The Testimony of a Pagan King

Daniel is not one of the most read books of the Bible, I know. But you likely know some of the stories. "Daniel in the lion's den" (Daniel 6) is an ever-popular story for the kids. Most of us know the one where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow to the king and were saved from the fire (Daniel 3). Perhaps lesser known is the story of Daniel and the "creative alternative", where Daniel and his friends decided not to defile themselves with Babylonian food and offered to go vegetarian instead (Daniel 1). And, of course, the book is riddled with stories about Daniel interpreting dreams.

In the fourth chapter of Daniel we have one of these dream incidents and its outcome. Same old story. King Nebuchadnezzar, the pagan king of Babylon (the one who demanded that they worship his image in chapter 3), couldn't get an interpretation from his wise men, so he asked Daniel. Daniel heard the dream and paled. "My lord," he said, "may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies!" (Dan 4:19). But it wasn't. It was about the king himself. He would go mad, live like an animal for seven years, and thus learn "that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom He will" (Dan 4:25). Oddly, the king didn't learn from this warning. A year later he boasted to those with him about the marvelous kingdom he had created for "the glory of my majesty" (Dan 4:30) and was instantly driven mad. For seven years he ate grass and lived in the field "until his hair grew as long as eagles' feathers and his nails were like birds' claws" (Dan 4:33). We have a record of the words of the pagan king himself when he regained sanity in Daniel 4:34-37. Note that it is written in the first person: "At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me ..." What is his observation? What is his important lesson? What did this pagan king get from his experience?

At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored Him who lives forever, for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?"
(Dan 4:34-35).

This pagan king, this maker of self-styled idols, this enslaver of God's people learned a lesson that, I would venture to guess, is rare even among Christians. I mean, sure, we're all in favor of blessing God and honoring God and recognizing that His kingdom endures forever. But do we really believe in God's Sovereignty in the way that this heathen did? Look at what he claimed line by line.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing.

Now, seriously, we know better, right? God loves us all and, in some sense, even owes us something. Love, attention ... something. We are His creation and He counts us as important to Him. We all know that. All, apparently, except Nebuchadnezzar. He says that we "are accounted as nothing". Gone, then, are the complaints about "Why would God allow this to happen?" or "Why has God let me down?" or the like. If we are accounted as nothing, the basis for our complaints is gone.

He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.

Okay, now clearly this one is wrong. We routinely and with regularity see that God's will is broken by Man's choices. I mean, we see that from the outset, don't we? It wasn't God's will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit in the garden. It wasn't God's will that the world became so sinful that He had to wipe it out in a flood. It wasn't God's will that Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery. It wasn't God's will that the Pilate and the Jews crucify His Son. Or ... was it? We are much more enlightened than this poor king. He believed that God does according to His will every time. Many of us who hold to the sovereignty of God think this isn't true.

None can stay His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?"

Now, to be fair, I understand that this isn't strictly correct. We can and do regularly say to Him, "What have You done?!" But you get the point. We have no right. We have no standing. We have no authority. God does what God wants and no one has the right or power to stop Him or question Him. At least, that's what Nebuchadnezzar understood.

How about you? Is it possible that this pagan king had a higher view of God's Sovereignty than you do? Is it possible that he understood God's Sovereignty to be absolute and you do not? That would be a sad thing, wouldn't it, if a pagan king had a higher view of God than you do as a believer?

I'd like to end with the king's final quote in this chapter.

Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are right and His ways are just; and those who walk in pride He is able to humble (Dan 4:37)

"All His works are right and His ways are just." This is good to know about an Absolute Sovereign. "Those who walk in pride He is able to humble." That's a fair warning to those who fail to recognize God's Sovereignty. A fair warning from a pagan king. In fact, a fair warning from a pagan king who failed to regard the fair warning he got on the same subject. Don't be a pagan king.

Looking in Wrong Places

So, there I am, reading through advertisements on various Christian books that I might enjoy, and I come across this -- the Jesus Calling Devotional Bible ... in New King James, no less. Brothers and sisters, we have arrived.

Maybe you're not aware of this cultural phenomenon. Jesus Calling is a bestseller by Sarah Young. On Amazon it has a 5-star average, touting it as "Uniquely inspired treasures from heaven for every day of the year by missionary Sarah Young." Note the word, "inspired". Sarah is a third-generation missionary to Japan with degrees from a Presbyterian seminary. Her book is a "devotional", an encouragement to experience the Presence of God (because in her book "Presence" is always capitalized). Good stuff, you know. Grow closer to God. Feel His presence. That sort of thing. Seeking a closer relationship with God, she read God Calling, a book by two "listeners" in the 1930s. These two women sat patiently with pencil and paper in hand writing down whatever God would say to them. And thus began Sarah's quest not to merely know God through His Word, but to achieve direct and unique communication with Jesus Himself. And she achieved it! The book, then, is about Jesus speaking directly through her -- new revelations from God.

Now, perhaps you, dear reader, don't find that of any concern. In fact, you might even want to experience the same thing. But have you examined the ramifications? When God inspired (there's that word again) Paul to write, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25) (as an example), it was directly from God and, as such, a mandate. That is, any believing husband wishing to follow God is required to love his wife as Christ loved the church. When God breathes something, it is true and binding. Or, consider the question from another direction. Many Christians debate the inerrancy of Scripture; this is the other question -- the sufficiency of Scripture. When God breathed His Word to those whom He inspired to write, did He do a complete job? Or is there something ... lacking?

And this is where we get to in the end. Here's the message we are sending with the Jesus Calling Devotional Bible. "Folks, the Bible is not enough. God has more to say. You can obtain better info -- more personal God-breathed messages. So buy this Bible to see how you can get more than this Bible can offer you. Because why would you think that God did what He set out to do when He inspired the Word of God?" Can you say "cognitive dissonance"?

Not-So-Secret Messages

Humans have various ways to communicate. We can write and read. That's unique in that animals can't do it. We talk to each other and even listen. We have what we all know as "body language". You know how that works. A nod, a shake of the head, a way of holding your eyes or your mouth or some other expression, and so many other forms of bodily expression speak volumes without words. Indeed, some suggest that the new trend that is replacing texting (you know, using words ... or mostly words) is sending photos. An app called Snapchat is popular and, while texting is dropping, sending photos is rising. (I read the other day of a young girl who says she rarely texts, but sends perhaps 50 to 100 photos a day to communicate with her friends.) Why? "Because photos capture emotion." You know, a picture is worth a thousand words. Without offering an opinion about all of this, I'm simply pointing out that we send not-so-secret messages all the time.

Communication is complicated because these messages are often subliminal. They're not overt. They may not even be conscious. The young fellow enamored with this vision of loveliness that he has just met is not aware that by staring longingly into her eyes with rapt attention to her every word is speaking volumes to everyone around him. So often we are communicating either in a way that we ourselves are not aware of or in a way that is not being received because the one for whom it is intended is not getting it. As my wise mother taught me, communication is tenuous at best.

One place that we're communicating without likely being aware of it is in the bedroom. Sex, you see, is its own not-so-secret language. And while we might think we know this, the problem occurs in that men and women speak different languages in this venue. I know, I know, that's not what the media is telling us. Gender is fluid, they assure us. The much-vaunted cry for "gender equality" sounds regularly from our societal loudspeakers, so much so that much of our society these days is confused by just what "gender equality" means. The original notion was "equal worth", something certainly necessary to argue for. Today it means more like "equal" -- no differences. So the elites are now arguing that masculine and feminine are the same thing or, rather, meaningless and that "he" and "she" are no more necessary than the singular "they" or the newly popular "ze", two pronouns offered to embrace either both genders simultaneously or none at all¹. The truth is that the two genders, like the two sexes, are different and everyone knows it.

As it turns out, men and women "speak a different language" in the bedroom. Now, that isn't really a surprise, is it? I mean, we all knew it, didn't we? So while the primarily male-driven porn industry is trying to convince society that males and females experience sexual desire and sexual response the same way, we all know that's not true. Men see sex as its own end. Sex is its own statement. In the dim reaches of the male mind sexual relations say something in and of themselves. More importantly, the refusal of sexual relations say something just as certain. To women, sexual relations are only part of an entire vocabulary of love. To the female mind, kind words, romance, gifts, sharing, touches, caresses, time together, warmth, intimacy (beyond sex), openness, and so much more are all part of the language that says, "I love you" -- easily as much as if not more than the act of sex does.

Okay, so what's my point? I mean, I'm not likely telling you something you don't know here. "And, really, Stan, what does this have to do with anything vaguely biblical?" Yeah, I hear you. Here it is. You will note that the commands in the Bible (See? I was going to work it in here.) for husbands and for wives are different. (That, by the way, ought to give someone defending "same-sex marriage" as if it's biblically acceptable pause.) Wives are told, "Be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22), to "see to it that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33), and to submit "even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1). Husbands are commanded to "love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), "to love his own wife even as himself" (Eph 5:33), to "live with your wives in an understanding way" (1 Peter 3:7) and "show her honor" (1 Peter 3:7). These are not the same commands. There is, however, a mutual command:

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another (1 Cor 7:3-5)

Now, remember, men and women have different languages in the bedroom. And we have different commands from God for husbands and for wives. These commands are not limited to the bedroom, but when you couple them to the mutual command about sex between husband and wife, perhaps you can begin to see my point. Wives are to submit; husbands are to love. Wives are to respect; husbands are to understand. Both are to fulfill their sexual "duty"; neither has authority over their own bodies. So "stop depriving one another."

My question, then, is this. You may not be aware of it, but what are you telling your spouse in the bedroom? Husbands, when you aim to express your love by sex without regard to the language she speaks, what are you telling her? "I don't care; I just want what I want. You don't count." Is that what you wish to express? Wives, when you withhold sex from your husband for whatever reason, what are you telling him? "I don't care; I just want what I want. You don't count." Funny. Different "words", but the same message. And, more than likely, not the intended message. (At least, hopefully not.)

Husbands, we are commanded to understand our wives. And, oh, by the way, you don't have authority over your body. So honor her by loving her in a sacrificial way. Communicate that love to her in a language she understands. Wives, you are commanded to submit to your husband and respect him. And, oh, by the way, you don't have authority over your body. Communicate that submission and respect in a language he understands.

It's a funny thing. I'm pretty sure this narrow expression that I've offered isn't all God meant with His commands for wives to submit and husbands to love, but it sure seems to fit, doesn't it? I'm sure He meant much more than communication in the bedroom. But I'm pretty sure He meant that as well. So just what are you trying to tell your spouse with the way you approach sexual intimacy? Is it in a language he or she understands? Have you even considered that you don't speak the same language? Something to think about?

________
¹ I recently read a story from Mills college, an all-girl college (Why can they have all-girl colleges, but not "all-men" anything?) where a particular club meets with introductions and an expression of their "PGP" - preferred gender pronoun. Remember, this is an all-girl school. More and more people "identify in some way outside the binary" in gender terms.

Evolution

I believe in evolution. No, really, I do.

Take, for instance, Christmas. Christmas started with the birth of God's Son. We don't know when (although it would be reasonable to guess it is somewhere in the spring or the fall), but we know Jesus was born. In early Christianity birthdays weren't much noted; death days were. Thus, the main "Christian holiday" was the Resurrection of Christ. That took place at the Passover. In the 4th century, then, the church decided it needed to put an end to the Saturnalia and other winter feasts celebrating false gods and designated December 25 as the day to celebrate Christ's birth, not because He was born on that day, but because it was a convenient day for a big celebration. By the Middle Ages, Christmas had replaced the pagan events. In the 18th century, the Puritans pointed out that Jesus was not born on December 25th and the date was actually a product of a pagan celebration, so they outlawed it in the United States. Like Prohibition of the 20th century, it didn't last long. Christmas was back in full swing by the mid to late 19th century.

Other components were added after the 4th century. Christmas trees took a place in Germany after they became the symbol of the "Christ Tree" which stood after a missionary felled an oak to demonstrate that the "tree spirits" were impotent. Tradition says that Martin Luther added lights to the Christmas tree using candles in order to show his family the wonder of the stars in the trees at night. Saint Nicholas lived in the 4th century and was not a Christmas figure, but became one later. St. Nicholas was introduced in America in 1774 by a New York newspaper. The New York Historical Society distributed woodcuts of the popular Christmas scene of stockings, toys, trees and fruits in 1809. The fat Santa didn't make his appearance until Coca Cola featured the rotund character drinking a Coke in a magazine advertisement in 1931. A copywriter, Robert May, from Montgomery Ward molded Santa's image further with his 'Twas the Night Before Christmas giving us more imagery as well as Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer. May's brother-in-law, Johnny Marks, wrote the popular Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer song which Gene Autry took to the top of the Billboard charts in 1949. And the evolution continued.

In 2013 the networks put out a Christmas special based on the Ice Age cartoon series -- you know, before a Christmas of any kind existed. And why not? Christmas has evolved. Surveys suggested that while 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas every year including 80% non-Christians, 83% believe it's about spending time with family and friends, 41% think it's about celebrating God's love for humanity, and 40% think it means nothing but a day off. In 2010 a survey found that 51% considered Jesus's birth irrelevant to Christmas. Only one in three say they would attend a Christmas-related religious service. That's how far we've come. From an unknown date but the certain birth of Christ, we've arrived at a non-religious celebration of the unknown on an unrelated date for no explained reason. Now that is evolution.

Or take sex and marriage ...

What Would You Say?

Evangelism Explosion "is a ministry that trains people how to share their faith in Christ." The system begins with two diagnostic questions:

1. Have you reached the point in your spiritual life where you know for certain that if you were to die tonight you would go to heaven?
2. If you were to die tonight and God were to ask you, "Why should I let you into heaven," how would you answer?

Good questions. Piercing questions. Gets you right to the point. And always a problem for me.

I know the right answers. I know the point of the questions. I know that "you may know that you have eternal life" by believing in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13). I know that "He who believes in Him is not judged" (John 3:18). I know that. I know the Gospel. I know the good news.

But the question asked is from God: "Why should I let you into heaven?" And when I take that question seriously (as we ought), I have no answer. "Why should You let me into heaven?" I'd want to answer. "I've got nothing here, God. I have no reason that you ought to let me into heaven. I have no right, no claim, no power, no entitlement. All I have is this certificate of debt canceled out with Your Son's name on it¹. That's it."

We have this notion that believing in Christ is a glorified "Get out of jail free" card. We often have this idea that, having prayed the sinner's prayer, we have in some sense obligated God to us. We feel as if we could rightly answer Him, "You must let me in because I've believed in Your Son." But I know me. I know my sin. I know my righteousness is as filthy rags. And I know that if justice alone prevailed, I'd be under the same eternal judgment as Hitler. Why should God let me into heaven? I can think of no reason. That's why, when I think about it, I am so delighted and grateful that He has promised to do just that on the basis of His Son's death and resurrection.
________
¹ Col. 2:13-14.

Admirable Neutrality

That's what they tell us: "Neutral is good." And it seeps into all sorts of things.

"Neutral is good" when it comes to religion. I mean, by all means, believe whatever you want and say whatever you want and feel whatever you want, but do not do it in the public square. Because in the public square religion has no place. "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to sexual ethics. You want to argue that sex outside of marriage is bad and sex with animals is bad and sex with people of the same gender is bad and sex between married people is good -- go right ahead. Just don't do it where anyone else can hear it. We suppose you can do it around others who agree, but don't do it in the public square because it's hateful and mean-spirited and narrow-minded. "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to politics. There are the far-left types who want Communism or Socialism or some such "ism" and there are the far-right types who want Capitalism and Tradition and other stuff on which this country was built and these are all well and good as long as they aren't on the ballot. We don't want to hear it. Either side. Especially the far right. Because that's the most offensive. In the political arena, what we need is "centrist" because "Neutral is good."

"Neutral is good" when it comes to parenting. Some may argue that you should discipline your kids and some may argue that you should teach your kids your religion, but no intelligent person would fall for that sort of thing. So the underground parents, the backwoods types, the ignorant ones may go on with it, but don't let us find out about it because everyone knows that the proper way to raise kids is to be their buddy, not their authority figure, and everyone knows that the only reasonable approach is to let their kids choose their own religion rather than inflicting yours on them. It's only right. "Neutral is good."

And so it goes.

You know, of course, that it's a lie, right? I mean, you're not falling for any of that, are you? Because none of it is neutral. A neutral approach to religion in the public square would be to allow it to be there and to allow it not to be. A neutral approach to sexual ethics would be to recognize my right to view God's version of sin as sin and for me to recognize your right to disagree. A neutral version of politics would be to let all views play out and see what comes of it. A neutral approach to parenting would be to allow parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs and consciences. And no one in the public square is advocating any of that. Instead, they recommend that Christians set aside their beliefs in public and hide their morality under a bushel. The rightwing needs to simply go away and parents need to knuckle under to the mainstream beliefs about parenting. This is not neutral.

Is neutrality admirable? I'm not so sure. We can debate it. But here's what I am sure of: No one advocating neutrality in the public square is actually thinking it is admirable. They're saying it, but in the end the aim is to silence their opponents, not to coexist with them. "Tolerance" is "You must agree with us." "Compromise" is "You give up your views in favor of ours." And when we get everyone on board, we can call it "neutrality" and declare it admirable, not because it's truly neutral, but because we've vanquished our foes. And that's not neutral.

Angels and Demons

"Angels we have heard on high" the song says. In fact, it is most likely that we have not heard them. Indeed, I would suggest that we know very little about the ever popular "angel" and his nemesis, the demon. What does the Bible tell us about these beings?

First, let's clear the confusion. Here's what is not true of angels or demons. Angels are not people who have died and gone to heaven. (In Heb 12:22-23 there are two groups in heaven. There are angels and there are "the spirits of righteous men made perfect". Two distinct groups.) Every time a bell rings an angel has not gotten its wings. Nor do angels sit around on clouds playing harps. No possible biblical reference to angels would allow anything at all remotely like these fun and fanciful but completely false concepts. Satan, as we all know, is dressed all in red, has horns and a forked tail, and carries a pitchfork. Clear enough. His minions, the demons, are dark beings from the pit of hell. Of course, Hollywood loves these caricatures and, I suspect, so do we because it gives us the distinct feeling that we can tell the bad guys from the good guys. The Bible, on the other hand, does not offer this imagery.

What does the Bible offer?

We know that angels are created beings (Gen 2:1). Heavenly beings were created by Christ and through Christ and for Christ and exist in Christ (Col 1:15-17). Apparently they were created before God created the world (Job 38:1-7). Angels, then, had a beginning, but they do not die (Luke 20:36). There are references to angels with wings (Exo 25:20; Isa 6:2; Rev 4:8), but it's not clear if all angels have wings. Angels are created beings and, as such, finite. There are things angels don't know (1 Peter 1:12). They are interested in human events (Luke 15:10) and intervene in human events (Daniel 9:21; Matt 1:20; Luke 1:11, 26-38, etc.). Angels have emotions (Luke 15:10; Job 38:7; 1 Peter 1:12). Angels are heavenly beings, but are not divine beings. They disdain worship (Rev 19:10). Instead, they are subject to God (1 Peter 3:22). This includes fallen angels (Jude 1:6; Job 1:6; 2:1). And they are limited in what they can do (Daniel 10:12-13; Jude 1:9). There are lots and lots of angels (Psa 68:17; Rev 5:11), and their primary duty -- their reason for being, their functional design -- is to be "ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation" (Heb 1:14). Based on the many references to angels praising God in His presence, it would appear that they are ministering spirits to God.

Angels appear to have various roles. There are angels called cherubim (plural for "cherub", except, as it turns out, they don't at all resemble the cute little chubby children that word calls to mind). These were the models God gave Moses for use on the Ark of the Covenant (Exo 25:20; Heb 8:5) and described by Ezekiel (Ezek 1:1-28; 10:1-20). It was a cherub that God armed with a flaming sword to keep Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24). Cherubim were in close contact with God and formed the image of the mediation between God and Man (1 Sam 4:4; Psa 80:1; Ezek 1:26, 28). There are angels called seraphim. They are mentioned only in Isa 6 and appear to have the role of standing in the presence of God declaring His holiness. There are named angels including Gabriel and Michael. Gabriel appears to be a special messenger, described as one "who stands in the presence of God" (Luke 1:19). Michael is described as the archangel (Jude 1:9) whose apparent primary role is to battle demonic forces (Dan 10:13; Jude 1:9; Rev 12:7-9). As a group, angels are God's messengers, ministers, and God's army. Angels most often do not appear with wings, but appear in the form of men. And angels do not, as a rule, inspire warm feelings; they terrify. Indeed, God has used His angels on more than one occasion to carry out executions (2 Kings 19:20-34).

On a personal note, the Bible indicates that we have our own angels. This, of course, would make perfect sense considering their primary role as ministers to those who are to inherit salvation. David wrote, "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them" (Psa 34:7). When the poor man, Lazarus, died, he was "carried by the angels" to Paradise (Luke 16:22). And Jesus warned of not despising "these little ones" because "their angels" are always in the presence of God (Matt 18:10). (Note: While we typically think of "these little ones" as a reference to children, if you will read the text you will find that it refers instead to a particular group of people who humble themselves to be "like this child". Thus, it is a reference to the adopted children of God, not all children.) What we call "guardian angels" are actually real. They don't protect us from all pain or hardship, but they do protect us from the harm that Satan would inflict if he could that is outside of God's plan. They do minister to those who will be saved. You may not have an angel assigned, but the role of guardian angel is a biblical role.

Something else about angels -- there are "elect angels" (1 Tim 5:21). As such there are some angels who are not "elect". Demons are real (James 2:19). These are described as not keeping their original position (Jude 1:6). Some were chained "until the judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4). Others have worked with the chief of the fallen angels, Satan (Matt 25:41). (Note that the eternal fires of Hell were originally created for Satan and his angels.) Now, these fallen angels -- the ones we know as demons -- are spending their time opposing God even while they are subservient to God. (The imagery of Rev 12:4 suggests that Satan took one third of the angels with him when he fell from heaven.) Job's account tells us that Satan's opposition to God was limited by God. In 2 Kings 22 there is an account of a "lying spirit" sent by God to deceive Ahab's prophets and in 1 Sam 16:14 an "evil spirit from the Lord" tormented Saul. So, while Satan and his demons are powerful (1 John 5:19) and real, they are not omnipotent. We war against them (Eph 6:12) and they seek to harm us (1 Peter 5:8), but cannot (1 John 5:18). Indeed, Satan is "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2), the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) who has blinded the minds of the unbelievers. Jesus refers to him as "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), but he is a defeated ruler. Oh, and that whole "red suit, pitchfork, horns, and a forked tail" concept? Yeah, not biblical either. Scripture says he "disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14). If you're looking for an easily recognized form of evil, you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

Satan's primary weapon appears to be lies. He is the father of lies (John 8:44). He is described as "that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray" (Rev 12:9). He started this right there in the Garden of Eden by deceiving Eve (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14). There are humans (we call them "false prophets") who operate under the delusion of deceiving spirits (1 John 4:1). But he has other means. And he can do injury to believers. Paul had to contend with "a messenger from Satan" (2 Cor 12:7) (who, by the way, God left in place -- 2 Cor 12:8-9). We know that Satan requested permission to "sift" Peter (Luke 22:31) and was allowed to do so within limits (Luke 22:32). There are those who will argue that Christians can "have a demon", that Christians can, in essence, be demon-possessed. Given all that Scripture says Satan can and does do to Christians, I would suspect that it would look like this was true, but John says, "We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him" (1 John 5:18). If "the evil one does not touch him" (Note: the word "touch" here is literally "to fasten to"), then it would suggest that either it only appears that one born of God could have a demon but doesn't actually or John is mistaken.

It's a strange thing, at least to me. Surveys suggest that a large number of self-identified Christians today believe in Jesus, God, even angels -- all that good stuff -- but do not believe in Satan or demons. Given the large amount of Scripture devoted to Satan and his followers and given the quite obvious effect of the father of lies and given the fact that Jesus Himself seemed to believe in Satan, I have to wonder on what they would base this warm and fuzzy but clearly unbiblical belief. We are warned that Satan is "seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8), to "resist the devil" (James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9), and to "give no opportunity to the devil" (Eph 4:27). It would seem to me that "such a being doesn't exist" would be a poor preparation for the biblical line of thinking on the subject. On the other hand, a host of ministering spirits is a really good thing. Angels and demons ... they're biblical, real, and, ultimately, under God's control. Good to know.

Didn't Work

I remember years ago when I started work at a new job, a new coworker came up to me and said, "I sure hope you're not one of those Christian types."

"Sorry," I said, "I am."

"Oh, too bad."

"Why?"

"Well, I don't like Christianity."

"Oh? Why?"

"Well, I tried that and it didn't work."

I was left wondering "Didn't work?" What did that mean, "didn't work"? What was it supposed to do that it didn't do?

It begs the question. Is Christianity a means to an end?

It's a common approach. A friend asked me (years ago when my children were still children), "How do you get your kids to behave? Yours are so good and I can't get mine to listen to me." So I told him my approach which included corporal punishment when needed. "Oh," he said, "I tried that. It didn't work." There was that phrase again. "Didn't work." You see, to me corporal punishment was part of a parenting program commanded by God, so I did it. The question could be, "Why did you spank your kids?" and the answer could be, "So they would be good", but for me it wasn't. For me it was, "Because the Bible says, 'Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him' (Prov 13:24) and I love my sons." So, did corporal punishment accomplish what it was supposed to? If I did it because I love my sons it did.

I've seen the same plan of attack in marriages. There was a bumper sticker I once saw that read, "Treat her like a thoroughbred and she won't be a nag." It answered the question, "How should I treat my wife?" with "Treat her well so she'll treat you well." And men have told me, "I tried that. It didn't work." There it is again -- "didn't work." The Bible commands, "Husbands, love your wives" and we think, "That's so she'll love me back" and it isn't in there. The Bible commands, "Wives, submit to your husbands" and wives think, "That's so he'll treat me right" and it just isn't in there. If, on the other hand, I love my wife because God told me to, then regardless of her response, I will have obtained what I intended, love for my wife as a matter of obedience to a God I love.

Because, you see, what we're looking for far too often is a means to an end, and that "end" is our benefit. We think of parenting relationships as a means to make well-behaved kids who love us (that part is really key, isn't it?). We're commanded instead to "bring up a child in the way he should go". We think that treating our spouses in the way we are to treat them is a means of great gain. Instead, we are commanded to treat our spouses in the way we are commanded because we are commanded to do so, not as a means of gain. And far too often we think that Christ is a way to solve life's problems, ensure peace, obtain domestic tranquility, and so on. When it doesn't make us feel better, it "didn't work". And that was never the point.

Paul warns of the false teacher who is "deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Tim 6:5-6). He goes on to say, "But godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim 6:6). If you are approaching Christianity as a means to an end that will benefit you, you'll like end up like the rest. "I tried that; it didn't work." On the other hand, if you are content, then godliness -- as a Christian, as a parent, as a spouse -- is great gain. Christianity is not a means to an end, but is the end itself. A right relationship with God from a changed heart is a sufficient end on its own -- great gain.

An excellent wife who can find?

This is one of those biblical questions (Prov 31:10) that a lot of people have trouble answering. It seems a kind of rhetorical and, frankly, unanswerable question. Clearly the intent is "No one", right? Well, no. Not "no one". I can.

The passage (Prov 31:10-31) gives a lengthy outline of what might be considered an "excellent wife". What kinds of things are included?

The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain (Prov 31:11).

Indeed. Let me tell you about my wife. It might not be fair to say I trust her. More accurately, I know her. And knowing her, I trust her with all my heart.

She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life (Prov 31:12).

It is not an exaggeration to say that this is true of my wife. Each and every day she does me good.

Verses 13-17 describes an industrious wife. "She ... works with willing hands" and "provides food for her household" and "considers a field and buys it." That kind of stuff. My wife is that wife. For the largest part of our 21 years together she was employed. Even after having set aside the job market, she is constantly employed. "Do you work?" someone might ask. Her correct reply would be "Not for money" because she works continuously.

She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy (Prov 31:20).

My wife is generous. She gives what she can to those who need it. She shares what she has with others.

She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet (Prov 31:21).

Okay, so maybe her household isn't clothed in scarlet. But in other versions (both the Latin and the Septuagint), the text is rendered "clothed in double". Either way, the idea is that she's not worried about cold weather because she ensures that her family is properly dressed. And that describes my wife perfectly. She is diligent to make sure we have what we need without resorting to too many extras.

She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness (Prov 31:27).

My wife hates to be idle. Even now, when all the kids have moved out on their own, she takes care of her granddaughter and cooks and cleans and keeps the backyard clean and ... non-stop. She "does not eat the bread of idleness."

Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: "Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all." (Prov 31:28-29).

Well, obviously her husband praises her. I'm doing it right now. But, indeed, it is my contention that there is no wife better than mine. "You surpass them all." And no complaint is offered by her children. They rise up and call her blessed as well.

January 1st is our anniversary. This one, in fact, is our 21st anniversary. I see it as another opportunity to tell the world that I love my wife. That's a pretty easy thing to do, given that my wife is a model of the Proverbs 31 wife. I can't imagine a better woman than my wife.

2013 in Review

As the year comes to a close, I have taken some time to review ... my blog. I know, kind of self-serving, but still something for me to consider.

As always, my aim has been one post a day (you know, as a minimum). I had 370. I met that goal.

This year I wrote a few series. I tried to maintain a worship theme on Sunday posts. In March there was a series based on Jonah because, after all, I was reading Jonah. In August I did a series on Essential Christianity discussing just what is Christianity and the necessary components without which Christianity could not survive. In September I did a four-part entry on whether or not one can lose his or her salvation. With the singular exception of the second entry on Jonah, none of these managed to grab much attention.

The discussions have been ... quieter. My most commented post was from 9/8 on the Two Wills of God with at total of 55 comments. The notion that God would will everything that happens was controversial. Second was Truth by Vote with 38 comments. The post was about how people often determine what is true by the numbers of people that believe it. Unfortunately, the example was the question of the existence of same-sex marriage. Thus, the concept of whether or not truth is determined by vote was lost in the disagreement over the morality of same-sex marriage. In A Baby Question I asked if the popular "we should wait to have kids until we can afford it" approach was biblical or wise. This one drew some discussion as you can imagine, topping out at 37 comments. To be fair, there was more than a couple of comments in that section because I mentioned I was considering ending my seven-year blogging stint and several people wanted to discuss that. As it turns out, 165 of my 370 posts had no comments. I don't know what that means, but it doesn't feel good.

Viewership has dwindled over the year. The entry of May 8, Where do you come up with this?, led the pack with 190 views. I discussed how I come up with the positions I come up with. Number 2 was Easy Writing for Christians where I suggested that the easiest way to get people to like what you write is to write what they like ... and that's not a good plan. A total of 184 people looked at that. Of the 370 posts of 2013, only 12 had more than 100 views. The average was 42. And I found it ... unpredictable. I mean, who would have thought that a post on giving thanks to the God of heaven would have received the same number of views as a post titled Is it a sin to be gay? I would have naturally thought that the latter would have had far more traffic than the former. Who knew that people were just as interested in giving God glory as they were in asking the question about sin and homosexuality? (See how statistics can lie?)

The reality is that my readership has been dropping since it hits its highest levels in May of this year. The week ending May 2, 2013, showed 685 visits to my blog and -- get this -- 1,527 page views. Imagine that! Of course, by mid-November it was bottoming out with 363 visits and 465 page views. This, along with other factors, makes statistics fairly useless, except that I planned to write 365 posts in the year and I met that goal. But when last year's highest views was at 524 and this year's was only 190, one does start to wonder.

So, what is my goal? What am I doing here? In May I was looking through my past writings and discovered that I was repeating -- often nearly word for word -- stuff I have written before. Maybe, just maybe, I've run out of things to say. On the other hand, no one notices that I'm repeating myself because no one remembers that I wrote it before (if they even read it before). So maybe it's not an issue. Primarily I'm writing to hear myself write, so to speak. No, not accurate. But there are things I'm thinking about and wish to express. Writing them out helps me think them through. (You have no idea how much stuff I've written, reviewed, and deleted because it was poorly thought out or just plain wrong.) I write, then, in the hopes of sharing helpful thoughts with my readers, but I also write to clear the cobwebs from my own mind. As readership dwindles (it has rebounded somewhat in December), then, perhaps the numbers don't really matter. Perhaps sharing what I'm thinking in order to help myself think better is enough. It would be nice if some of you were blessed, encouraged, even corrected in the process, but I'm not well known for being an optimist. So, for the moment, I'll keep clearing the baffles, so to speak, and offer whatever cogent theology, clear thinking, and Christian encouragement I can as we head into 2014.

What is Good?

How do we determine what "moral" and "immoral", "good" and "bad" are? A congressman who stood against "gay marriage" changed his mind midstream when his son announced that he was gay. Prior to this event, it was bad. Now it's good. In this case, "good" and "bad" are determined by "what's going on at my house".

A coworker told her daughters, "If you ever get a boyfriend and decide to live with him before marrying him, I will be disappointed." "Really, Mom?" She told me, "I felt bad." Because "good" and "bad" are determined not by what is actually "good" or "bad", but what's going on at my house.

A very popular argument is that good and bad are determined by the harm that it may or may not cause. If it causes harm, it is bad. If not, it is good. This fails to take into account a couple of really important considerations. First, is "good" simply defined as "not harmful"? Is that all it takes to determine "good"? I ask because it would seem patently obvious that "good" isn't merely that which does no harm, but that which does ... good. But the second aspect missed in this definition is the fact that we don't know. The notion is that we can tell if something does harm and, thus, can tell if it's good or bad. But the truth is that we often don't know. They made divorce "no fault" because it would not do harm and would make divorce easier. As it turns out divorce harms children with problems that often don't appear until later in life and can actually harm the physical health of the adults that do it. The effects are often silent but deadly, so to speak. We thought we were doing something good -- you know, "no harm" -- but, as it turns out, we have done irreparable and long lasting damage. We didn't know. (By "we" I mean society.) We know, for instance, that sticking needles in the arms of little children causes harm, but it is wrong to fail to do so when it is to give them immunity to future illnesses. Just a couple of examples. In these two illustrations we see that removing pain can cause real harm and that in inflicting pain we might cause real benefit. And these are ones that we can figure out.

Maybe, then, just maybe it is true that morality is well determined by the harm that it may or may not cause, but that's as far as we're going to get on that question. We're really bad at determining both harm and benefit. So if we're not good at this, what source should we use? The atheist would like to suggest that we use purely material means. Your DNA, your feelings, your view of the world, all these are reasonable approaches. Of course, if your feelings tell you that I'm a piece of genetic material with no real value or purpose and eliminating me will make your life easier, on what basis would someone else (like me, for instance) be able to argue that it was wrong? If you argue that Evolution is the answer and Evolution favors those who survive, then your survival at all costs is the only real good. Is stealing wrong? Not if it means you don't get to eat today, so in that case it would be not merely acceptable, but good. So while the anti-theist will argue that we don't need the divine to determine morality, it becomes absolutely impossible to determine morality without borrowing from the divine. You must consider "the good of society" and "consistency" and other things that, without some higher power in charge, cannot actually be defined as "good". They certainly can't be obligations laid on anyone but yourself.

But, look, I'm not trying to argue against the morality of atheism. That's for others to do (and others have done it quite well). My point is to ask you to consider how you determine good and bad. The standard rule in the world today is pure situational ethics. Gay is wrong ... unless it's someone in my family, and then it's not. Sex outside of marriage is immoral ... unless, of course, I or someone I care about wants to engage in it and then it's okay. It's evil to kill a child ... unless that child is an inconvenient pregnancy, in which case it is a "woman's right" to murder at will. Morality is purely determined by "what's going on at my house". And you have to know that 1) what's going on at your house does not determine what is moral for anyone elsewhere and 2) when what's going on at your house conflicts with what's going on at your neighbor's house, it can get a little problematic, to say the least. As long as you have a moral code that is arbitrary, you will have instability. Further, as long as this ethical system is of your own determination, you will have no basis on which to inflict it on others. You cannot argue "What you're doing or saying is bad" if your basis has no objective foundation (and "harm" is not an objective foundation).

So, you'll need to decide. Are you going with your own moral code? Welcome to the world in which we live. You are in the majority. Please, don't inflict that moral code on the rest of us. It is not reliable, it is variable, and it is not authoritative. Keep it for yourself, if you wish, but don't expect the rest of us to agree. Are you going with the moral code of the One who made us? Now that would be a reliable, solid, authoritative code to follow. I recommend it. However, if that is your position, know your code. Claiming to go with God's moral instructions while ignoring God's moral instructions isn't only irrational; it is immoral.

A Reason for Hope

The year is ending. A new one is coming. It's often a time for reflection, for evaluation, for resolutions.

When Jeremiah reflected, it wasn't a happy consideration. Jeremiah was a prophet to Judah, warning them that the same thing that happened to their northern sister, Israel, would happen to them if they didn't repent. It was a sad task because Jeremiah, like Isaiah, knew that it was a task that would not provide positive results. He knew that they wouldn't repent and he knew that they would be exiled. And they were.

It's a difficult situation sometimes. We wonder, "Why am I here? Am I doing any good? Am I helping?" We hope against all the evidence that we are, but it just looks bad. We question ourselves. We question God. Like Jeremiah, we lament. Often, at the end of a year, our reflections may cause us to be sad over such things. So let me suggest Jeremiah's line of thinking as we consider the old year and the new one to come.

This I recall to my mind, therefore I have hope. The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness. "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "Therefore I have hope in Him." The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the person who seeks Him. It is good that he waits silently for the salvation of the LORD (Lam 3:21-26).

Jeremiah did not feel good. He didn't see any evidence of reasons to rejoice. He didn't feel any hope or pleasure. He was at the end of his rope. So it wasn't his feelings or his circumstances that would help him out. What was it?

"The Lord is my portion. Therefore I have hope in Him."

As you head into this new year, you can reflect on all the negatives around you. Times look bleak for Christianity in America. The world is growing more and more overtly hostile to us. It doesn't look like good is winning. And you ... you may feel like you're not accomplishing anything. You may feel like you're failing at whatever it is you believe God has asked you to do. Indeed, you may be. But remember: "The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning." Remember, it is His faithfulness on which we stand. It is His grace on which we rest. It is His power in which we operate. His mercies are new every morning ... and every year. "The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the person who seeks Him. It is good that he waits silently for the salvation of the LORD."

Something to count on. A sure thing.

Making Excuses

I'm sure you heard about the 16-year-old kid who killed 4 pedestrians while driving drunk and was given probation because he suffered from "affluenza". What's that? It's a jamming-together of "affluence" and "influenza" to describe the condition of being rich and sick. The boy was a victim of his parents' wealth and dysfunction who never taught him responsibility or consequences. According to one psychologist, his father "does not have relationships, he takes hostages" and the mother was indulgent. "Her mantra was that if it feels good, do it." So the boy didn't need punishment; he needed help.

It isn't new, of course. Remember Dan White? Maybe not. He was a supervisor in San Francisco, the guy who murdered Mayor Harvey Milk. His defense was dubbed "the twinkie defense." The jury convicted him of manslaughter rather than first-degree murder because he had an addiction to sugary junk foods which caused "diminished capacity". Or perhaps you never heard of the Crocodile Dundee Defense. Paul Dunn murdered his pregnant wife and chalked it up to insanity produced by the movie Crocodile Dundee where he tried to use the knife like Dundee did. In 2002 an Ohio woman shot her landlady in the head, and her attorney argued that "our world is just an illusion generated by our machine overlords" -- the Matrix defense. The jury bought it. Well, they bought that she believed it and that was enough. In 1987 a man drove to his in-laws' house, attacked them, and killed his mother-in-law. His defense was that he was sleepwalking. He was acquitted. Then there was the famous Lorena Bobbitt case. She was raped by her husband, got drunk, and ... well, you know. I think they call it a "penectomy". The defense? She was drunk and couldn't help herself. Oh, well, why didn't you say so? They let her go.

It just keeps going and going. "I couldn't help myself." You'll hear it in the kitchen. "Yes, I ate the whole thing. I couldn't help myself." You'll hear it in court. "Your Honor, it's not my fault. It was my parents' fault. They didn't raise me right. I just couldn't help myself." You'll hear it from the Human Rights Campaign. "Gay is not a choice. They can't help themselves." Any excuse in a storm. There is one place, however, that you will not hear it. That would be at the Final Judgment. No excuses there. Good luck with that.

Just Not Getting It

Mary Louise Bringle wrote in The Christian Century about the debate over hymns. Now, The Christian Century is "a progressive, ecumenical magazine", so you're not going to expect conservative, biblical positions being taken here. And this article was no exception. Mary Louise Bringle, you see, is the chair of the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song for the PCUSA. She was writing about changes to the denomination's new hymnal.

Deeply concerned about the lyrics of the hymns to be included in that hymnal, the committee encountered much debate. Of prime importance was the concept of "gender neutrality", so Be Thou My Vision had to change from "High King of Heaven" to "Great God of Heaven" because, after all, "King" was masculine. (Clearly, others were unsalvageable, like Faith of Our Fathers or Onward, Christian Soldiers.) Throw out the gender stuff.

The American folk hymn, Jesus Walked This Lonesome Valley, was under fire for claiming that "nobody else" can walk the lonesome valley with us. Truly awful theology. Throw that out.

But the real offense was found in Keith Getty and Stuart Townend's song, In Christ Alone. Well, let me just put down the second verse so you can see for yourself what kind of offensive theology was laid out here for all to sing.

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
'Til on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.

What? You missed the offense? Oh, come on! It's so obvious. Well, okay, the truth is that the PCUSA version had some changes to the lyrics that obscured the problem, so they missed it at first. Their version read, "'Til on that cross as Jesus died / the love of God was magnified." Not the original lyrics. But they were obligated by copyright laws to go with the original lyrics. So? Bringle writes, "People making a case to retain the text with the authors’ original lines spoke of the fact that the words expressed one view of God’s saving work in Christ that has been prevalent in Christian history: the view of Anselm and Calvin, among others, that God’s honor was violated by human sin and that God’s justice could only be satisfied by the atoning death of a sinless victim." So, it was an historically and biblically accurate reference to God's justice satisfied by Christ's death? Nonsense! So the song was removed because "a hymnal does not simply collect diverse views, but also selects to emphasize some over others as part of its mission to form the faith of coming generations; it would do a disservice to this educational mission ... to perpetuate by way of a new ... text the view that the cross is primarily about God’s need to assuage God’s anger."

It wasn't just that In Christ Alone was thrown out of the hymnal. What was ejected from the official PCUSA hymnal was the notion that the cross was primarily about God's need to assuage God's anger against sin. That it was the historical, orthodox, biblical view was irrelevant. Such a view damaged their "educational mission" and their efforts to "form the faith of coming generations."

Now if that doesn't give you a chill, you're not paying attention. Their lofty aim is to eliminate from the faith for future generations the historical, orthodox, biblical view that Christ died to save us from God's wrath. It's completely bizarre, in fact, since the PCUSA claims as part of its core beliefs the Westminster Confession of Faith which argues that sinners are "bound over to the wrath of God (Chapter VI, Para VI), that "The liberty Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law" (Chapter XX, Para. I), and refers to "Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect" (Chapter XXIX, Para II). And they also claim the Bible as their helpful source which claims that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:23-25). "Propitiation" -- that's the term. It means "that which appeases". Paul thinks that Jesus was that which appeased God's wrath. "By His blood" -- that's the method. It's a reference to the cross (the only biblical reference to Christ's blood being shed). Paul thinks that Christ's blood provided the appeasement for God's wrath. Or, you know, "'Til on that cross as Jesus died / The wrath of God was satisfied". Yeah, like that.

What is at stake here? The "progressive, ecumenical" types want to tell us that the "educational mission", "the faith of coming generations" is at stake here. I would, in fact, have to agree. If the Gospel is defined as the appeasement of God's righteous wrath by the Son of God's sacrifice on the cross (1 Cor 15:1-8; 1 John 2:2) and if that sacrifice that produced the propitiation for our sin is a product of God's love (1 John 4:10), then the removal of that concept is the removal of God's love and the Gospel for which we stand. No small issue. And when a church pushes this line of thinking, it tells me that the church in question is just not getting it. If their concern is "the faith of coming generations", that faith is not the Christian faith.

Tolerance

The dictionary says that tolerance is "the willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own". Of course, society includes the sense that "willingness to accept" means "embrace". I mean, if a Christian believes, as an example, that homosexual behavior is sin, simply allowing it to continue would not be classified as "tolerance". No, in order to be classified as "tolerant", you must celebrate it with those who celebrate it. Interestingly, those who celebrate it are not obligated in any form to celebrate or even tolerate the biblical view that it is sin. So tolerance is a one-way item that all fair-minded people view as a way to celebrate less prevalent views that are currently in vogue.

Don't worry, the point here is not to find an equally amenable definition of the term, so if you don't like that definition, it's okay. It's not the point. No, my aim is not to find a usable term, but to ask "What would Jesus do?" That is, can we find a biblical text that gives Jesus's point of view on the topic of tolerance? And, as it turns out, we can.

You may remember that the first 3 chapters of the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ are mainly comprised of seven letters to seven churches from Christ. John serves as Jesus's secretary, taking dictation in a form of Divine Inspiration not normally seen. So we read, "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write ..." (Rev 2:1), and John is asked to write down what Jesus says to that church. There is a basic construct of these letters. There is an image of Christ that corresponds to the church. There is usually a "positive" section where Jesus tells them what they're doing right. There is typically a "negative" section where He tells them what they're doing wrong, the possible consequence of continuing, and how to fix it. And there is a "He who has ears to hear" section that tells the outcome.

So, Revelation 2:18-29 is the letter to the church at Thyatira. The imagery of Christ to Thyatira is the one "who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze." Okay. Fine. The positives are "your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first." Good. And then we get to the dreaded, "But I have this against you ..." phrase. Most of the letters have that. This one does, too. What is it that Jesus says He has against the church at Thyatira?

I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing My servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:20).

Now, you can define "tolerance" how you will. You can say whatever you want about its meaning and its value. When you do, include Jesus's statement on the subject in your calculations. The thing that Jesus had against the church at Thyatira was ... tolerance.

The word behind the English translation is a Greek word that simply means "permit" or "leave alone." It is not "embrace". It is "tolerate". It wasn't that they celebrated Jezebel's sin; they simply let it be. They made no move to oppose it. They made no move to embrace it. Tolerance. And this was, in Jesus's eyes, a bad thing.

Jesus didn't say that the proper response was to attack this sin. He didn't say to kill Jezebel (literally or figuratively), to have her voted out, to evict her and those with her. Jesus said that He was working on that issue. "I will throw her on a sickbed," He says (Rev 2:22). What did He ask of the church, then? "I will give to each according to your works" (Rev 2:23). Do good. "Do not hold this teaching" (Rev 2:24). Reject the teaching. He commended those "who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan" (Rev 2:24). Avoid the sin and its "doctrines". "Hold fast what you have" (Rev 2:25). Stand firm. The correct response is to continue to obey, to reject the teaching, to avoid the sin and the teaching that supports it, and to stand firm. The correct response is not tolerance.

What does Jesus think about tolerance? It looks like He has something to say on the topic, and it doesn't look entirely positive. This is not to say that we need to campaign against sin. He didn't tell the Christians in Thyatira to campaign against Jezebel. By the same token, though, simply permitting it or leaving it alone is not, apparently, the right answer. Do good. Reject the teaching. Avoid the sin. Stand. Not an attack but also not tolerance. Now you have to ask yourself, "Will I go with Jesus's view on the subject of tolerance, or will I tend toward the world's preference there?"

The Real Christmas1

What is Christmas really all about? It's about white. You know, "white Christmas", like the one I'm dreaming about.

Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Psa 51:7).

Yeah, white ... like snow.

Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without trees. Trees symbolize Christmas.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" (Gal 3:13).

The tree is an important component of Christmas.

It's not possible to think of Christmas without thinking of Christmas lights. They sparkle and shine and light up the darkness.

Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life" (John 8:12).

Lots of lights.

"There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man" (John 1:6-9).

Lights are a key part of Christmas.

And, as the commercials are quick to remind us from way back in October, Christmas is very much about gifts.

Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water" (John 4:10).

More gifts.

The free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many" (Rom 5:15).

Lots of gifts.

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:10).

Oh, yeah, very much about gifts.

Of course, the real reason for the season is Christ, His birth, His coming.

While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:6-7).

There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:9-13).

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:5-11).

Yes, that's Christmas, in the end. It's the coming of Christ, His adoration "to the glory of God the Father". It's the gift of God's Son, the gifts He gives, the Light of the World who became a curse for us on the tree so that our sins can be made white as snow. I love that Christmas. Merry Christmas to all!

________
¹ This is a repeat from 2011, but I was in this mood, so I thought I'd repeat it.

Christmas Eve Address

Christmas and politics makes strange bedfellows.

In September of 2012 the Democratic Party was on the verge of eliminating God from their platform. Of course, the public outcry was too loud, so they recanted, but no one is really fooled. And when they voted to put God back in, delegates booed. Well, in truth, they booed the vote procedure, but this doesn't quite get them off the hook, does it? I mean, they were protesting that the votes weren't what they thought they should be because the vote to reinstate God was approved. So, in the end, it's the same thing. It's not really fair to suggest that God and the Democrats don't mix, but it does seem like a reasonable question sometimes.

It has not always been thus. It seems really odd to realize that a Democrat gave this Christmas Eve address in 1950. Wouldn't fly today, would it? Probably not from either party. Such a shame. So, on Christmas Eve, it's a real pleasure to get this kind of thing from the White House, even if it is from a Democrat in 1950.

May you all enjoy a blessed celebration of the Christ child.

Christmas and Cats

I dutifully got out the Christmas tree and set it up this year. And then I kindly and lovingly left the decorations to my beloved bride who knows how to do that well and cares about it. So we have a lovely Christmas tree all set up and shining (you know -- when the timer turns the lights on at night).

Of course, one who is certainly more excited about it than I and likely more interested even than my wife is our cat. She's in heaven. There are all these shiny, dangling things there for the taking. They bob about when she bats at them and even, sometimes, fall onto the ground and roll about so well that she can make hours of fun out of it. At any moment at any time of the day or night we might hear some decoration hit the ground and skitter across the floor as our dear little cat has a blast with a ball from the tree. Oh, yes, my cat loves Christmas.

My wife, on the other hand, isn't so pleased with the kitty's version of loving Christmas. It isn't, in fact, Christmas that she loves. It is the fun. It is the decorations. It is the chance to play with what she likes to play with and obtain for herself the things she wants. She ... oh, wait ... this is starting to sound familiar ...

Isn't this an apt description of humans at Christmas? Is it about Christmas, or is it about the decorations and the gifts? Is it the trappings or is it the Incarnation that we celebrate? Aren't we closer to cats around a Christmas tree than shepherds around a manger? Well, aren't we?

My Christmas Meditation

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in His word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior; to Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior (Titus 1:1-4).

How is that for a Christmas passage on which to meditate today? Really heart-warming, isn't it? What, you missed it? Here, let's take a look.

The text is an introduction of Paul's letter to Titus. So we get that it's from Paul and to Titus. Fine. We get that Paul is a servant of God and an apostle of Christ. We understand that Titus is Paul's spiritual "child in a common faith". Good. And we receive Paul's relatively uniform prayer for grace and peace (the standard greeting of both the Greeks -- grace -- and the Jews -- peace) from God. Wonderful. So?

There is, however, stuck in the middle of all that, an amazing statement. Paul speaks of the reason for his apostleship. It is "for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth." This knowledge, Paul says, "accords with godliness." All good stuff. But wait! What is the basis of this knowledge? What undergirds this godliness? It is the "hope of eternal life". Oh, that's good. And what does Paul tell us about that particular hope of eternal life? (Here's where we come to the Christmas meditation.)

According to this passage, God's plan of sending His Son to obtain our salvation was "promised before the ages began". Promised to whom? He doesn't say. But what can we figure out? Well, all created beings fall in the category of "the ages". God alone is outside of time. Thus, to whomever He promised it, the promise would have to be to a divine being. And this suggests, then, that the Father promised the Son before He made anything a Bride. A fanciful conversation might have gone something like this:

"Hey, Son. Here's the plan. I am going to provide for you a bride."

"Great! Thanks, Father! A bride from what?"

"Well, we'll create a race of people and we'll select a group of them to be your bride."

"Wonderful plan!"

"But there's a catch. In order to best display our glory, we're going to have to allow them to rebel."

"Oh, okay. And then?"

"Well, then I'll send You down as one of them and have you live a sinless life and then die for their sin. Those that receive that substitute payment for their sin will be your bride."

"Great! Let's start!"

Now that is a Christmas meditation. Regardless of whether you buy my imaginative version or not, Christ knew in advance that He would come to earth as a human. He knew in advance that He would take on human form. He knew in advance that He would live here and be crucified here. And He chose to do it. That was His plan.

See? Now that is indeed a heart-warming Christmas meditation, is it not?

Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift! (2 Cor 9:15)

The Saddest Christmas Story

My drive to and from work every day is a total of 2 hours ... minimum. A while ago I discovered several websites that offer free audiobooks. To be sure, these are not new books. These are old books, out of copyright. But it's been fun "reading" through classics to and from work. Several months ago I watched a classic movie and thought, "I wonder what the book was like?" because, well, I knew the movie but had never read the book. That started a whole series of books to devour that had created movies most of us know. The only book to date that had any real correlation to the movie (or movies) that made the story so well known has been the latest one I just finished -- Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. The movies pretty much matched the book. However, reading the book gave me a whole new view of the story.

You all know that heartwarming tale. It's about Ebenezer Scrooge, a miserable old man who hates Christmas and is on the verge of eternal torment if he doesn't change his ways. His old partner, Jacob Marley, appears as a ghost and tells him there will be three spirits who will visit him. As you all know, they are the spirits of Christmas past, present, and yet to come. And going through these experiences Ebenezer changes from the epitome of the miser to the best darn Christmas keeper of all time. How nice!

Me? I came to the end with tears in my eyes. No, not because it was such a warm tale. It was because it was perhaps the saddest Christmas story I'd ever read. Think about it. What was Scrooge's problem? There was no place in his heart for either God or Man. His first problem, then, was a violation of the Great Commandment and its second -- Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. Scrooge indeed stood at the abyss of eternal damnation. And what was the solution? Well, if he could just become a nice person, then all would be well.

We know, however, that this is not the case. It is the position of man-made religion, but not Christianity. (Dickens, by the way, was an Anglican -- a self-professed Christian.) Christianity says you can't make it. There is nothing you can do. The debt is too great and you do not have the capability to repay. The answer of Christianity, then, is Christ's death on the cross on our behalf. It was God's plan for salvation. And when did that plan begin to unfold? Christmas morning. It started in earnest the day that the Son of God arrived on Earth as a human being to become a sacrifice for us.

So, here we have a desperate sinner in need of salvation standing on the edge of the answer. It's Christmas. It's Christ's arrival. No amount of good works can save him; he needs the One who came on the day around which the story is told. And what do we get instead of a genuine solution? We get Christmas ignored, answer ungiven, and a lie as a reply. Right here, Ebenezer! Right in the day you're celebrating. It's in the coming of the Messiah, the birth of Jesus. The answer you seek is in front of you! And we pass off a "It's okay; just be good" answer and call it a heartwarming tale.

Some version or another comes up every year at this season. Everyone is warmed by it. It's a tradition, a "Christmas carol". So sad that the friendly outcome offered is a lie from the pit of hell. So sad that the answer required stood at the doorstep, only to be ignored. But, then, perhaps I just think too much. Better to let it lie. Right?