Christ (Matt 2:15). Where the prophet warned of a "stone of stumbling" Paul and Peter found Christ (Rom 9:33; 1 Peter 2:7-8). Where Moses saw a sacrificial lamb and a scapegoat (Lev 16), the New Testament sees Christ (John 1:29). Over and over and over, Old Testament images and characters turn out to be Christ. The physical form, Jesus, appears on the scene at the beginning of the New Testament, but Christ has existed from before time -- eternally.
How, then, were those in the Old Testament saved? They weren't saved by obedience to the Law. The New Testament affirms that this could not happen (Rom 3:20). We might think they were saved by the sacrificial system, but the New Testament tells us that the sacrificial system was just an indicator, a pointer. Hebrews says, "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb 10:4). Paul says instead of God that "in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins" (Rom 3:25). That is, He put on hold the actual punishment of sin until the propitiation of Christ was in play. Then He applied that payment to those who trusted in God's propitiation for their sin. In Revelation we see it from the reverse perspective. There we read of "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world" (Rev 13:8). That is, the God who is not bound by time already had His Son, "the Lamb", classified as slain before the world began. Thus, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament pointed to a future event in time that was already an accomplished event to God and was the single event that provided salvation (by grace through faith) to all.
Still not buying it? How about this? In Acts 4:12 we read, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." If it is true that there was a large period of time in which men were saved by means other than Christ, then this statement is not true. Indeed, there will be many in heaven who can claim, "I am here because I followed the divine prescription of sacrifices and obedience." So it is not only those of us since Christ, but all who are saved by grace through faith; "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9). Abraham (Gal 3:8) was saved by the same mechanism that you were; by faith in Christ (Rom 4:3-8). His faith looked forward and yours looked back, but it is the same faith and the same focus and the same Person, the Lamb that was slain before the creation of the world. Now that's amazing grace.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Making Sense of the Numbers
According to the government, the United States is currently (according to the June report) at 8.2% unemployment. That's down from a nearly 10% peak a couple of years ago, so that's good, right? Well, it appears that mostly what we Americans do is accept numbers and go on nodding. Unfortunately, we rarely ask where they come from or what they mean. As a result, we accept, dare I say, lies.
Where do unemployment figures come from? Well, according to the government, there is a process. You might think it's something as simple as "How many people are on unemployment?" divided by "How many people are there?" But that would be naive. There are, for instance, people who are not in the work force who shouldn't be classified as "unemployed". There are farm workers who fall in an entirely different category. There are some fabulously wealthy with no employment and there are children and homemakers and retired people. You have to determine what your labor force is first. On the other hand, there are unemployed people who are not on unemployment. They never applied or their benefits ran out. So the numbers receiving unemployment benefits are not accurate for this. So, what do they do?
First, they don't ask everyone. It's a poll, a survey taken of 60,000 households. A quarter of these are changed out every month to keep the survey random. They ask in some 2,025 geographic areas to keep the survey broad enough. And what do they survey about? Well, they ask about household members over the age of 15 (children under the age of 16 are not classified as part of the labor force). They ask about employment, joblessness, and job-seeking status. A person who is not employed and is not seeking a job is not unemployed. These persons are simply not part of the labor force. Thus, you use "unemployed" (defined as 16 or over and less than retirement age without a job but actively looking for work) divided by "labor force" (defined as "employed" plus "unemployed") (times 100) to get your unemployment percentage.
Perhaps you can see the problem here. People lose their jobs ("unemployed"). They receive unemployment benefits and look for a job. As time goes by and people drop out of unemployment benefits and into no income at all, if they haven't found a job in all that time, they give up. Now they drop off the "unemployed" status and, therefore, off the "labor force" status. They are not employed, but they no longer count toward the unemployment figures.
In June, the employment-to-population ratio (that earlier, naive version) was at 75.6%, down from 80% in January of 2008. So while the unemployment rates continue to fall and new jobs are being created, the hard numbers indicate something different. Less people are employed.
Beyond that, chronic unemployment is peaking. In January of 2008 the average time an individual was unemployed was 17.4 weeks. Currently it's at 39.9 weeks. The longer you're out of work, the harder it is to find a job, and this is becoming more ... average. Indeed, this jobs recession has gone on for 53 months, the longest since the Great Depression.
Another concern is the future. The numbers of startup businesses are plummeting. In 2006 there were 747,278. That number is down 26%. Factor in new taxes, "taxes" (read "healthcare requirements"), and other business-limiting laws, and it's not going in the right direction.
But what about those new jobs? What about the companies hiring people? Well, while some are indeed hiring, others are laying off. That would be net job gains. But in terms of simple gross hiring, the numbers are down, the lowest since a year ago. This indicates cautious companies and simply makes the unemployment problem last longer.
You are being told that things are on the rise. In a spectacularly political move, the president announced a decrease in the unemployment rate in April. As it turned out, the primary reason for that decrease was the removal of a large segment of the chronically unemployed from the labor force. Or, to call it what it is, it was a lie. Unemployment hasn't changed like they say it has. They simply altered the labor force numbers. Let me put it this way. Some 350,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force in April, dropping the unemployment rate from 8.2% to 8.1%. I would guess, however, that those 350,000 still consider themselves unemployed. They aren't working. They don't have incomes. They aren't part of the private sector that is "doing fine". No, we're being lied to -- part of a numbers game. What's the truth? You figure it out.
Where do unemployment figures come from? Well, according to the government, there is a process. You might think it's something as simple as "How many people are on unemployment?" divided by "How many people are there?" But that would be naive. There are, for instance, people who are not in the work force who shouldn't be classified as "unemployed". There are farm workers who fall in an entirely different category. There are some fabulously wealthy with no employment and there are children and homemakers and retired people. You have to determine what your labor force is first. On the other hand, there are unemployed people who are not on unemployment. They never applied or their benefits ran out. So the numbers receiving unemployment benefits are not accurate for this. So, what do they do?
First, they don't ask everyone. It's a poll, a survey taken of 60,000 households. A quarter of these are changed out every month to keep the survey random. They ask in some 2,025 geographic areas to keep the survey broad enough. And what do they survey about? Well, they ask about household members over the age of 15 (children under the age of 16 are not classified as part of the labor force). They ask about employment, joblessness, and job-seeking status. A person who is not employed and is not seeking a job is not unemployed. These persons are simply not part of the labor force. Thus, you use "unemployed" (defined as 16 or over and less than retirement age without a job but actively looking for work) divided by "labor force" (defined as "employed" plus "unemployed") (times 100) to get your unemployment percentage.
Perhaps you can see the problem here. People lose their jobs ("unemployed"). They receive unemployment benefits and look for a job. As time goes by and people drop out of unemployment benefits and into no income at all, if they haven't found a job in all that time, they give up. Now they drop off the "unemployed" status and, therefore, off the "labor force" status. They are not employed, but they no longer count toward the unemployment figures.
In June, the employment-to-population ratio (that earlier, naive version) was at 75.6%, down from 80% in January of 2008. So while the unemployment rates continue to fall and new jobs are being created, the hard numbers indicate something different. Less people are employed.
Beyond that, chronic unemployment is peaking. In January of 2008 the average time an individual was unemployed was 17.4 weeks. Currently it's at 39.9 weeks. The longer you're out of work, the harder it is to find a job, and this is becoming more ... average. Indeed, this jobs recession has gone on for 53 months, the longest since the Great Depression.
Another concern is the future. The numbers of startup businesses are plummeting. In 2006 there were 747,278. That number is down 26%. Factor in new taxes, "taxes" (read "healthcare requirements"), and other business-limiting laws, and it's not going in the right direction.
But what about those new jobs? What about the companies hiring people? Well, while some are indeed hiring, others are laying off. That would be net job gains. But in terms of simple gross hiring, the numbers are down, the lowest since a year ago. This indicates cautious companies and simply makes the unemployment problem last longer.
You are being told that things are on the rise. In a spectacularly political move, the president announced a decrease in the unemployment rate in April. As it turned out, the primary reason for that decrease was the removal of a large segment of the chronically unemployed from the labor force. Or, to call it what it is, it was a lie. Unemployment hasn't changed like they say it has. They simply altered the labor force numbers. Let me put it this way. Some 350,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force in April, dropping the unemployment rate from 8.2% to 8.1%. I would guess, however, that those 350,000 still consider themselves unemployed. They aren't working. They don't have incomes. They aren't part of the private sector that is "doing fine". No, we're being lied to -- part of a numbers game. What's the truth? You figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)