Years ago I was helping a young pastor (I was also young) start a new church. We met in our house. I helped with the music. It was good. Not a large crowd (obviously), but there was always Mrs. Jones (not her real name), a widow who was a constant attender and the largest financial contributor. One day the pastor came to me. "Stan," he said gravely, "Mrs. Jones has complained that you don't love her with Christian love." I searched my memory to try to figure out just where that might come from. I was unaware of that "fact". "Why does she say that?" I asked. "Well, she says you don't hug her when you see her." I was asked to leave the church.
Do you see what happened there? Mrs. Jones saw the word "love" as a key component of Christian living, but applied her own definition -- "hug" -- and I was found wanting. I wasn't excommunicated for lack of hugging; I was left out in the cold for lack of love. Except it wasn't love. It's the classic "bait and switch". "You believe in x, don't you?" "Yes, I do." "Well, now x means y and you just agreed with y."
We do this all the time, actually. You will hear someone say, "I could care less" which requires the ability to care less than I currently do (that is, "I do care") but is intended to convey that I don't care at all. (More correctly you would say, "I couldn't care less.") An ever-popular term is "irregardless" which is intended to mean the very same thing as "regardless", except that the "ir-" prefix means "not". Thus, "irregardless" would be a double negative and mean the opposite of "regardless". If you say, "The boxes were sitting there unpacked" you mean that they were packed. That is, "unpacked" means "packed". "Moot" is defined as "a subject to debate or dispute", but a "moot point" refers to "a point not worth debating." How about "egregious"? The term today means "outstandingly bad", but the dictionary says that definition #2 is "remarkably good". Now, to be sure, that second is marked "archaic", but clearly somewhere along the line "remarkably good" was redefined as "remarkably bad". Or how about "apology"? Today it says, "I was wrong and this is how I was wrong", but originally it meant "I was right and this is how I was right."
Words change, and not always rationally. Then you have to discard the old meaning and use the new one or you are no longer communicating. Unfortunately, in our current culture, no one is going to tell you that the word changed. They're just going to apply the new meaning and expect you to follow along.
So, now we've changed "marriage" to mean something it never did and "racism" is only applied to one race and women cannot be "sexist". Made-up words like "homophobic" (meaning "to fear homosexuals") have already to morphed to mean "to hate homosexuals" (which is not the same thing). A term like "fundamentalist" which meant "someone who sticks with the fundamentals" now means "an idiot who can't think his way out of paper sack" ... or worse. There, use that example. "Are you a fundamentalist?" The guy who is sticking with the fundamentals because they make perfect sense, are documented, are historical, and so forth says, "Yes" and is branded "an idiot who can't think his way out of a paper sack" even though it was thinking that got him there. Bait and switch.
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Friday, December 04, 2015
The New Rights
Back in 1776 the Colonists in America penned a Declaration of Independence that included these words:
Well, good news! We've moved on! We know better. America started with Rights endowed by a Creator, but we've legislated that Creator out of business. Now we're fixing up our own Rights based on our own views without any real reason for them except that, well, we want them. And we're getting quite creative without a Creator.
A recent new Right endowed without a Creator was the right to redefine the ancient concept of "marriage" and then declare that this new definition (no one is yet clear exactly what that new definition is, except that it is not what it was before) applied to everyone who wanted it ... as long as they fell within the new parameters. (For instance, "same-sex" fell within the parameters. "Bisexual" did not. This select non-redefinition of marriage included people of the same sex, but did not include more than two or animals or anything else that, for reasons unknown, were excluded from this new version.) So, in the '60's we made sure that any man who wanted to marry a woman (or vice versa) had that right. Now we made sure that any one person that wanted to ... "marry" isn't right, but, whatever ... have some sort of exclusive (or not) relationship with another that would henceforth be called "marriage" had that right. That was recently.
Today we have a new one. The new Right endowed without a Creator these days is "the Right not to feel bad," the Right not to be offended. An obvious place I've seen this is in the glut of lawyer commercials offering to sue over your medical problems. You know how that goes. You take a medication -- say, a blood thinner to keep you from dying -- and, as it turns out, it thins the blood -- you know, like it says on the bottle that it might -- and you get to sue because the medication did what it said it would and caused what it said it might even though you were informed of this before you took the medication. Because, you see, it's your Right not to feel bad. A University president is upsetting people with his claim that his university is "not a 'safe place'" where you can expect to have your feelings coddled. It's a place to learn, to be convicted of sin, to realize life is not all about you. On London subways people are handing out "cruel cards" that are leaving people in tears. This kind of thing is unacceptable. One person who tweeted the story said, "This is hateful and cowardly and could potentially upset people struggling with confidence."1 Or how about these school protests of late where students "don't feel safe" not because they're actually threatened, but because they're uncomfortable. They are complaining about "the negative social climate" and "colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latinx racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/indigenous racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and classism." (Seriously, that's a quote from the story. I don't even know what "anti-Latinx racism" is, and I'm sad that I know what "cis-sexism" is.) Administrators are executed ... or, rather, fired. Demands are made. In the recent University of Missouri bruhaha, for instance, they included "the immediate removal of Tim Wolfe as UM system president" and the increase of "the percentage of black faculty and staff campus-wide to 10%" (which is odd because black students only make up 7% of the student body). You see, it's not "we don't feel safe" or even "racism". It's "We're not happy and we have the right to be!" The other obvious place you'll find this one is in the day-after-day news stories of protests on the subject. Businesses, it seems, are not in business to do business. They're in business to "provide a living wage". I don't know when that change occurred, but since employees of thousands of franchised fast food places are unhappy with their wages, they are going to war over it. Or there's the mad rush -- from all sides -- against saying anything "unkind". Trump didn't respond correctly to someone who claimed that the president wasn't born in America. Hillary laughed at someone's comment about wishing to kill Carly Fiorina. A flower shop owner opted out of making flowers for a friend's mirage2 but offered a list of other people who would gladly do it and was sued. Why are people in a snit? Because something was said that made them feel bad. And there is a Right not to feel bad. You see, in the last case, the florist was standing on a First Amendment Right and the offended party was standing on this new Right and the First Amendment took a hit because this new one trumps that one.
These new Rights are so fluid and baseless that you have to wonder what comes next. One candidate is arguing that it is a Right to have free healthcare. I'm not sure where that came from, but people are applauding. The government is pretty sure you have the Right to be whatever gender you feel like and no one has the right to think ... you know ... in narrow scientific realities whether that's true. What about "freedom from religion"? Is that Right coming? I don't know why not. The Creator is no longer an issue. And it wouldn't be the first time a society declared war on Christianity. But, don't worry. They'll do it in the name of "inclusiveness" and even "diversity" by being non-inclusive and eliminating the diverse. Because apparently diversity is getting close to being both redefined and a Right, too. Who knows?
________
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of HappinessRights. Indeed, "unalienable" rights. They are "unalienable" because they are "endowed by their Creator".
Well, good news! We've moved on! We know better. America started with Rights endowed by a Creator, but we've legislated that Creator out of business. Now we're fixing up our own Rights based on our own views without any real reason for them except that, well, we want them. And we're getting quite creative without a Creator.
A recent new Right endowed without a Creator was the right to redefine the ancient concept of "marriage" and then declare that this new definition (no one is yet clear exactly what that new definition is, except that it is not what it was before) applied to everyone who wanted it ... as long as they fell within the new parameters. (For instance, "same-sex" fell within the parameters. "Bisexual" did not. This select non-redefinition of marriage included people of the same sex, but did not include more than two or animals or anything else that, for reasons unknown, were excluded from this new version.) So, in the '60's we made sure that any man who wanted to marry a woman (or vice versa) had that right. Now we made sure that any one person that wanted to ... "marry" isn't right, but, whatever ... have some sort of exclusive (or not) relationship with another that would henceforth be called "marriage" had that right. That was recently.
Today we have a new one. The new Right endowed without a Creator these days is "the Right not to feel bad," the Right not to be offended. An obvious place I've seen this is in the glut of lawyer commercials offering to sue over your medical problems. You know how that goes. You take a medication -- say, a blood thinner to keep you from dying -- and, as it turns out, it thins the blood -- you know, like it says on the bottle that it might -- and you get to sue because the medication did what it said it would and caused what it said it might even though you were informed of this before you took the medication. Because, you see, it's your Right not to feel bad. A University president is upsetting people with his claim that his university is "not a 'safe place'" where you can expect to have your feelings coddled. It's a place to learn, to be convicted of sin, to realize life is not all about you. On London subways people are handing out "cruel cards" that are leaving people in tears. This kind of thing is unacceptable. One person who tweeted the story said, "This is hateful and cowardly and could potentially upset people struggling with confidence."1 Or how about these school protests of late where students "don't feel safe" not because they're actually threatened, but because they're uncomfortable. They are complaining about "the negative social climate" and "colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latinx racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/indigenous racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and classism." (Seriously, that's a quote from the story. I don't even know what "anti-Latinx racism" is, and I'm sad that I know what "cis-sexism" is.) Administrators are executed ... or, rather, fired. Demands are made. In the recent University of Missouri bruhaha, for instance, they included "the immediate removal of Tim Wolfe as UM system president" and the increase of "the percentage of black faculty and staff campus-wide to 10%" (which is odd because black students only make up 7% of the student body). You see, it's not "we don't feel safe" or even "racism". It's "We're not happy and we have the right to be!" The other obvious place you'll find this one is in the day-after-day news stories of protests on the subject. Businesses, it seems, are not in business to do business. They're in business to "provide a living wage". I don't know when that change occurred, but since employees of thousands of franchised fast food places are unhappy with their wages, they are going to war over it. Or there's the mad rush -- from all sides -- against saying anything "unkind". Trump didn't respond correctly to someone who claimed that the president wasn't born in America. Hillary laughed at someone's comment about wishing to kill Carly Fiorina. A flower shop owner opted out of making flowers for a friend's mirage2 but offered a list of other people who would gladly do it and was sued. Why are people in a snit? Because something was said that made them feel bad. And there is a Right not to feel bad. You see, in the last case, the florist was standing on a First Amendment Right and the offended party was standing on this new Right and the First Amendment took a hit because this new one trumps that one.
These new Rights are so fluid and baseless that you have to wonder what comes next. One candidate is arguing that it is a Right to have free healthcare. I'm not sure where that came from, but people are applauding. The government is pretty sure you have the Right to be whatever gender you feel like and no one has the right to think ... you know ... in narrow scientific realities whether that's true. What about "freedom from religion"? Is that Right coming? I don't know why not. The Creator is no longer an issue. And it wouldn't be the first time a society declared war on Christianity. But, don't worry. They'll do it in the name of "inclusiveness" and even "diversity" by being non-inclusive and eliminating the diverse. Because apparently diversity is getting close to being both redefined and a Right, too. Who knows?
________
Thursday, December 03, 2015
Hard Topics - Immigration
How many states have come out saying they will refuse Syrian refuges in the wake of the Paris attacks? Not sure, myself. More than a few. And the ACLU is suing the governor of Indiana for doing so in his state. He is accused of violating the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, you see. (I wasn't aware that Syrian citizens fell under the U.S. Constitution, but who knows?)
Russell Moore asks us to "Stop pitting security and compassion against each other." He asks, "Will [these refugees] hear from evangelicals 'Jesus loves you' or will they hear from us 'Who then is my neighbor?'"
And the nation wants both to be secure and to be generous, to be safe and to be inclusive, to be locked tight and open to all. This is not an easy question, either for Christians or America.
So let me see what I can see. First, let's be clear. Opposition to "illegal immigration" is not the same thing as opposition to immigrants. It is opposition to breaking the law. That's the meaning of "illegal". That word is the description of the "immigration" to which people are opposed. Not legal immigration. If immigration law was changed to make it legal for anyone at all to come in, no one would be opposed to illegal immigration ... because illegal immigration would not exist. So let's keep terms straight here. One question is that of doing what is illegal. The other is what should or should not be legal. Don't confuse them.
The second question is the one hotly debated these days. What should be legal? Clearly we are no longer the "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" country anymore. Not everyone is welcome here. Whether it's a practical question ("How many can we handle?") or a security question ("How do we keep terrorists out?") or otherwise, not everyone is welcome in our country. So how and where should we draw that line? I mean, look, we could solve the whole "border wars", "illegal immigration" problem by simply legalizing everyone. There are those who recommend it, but no country has completely open borders. So ... what is right?
Some considerations.
Security
The obvious question in the wake of the Paris attacks and the current malevolence of groups like ISIS is whether it is safe to allow broad immigration access. Some argue that it's okay because they do extensive background checks on people. Really? I'm not so sure. On the other hand, do we sacrifice liberty for security? I'm not so sure that's a good trade, either. Tough questions.
Rights and Obligations
If we are going to say that it is everyone's right to live where they want, it is important to keep in mind that one person's right entails another person's obligation. For instance, if we say you have the right to the freedom of religion, then we are obligated not to prevent you from practicing your religion. If we say that all people have the right to affordable healthcare, then it will become the obligation of those who can afford healthcare to pay for those who cannot. Rights may afford opportunities, but they also mandate obligations. How much are we willing to obligate from others? And how far would this right go? Affordable healthcare? Education? Housing? Employment? You see, every time we add to the list, there are more obligations. And when do the rights of one person or group of people violate the rights of another? Sticky questions.
Unsavory People
What about those many would agree should not be included in this new immigration policy? One would think we would obviously exclude criminals, but, of course, we'd have to know they were. What about criminals that served their time? Murderers or rapists and the like? What about those with dangerous communicable diseases? The humanitarian in us would long to help them out, but practical thinking questions the safety of doing so. What about these people? And who decides who is "unsavory"?
The Benefits Package
I know people who have worked with illegal aliens. While the legal resident cannot get free healthcare, the illegal alien would go to the hospitals knowing they would. Reports have circulated of unduly large numbers of illegal immigrants on welfare, in public housing, in schools, and so on. Many come here to work, but not all and not all find work. Would we mandate a law that would only allow immigrants with jobs? (Australia limits the types of workers that can enter the country based on the country's need for workers.) Obviously if "anyone can come" becomes our policy, someone would be paying a higher bill for the free benefits of being in this country.
Compassion and Hospitality
Over against all the negatives -- security, obligations, unsavory people, those who use the system, etc. -- there is the very real question of compassion. It is unavoidably selfish to sit in our comfortable houses consuming our comfortable meals with sufficient cash left over for amusement and frivolous expenditures and then complain about "those people" who just want to cross the border, get some work, and support their families or the poor from one country who need medical help or even safety that they can't get in their own. Those who have more should be more willing to share with those who have not. From this perspective it seems both un-American and certainly un-Christian to stand there with our arms folded refusing needy people access to basic necessities because they're not "legal immigrants". How does this factor into our immigration policies?
This is listed as a "hard topic" because it seems to me that it is just that. I'm not offering the answers. I'm suggesting that answers are not as easy as some seem to think. Balancing security with liberty, rights with obligations, plenty and little ... these are not easy. Christian compassion should not be a small issue as well, but neither do we have the right to demand of others that which is not ours to give. Maybe you have a good answer for this? I'm not sure I do.
Russell Moore asks us to "Stop pitting security and compassion against each other." He asks, "Will [these refugees] hear from evangelicals 'Jesus loves you' or will they hear from us 'Who then is my neighbor?'"
And the nation wants both to be secure and to be generous, to be safe and to be inclusive, to be locked tight and open to all. This is not an easy question, either for Christians or America.
So let me see what I can see. First, let's be clear. Opposition to "illegal immigration" is not the same thing as opposition to immigrants. It is opposition to breaking the law. That's the meaning of "illegal". That word is the description of the "immigration" to which people are opposed. Not legal immigration. If immigration law was changed to make it legal for anyone at all to come in, no one would be opposed to illegal immigration ... because illegal immigration would not exist. So let's keep terms straight here. One question is that of doing what is illegal. The other is what should or should not be legal. Don't confuse them.
The second question is the one hotly debated these days. What should be legal? Clearly we are no longer the "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" country anymore. Not everyone is welcome here. Whether it's a practical question ("How many can we handle?") or a security question ("How do we keep terrorists out?") or otherwise, not everyone is welcome in our country. So how and where should we draw that line? I mean, look, we could solve the whole "border wars", "illegal immigration" problem by simply legalizing everyone. There are those who recommend it, but no country has completely open borders. So ... what is right?
Some considerations.
Security
The obvious question in the wake of the Paris attacks and the current malevolence of groups like ISIS is whether it is safe to allow broad immigration access. Some argue that it's okay because they do extensive background checks on people. Really? I'm not so sure. On the other hand, do we sacrifice liberty for security? I'm not so sure that's a good trade, either. Tough questions.
Rights and Obligations
If we are going to say that it is everyone's right to live where they want, it is important to keep in mind that one person's right entails another person's obligation. For instance, if we say you have the right to the freedom of religion, then we are obligated not to prevent you from practicing your religion. If we say that all people have the right to affordable healthcare, then it will become the obligation of those who can afford healthcare to pay for those who cannot. Rights may afford opportunities, but they also mandate obligations. How much are we willing to obligate from others? And how far would this right go? Affordable healthcare? Education? Housing? Employment? You see, every time we add to the list, there are more obligations. And when do the rights of one person or group of people violate the rights of another? Sticky questions.
Unsavory People
What about those many would agree should not be included in this new immigration policy? One would think we would obviously exclude criminals, but, of course, we'd have to know they were. What about criminals that served their time? Murderers or rapists and the like? What about those with dangerous communicable diseases? The humanitarian in us would long to help them out, but practical thinking questions the safety of doing so. What about these people? And who decides who is "unsavory"?
The Benefits Package
I know people who have worked with illegal aliens. While the legal resident cannot get free healthcare, the illegal alien would go to the hospitals knowing they would. Reports have circulated of unduly large numbers of illegal immigrants on welfare, in public housing, in schools, and so on. Many come here to work, but not all and not all find work. Would we mandate a law that would only allow immigrants with jobs? (Australia limits the types of workers that can enter the country based on the country's need for workers.) Obviously if "anyone can come" becomes our policy, someone would be paying a higher bill for the free benefits of being in this country.
Compassion and Hospitality
Over against all the negatives -- security, obligations, unsavory people, those who use the system, etc. -- there is the very real question of compassion. It is unavoidably selfish to sit in our comfortable houses consuming our comfortable meals with sufficient cash left over for amusement and frivolous expenditures and then complain about "those people" who just want to cross the border, get some work, and support their families or the poor from one country who need medical help or even safety that they can't get in their own. Those who have more should be more willing to share with those who have not. From this perspective it seems both un-American and certainly un-Christian to stand there with our arms folded refusing needy people access to basic necessities because they're not "legal immigrants". How does this factor into our immigration policies?
This is listed as a "hard topic" because it seems to me that it is just that. I'm not offering the answers. I'm suggesting that answers are not as easy as some seem to think. Balancing security with liberty, rights with obligations, plenty and little ... these are not easy. Christian compassion should not be a small issue as well, but neither do we have the right to demand of others that which is not ours to give. Maybe you have a good answer for this? I'm not sure I do.
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
What Did You Say?
I was driving down a main boulevard. From a side street a truck shot across the road. Now, I wasn't anywhere near, so I wasn't affected, but several cars coming the other direction had to slam on their brakes to avoid a collision. The truck made it across without an accident, but not without an impact. You see, it had the name of a company on the side. And everyone drove by thinking, "So, would you imagine that that company treats its customers with the same courtesy and concern that that driver treated his fellow travellers?"
I went to high school in the age of busing. Mine was an "integrated school", meaning whites and hispanics and blacks were all sent here so they could gather with their other compatriots in their separate groups while attending the school with other groups. Now, I wasn't raised with that kind of thinking. My two best friends were a legally-blind black guy and a Colombian kid. They used to call us "the United Nations". But I was walking out of the locker room after P.E. one day and a small group of black guys were gathered at the door I was approaching. They spoke among themselves loudly about how they would love to ... do damage to a white guy. I ignored them; not my concern. But as I got to the door the smallest and loudest of them struck out at me, missing my face by an inch. "Boom!" he said to his friends and they laughed about how they'd love to really hurt me. Nothing more. It was over. I went on. But I was thinking, "Wow, I never knew it, but black people really hate white people, don't they?" That didn't last long. "Oh, wait ... my friend is black and he doesn't." And I realized that this kind of thing -- on both sides -- is the kind of thing that creates racial hatred. Sad how a very small group of malcontents can reflect so badly on an entire group of people.
I was reading the news items of the day and came across (multiple times) the ridiculous story of "an evangelical Christian" who was "outraged" with Starbucks for "hating Jesus" because they didn't have Christian items on their Christmas cups. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid because it wasn't true. Stupid because the media played it to the hilt. Stupid because the other side was quick to say, "See? You Christians are lunatics!"
I think perhaps we don't think much about what we are saying when we are not speaking. Paul told the Jews who verbally claimed to follow the law while living a different set of choices, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24) We may say the right things, but when our lives don't reflect the love Jesus said we should (John 13:35) or the truths and values we claim, there is a different message being reflected and it can be much louder than our words.
One time I was required to spend some time in the company of a coworker who claimed to be a Christian. He liked to chat, so he went on and on about the girls he was bedding and the drinking he was accomplishing and ... well you get the idea. At some point he stopped, appearing to expect my admiring response. I said, "Look, I have nothing to say about what you do with your life. I'm not your commander, your mother, your god. I'm just another guy. So if that's what you want to do, I have nothing to say. I just have one request. Please, please, don't tell anyone you're a Christian."
I went to high school in the age of busing. Mine was an "integrated school", meaning whites and hispanics and blacks were all sent here so they could gather with their other compatriots in their separate groups while attending the school with other groups. Now, I wasn't raised with that kind of thinking. My two best friends were a legally-blind black guy and a Colombian kid. They used to call us "the United Nations". But I was walking out of the locker room after P.E. one day and a small group of black guys were gathered at the door I was approaching. They spoke among themselves loudly about how they would love to ... do damage to a white guy. I ignored them; not my concern. But as I got to the door the smallest and loudest of them struck out at me, missing my face by an inch. "Boom!" he said to his friends and they laughed about how they'd love to really hurt me. Nothing more. It was over. I went on. But I was thinking, "Wow, I never knew it, but black people really hate white people, don't they?" That didn't last long. "Oh, wait ... my friend is black and he doesn't." And I realized that this kind of thing -- on both sides -- is the kind of thing that creates racial hatred. Sad how a very small group of malcontents can reflect so badly on an entire group of people.
I was reading the news items of the day and came across (multiple times) the ridiculous story of "an evangelical Christian" who was "outraged" with Starbucks for "hating Jesus" because they didn't have Christian items on their Christmas cups. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid because it wasn't true. Stupid because the media played it to the hilt. Stupid because the other side was quick to say, "See? You Christians are lunatics!"
I think perhaps we don't think much about what we are saying when we are not speaking. Paul told the Jews who verbally claimed to follow the law while living a different set of choices, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24) We may say the right things, but when our lives don't reflect the love Jesus said we should (John 13:35) or the truths and values we claim, there is a different message being reflected and it can be much louder than our words.
One time I was required to spend some time in the company of a coworker who claimed to be a Christian. He liked to chat, so he went on and on about the girls he was bedding and the drinking he was accomplishing and ... well you get the idea. At some point he stopped, appearing to expect my admiring response. I said, "Look, I have nothing to say about what you do with your life. I'm not your commander, your mother, your god. I'm just another guy. So if that's what you want to do, I have nothing to say. I just have one request. Please, please, don't tell anyone you're a Christian."
"Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16)That's what Jesus said.
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
When Labels Matter
The news says that the man accused of opening fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs says he was opposed to abortion. So now we have the motive. An anti-abortionist killed people over abortion.
I've complained before about the problem of labels. To tag people with "fundamentalist" without regard to the truth is to lump the "fundamentalist Muslim" who returns to the core values of his faith and kills people with the "fundamentalist Mormon" who returns to the core values of his faith and marries multiple women or the "fundamentalist Christian" who returns to the core values of his faith and loves God and his neighbor. These three are not the same. The label simply serves to confuse rather than to clarify or even properly label someone.
The same is true in this case. An anti-abortion guy has walked into a Planned Parenthood clinic and committed murder ... including a pro-life guy. Garrett Swasey was an elder at his church, believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, and was convinced that killing babies in the womb was evil. Garrett Swasey lost his life trying to save lives in a place he found abhorrent. Garrett Swasey was pro-life, not anti-abortion. His killer was anti-abortion and not pro-life. There is a distinct difference.
Too many people throw around labels as if they don't matter. The labels are often ignorant and inaccurate and potentially dangerous. (If you've read any comments from people on news stories about this Colorado Springs shooting, you'll find many of the anti-pro-life statements appalling and menacing.) They are often intended to be a strawman, an ad hominem, a false demonization of a group. Because if you can use a term that produces an emotional response -- even if it is not accurate -- you've succeeded without requiring a rational argument.
So let's be clear. From the Christian perspective this killer is not Christian. He didn't recognize the God-given value of humans made in His image and he didn't value life. That is neither Christian nor pro-life. Genuine Christians that do value life will be labeled with this "killer" tag as "anti-abortion" ... "just like him", but it's not true. We are as grieved and outraged over his actions as anyone else. And in contrast the pro-life officer who died defending lives from an anti-abortion nutjob is heroic to us. Sometimes labels matter.
I've complained before about the problem of labels. To tag people with "fundamentalist" without regard to the truth is to lump the "fundamentalist Muslim" who returns to the core values of his faith and kills people with the "fundamentalist Mormon" who returns to the core values of his faith and marries multiple women or the "fundamentalist Christian" who returns to the core values of his faith and loves God and his neighbor. These three are not the same. The label simply serves to confuse rather than to clarify or even properly label someone.
The same is true in this case. An anti-abortion guy has walked into a Planned Parenthood clinic and committed murder ... including a pro-life guy. Garrett Swasey was an elder at his church, believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, and was convinced that killing babies in the womb was evil. Garrett Swasey lost his life trying to save lives in a place he found abhorrent. Garrett Swasey was pro-life, not anti-abortion. His killer was anti-abortion and not pro-life. There is a distinct difference.
Too many people throw around labels as if they don't matter. The labels are often ignorant and inaccurate and potentially dangerous. (If you've read any comments from people on news stories about this Colorado Springs shooting, you'll find many of the anti-pro-life statements appalling and menacing.) They are often intended to be a strawman, an ad hominem, a false demonization of a group. Because if you can use a term that produces an emotional response -- even if it is not accurate -- you've succeeded without requiring a rational argument.
So let's be clear. From the Christian perspective this killer is not Christian. He didn't recognize the God-given value of humans made in His image and he didn't value life. That is neither Christian nor pro-life. Genuine Christians that do value life will be labeled with this "killer" tag as "anti-abortion" ... "just like him", but it's not true. We are as grieved and outraged over his actions as anyone else. And in contrast the pro-life officer who died defending lives from an anti-abortion nutjob is heroic to us. Sometimes labels matter.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Christian Intellectuals
The question is, "Where are the Christian intellectuals?" Or, rather, a few people are asking it. Because, you see, at the ground level of Christianity many Christians are convinced that intellectualism is bad and "Christian intellectual" is an oxymoron. Add to that the "liberal Christians" who are pretty sure that the answer to the question is "Us, because those darn fundamentalists are dumber than a box of rocks," and you have a pretty bleak situation.
You can understand why some (genuine) Christians might think that intellectualism and Christianity are diametrically opposed. I mean, didn't Paul say, "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth" (1 Cor 1:26)? So why would you expect there to be those who are wise according to worldly standards? Paul says, "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:20) So, there you have it. Intellectualism = bad.
Or is it?
It's almost always important to define your terms in a discussion of any disagreement. Intellectualism is defined as "devotion to intellectual pursuits." Indeed, one I read said, "the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions." Nice. Of course, generally when we apply the "ism" to it, it is a philosophical term. In this case it is "the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason." On the face of that definition, we would have to agree that knowledge is not wholly derived from pure reason (since Christians believe in divine revelation) and we'd have to go with the "no intellectualism" point of view. Throw in the fact that we're now living in the "Age of Empathy" where reality is determined by feelings, and it looks like we have a unanimous view that intellectualism is bad.
But wait! Is that really how we're defining the term? I think not. (That's a play on words.) I think that when most of us refer to "intellectualism", we're simply referring to "people who use their minds" (as opposed to, say, their emotions or even their faith ... because most seem to think that faith and reason are opposed). At that point I need to ask, "Do you really think that there are no genuine Christians who skillfully use their minds?" J.P. Moreland wrote the book, Love Your God with All Your Mind, a call to do just that. We are supposed to love God with our minds (Matt 22:37). We are supposed to be renewing our minds (Rom 12:2), which means that we acknowledge that sin rots the brain and we work at repairing that damage with the help of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself recognized the value and importance of clear thinking when He told the Pharisees, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times." (Matt 16:2-3) They could reason rightly, but were failing. The easy answer? Don't fail to reason rightly.
Biblical Christianity, unlike many in the Christian realm today, is not opposed to using your intellect. On the contrary, it commands it. James wrote that "the wisdom from above is", among other things, "open to reason" (James 3:17). God invites us to "reason together" (Isa 1:18). "But ... what about that 1st Corinthians passage?" you may ask. Note what it says: "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards." Not "none", but "not many", and not simply wise but wise "according to worldly standards." We would, therefore, expect that the numbers of really weighty "intellectual Christians" according to worldly standards would be small. But don't buy the anti-intellectualism of either our modern Age of Empathy or the limited view of Christians who miss this. There are Christian intellectuals, and all Christians are supposed to use their minds to love God and provide reasons for those who ask. It's biblical.
You can understand why some (genuine) Christians might think that intellectualism and Christianity are diametrically opposed. I mean, didn't Paul say, "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth" (1 Cor 1:26)? So why would you expect there to be those who are wise according to worldly standards? Paul says, "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:20) So, there you have it. Intellectualism = bad.
Or is it?
It's almost always important to define your terms in a discussion of any disagreement. Intellectualism is defined as "devotion to intellectual pursuits." Indeed, one I read said, "the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions." Nice. Of course, generally when we apply the "ism" to it, it is a philosophical term. In this case it is "the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason." On the face of that definition, we would have to agree that knowledge is not wholly derived from pure reason (since Christians believe in divine revelation) and we'd have to go with the "no intellectualism" point of view. Throw in the fact that we're now living in the "Age of Empathy" where reality is determined by feelings, and it looks like we have a unanimous view that intellectualism is bad.
But wait! Is that really how we're defining the term? I think not. (That's a play on words.) I think that when most of us refer to "intellectualism", we're simply referring to "people who use their minds" (as opposed to, say, their emotions or even their faith ... because most seem to think that faith and reason are opposed). At that point I need to ask, "Do you really think that there are no genuine Christians who skillfully use their minds?" J.P. Moreland wrote the book, Love Your God with All Your Mind, a call to do just that. We are supposed to love God with our minds (Matt 22:37). We are supposed to be renewing our minds (Rom 12:2), which means that we acknowledge that sin rots the brain and we work at repairing that damage with the help of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself recognized the value and importance of clear thinking when He told the Pharisees, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times." (Matt 16:2-3) They could reason rightly, but were failing. The easy answer? Don't fail to reason rightly.
Biblical Christianity, unlike many in the Christian realm today, is not opposed to using your intellect. On the contrary, it commands it. James wrote that "the wisdom from above is", among other things, "open to reason" (James 3:17). God invites us to "reason together" (Isa 1:18). "But ... what about that 1st Corinthians passage?" you may ask. Note what it says: "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards." Not "none", but "not many", and not simply wise but wise "according to worldly standards." We would, therefore, expect that the numbers of really weighty "intellectual Christians" according to worldly standards would be small. But don't buy the anti-intellectualism of either our modern Age of Empathy or the limited view of Christians who miss this. There are Christian intellectuals, and all Christians are supposed to use their minds to love God and provide reasons for those who ask. It's biblical.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
No Cosmic Killjoy
It is no small number of people that think of God as some sort of a cosmic killjoy. We want to have fun; He wants us to be good. We want joy; He wants somberness. We want what we want; He wants us to have what He wants. Even among Christians there can be a sense of "Oh, well, I guess I won't be able to have all the fun that the rest of the world is having." I would suggest we're thinking too small.
David wrote:
There is the safety found in God. There is the abundance given by God. There is the glut of delight. There is the fountain of life. This is precious.
I'm struck by that one sentence. "You give them to drink of the river of Your delights." You see, that is not how we -- even we Christians -- tend to think of things. We don't tend to view God as a river of delight. Especially when we have our eye on another pleasure that, let's face it, God is denying us. I think we're missing the magnitude of what God offers. We want a momentary pleasure; God offers a river of delight. We desire earthly fun and God is offering heavenly rapture. We really want to settle for little and God is offering us much.
In fact, the notion is throughout the text. Jesus said He came to give us abundant life (John 10:10). David said that abundance comes from God's house. We think of "abundant life" as lots of things and fun and ... you know how it goes. God is offering abundance from His house. Bigger than we can imagine. The delight He offers is rivers full. The life He offers is a fountain. David says that we don't even comprehend light until we see it through Him. To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, "You call that light? That's not light. This is light."
God's "rivers of delight." Not a phrase that springs to mind when we think of delight. It should. Why opt for short-term, meaningless, momentary pleasure when we can enjoy abundance, delight, security, and life from God? It can make some of the things we want look meager. And it certainly eliminates the "killjoy" title.
David wrote:
How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings. They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house; And You give them to drink of the river of Your delights. For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light. (Psa 36:7-9)First, David calls the lovingkindness of God "precious", something of great value. We're not talking about "pleasant" or "nice" or "good to have around". We're talking about extremely valuable. Why does David say God's lovingkindness is precious?
There is the safety found in God. There is the abundance given by God. There is the glut of delight. There is the fountain of life. This is precious.
I'm struck by that one sentence. "You give them to drink of the river of Your delights." You see, that is not how we -- even we Christians -- tend to think of things. We don't tend to view God as a river of delight. Especially when we have our eye on another pleasure that, let's face it, God is denying us. I think we're missing the magnitude of what God offers. We want a momentary pleasure; God offers a river of delight. We desire earthly fun and God is offering heavenly rapture. We really want to settle for little and God is offering us much.
In fact, the notion is throughout the text. Jesus said He came to give us abundant life (John 10:10). David said that abundance comes from God's house. We think of "abundant life" as lots of things and fun and ... you know how it goes. God is offering abundance from His house. Bigger than we can imagine. The delight He offers is rivers full. The life He offers is a fountain. David says that we don't even comprehend light until we see it through Him. To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, "You call that light? That's not light. This is light."
God's "rivers of delight." Not a phrase that springs to mind when we think of delight. It should. Why opt for short-term, meaningless, momentary pleasure when we can enjoy abundance, delight, security, and life from God? It can make some of the things we want look meager. And it certainly eliminates the "killjoy" title.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
God and Politics
There are two subjects polite gatherings are supposed to steer clear of in order to avoid conflict: politics and religion. It would appear that God doesn't recognize this rule. Clearly His primary topic is religion, but He doesn't leave politics alone, either.
Filed under Humor
A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left. (Eccl 10:2)There you have it. Now we know what God thinks of the conservative "right" and the liberal "left".
Filed under Humor
Friday, November 27, 2015
Malcontents
Jude's little epistle urges us to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) (Note that "once for all delivered to the saints" requires that we're not getting new stuff for the faith.) The reason for this urging is that there is a really big problem. "Certain people have crept in unnoticed" among the believers and they "pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:4) Almost the entire rest of this little 25-verse epistle is in regards to these false teachers. He summarizes his depiction of these people this way.
As it turns out, I am convinced that "malcontent" is one of our biggest problems. Sexual sin is the result of seeking sexual satisfaction from what God hasn't provided. Greed is the result of being dissatisfied with what God has provided. James says, "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." (James 4:1-2) We want what we do not have and will fight, physically or otherwise, to get it. Solomon warns, "He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity." (Eccl 5:10)
Conversely, the Bible loves to argue for contentment. Paul tells Timothy,
On the subject of sex, Solomon says, "Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love." (Prov 5:18-19) The author of Hebrews says,
Biblical Christianity often has a reputation of being a big fuddy-duddy. You know, killjoy, no fun, just be good and be quiet. The biblical command however is not "no fun" or "no joy". It is that we know where to find genuine pleasure and genuine joy. David wrote, "You make known to me the path of life; in Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore." (Psa 16:11) We were made for pleasure and built for contentment. Our problem is not that we "can't get no satisfaction." Our problem is that we look for it in places we were never meant to go. "At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore." When we realize (make real to ourselves what is already true) that we have Christ who will never leave us -- that the presence of God is joy and pleasure -- then contentment becomes a given and the insanity of the malcontent -- "I am not satisfied, God, with what You have given me." -- is not ours to carry around.
These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. (Jude 1:16)That word -- "malcontents" -- is an interesting word. It is translated "complainers" (KJV), "repiners" (YLT), and the like. But the Greek behind it is really telling. It is a two-part term that forms μεμψίμοιρος -- mempsimoiros. The two parts are μέμφομαι -- memphomai -- meaning "to blame" and μέρος -- meros -- meaning "allotment". It means most literally "to blame fate". It is to blame what you've been given. (Perhaps you can see how it is "complainers" and "malcontents". You're on your own for "repiners". Even I had to look that one up.) And isn't that the truth? It was, in fact, the very first answer to Man's sin: "It's that woman You gave me!" (Gen 3:12) We aren't satisfied with what we've been given and we complain about it and we seek to gather what we have not been given because apparently God doesn't know what He's doing.
As it turns out, I am convinced that "malcontent" is one of our biggest problems. Sexual sin is the result of seeking sexual satisfaction from what God hasn't provided. Greed is the result of being dissatisfied with what God has provided. James says, "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." (James 4:1-2) We want what we do not have and will fight, physically or otherwise, to get it. Solomon warns, "He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity." (Eccl 5:10)
Conversely, the Bible loves to argue for contentment. Paul tells Timothy,
Godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. (1 Tim 6:6-11)There's a command and a warning. Be content with what you have because "those who desire to be rich fall into temptation." "Flee these things," Paul tells him. In his letter to the church at Philippi he says, "Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. (Phil 4:11-13) Contentment with much or with little, with too much or not enough. He does it by the strength of Christ. Paul goes to what appears to be the extreme when he says, "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 12:10) That is, even when God deals me bad things (really bad things), He is content.
On the subject of sex, Solomon says, "Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love." (Prov 5:18-19) The author of Hebrews says,
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for He has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Heb 13:4-5)The marriage bed is sufficient and needs to be "undefiled." When you do not find sexual satisfaction there, you fall among the "sexually immoral and adulterous" who face God's judgment. This passage links the two -- satisfaction with your spouse and satisfaction with what you have -- when it also warns that you avoid the "love of money". It is very telling, I think, as to why you should be "content with what you have." It's because what you have is Christ who "will never leave you nor forsake you." That is sufficient.
Biblical Christianity often has a reputation of being a big fuddy-duddy. You know, killjoy, no fun, just be good and be quiet. The biblical command however is not "no fun" or "no joy". It is that we know where to find genuine pleasure and genuine joy. David wrote, "You make known to me the path of life; in Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore." (Psa 16:11) We were made for pleasure and built for contentment. Our problem is not that we "can't get no satisfaction." Our problem is that we look for it in places we were never meant to go. "At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore." When we realize (make real to ourselves what is already true) that we have Christ who will never leave us -- that the presence of God is joy and pleasure -- then contentment becomes a given and the insanity of the malcontent -- "I am not satisfied, God, with what You have given me." -- is not ours to carry around.
"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matt 6:21)That's the case. If your treasure is the joy and pleasure of the presence of Christ, that's where your heart will be. If your heart is not there, it is in something God did not design you to pursue and will always produce the malcontent, the ones Jude warns about.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
An Attitude of Gratitude
The University of Georgia did a study of 468 married individuals. In their study they found that the most consistent, significant predictor of marital quality was ... get this ... spousal expression of gratitude. Didn't see that coming, did you? Not sex, finances, or communication. Gratitude. They said it decreased male and female divorce proneness. They said that when couples engaged in negative conflict patterns, "expressions of gratitude and appreciation can counteract or buffer the negative effects of this type of interaction on marital stability." Imagine that!
So, here we are at Thanksgiving time. It's a critical time in the human response to God because humans, as a race, naturally tend to be ungrateful (Rom 1:21). Over against that we are repeatedly commanded to give thanks to God. We are to "make known His deeds among the peoples" (1 Chron 6:8) and give thanks because "He is good; for His steadfast love endures forever!" (1 Chron 16:34; 1 Chron 20:21; Psa 107:1) (Listen, while you're at it, include Psa 136 which repeats that phrase 4 times.) We are to give thanks "due to His righteousness" (Psa 7:17) and "recount all of Your wonderful deeds" (Psa 9:1; Psa 75:1). Do a word search sometime for "give thanks" in the Bible and the list is monumental. The catch-all, of course, is in Paul's first epistle to the church at Thessalonica.
Turns out it's good for you. It can improve your marriage. It can improve your outlook on life. It is certainly God's will for your life, and, therefore, certainly good in that respect. So do yourself a favor ... and be grateful. A Thanksgiving state of mind.
So, here we are at Thanksgiving time. It's a critical time in the human response to God because humans, as a race, naturally tend to be ungrateful (Rom 1:21). Over against that we are repeatedly commanded to give thanks to God. We are to "make known His deeds among the peoples" (1 Chron 6:8) and give thanks because "He is good; for His steadfast love endures forever!" (1 Chron 16:34; 1 Chron 20:21; Psa 107:1) (Listen, while you're at it, include Psa 136 which repeats that phrase 4 times.) We are to give thanks "due to His righteousness" (Psa 7:17) and "recount all of Your wonderful deeds" (Psa 9:1; Psa 75:1). Do a word search sometime for "give thanks" in the Bible and the list is monumental. The catch-all, of course, is in Paul's first epistle to the church at Thessalonica.
Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (1 Thess 5:18)That's rather comprehensive, isn't it? All circumstances. "In everything" other translations say. Why? This is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you." Ever wonder what God's will is for your life? Well, I'm sure it's a lot of various things, but one thing is certain. Give thanks!
Turns out it's good for you. It can improve your marriage. It can improve your outlook on life. It is certainly God's will for your life, and, therefore, certainly good in that respect. So do yourself a favor ... and be grateful. A Thanksgiving state of mind.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
"Did God Say ...?"
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Gen 3:1-6)You recognize the story, I'm sure. It's the account of the Fall. You have all the main characters there -- the serpent, Eve, Adam. You have the dialog that deceived Eve (1 Tim 2:14). You have Adam's fatal choice to join her in it. All the pieces are there. What were the serpent's tactics? What methods were involved in making mankind a sinning race? Paul warns us to "Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil." (Eph 6:11) What schemes?
The first question is key. "Did God actually say ...?" The serpent wasn't asking for a quote. The serpent didn't want to see the text. He was asking Eve to explain what God said. And He did it by not asking if God said what God actually said. He did it by overstating what God said. The question could be restated this way. "Hey, Eve, did you understand God to say that you couldn't eat from any tree in the garden at all?"
Eve bought it. She thought it was a genuine question. She didn't see the lie. (Seriously, Eve, you're talking to a snake! Wasn't that a clue?) She didn't see the attempt at pushing her beyond what God said. How can we tell that? Because she went beyond what God said. She corrected the serpent -- that's true -- but went on to say that God warned them against touching the one tree in question. Never happened. Satan already had her leaning away from what God had said.
The next step was easy -- denial. "You will not surely die." The difficulty here is that it was a half-truth. Adam and Eve died hundreds of years later. But the death they experienced at the moment was spiritual ... much worse than physical (Matt 10:28). The denial was effective. Eve succumbed to the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16), included her husband in it, cut off their unhindered relationship with God, and all creation has suffered since (Rom 8:19-22).
Oddly enough, Satan hasn't had to retool. His methods worked well then. They work well now. It is the standard approach. "Did God say ...?" "No, that's not true." You'll hear it in your ear from Satan. You'll hear it in the world from skeptics and even "Christians". They'll sound warm and even wise. They'll lure you into sin. Simple as that. Watch for it. You'll surely see it.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Teaching Scripture
A decade ago my wife and I moved to a new state. We began the process of picking out a church home. We visited quite a few churches. I noticed something interesting that, as far as I can tell, seems to be the trend rather than the exception. No one teaches the Bible anymore.
Now, now, I know that's an overreach. Take it as hyperbole, an exaggeration to make a point. And, sure, many are still "teaching the Bible" ... but not in the sense that I'm talking about.
Let me illustrate. We went to one church where the pastor was good -- preaching sound doctrine expositionally -- and it all seemed right. But when we asked about joining a smaller group -- adult Sunday School or "life groups" or whatever was available -- it turned out that this group was studying so-and-so's book on finances and that group was reading through this-other-guy's book on the Gospels and ... lots of good stuff, I suppose, but no one was "studying Paul's Epistle to Rome", for instance. And when I asked the pastor about it, he was confused. "Sure we're teaching the Bible," he told me and pointed out all the studies of all the books on biblical topics. "I'm asking if anyone is teaching the Bible. You know, teaching the text so others can get deeper into it. That sort of thing." "I don't know what you're talking about," he told me. "Every church I know of is doing what we're doing."
In another church my wife participated in the Ladies Bible Study. As it turned out, the "Ladies Book Study" would have been a more appropriate title. They would buy a book at the beginning of a season, read the book together, and discuss it. They were Christian books with Christian topics and sometimes even about biblical things, but at best the ladies were reading books about the Bible, not the Bible.
At the church where we are members we are in a small group that is using a book series called Explore the Bible, currently going through Genesis. This book is for "Fall 2015". It is a "Personal Study Guide" that is doing a survey of Genesis (not a study -- it skips around) that gives some texts, makes some observations, and asks some questions. All well and good, but the thing is -- the thing I'm noticing is -- that the teacher is not teaching Genesis; he is teaching the Explore the Bible book about Genesis. It makes the observations and asks the questions a teacher might offer, but the teacher doesn't teach it. He simply follows along.
This isn't necessarily a complaint. Indeed, given the prevalence of false teachers and false doctrines and false teaching in churches today, reliable books may be a reasonable safeguard. I've a feeling there are far more tares than wheat in American churches today on the whole. I'm just observing that it seems to me that very few churches or other Christian gatherings for learning are actually teaching (I'm not talking about preaching; I'm talking about teaching) the Bible where a teacher is examining the Scriptures and explaining it to others. I'm not sure why that would be. Laziness? Fear? Some might chalk it up to "humility" where teachers would say, "I don't know enough to expound on the Scriptures, so I'll let the 'experts' do it." Indeed, many today no longer call themselves "teachers". They prefer "facilitators". That presupposes that teachers are their own sole source, doesn't it? You know, as opposed to having the God-given gift of teaching with the leading of the Holy Spirit?
Whatever the reason, it seems to me that Bible teaching in the churches today is diminishing. It is getting broader, perhaps, given all the books available, but much, much shallower. I suspect this could be a reason why Christians in America today seem to be much, much shallower in their understanding of Scriptures. Which, of course, makes them much easier targets for the skeptics and the liberal "Christians". Or, in other words, makes them much more susceptible to the roaring lion seeking to devour them (1 Peter 5:8).
Now, now, I know that's an overreach. Take it as hyperbole, an exaggeration to make a point. And, sure, many are still "teaching the Bible" ... but not in the sense that I'm talking about.
Let me illustrate. We went to one church where the pastor was good -- preaching sound doctrine expositionally -- and it all seemed right. But when we asked about joining a smaller group -- adult Sunday School or "life groups" or whatever was available -- it turned out that this group was studying so-and-so's book on finances and that group was reading through this-other-guy's book on the Gospels and ... lots of good stuff, I suppose, but no one was "studying Paul's Epistle to Rome", for instance. And when I asked the pastor about it, he was confused. "Sure we're teaching the Bible," he told me and pointed out all the studies of all the books on biblical topics. "I'm asking if anyone is teaching the Bible. You know, teaching the text so others can get deeper into it. That sort of thing." "I don't know what you're talking about," he told me. "Every church I know of is doing what we're doing."
In another church my wife participated in the Ladies Bible Study. As it turned out, the "Ladies Book Study" would have been a more appropriate title. They would buy a book at the beginning of a season, read the book together, and discuss it. They were Christian books with Christian topics and sometimes even about biblical things, but at best the ladies were reading books about the Bible, not the Bible.
At the church where we are members we are in a small group that is using a book series called Explore the Bible, currently going through Genesis. This book is for "Fall 2015". It is a "Personal Study Guide" that is doing a survey of Genesis (not a study -- it skips around) that gives some texts, makes some observations, and asks some questions. All well and good, but the thing is -- the thing I'm noticing is -- that the teacher is not teaching Genesis; he is teaching the Explore the Bible book about Genesis. It makes the observations and asks the questions a teacher might offer, but the teacher doesn't teach it. He simply follows along.
This isn't necessarily a complaint. Indeed, given the prevalence of false teachers and false doctrines and false teaching in churches today, reliable books may be a reasonable safeguard. I've a feeling there are far more tares than wheat in American churches today on the whole. I'm just observing that it seems to me that very few churches or other Christian gatherings for learning are actually teaching (I'm not talking about preaching; I'm talking about teaching) the Bible where a teacher is examining the Scriptures and explaining it to others. I'm not sure why that would be. Laziness? Fear? Some might chalk it up to "humility" where teachers would say, "I don't know enough to expound on the Scriptures, so I'll let the 'experts' do it." Indeed, many today no longer call themselves "teachers". They prefer "facilitators". That presupposes that teachers are their own sole source, doesn't it? You know, as opposed to having the God-given gift of teaching with the leading of the Holy Spirit?
Whatever the reason, it seems to me that Bible teaching in the churches today is diminishing. It is getting broader, perhaps, given all the books available, but much, much shallower. I suspect this could be a reason why Christians in America today seem to be much, much shallower in their understanding of Scriptures. Which, of course, makes them much easier targets for the skeptics and the liberal "Christians". Or, in other words, makes them much more susceptible to the roaring lion seeking to devour them (1 Peter 5:8).
Monday, November 23, 2015
The Deficiency of the Law
Antinomians argue that we are no longer under the law. They hold that the law is pointless, meaningless, beside the point. Legalists argue that the law is essential, that keeping the law is necessary to please God if not to save. These are two diametrically opposed positions. Which is right? Neither.
Jesus claimed that the Law would not pass away (Matt 5:18). So much for antinomianism. Paul claimed that we are saved by grace apart from works (Eph 2:8-9). So much for legalism. So what is the point?
Many like to argue that the Bible isn't a rulebook, that we aren't to be concerned about obeying rules from the Bible. I would contend that it is logically impossible to read the Bible and come to that conclusion. So, are we supposed to become hard-working law followers? Paul complains that he is not.
What are we to do? Some would tell us we need to work at obeying God's law. We need to knuckle under and really get to it. We need to ... oh, what's the biblical phrase? ... "work out your salvation." (Phil 2:12) There is a sense in which this is true, but it is here that we run into the deficiency of the Law. As it turns out, the Law lacks the ability to make anyone good. We don't arrive at what God wants us to be by striving to follow a set of rules.
Note what Jesus said. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) There's that "keep My commandments" thing. They're important to keep. But notice the cause for keeping His commandments. "Love Me." Ah, now, see? There's the rub! Most of us think that if we work real hard we can become more obedient. Jesus argued that obedience (which, by the way, He obviously wants contrary to the antinomian view) was a product of love for Christ (contrary to the legalist view). If you are not being obedient, the trick is not to become more obedient, nor is the problem a problem of the will. The problem is a heart problem.
We tend to condense our Christian walk into steps, procedures, processes and the like. Jesus argued that the Christian walk, done rightly, was a natural product of loving Christ. Now, think about it for a moment. If it is true that if we love Christ we will keep His commandments, it is certainly true that His commandments are important. Thus, the function of the Law -- the rules of Scripture, if you will -- is to tell us precisely what those commandments are. Absolutely necessary. But if you aren't following them, recognize that the problem isn't sexual immorality or greed, idolatry or covetousness, gossip or slander, or any of the other rules we break. It is us. And the fix is to correct our lack of love for Christ. I suppose that would necessarily fall under the "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13) kind of thing.
Jesus claimed that the Law would not pass away (Matt 5:18). So much for antinomianism. Paul claimed that we are saved by grace apart from works (Eph 2:8-9). So much for legalism. So what is the point?
Many like to argue that the Bible isn't a rulebook, that we aren't to be concerned about obeying rules from the Bible. I would contend that it is logically impossible to read the Bible and come to that conclusion. So, are we supposed to become hard-working law followers? Paul complains that he is not.
But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (Rom 7:16, 19, 22-23)"The Law is good, but I'm a failure at it." That's his complaint. And I think any genuine Christian would share that same complaint.
What are we to do? Some would tell us we need to work at obeying God's law. We need to knuckle under and really get to it. We need to ... oh, what's the biblical phrase? ... "work out your salvation." (Phil 2:12) There is a sense in which this is true, but it is here that we run into the deficiency of the Law. As it turns out, the Law lacks the ability to make anyone good. We don't arrive at what God wants us to be by striving to follow a set of rules.
Note what Jesus said. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15) There's that "keep My commandments" thing. They're important to keep. But notice the cause for keeping His commandments. "Love Me." Ah, now, see? There's the rub! Most of us think that if we work real hard we can become more obedient. Jesus argued that obedience (which, by the way, He obviously wants contrary to the antinomian view) was a product of love for Christ (contrary to the legalist view). If you are not being obedient, the trick is not to become more obedient, nor is the problem a problem of the will. The problem is a heart problem.
We tend to condense our Christian walk into steps, procedures, processes and the like. Jesus argued that the Christian walk, done rightly, was a natural product of loving Christ. Now, think about it for a moment. If it is true that if we love Christ we will keep His commandments, it is certainly true that His commandments are important. Thus, the function of the Law -- the rules of Scripture, if you will -- is to tell us precisely what those commandments are. Absolutely necessary. But if you aren't following them, recognize that the problem isn't sexual immorality or greed, idolatry or covetousness, gossip or slander, or any of the other rules we break. It is us. And the fix is to correct our lack of love for Christ. I suppose that would necessarily fall under the "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13) kind of thing.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Partakers of the Divine Nature
May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:2-11)There's the text. So, what do we learn?
The Goal
What is the end game, the target, the direction we're heading? "There will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Oh, that's good ... really good. We want that. Nothing could be better. But there is more. That's in the future. Here's in the present: to "keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful." Yes, very good. The future and the present are covered here. So, how does this passage indicate that we go about obtaining fruitfulness and effectiveness now and an entrance into the kingdom at the end?
The Premise
The premise of the entire text is God granting grace and peace through knowledge of Him. This is a simple thing, apparently, since "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him." Now, pause and think about that for a moment. "This Christian living thing is tough," I hear people say. "How can I do it?" I admit that it's tough, but this text does not say "My God will provide." It says, "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness." That's a past tense "grant" and an all-encompassing "grant". Nothing left. Everything you need pertaining to life and godliness is already available. But wait! Notice the source. This comes "through the knowledge of Him who called us." All that we need is provided by knowing Him. On this basis we escape the corruption from sin in the world and ... hang on to your hat ... "become partakers of the divine nature." So, this is big ... really big.
The Process
Okay, so we know where we're going -- effectiveness now and entrance into the kingdom later -- and we know the basis. So, what do we do?
First and foremost, we do not become "little gods" as some have taught. We do not become partakers of the divine essence, but the divine nature. That is, we take on characteristics that belong to God. And, when seen in that light, it isn't a difficult question. That would be virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love. You know, like the list says.
But ... how?
Peter says to "make every effort." The KJV says "diligence". The idea is make it your destination, your life's work. This isn't a side project. You start with faith. Got it. Now ... work. Add some virtue. Got it? Now add some knowledge. Mind you, we're not talking perfect or complete knowledge. And there is a sense in which it isn't "head knowledge" either, but, rather, an intimacy with God. Some. Now that you have some virtue and knowledge, add in some self-control. Work on it a little longer (steadfastness). Tune yourself a bit more toward godliness. Now add in some brotherly kindness. The layer over the top will be love. Really, not much. And even that won't be easy. Be diligent.
And then, do it again. "For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." And again. And again. We talk of the Christian life as a "walk". Do you know what a walk is? It's a step ... repeated over and over again.
Of course, it's not as if you're expected to do this on your own. You know, muster up the will and power to carry it out. Remember, "It is God who is at work in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." (Phil 2:13) Another way in which we are partakers of the divine nature. You remember. The Spirit is at work in all believers, and in that sense also we are partakers.
So, knowing that you are already equipped for this, you can do this. You can "be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election." If you do it, "you will never fall." Step by step, over and over, ever increasing. Partakers of the divine nature.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
"Whose Religion" Followup
So, here's the story in a nutshell:
I recently argued that all of us have a religion, that thing that shapes our values, our specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons. I asked whose religion you would want to make our laws since Christianity is being pushed out. I argued that it was a fallacy to say that no religion should be used because "no religion" is a religion, too.
I think Lindsay Miller made my point. Do you want to know something really scary? In 2006 a New York Town Councilman was sworn in wearing a colander. See? Here we have precisely what I was saying, a religion making the laws.
A woman who belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was allowed to wear a colander on her head in a driver’s license photo after her original bid to do so was denied.That's it. Her American Humanist Association attorney claimed, "The First Amendment applies to every person and every religion." Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Massachusetts, claimed her atheism was a religion. She got her wish.
I recently argued that all of us have a religion, that thing that shapes our values, our specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons. I asked whose religion you would want to make our laws since Christianity is being pushed out. I argued that it was a fallacy to say that no religion should be used because "no religion" is a religion, too.
I think Lindsay Miller made my point. Do you want to know something really scary? In 2006 a New York Town Councilman was sworn in wearing a colander. See? Here we have precisely what I was saying, a religion making the laws.
Friday, November 20, 2015
What IS this thing called "love"?
I write a lot about the problem of language, how the words we use are slipping to different, sometimes even opposing definitions until we're two people separated by a common language. Now, of course, given a living language in a shifting culture (which all living cultures are), it is expected that words will drift and new notions will need expression. Unfortunately, in our language, we do that by stealing words from one concept and apply it to another and then forcing everyone to buy into the new one because it's an old word.
There is one word that has shifted so far in our understanding of it that it makes its original concept almost incomprehensible. That word is "love". Now, to be fair, on the face of it the concept is difficult to begin with. I mean, it is very broad and complex. We love pizza and we love our pets and we love our planet and we love our spouses -- not the same things. But similar. Still, our current, most common understanding of "love" is either "sex" or "warm affection". Thus, if you love your spouse it's "sex" and if you love pizza it's "warm affection". Easy!
And I say (like I say so often these days), "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." Let me be clear. I'm not merely pointing at you when I say that. We find this word in the Bible and I will willingly admit that I'm not entirely clear on its meaning. I can trip on over to 1 Corinthians 13 and read Paul's description and have some idea of what it means, but I'm still not entirely clear. So, while I admit I don't have the definitive definition (a little play on words, there), I'm still pretty sure that "sex" or "warm affection" are not the primary definitions for the word. The general sense that most people have about the word is that "to love" means "to treat them nice and make them feel good." I'm quite sure that's not it.
Let me offer some illustrations from common human examples. Take, for instance, the parent of an infant who takes her child for necessary inoculations. It hurts the child. That can't be love, can it? Well, I think we would all say that it is, even though this "love" causes pain. I know parents who had a teenage daughter in high school that wanted to try out for cheerleading. The parents were concerned that she was getting too close to the world's glorification of appearance and popularity and felt it was in her best interests to deny her permission. "You're ruining my life!" she told them. Now, that can't be love, can it? I would argue that it could. Motivated by the best interests of the loved one, it would be classified as love even if it doesn't produce warm feelings or make them feel good.
Love. It's a common word. I don't think we're really grasping it very well at all. So when we trot out the standard "God loves everyone" and apply our own misguided definition to "love", we're doing Him a great disservice. Perhaps we ought to find out what He means by it, because I'm quite sure it is neither "sex" nor "warm affection".
There is one word that has shifted so far in our understanding of it that it makes its original concept almost incomprehensible. That word is "love". Now, to be fair, on the face of it the concept is difficult to begin with. I mean, it is very broad and complex. We love pizza and we love our pets and we love our planet and we love our spouses -- not the same things. But similar. Still, our current, most common understanding of "love" is either "sex" or "warm affection". Thus, if you love your spouse it's "sex" and if you love pizza it's "warm affection". Easy!
And I say (like I say so often these days), "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." Let me be clear. I'm not merely pointing at you when I say that. We find this word in the Bible and I will willingly admit that I'm not entirely clear on its meaning. I can trip on over to 1 Corinthians 13 and read Paul's description and have some idea of what it means, but I'm still not entirely clear. So, while I admit I don't have the definitive definition (a little play on words, there), I'm still pretty sure that "sex" or "warm affection" are not the primary definitions for the word. The general sense that most people have about the word is that "to love" means "to treat them nice and make them feel good." I'm quite sure that's not it.
Let me offer some illustrations from common human examples. Take, for instance, the parent of an infant who takes her child for necessary inoculations. It hurts the child. That can't be love, can it? Well, I think we would all say that it is, even though this "love" causes pain. I know parents who had a teenage daughter in high school that wanted to try out for cheerleading. The parents were concerned that she was getting too close to the world's glorification of appearance and popularity and felt it was in her best interests to deny her permission. "You're ruining my life!" she told them. Now, that can't be love, can it? I would argue that it could. Motivated by the best interests of the loved one, it would be classified as love even if it doesn't produce warm feelings or make them feel good.
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)This is a biblical description of love. Well, a biblical description of the love that the Bible is talking about as opposed to your (and my) understanding of the term. None of this includes "sex" or "warm affection". One or both of these may be a pleasant and even unavoidable by-product of this version of love, but a by-product of something is not a definition. The Bible also uses another common phrase to try to flesh out the understanding of the word.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (Lev 19:18)There are, of course, a lot more than that, but perhaps you're getting the idea -- "as yourself". How do we treat ourselves? We do not necessarily avoid all pain or do all the things that feel the best. Oh, sure, kids do, but when we get older we learn that there are better things. We learn wise sayings like "No pain, no gain" because we understand that not all pleasure is profitable and not all pain is bad. We gain a better perspective on love ... that kind of love. And that kind of love -- the love where we seek to provide for our own best interests -- is the love we should be providing for others.
"And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt 22:39)
Let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Eph 5:33)
Love. It's a common word. I don't think we're really grasping it very well at all. So when we trot out the standard "God loves everyone" and apply our own misguided definition to "love", we're doing Him a great disservice. Perhaps we ought to find out what He means by it, because I'm quite sure it is neither "sex" nor "warm affection".
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Hard Topics -- ISIS
What to do ... what to do? What to do about ISIS? Tough question.
John Kerry is in the news over his comments about the Paris attacks. He said,
What disturbs me is not that our Secretary of State thought there was a rationale (and not a legitimacy) to the one attack in Paris, but that the latest attack was different. One, he says, had a rationale (and not, as his detractors have argued, a "moral justification"), but the other apparently did not. If our government cannot figure out the rationale which certainly exists, how will they be able to address the problem? It would appear that they aren't looking for it.
The truth is the western world doesn't much get this version of Islam. It isn't ... western. Just look on the surface of it. We have always understood that the threat of death was a good method of preventing things from happening. I mean, you put an armed guard on something thinking that those who don't wish to die will avoid going in there. We get that. But now we find people whose ideology ignores the possibility of death and, instead, embraces it. How do you stop a person with a bomb strapped to his (or her) body who doesn't care if he or she dies because they intend to do just that? Suddenly we find that their ideology is outside our experience.
The Atlantic has an article entitled What ISIS Really Wants. It addresses the underlying ideology that, if we (those opposed to it) don't grasp it, we'll never have a chance of curbing it. At its core, this group believes itself to be ushering in the Day of Judgment. In this, their jihad is only a component, even a tool. We think it is their goal. And they aren't thinking of it like we do in modern 21st century categories and values. They're thinking of it in 5th century terms, way back in the early days of Islam. Those Muslims carried out a massive conquest, taking over most of the Middle East (which was the reason for the call for help that brought the Crusades to defend the region), north Africa, and even Spain and Portugal. They want to kill infidels, to be sure, but the goal is the apocalypse.
Nor is it a matter of personal gain or power. It's a matter of religious conviction. They're seeking a return to "Rule by Islam" complete with their standard death penalties for violation of religious rules. Public icons, both in the government and even in Islam, are arguing that "This is not Islam." Our last three presidents all assured us that it wasn't. It is. It is not the Islam they've embraced or recognized, but it is the Islam of Muhammed and his subsequent followers. It is exactly what you would find in their holy texts. Even the name, Islam, means not "peace" as many believe, but "submission". The tenet is that submission brings peace. Christianity by name is about Christ. Islam by name is about submission. Christians have "the Jesus hermeutic" where Jesus is the focus; ISIS uses "the Prophetic methodology" where walking in the path of the Prophet Muhammed is the way.
"Oh, no," they tell us, "it's not that. It's a problem of disaffected people who have been abused for too long." Right. Osama Bin Laden (who ISIS views as their predecessor) was born into a multimillionaire family living off privilege until he fell in with the Muslim Brotherhood and opted for war. He said, "Every Muslim, the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology. Ever since I can recall, I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them." That's not "disaffection". It's ideology. In 1996 he issued his “Declaration of War Against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.” What "Land of the Two Holy Mosques" does America occupy? That's not abuse; it's ideology. In 1998 he declared, “We—with God’s help—call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans." That's not disaffection; that's ideology. George Bush did not create ISIS; ideology did.
So here we are in the West arguing about whether or not one attack had a rationale and the other did not. Our failure to grasp the rationale -- the reasoning behind the group we call "ISIS" (or "ISIL" if you're the president) -- will make it impossible to engage the problem. At its core it is a religious ideal, and you can't kill a religious ideal with planes and bombs, let alone the complete failure to grasp that it is a religious ideal. Indeed, defeat is part of their plan, thinking that they are fulfilling some end-of-the-world prophecy that snatches victory from an apparent defeat and places Islam in charge of the world. You don't fight that with "boots on the ground." You can limit it with military force, but you can't defeat it. As we've seen thus far.
John Kerry is in the news over his comments about the Paris attacks. He said,
There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.I'm not a Kerry fan ... not even remotely ... but Kerry is right. He explained it was "not a legitimacy", but that there was "a rationale" behind the Charlie Hebdo attack. If people can't see that, they don't know people. People, you see, always act according to a rationale. No one does anything for no reason, even if it is as meaningless as "because it's there". Humans always do what they do for a reason. It may be a ludicrous reason or a nonsensical reason or a poorly formed reason, but there is always "a rationale".
What disturbs me is not that our Secretary of State thought there was a rationale (and not a legitimacy) to the one attack in Paris, but that the latest attack was different. One, he says, had a rationale (and not, as his detractors have argued, a "moral justification"), but the other apparently did not. If our government cannot figure out the rationale which certainly exists, how will they be able to address the problem? It would appear that they aren't looking for it.
The truth is the western world doesn't much get this version of Islam. It isn't ... western. Just look on the surface of it. We have always understood that the threat of death was a good method of preventing things from happening. I mean, you put an armed guard on something thinking that those who don't wish to die will avoid going in there. We get that. But now we find people whose ideology ignores the possibility of death and, instead, embraces it. How do you stop a person with a bomb strapped to his (or her) body who doesn't care if he or she dies because they intend to do just that? Suddenly we find that their ideology is outside our experience.
The Atlantic has an article entitled What ISIS Really Wants. It addresses the underlying ideology that, if we (those opposed to it) don't grasp it, we'll never have a chance of curbing it. At its core, this group believes itself to be ushering in the Day of Judgment. In this, their jihad is only a component, even a tool. We think it is their goal. And they aren't thinking of it like we do in modern 21st century categories and values. They're thinking of it in 5th century terms, way back in the early days of Islam. Those Muslims carried out a massive conquest, taking over most of the Middle East (which was the reason for the call for help that brought the Crusades to defend the region), north Africa, and even Spain and Portugal. They want to kill infidels, to be sure, but the goal is the apocalypse.
Nor is it a matter of personal gain or power. It's a matter of religious conviction. They're seeking a return to "Rule by Islam" complete with their standard death penalties for violation of religious rules. Public icons, both in the government and even in Islam, are arguing that "This is not Islam." Our last three presidents all assured us that it wasn't. It is. It is not the Islam they've embraced or recognized, but it is the Islam of Muhammed and his subsequent followers. It is exactly what you would find in their holy texts. Even the name, Islam, means not "peace" as many believe, but "submission". The tenet is that submission brings peace. Christianity by name is about Christ. Islam by name is about submission. Christians have "the Jesus hermeutic" where Jesus is the focus; ISIS uses "the Prophetic methodology" where walking in the path of the Prophet Muhammed is the way.
"Oh, no," they tell us, "it's not that. It's a problem of disaffected people who have been abused for too long." Right. Osama Bin Laden (who ISIS views as their predecessor) was born into a multimillionaire family living off privilege until he fell in with the Muslim Brotherhood and opted for war. He said, "Every Muslim, the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology. Ever since I can recall, I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them." That's not "disaffection". It's ideology. In 1996 he issued his “Declaration of War Against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.” What "Land of the Two Holy Mosques" does America occupy? That's not abuse; it's ideology. In 1998 he declared, “We—with God’s help—call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans." That's not disaffection; that's ideology. George Bush did not create ISIS; ideology did.
So here we are in the West arguing about whether or not one attack had a rationale and the other did not. Our failure to grasp the rationale -- the reasoning behind the group we call "ISIS" (or "ISIL" if you're the president) -- will make it impossible to engage the problem. At its core it is a religious ideal, and you can't kill a religious ideal with planes and bombs, let alone the complete failure to grasp that it is a religious ideal. Indeed, defeat is part of their plan, thinking that they are fulfilling some end-of-the-world prophecy that snatches victory from an apparent defeat and places Islam in charge of the world. You don't fight that with "boots on the ground." You can limit it with military force, but you can't defeat it. As we've seen thus far.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Atheism
We know what an atheist is. It's someone who believes there is no God. And, let's be honest, when we read God's evaluation -- "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psa 14:1) -- we tend to point quietly among ourselves and nod knowingly. Perhaps we should be more circumspect.
When a wife understands that God commands, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and responds, "Me ... submit to him? Not today.", she is saying, "In this situation at this time, there is no God." When a husband recognizes the instruction, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25) and parries with, "I'll love my wife, but not that much", he is telling God, "Right now I am going to act as if You do not exist." When the young man cruises the Internet to his favorite site of sex acts knowing all along that God's Word says, "Flee from sexual immorality." (1 Cor 6:18), he is setting himself up as his own master and discarding God. When the Christian cruises down the highway at 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, confident that there are no cops around right now, and fully aware that the Instruction Manual for Christians says, "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." (Rom 13:1-2), they are opposing God and acting as if He just isn't there.
We all do it. It's more often than we even imagine. We assume that our lives are our own when God claims that all that exists is His. We think that our sex lives and our work habits and the way we dress are only our concern when God claims sovereignty over everything. We admit to the Lordship of Christ with our lips while we deny it in practice. It is practical atheism.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not pointing at you. It is me that concerns me. I'm the one who has a hard time with simple, straightforward statements like "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov 16:18) and "Regard one another as more important than yourselves." (Phil 2:3) These aren't questionable or hard to grasp. And still I suffer from pride and self-centeredness. Like you, I have to admit that rarely do I actually "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37), let alone love my neighbor as myself. It's not that I don't know these things. I just suffer from ... foolishness.
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" It pains me to think how much of the time I am operating as if there is no God. It is difficult to realize that in these times I am called a fool by God. So I have to spend time in a Psalm 51 attitude. A lot.
When a wife understands that God commands, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22) and responds, "Me ... submit to him? Not today.", she is saying, "In this situation at this time, there is no God." When a husband recognizes the instruction, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25) and parries with, "I'll love my wife, but not that much", he is telling God, "Right now I am going to act as if You do not exist." When the young man cruises the Internet to his favorite site of sex acts knowing all along that God's Word says, "Flee from sexual immorality." (1 Cor 6:18), he is setting himself up as his own master and discarding God. When the Christian cruises down the highway at 15 miles per hour over the speed limit, confident that there are no cops around right now, and fully aware that the Instruction Manual for Christians says, "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." (Rom 13:1-2), they are opposing God and acting as if He just isn't there.
We all do it. It's more often than we even imagine. We assume that our lives are our own when God claims that all that exists is His. We think that our sex lives and our work habits and the way we dress are only our concern when God claims sovereignty over everything. We admit to the Lordship of Christ with our lips while we deny it in practice. It is practical atheism.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not pointing at you. It is me that concerns me. I'm the one who has a hard time with simple, straightforward statements like "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov 16:18) and "Regard one another as more important than yourselves." (Phil 2:3) These aren't questionable or hard to grasp. And still I suffer from pride and self-centeredness. Like you, I have to admit that rarely do I actually "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37), let alone love my neighbor as myself. It's not that I don't know these things. I just suffer from ... foolishness.
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" It pains me to think how much of the time I am operating as if there is no God. It is difficult to realize that in these times I am called a fool by God. So I have to spend time in a Psalm 51 attitude. A lot.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Irony
I don't normally write two posts in a day, nor do I follow Twitter, let alone Planned Parenthood twitter, but I came across this tweet from Planned Parenthood and was just dumbfounded.
By "every child" they mean "only the ones we recognize" as opposed to "every".
By "deserves the opportunity to live up to ..." they mean ... sorry, I can't tell what they mean. I can't tell what they mean by "deserves" when they think that some deserve to die. I can't figure out what "the opportunity" means when they kill more than they save. Apparently "live" is something different than normal people call it, too.
They cannot actually use the phrase "God given potential" with any rational meaning. "God" has nothing to do with it and "potential" is only that which is dreamed up by a mother who does or does not want her child. No meaning whatsoever.
The "@HillaryClinton" is really ironic since Hillary is on record for being pro-abortion and staunchly anti-life.
And, as if to be sure to end in a complete downpour of foolishness, they tack on "#blacklivesmatter". You know, like the fact that "Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined." Or the fact that more black babies were aborted in New York City in 2013 than were born. Or the reality that "Women of color are five times as likely to terminate a pregnancy as their white counterparts." Yes, black lives matter. Terminating them doesn't suggest you think so.
But this is the kind of "reasoning" and "logic" and "care and concern" we can expect from those who ignore God while giving Him lipservice. Most astounding, I suppose, is that so few seem to see it.
Every child deserves the opportunity to live up to theirSeriously, how does anyone from PP write something like that and mean anything remotely like it? In any sense?
God given potential. @HillaryClinton #blacklivesmatter
By "every child" they mean "only the ones we recognize" as opposed to "every".
By "deserves the opportunity to live up to ..." they mean ... sorry, I can't tell what they mean. I can't tell what they mean by "deserves" when they think that some deserve to die. I can't figure out what "the opportunity" means when they kill more than they save. Apparently "live" is something different than normal people call it, too.
They cannot actually use the phrase "God given potential" with any rational meaning. "God" has nothing to do with it and "potential" is only that which is dreamed up by a mother who does or does not want her child. No meaning whatsoever.
The "@HillaryClinton" is really ironic since Hillary is on record for being pro-abortion and staunchly anti-life.
And, as if to be sure to end in a complete downpour of foolishness, they tack on "#blacklivesmatter". You know, like the fact that "Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined." Or the fact that more black babies were aborted in New York City in 2013 than were born. Or the reality that "Women of color are five times as likely to terminate a pregnancy as their white counterparts." Yes, black lives matter. Terminating them doesn't suggest you think so.
But this is the kind of "reasoning" and "logic" and "care and concern" we can expect from those who ignore God while giving Him lipservice. Most astounding, I suppose, is that so few seem to see it.
Marry Your Local Rapist
There is a portion of the skeptics that like to claim that God requires rape victims to marry their rapist. "See," they conclude, "if God exists, He's evil!" (I cannot quite fathom why someone who believes no such being exists would wish to debate about the morality of such a being. I mean, the Chinese portray dragons as good and wise and the Europeans portray them as evil, but I'm not debating the existence of dragons based on whether or not they're either.) So, where do they get that claim?
But ... is that what it says? Again, context is important. I numbered that account because there are more to consider. Prior to this command is an earlier one centered "in the open country".
There is another version here to take into account.
So what exonerates the woman in version #2? In the case of married/betrothed women who encounter sex apart from their spouse, it is either death for both or death for the man, depending on whether or not it was rape. In the case of the betrothed woman in open country, the male dies, but "you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death." Why? "There was no one to rescue her." Ah, now we're getting someplace. In the instance where she was not in open country, note that "they are found", but not in the other accounts. This suggests that the act was mutual, not rape. If it is rape, she would cry out and find help. Oh, and in that case, the punishment for rape is death. Since she didn't cry out (remember, they were not "in the open country"), it appears to be consensual sex. For consensual sex with a woman who is not betrothed, the penalty is marriage without possibility of divorce.
Now, some will assure you that this is intended to protect the woman. No one would marry a non-virgin. She'd be stuck without a husband. Fine. I won't disagree. But my point here is that the text does not appear to require rape in the case of the virgin, but rather consensual sex. Therefore, the accusation that God requires a rape victim to marry her rapist is false. As in Exodus 22:16, the penalty for seducing a virgin is marriage. (Note that in the Exodus version the father has the right to refuse the bride-price and to give his daughter to him.) Since Deuteronomy means "the second law" and is supposed to basically be a restating of the law from the previous version, it's pretty clear that this is the case. The sad part is that too many Christians won't think it through sufficiently to be able to demonstrate this. So I would urge, "Christians ... know thy Scripture."
#1Well, now, look ... there it is, plain as day. He "seizes her" and, if caught, has to pay a dowry and marry her for life. Too bad for him. Make sure you rape a girl you wouldn't mind spending your life with. Oh, and too bad for her.
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." (Deut 22:28-29)
But ... is that what it says? Again, context is important. I numbered that account because there are more to consider. Prior to this command is an earlier one centered "in the open country".
#2They end differently. Why? What are the similarities and what are the differences? Well, in both we have a young woman who is "seized". In one they are "in the open country" and in the other they are not. In one he pays the father and marries her and in the other he is ... executed. Now, wait! Isn't there a logical problem here? I mean, if God requires women who are raped to marry their rapists, why is one rapist killed and the other not? Hmmm. Perhaps the accusation against God is not valid.
"If in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." (Deut 22:25-27)
There is another version here to take into account.
#3Keep in mind that "betrothed" was "married but not yet consummated" in those times. (It says "he violated his neighbor's wife.") This is why, when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant before he married her, he sought to divorce her (Matt 1:19). So in version #2 we were talking about a betrothed woman, and in this version it is a betrothed woman. The penalty for consensual sex between a betrothed or married woman (Deut 22:22) and someone not her husband is death for both as version #3 states. In version #2 -- non-consensual sex between a betrothed or married woman and someone not her husband -- the penalty is death for the rapist. So in version #1 regarding a "a virgin who is not betrothed", the penalty is somehow different.
"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." (Deut 22:23-24)
So what exonerates the woman in version #2? In the case of married/betrothed women who encounter sex apart from their spouse, it is either death for both or death for the man, depending on whether or not it was rape. In the case of the betrothed woman in open country, the male dies, but "you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death." Why? "There was no one to rescue her." Ah, now we're getting someplace. In the instance where she was not in open country, note that "they are found", but not in the other accounts. This suggests that the act was mutual, not rape. If it is rape, she would cry out and find help. Oh, and in that case, the punishment for rape is death. Since she didn't cry out (remember, they were not "in the open country"), it appears to be consensual sex. For consensual sex with a woman who is not betrothed, the penalty is marriage without possibility of divorce.
Now, some will assure you that this is intended to protect the woman. No one would marry a non-virgin. She'd be stuck without a husband. Fine. I won't disagree. But my point here is that the text does not appear to require rape in the case of the virgin, but rather consensual sex. Therefore, the accusation that God requires a rape victim to marry her rapist is false. As in Exodus 22:16, the penalty for seducing a virgin is marriage. (Note that in the Exodus version the father has the right to refuse the bride-price and to give his daughter to him.) Since Deuteronomy means "the second law" and is supposed to basically be a restating of the law from the previous version, it's pretty clear that this is the case. The sad part is that too many Christians won't think it through sufficiently to be able to demonstrate this. So I would urge, "Christians ... know thy Scripture."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)