Sojourner

The Toothless Immigration Law

2011-10-06T10:53:00.005-04:00

It is either fortunate or unfortunate, depending upon which side you are on concerning this new immigration law, that the undocumented workers in our midst do not realize that this new law is nigh unenforceable. First, the officers charged with enforcing this new law have had zero training on how to implement it. That means the average police officer knows about as much about this law as you do. Secondly, the restrictions on how to get "probable cause" to check documentation is very difficult. Allow me to explain.

This new law does not allow an officer to check documentation for the following reasons:

1. They cannot check documentation based on perceived ethnicity. That means that they cannot check simply because the person "looks Hispanic." No racial profiling.

2. They cannot check documentation due to an inability to speak English, or because of their accent.

That means if an officer pulls over an individual he suspects is of Hispanic origins who cannot speak English, he cannot check documentation based on these observations. So, what would lead to probable cause? That is, when the officer is summoned to court to testify, what will he say to the defense attorney that will satisfy the question of "Why did you ask for Mr. Garcia's documentation?"

How does the officer answer that? If he says it is because Mr. Garcia could not produce a valid driver's license, then that means you, my American friend, can now be detained for up to 48 hours until proof of your citizenship is attained if you lose your license and drive anyway. That may not sound too horrible, but consider this, However the officer answers that question can be directly applied to yourself. That means, inevitably, legal immigrants and even native born Americans can spend time in detention until they can produce proof of citizenship.

That's why I say that this new law is really toothless. No officer in Alabama wants to deal with the headache of accidentally detaining an American citizen because he did not produce a valid driver's license. No court wants to deal with the obvious problem of the officer who candidly admits, "I checked because he looked and sounded foreign." If he can't do this, exactly how are we going to enforce this law? I'm glad I am not a police officer in Alabama right now. This new law has certainly not done them any favors.

Don't worry about it overmuch. This isn't the first time that an anti-immigration law has passed that doesn't make any sense. In 1875, Congress passed a law that barred prostitutes from immigrating into the USA.

Perhaps we could help out our police officers by figuring out how they determined who was and who wasn't a prostitute in 1875. I think that would be an interesting study, don't you?

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

2011-09-23T10:18:00.003-04:00

The execution of Troy Davis has once again put the issue of capital punishment in the spotlight. I confess at the outset that I am not sympathetic to the case. I believe that he received a fair trial and plenty of appeals. He was on death row for 22 years, and during that time his case was reviewed by 12 courts of appeal. He was convicted by a jury, and despite what is going around on the internet, there were multiple eyewitnesses who will still testify to this day that they saw Davis shoot a man in the middle of a parking lot in cold blood for interfering with the pistol whipping he was giving to another man.

The case made me wonder this: if the prosecution brought forward 34 witnesses to this deed, if a jury convicted the man, if the jury recommended the death penalty, if Davis lost every appeal, if the case was reviewed by 12 courts and once again at the order of the Supreme Court, and Davis was still executed, at what point would the critics of his execution be satisfied that due process was followed?

If someone is against capital punishment, I understand their never being satisfied with the verdict. It seems to me, however, that something different than that may be at play here. That is, if we live in a culture that has, by and large, rejected the idea of absolute truth. If we are allergic to objective truths by nature, then I wonder what sort of evidence is required now to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt"? It seems impossible to do so in a culture that is convinced the only reasonable thing to do IS doubt.

The PR team for the defense performed a near coup. They lost in the courtroom multiple times, but they seem to be winning in public opinion. How? They cast doubt on the judicial system. They said "seven of nine" eye-witnesses recanted. The public believed that, but is it true? There were 34 witnesses, not nine. None of the recantations made said that Davis didn't do it; they simply said they were no longer sure it was him. Actually, only two of the seven were supposed to have said that, but the defense never let them testify. Why not?

The defense also cast doubt on the officers who investigated the case by saying they coerced witnesses. Did anyone ask if the defense coerced the witnesses before the appeal? And, why are we ready to believe that the police stepped over the line without their being subject to a fair trial? The defense says that the witnesses said that they were coerced, and we just believe that? The courts didn't, and there are still witnesses to this day, even by the defenses account, that are willing to take the stand and say, "I saw Troy Davis shoot Mark MacPhail in the parking lot."

What does it take, then, to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt? Two eyewitnesses? Twenty? A video of the incident? DNA? Or could it be that we are simply so uncomfortable with saying, "This is the truth" that we can hardly pass judgment on anything anymore?

Primaries, Debates, and Figuring out who to Vote For

2011-09-13T10:20:00.003-04:00

I believe that the Republicans have now held three major debates running up to the primary election. It seems to me, from reading commentary and the way the media portrays these debates, that the only function of these debates is to figure out which candidate to vote for. That is a terrible way to view the debate process, and because of this idea, it effectively silences all the candidates except the front-runners.

Take Ron Paul for example. He is definitely the weird uncle of the Republican primaries. I'm not going to vote for him, but I sincerely wish that he would get more time in the primary spotlight. Republicans need to hear the guy say what he says about Social Security, Medicare, and "preemptive attacks" on sovereign nations. Not necessarily because we need to adopt Ron Paul's views, but because we need to know that there are alternative view points.

Here is what is important to remember. Just because we elect Rick Perry, Barack Obama, or whomever America chooses, it does not mean that we have elected them whole-cloth, and that we can never oppose any of their agendas. Besides this, we may not completely agree with a certain agenda, but may simply wish it were more nuanced. Debates are supposed to help us do this with ideas. Debates are supposed to refine ideas and make them better.

Let's pretend that Rick Perry is your guy. You agree with him on 80% of what he says. But on the issue of Social Security, you actually like what Ron Paul says, with whom you agree with only 40% of the time. But to your dismay, Ron Paul is virtually ignored in the debates, and because Romney and Perry only want to talk about troop deployment, the serious issue of Social Security never even comes up. Worse, if Ron Paul drops out, you fear the subject will be virtually ignored. So you really, really want Ron Paul to stay in the race but you also really, really want him to lose because he is daft enough to say out loud that Iran should be allowed to have nukes!

The educated voter needs to have a good grasp of the issues. He needs to listen to the debates to see which ideas he likes the best. After he has his issues and ideas prioritized, then he can go about measuring the candidacy of each individual. This gives the voter the advantage of knowing his candidates strengths and weaknesses, and give him the ability to communicate to his preferred candidate his concerns should he get elected. It is our duty, as citizens of the United States, to respect our elected officials, but also to communicate to them our concerns in a respectful manner.

It is probably too early to have chosen a candidate for office. Unless, of course, you are a Democrat who thinks President Obama has done a bang up job, or you have followed the career of a particular candidate enough to know that this is your candidate no matter who else runs.

You Can Never Go Back

2011-09-08T16:37:00.002-04:00

A few friends and I had a conversation recently about how difficult it is to watch a football game now that is not in HD. We all laughed at how grainy old football clips are, even to the point of not being able to follow the football very well. The odd thing is that, at the time, none of us even noticed that the picture was grainy.

This phenomenon happens with just about every technology. Old pictures are far fuzzier than you remember when you first took them. We wonder how anyone ever played a game like "Pong" or "Space Invaders." And who doesn't notice the improvement of special effects in movies now?

I don't know of anyone who would trade HD for the old grainy TV. I hardly know anyone still using a "film" camera. We would never go back to those antiquated technologies. They simply do not capture reality as beautifully and as easily as modern equipment.

It is the same with the disciple of Jesus Christ. At each moment of our journey in Christ, we believe that we see our Lord clearly, and that we understand the beauty of His Word. Yet, with each successive day He comes into clearer focus, and His glory and worth becomes clearer. Sometimes, we will stumble across an old journal entry, or a note scrawled on a page, and we may chuckle at how we understood our Lord and His promises. We may marvel at our uncertainty, brashness, pride, or understanding. We see that, at that time, our picture of God was very grainy. We should be glad that the clarity has improved, and we should be grateful that we never have to go back.

Life as an Alien and Sojourner

2011-08-31T11:32:00.003-04:00

This year I have the privilege of coaching U-8 soccer. I have three Hispanic boys on my team, one of whom barely speaks any English at all. The English of his parents is even worse. I communicate with them in a mix of my terrible Spanish and English. I love these folks, and they seem to genuinely appreciate that I have taken an interest in their children.

I try to imagine what these parents must have gone through to get here, and how difficult life must be from day to day, surviving in a world of white faces. I know what it is like to be a stranger in a strange land. I lived for about three months in Brazil as the only "gringo" around. My Portuguese was fair at best. You cannot imagine how complicated it is to continually calculate dollars to reals. How much is this Coke costing me? The figures are meaningless to you. Is 5 reals for a Coke good or bad? It looks like you are giving them five dollars, but you aren't. And how much change am I owed? What are the coins worth?

You cannot ask the right questions. You don't know if you've received the right change. Everyone is looking at you because you are different; you feel isolated and out of place. You finally muster the courage to speak this strange tongue, and your inquiries are met with blank stares because you misspoke. They cannot understand you. You can't find the bathroom, and you cannot ask where it is. You think you got short-changed, but you can't be certain. If you add to this a general sense of hostility from the locals and the sinking feeling that you aren't wanted there, and you have a recipe for high stress to say the least.

This is how what the Hispanics go through here, every day, whether they are legal or not. If they are illegally here, it is much worse. The paranoia of getting caught must be overwhelming. Why did they come here? To flaunt American laws? Surely not! The vast majority came to find a better life. They came to escape the horrible drug lords and wars that are raging south of the border. Some came to escape a mass grave. Have you read the news about what's happening in Mexico? Would you stay with your family, or would you run for their lives?

This is not simply an economic issue. This isn't about an over-burdened tax system and non-contributors. This issue is about people. It is about children. It is about families. Yes, it does present a challenge to us and to our schools. But our first concern should not be the budget's bottom line. Any decision we make must be seasoned with compassion for a fellow human being, even if that decision is inevitably deportation.

Christian, you ought to have compassion for the alien and sojourner in your midst. You ought to remember that we are all aliens and sojourners here: this is not our home. You ought to remember that you are called to be a servant of the nations. Does this mean that you can't have a strong opinion on deportation of illegals? No, it does not mean that. It does mean, however, that you cannot treat law-breakers as sub-human money sponges.

Show compassion to your neighbor. Have mercy on the alien and sojourner in your midst. Treat them like beings made in the image of God. To do any less is unthinkable. Remember, the Lord your God is the Lord of All, and he loves the aliens and sojourners in your midst, and He is swift to take the side of the poor. We ought to be like Him.

Friday is for Fallacies

2011-08-26T09:32:00.004-04:00

Fridays are fun days, and as such I have decided to post overheard logical fallacies. For fun and to show off, you can name that fallacy in the comment section.

Overheard:

Wife: I'm telling you, that man is no good. Women's intuition is better than a man's; you can tell because we're right more often.

Husband: I couldn't agree more, dear. You could use our marriage as an example.

Prophetic, but Not Inspired: The Difference Between Prophecy and Inspiration

2011-08-24T14:19:00.006-04:00

As the argument over the use of the miraculous sign gifts continues, I want to quibble a bit with my cessationist allies. Often in the conversation over whether or not "prophecy" is still a continuing gift, cessationists will talk as if a prophecy should be "added to the canon." I think that this is a careless way to talk about the gift of prophecy because there is a difference between prophecy and inspired Scripture. They have many similarities, but they are not the same thing.

As a caveat, I confess that I do not know how God inspired the apostles and prophets to write Scripture. I do know that prophecy came in various forms: audible voices, dreams, visions, and apparently even in song. The act of writing inspired Scripture, however, remains a mystery. Nevertheless, it is important to note that both are direct revelations from God, regardless of the means in which they are delivered.

As far as similarities go, both prophecy and Scripture are divine revelation, and they are both 100% correct and binding. This may make them appear to be analogous on the surface, but it doesn't. Prophecy could be far more limited in scope than inspiration, and it was often not universally binding. Scripture, however, is always universally binding when applied correctly.

Here is what I mean. Nathan was a prophet who spoke prophetically to King David. His most famous prophecy involves his confrontation of King David after his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. By revelation of God, Nathan uncovers David's sin, and lets David know that though he will not die, God is going to punish him. This story is both prophetic and inspired. It is inspired because it is written down; it is prophetic because it was direct revelation from God.

However, Nathan's prophecy to David does not apply to the reader in the same way it applied to David any more than Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh directly applies to Russia or the United States. As the inspired canon, these prophecies fit into the great whole to teach us lessons about God's sovereignty and forgiveness and severity, but we cannot go about telling cities that God will overthrow them in forty days or that God will deal with adulterers in the specific ways outlined to David.

We know, for instance, that there are prophecies that were not inspired. I can say that all prophecy is given by direct revelation of God, but not all prophecy is inspired. (You might say it this way: Not every teacher can pastor, but every pastor must teach.) I'm using the word "inspired" technically, meaning the infallible word of God written down and applicable to all people. One example is found in 1 Samuel chapter 10. There, King Saul prophesies with a group of travelling prophets. We know that he prophesied, and we know that there was a travelling band of prophets. We do not, however, know the content of their prophecies. We know that they were revelation from God, and that they were applicable and binding on someone, but they were not inspired for the world.

I only write this in an attempt at caution, lest the cessationist wind up overstating his case. Prophecy is not necessarily inspired canon, and it should not be considered as such. Prophecy was and is binding on those for whom it was meant, and so it is serious business. After all, false prophecy was a capital offense.

I do not believe that the prophetic ministry has continued from the days of the apostles. The apostles and prophets never uttered an 'iffy' prophecy, and they never wondered whether their word came from the Lord. They never prophesied with the caveat of "sometimes I'm wrong." No modern day 'prophet' has the chutzpah to prophecy like that, and the reason is because whatever it is he is doing, it isn't what the apostles and prophets of old were doing. If it were, he would not be confused or shy about it. He could say, on pain of death, "Thus saith the LORD!"

There, my small point is over. I'm sure that this minor addition to the conversation will inevitably lead to an end to the entire imbroglio.

Why Evolution is More Absurd than TV Evangelism

2011-08-22T14:26:00.005-04:00

I had a couple of minutes to kill today after stuffing myself at the local Mexican restaurant. I saw this article on Yahoo! and thought it might be fun to read. For the most part, it was. Until I got to this quote:

Genuine smiles and fake smiles are governed by two separate neural pathways. We know this is true because people with damage to a certain part of the brain can still break into a spontaneous grin even though they're unable to smile at will. Scientists speculate that our ancestors evolved the neural circuitry to force smiles because it was evolutionarily advantageous to mask their fear and fury.

According to this theory, some cave man somewhere thought, "Heeeey...I'm really ticked at the tribal chief right now. I really, really wish I could fake a smile so he wouldn't see my inner fury." Hearing this desperate plea, Evolution stepped in, and after hundreds of generations of progeny, granted his request. And people claim that evolutionists aren't a people of faith!

Do people really find this easier to believe than a con-artist TV evangelist's forehead slapping ministry?

Immigration: The Positives and the Problems Part 1

2011-08-19T10:18:00.003-04:00

It is unfortunate that the current economic woes of the United States serves to obscure the issue of America's immigration problem. The highs and lows of Wall Street are only symptoms; they can only point to problems that are foundational. You cannot fix the economy by fixating on the fluttering of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. You can, however, begin an economic recovery by concentrating on the working and living conditions of the people who live in and contribute to the economics of the country. The people of a country are, after all, the country's most valuable resource. Therefore, immigration is a foundational issue, not a symptomatic one.

Immigration is a boon to any country. There is not a single business in the United States this is not dependent upon immigration for growth, success, and innovation. Immigrants bring with them a vitality and perspective that native citizens sometimes lack. They are an adventurous sort and visionary. They are a people willing to leave behind all that is familiar and beloved in order to build a new life for themselves and for their families. They are highly motivated, resourceful, and willing to sacrifice for success. Any country that doesn't have a healthy influx of immigrants is a country on the decline and is in danger of stagnation.

Unregulated immigration, however, can cause serious problems for a country. Even the Boar's Nest of Hazzard County charged $1.00 cover to keep out the riffraff. If a country has unregulated immigration, there is nothing to keep the unsavory sorts from entering the country at will. Such people come, not with the intent of building a life for themselves, but rather they come to exploit the native populations through criminal activity. This serves to give the rest of the immigrant population a bad name, and it makes their dream of integrating with the native population very difficult.

This is the dilemma that faces the United States. Our borders are not secure. This allows anyone access to the country. Hence, illegal immigration is a real problem. What good does it do to deport someone from the country when the back door is wide open? Deportation and the threat of deportation is like a rubber-toothed bulldog: it sounds mean but it lacks any real bite.

In fact, illegal immigration does not simply aggravate natural citizens. It aggravates legal immigrants. In fact, some of the people most passionately against illegal immigration are naturalized citizens. They recognize that illegal immigrants give them a bad name, and it is galling to the naturalized citizen that they had to learn the language, pay for the proper paper work, and work hard to earn their right to be here; only to face discrimination and suspicion because of law-breakers from their own native countries who came here illegally.

There are layers of problems to the United States' immigration woes. First, the border is insecure, making deportation a lousy deterrent. Secondly, we actually need immigrant labor, and legal immigration is currently so difficult that we cannot get people here properly to fill the jobs. Thirdly, we have to realize the temptation to jump the border is overwhelming. Why would someone wait years and go through all the red tape, monetary outlay, and rank bribery required when they can get across the border more easily by sneaking? You don't believe that the red tape is real? Why on earth would a sane person pay a "coyote", who is basically a thug, thousands of dollars to sneak them across the border if it were easier to go through legal channels?

In the next post, I'll try to go through some of the challenges that we face regarding illegal immigration. In this discussion, we must always keep one thing very much in the forefront: We are talking about real people. People with hopes, families, and dreams to make a better life for themselves. Yes, some illegal immigrants are drug running criminals, but it has to be a small minority or we would be in a much worse condition that the one we now face.

Confessions of a Cessationist

2011-08-18T10:34:00.004-04:00

If you do not know what a cessationist is, then this post may not matter to you anyway. If you are curious as to what this might mean, then I hope that this post might be helpful to you. If you do not know what to think of miraculous sign gifts, then I hope that you will find this post helpful.

What is a cessationist? A cessationist is someone who believes that the miraculous sign gifts that were present in the 1st Century church are not being given to the church today. These would include the apostolic gift, the gift of miraculous healing, prophesy, the ability to write infallible Scripture, and the sudden ability to speak and be understood in a language one is not familiar with.

This is not to say that a cessationist does not believe in miracles or Providence or the influence of the Holy Spirit. We certainly do. We simply do not believe that things are happening in the church now as they were in the early days of the church. I surely believe in miracles. I count my own conversion as a miracle, and every other conversion for that matter.

So why did I become a cessationist? I certainly did not start out as one. I tried very hard to be a charismatic. I was enamored with the supposed 'super-powers' that some claimed to have. They believed that they could speak in an unknown tongue, could lay hands on the sick and heal them, that they could know the secret thoughts of men at a mere glance, and that they were privy to things that would happen in the future. Who wouldn't want that? I knew that God was all-powerful, that He loves me, and that He gives gifts to men. So why should I not desire, even eagerly, these gifts?

My conversion to cessationism, then, came and still comes from two fronts. First, I noticed right away that the supposed miracle-workers were not doing exactly what happened in the Bible. Secondly, I noticed that they were dumbing-down the requirement for prophesy in the New Testament era. It is plain in the Old Testament that anyone who claimed to speak for the Lord God was held to a high standard. A false prophet faced the death penalty. I could not find a single modern prophet who would be willing to be held to that high standard.

Instead, they pretended that after the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church, that prophesy somehow became less reliable than it was in the Old Testament. Now, God spoke to his prophets in a way that could be misunderstood, leading his prophet to prophesy in error. This seemed to me to be patently ridiculous, and it still does.

As for the gift of miraculous healing, I simply never saw anyone "command heal" in a genuine way like Peter or the apostles did. No one, except for the charlatans on TV, were grabbing crippled people by the hand and lifting them up to be perfectly well. I've never seen this happen. Ever. And I have known many believers, and I have been to many churches, and I have prayed over many sick people (some of whom, by the grace of God, have recovered.) But I have never witnessed anyone healed like Peter did it. I have never seen a dead person raised from the dead like Peter did or Paul did. I have never seen anyone heal like Jesus or the apostles.

The very fact that anyone has to go around and argue that these things are present in the church today is a sad sign that they really aren't. No one argued with the signs the apostles performed. In fact, the opposition was miffed because of the fact that "a notable miracle has been done through them (that) is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem and we cannot deny it" (Acts 4:16). The same thing goes for the miracles of Jesus. This is simply not the case with miracle workers today. It is always anecdotal, they do not heal 100% of the time, and the charlatans rely on mass group suggestion and friendly environments to ply their healing trade. Not one of them has ever gone to a hospital or met a random cripple and healed them like the apostles did. Not one. Every story you hear is someone who has a friend who knows a missionary who raised the dead at a hut in some village in Africa.

I believe in spiritual gifts. I believe that the Holy Spirit Himself is the gift given to every believer in Jesus Christ. I believe that God can lead the believer through His Word and through Providence to make wise and wonderful decisions. I believe that God heals the sick through the prayers of His saints. I just do not believe that there are miracle-working apostolic types among us today, though I believe there are a pile of lying and self-deceived hucksters. It is simply the choice of God who is not building His church by the Acts of Supermen but upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My cessationism is that simple, and if evangelicals today had a modicum of common sense and less fear of man, we might be able to get rid of a few of the worst wolves masquerading as servants of Christ, and we would be able to call more of our puffed up brothers to repentance and rid them of their delusions of self-grandeur. Who doesn't need that?javascript:void(0)

The Importance of Teaching Wisdom

2011-08-10T15:39:00.007-04:00

I have been reading the articles that are coming out now about the rioting in London and the UK. It saddens me that people are acting this way, and it further saddens me that the behavior is being excused by appealing to the disenfranchisement or the poverty of the rioters. There is, in the end, no excuse for this type of behavior when other means of protest are readily available.

I could easily write an article on why it is wrong for the people to behave as they have, but I hope that most people could think of a reason why they ought not be knocking through windows of privately owned stores and taking what they please from their fellow citizens. Instead, I want to prepare my children to be the type of person who would walk away from the mob and not go into the store and take what isn't theirs.

I read an article that a journalist wrote that had a snippet of a conversation that she overheard during the looting. Apparently, three young men were watching the riots, not participating, when one of them saw an opportunity to go into a store and take what they wanted. He tried to talk his friend into going down and getting themselves the loot. The article did not say how the young men decided. The conversation, however, reminded me of this:

My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us ambush the innocent without reason; like Sheol let us swallow them alive, and whole, like those who go down to the pit; we shall find all precious good, we shall fill our houses with plunder; throw in your lot among us; we will all have one purse.." (Proverbs 1:10-14).

I imagine that one of those young men watching the mayhem is my own son. I know that the pull of the chaos, the promise of free treasure, and the adrenaline that the thought that such an act would bring would be a powerful temptation for a young man. But the end of that behavior is death. It is madness to do what these people are doing. It is death, both physical and spiritual, to participate in that kind of wickedness.

My son, do not walk in the way with them; hold back your foot from their paths, for their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood. For in vain is a net spread in the sight of any bird, but these men lie in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives. Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain; it takes away the life of its possessors (Proverbs 1:15-190).

People who break in to steal and destroy are more foolish than birds. A bird will avoid a trap it sees being set; these rioters are setting a trap for themselves. They will drive out business; they may be arrested; they may die. Inevitably, they will have to live with what they have done, they will have to deal with knowing that they brought hurt to many, including the death of some. For what? A television set? A bicycle?

Ultimately, God will judge the earth. He will judge between the wicked and the just. I pray that I will teach my son these lessons well so that he will not consent to walk with sinners. I am resolved to plead with him as the writer of proverbs pled with his son. I have lived long enough to know that the path of the wicked leads to destruction, but that righteousness leads to life.

Do you think that these looters were taught these things by their parents? Or did they teach them that their poverty gives them the right to strike out against "the man", even when "the man" is their neighbor who sells goods down the street.

Go Spartans?

2011-08-04T10:56:00.002-04:00

This video is worth your time, especially if you are a sports fan. If only everyone lived with the attitude that he admonishes his fellow athletes to live with.

HT: Kevin DeYoung

A Test to See Whether the Average American Should Be Allowed to Vote

2011-07-28T14:15:00.007-04:00

I want to make a confession here that is certain to get me into trouble. Mainly, I fear it will get me into trouble because what I am about to admit may be rabidly anti-American and mostly misunderstood. But I'm going to say it anyway and invite you to call me names afterward: sometimes, I wish there was some sort of test required in order for a person to get to vote.

Let me clarify by saying that this is not prompted by any sort of age, race, or demographic snobbery. It isn't even based on IQ, as the kind of test I am proposing would change from election to election based on the current democracy-ending, economy killing, Western Civilization overthrowing issue we are currently facing. This year, it seems, we are headed for financial catastrophe, and so a little economic test should be given before anyone is allowed to vote in the voting booth.

First, I imagine a very sagacious old man politely stopping each voter before they go into the booth, and after apologizing for the inconvenience, he would say that he has to ask them a few simple questions before they are allowed to vote. Should they fail, they will have to go home and steady, and furthermore, they have to stop commenting on Congress and the President until they come back and pass the test. Here are a few sample questions this wise old man might ask:

1) Friend, is debt always bad?

If they answer Yes! They are not allowed to vote. Now, being out of debt is always preferable to being in it, but just because someone owes money or owes nothing is no indication of their financial status. The bum on the street who owes nothing and has $10 in a tin cup has no debt. The recent college graduate may have $120,000 in debt because he has a mortgage and an education and a job that pays $50,000 a year. Who is in better shape financially?

2) Friend, how much, exactly, do you owe in credit card debt in proportion to your personal income?

Now, a formula would have to be worked out for this, but if the statistics of indebtedness to credit card pirates is any indication, this would flunk the average American right out of the voting booth. But not for the reason you might think.

See, the current debate over borrowing and raising the debt ceiling is all about credit ratings and ...well, borrowing. If a fellow cannot figure out that paying 25% interest on three pairs of Gap Jeans and two Polo shirts is fairly stupid, coupled with a barely manageable mortgage and two car payments, then the old man should tell them stories about why it is good to save aluminum foil and string until the potential voter is embarrassed and goes home.

3) What are the reasons that the Congress and the President are debating the debt ceiling?

The voter would only be required to have a passing knowledge of such things. Anything other than a blank stare, and also they cannot simply say, "It's just politics!" There are very good reasons why this debate is happening: Democrats and Republicans have significant disagreements on government spending and borrowing and what things fall into the category of "goods" and what falls into the category of a "right". For example: Health care. If it is a right, then the government must figure out a way to pay for it. If it is a good, then the government might help, but it is not an obligation.

It is a good thing that we are almost in default...as long as we don't actually default. It should present us with a chance to discuss the direction of the country and how we can move forward economically without a digging ourselves a hole we can't climb back out of.

4) Why is Social Security an entitlement?

This one is a no-brainer. It is an entitlement because we (most of us, anyway) paid for it. The problem is that we also blew the money and the current wage earners aren't paying enough taxes to pony up the dough for those retiring. The guys who stuck their hands in the cookie jar are either dead or are playing golf and nobody wants to be the dude left holding the bag. It's like a horrific game of musical chairs and every politician is raiding Social Security in order to find a seat. Someday, the music will stop and somebody is going to be standing there like an idiot.

I think that this little quiz should be sufficient. Bad answers, even Democratic ones, would be allowed. Just please, no blank stares. Let's actually think about this for a bit, and if you don't, you are hereby banned from saying that Congress is stupid, that our politicians are acting childish, or anything else of that nature. Also, if you make an average wage, and you are contemplating buying a new X-Box game on your third and nearly maxed out credit card, all the Congress is going to come over to your house and horse laugh you if you post something about financial responsibility on any social media.

Can Sin Be Cured?

2011-07-27T13:07:00.002-04:00

If I had a platform to teach evangelicals about sin, the first thing that I would tell them is that sin is not a disease. At least, it is not like a virus or a bacterial infection. Unfortunately, it appears that this is how we tend to think of sin, and even more unfortunate is the tendency to think that sin can be 'cured' here by prayer, piety, or will power.

This type of thinking is detrimental to Christians, especially people young in the faith who do not know any better. The immature tend to think of sin in terms of things we do: like cussing, looking at pornography, sleeping with one's girlfriend, or drinking too much beer on the weekend. The cure for these 'sins' then, is to simply stop doing what you used to do that the Bible calls sinful. Thus, the young Christian thinks that he is becoming better by stopping his or her sinful behavior, and because of this, they may declare that they have been cured.

In the zeal that comes from first understanding the gospel of Christ, one's resolve to be obedient can indeed squash down old sinful impulses. The problem comes when those old impulses arise again. The believer may begin to think that something is wrong with them, which is correct, but they may blame it on the wrong thing. They may think that God has suddenly abandoned them or that they have become less faithful. Neither may be the case. They may simply be learning what having a sin-nature really means.

If sin were to be compared with a disease, it would have to be compared with a genetic one that is currently incurable but is treatable. Let's take high blood pressure as an example. High blood pressure can be genetic, and the effects of high blood pressure can be aggravated by poor eating and exercise. In the case of conversion, a young believer begins to 'live healthy', forsaking harmful behaviors of the past, and so the symptoms of sin lessen. Over the course of time they find, despite their good diet and exercise, they are still having high blood pressure. The only way to treat this is by medicine. In our case, the medicine is grace.

I worry when people begin to say that homosexuality and other sins may be 'cured' by prayer or some other form of piety. This is tantamount to saying that lust may be cured. Our sin is an inherited disposition. It is no simple disease. The symptoms of sin will manifest despite the fact that the Christian is living faithfully. God allows these impulses to continue so that we will learn to take our medicine, that is the grace that is offered us through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Le Tour de France 2011

2011-07-25T11:43:00.003-04:00

I am a flag-waving fan boy for the Tour de France. I confess it. I actually record each stage and watch each one from nearly start to finish. I know that most people would probably find this more boring than golf, or NASCAR, or baseball, or watching paint dry. I don't care, really. This race rivets me.

The Tour starts on July the 2nd, and by the time it is finished on July 24th, the riders have covered about 2,131 miles. They cross mountain ranges and vast stretches of countryside on their journey to Paris. After all of those miles of racing, this years winner managed to beat out his closest rival by only 1 minute and 30 seconds. Can you imagine racing a guy for that many days, over the mountains, through the valley, over the rivers and through the woods, only to have him beat you at the end by less than two minutes? After over 2,000 grueling miles, Andy Schleck lost the Tour de France to Cadel Evans by less time than it took me to write this paragraph.

So why do I love it so? For one thing, I love to ride my bike. I have a road bike that was Tour worthy in 2009. I have logged a 1,000 miles or so on it since I won it, oddly enough, watching the Tour de France with friends. I have climbed little mountains on it, rode the flats, and watched my friends ride away from me when I didn't have the strength to keep up. I have run out of gas as little rises in the road have kicked my tail, and I have felt the pride of climbing a steep incline without having to get off the bike and push...even if that option would have been faster.

So I love to watch it because I understand the sport. I love to watch it because these guys astound me. I love to watch it for the races within the race: the battle for the green jersey for the sprinters, the battle for the white jersey for the best young rider, the battle for the polka dot jersey for the King of the Mountains, and of course, love the drama of watching the guys battle for the coveted yellow jersey, the jersey that signifies the overall leader.

All of these are good reasons for me to enjoy the Tour de France. But they aren't the real reason why I love the Tour. I remember my first real bicycle. It was a Pittsburgh Steeler dirtbike that I got for Christmas one year. That bike meant freedom to me as a little lad of maybe 6. Back in those days, parents were a little less paranoid than they are now, so I could basically hop on that bike and go where ever I liked. That bike meant adventure. It meant trips to the gas station to buy a Dr. Pepper, some baseball cards, and a pack of gum. I also remember the day I got up and headed to the garage to find my bike gone. Some jerk stole it right out from under our car port. If I ever get my hands on that guy...

So that's why I love the Tour. Deep down, I just like the adventure of it. The idea that a guy can hop on his bike with his buddies and ride all over Europe getting chewing gum and Dr. Peppers, and while they are on their way, a million people stop by to cheer for them as they fly by them on the way to the Champs Elysees.

The Theology of Disliking MMA and Enrolling My Son in Karate

2011-07-20T16:21:00.004-04:00

Occasionally, I will read about some pastor extolling the virtue and manliness of cage fighting. If you think that getting into a cage with another man with the goal of beating him into unconsciousness or submission for sport is manly, I think that you and I have different ideas about manhood. I am truly concerned about the sort of hyper-manliness that is rolling east from Seattle these days, because I think it is ridiculous, unmanly, and fleshly. I think that it doesn't take the imago dei seriously enough, and while I will defer settling the matter in the Thunder Dome, I will enter the more civil arena of the blogosphere.

Before you read my two cents on the matter, you ought to go and read The Confessions of a Cage Fighter. It is one of the better reflections on the subject of MMA that I have ever read, and the fact that the writer used to be a MMA fighter helps the street cred of the article. It is actually the best take-down of Mark Driscoll style manhood that I have read to date.

Now that I have laid out my disdain for the sport of MMA, let me try and establish my manhood credentials so manly men will continue to hear me out. I spent six years in the military, the Army National Guard to be exact, I have taken self-defense courses, I have engaged in fisticuffs, I can grow a garden, I like to shoot and eat wild game, and I have a wife and two children. There, I'm sort of manly. I also want my son to be manly, and so I let him enroll in karate at six years old. The point of this article is to square that with my dislike of MMA as a sport.

I agree with Mark Driscoll about many aspects of manliness. One, I do believe that the responsibility for protection is a manly art. I want my son to be able to defend his sister if he needs to, and if that means punching someone in the jaw, then he needs to be able to do that. I am not raising a total pacifist; I just do not want to raise a man who beats other men for sport.

I would allow my son to train in the mixed martial arts. I would allow him to get into a ring with another fellow in order to train and spar. I have done this myself. But I have never gotten into a ring or onto a mat where the over-riding purpose was to beat the other fellow into submission. Rather, it has always been to learn the arts of defense and offense should force become necessary. This is a key difference from the goal of a cage match.

If any of my close friends wanted to take a self-defense course with me, I would get into the ring or onto the mat with them and learn from them or from our coach. I would not, however, aim to do them any harm. They may get injured, I may get injured, but that is not the goal. The goal is to learn, not to harm, and that is the difference between MMA as a sport and as a discipline of defense. A soldier trains to fire his weapon accurately in the hopes that he will never have to fire it at another person. A gladiator learns to use the sword in the hopes that he can run his opponent through in the arena. A soldier can be a man whose heart loves peace. A gladiator is a man whose heart is full of murder.

So go and read that article that the Cage Fighter wrote, and think long and hard about why MMA is becoming a popular, even accepted past-time in the church. And yes, I am willing to throw boxing under the bus as a sport for the same reasons listed above.

Debt Ceilings, Politics, and Stuff

2011-07-12T10:18:00.004-04:00

I'm a little irked at what is going on in Washington D.C. right now. I'm irked because the truth about the economy, jobs, and American debt is being hidden behind a rhetoric meant to make us afraid. It seems, dear American, that the current strategy of the Republican party might be to scare us into voting Republican next round.

I find this disconcerting. First of all, I'm probably going to vote Republican anyway. If not that, then I'll vote independent. My reason being that I am a financial conservative and an ethical conservative, and at least the Republicans pretend like that matters to them.

My purpose in writing here is not to go off on a rant, it is to muse about the facts as they are being presented in order to see if a rant is justified. Lately, the Congress has been battling the President over the 'debt-ceiling'. That is, they are fighting on whether or not they can raise it to borrow more money. The simple fact of the matter is that we are spending more money than we are raising in taxes. Our choices, then, seem simple: raise taxes or cut spending or hope for a miraculous economic boom.

Raising taxes is not an option, according to Republicans. I like that because this is what Republicans are for: cut taxes. You will never hear me complain about a tax cut. Ever. The rule of thumb is not to raise taxes in a recession, and it seems that we are in one right now. Plus, any tax raise that is significant to the bottom line must come out of the pocket of the "wealthy". The logic here is that the wealthy are the ones doing the hiring, so if you take away their money, less people get hired. So don't take job-producers money and give it to the government. Argue about that if you like, but at least it makes sense in theory.

So let's move to the sticky issue of the debt-ceiling. This is what really cooks my grits when I think about those pesky facts. Here's one: during the Bush administration, the Congress raised the debt limit...count'em...six times. Did we have all of this grousing back then? Was their the thundercloud of a coming apocalypse hanging over us at that time? I don't remember it if there was. The guy going nuts about this debt ceiling hike this time, Representative Cantor, voted for the increase in the debt ceiling back in the Bush era. Why is it the end of the world now?

Perhaps the politics have changed. I like that, too. Maybe we really do have some fiscal conservatives in Congress now who will do a good job of trimming the budget. (And all of us will feel this, trust me on that. We are all far more dependent than we pretend.) But here's what I don't like: don't act like you are taking the moral high ground on this if you have been part of the problem. (I'm looking at you, Congressman.) Admit that you used to be an economic free-wheeler back in the day, but now enough is enough. Don't operate on a politics of fear, but in truth.

Is that asking too much?

You Don't Have to Punt God for Science

2011-07-06T09:47:00.006-04:00

One of the greatest challenges for the modern Christian is to reconcile the relationship between their faith and science. Certainly, this difficulty is not only felt by Christians, but any religion that has an authority that they view as superior to the natural order. Conflict arises when the data seems to be telling us one thing, while our religion tells us that another thing has occurred. In Christianity, this is most obvious in things like the resurrection of the dead, the age of the earth, and miraculous healings, and the fore-telling of the future.

Here is how the conflict generally begins. For example, let us take the idea of the age of the earth as our example. If we take Moses seriously in Genesis chapter one, then God created this universe in the span of six days. He wrote, "And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were day one" (Gen. 1:3-5). He put in evening and morning, and he called it day one. Pretty hard not to follow Moses' thinking.

It is scientifically ridiculous to believe that this is possible. This act of creation cannot be duplicated, it cannot be verified as to how it happened, and everything in science indicates that the universe must be billions or trillions of years old, not mere thousands as the Genesis account seems to indicate. If the universe were only thousands of years old, we wouldn't be able to see the stars because the light wouldn't have even reached earth yet! So how is the Christian to reconcile these things.

One thing to do is to punt Genesis One as allegory or poetry. The problem is that everyone knows that this is cheating. Genesis one wasn't written as allegory and it doesn't conform to Hebrew poetry. Moses was writing simple prose, and he was quite serious. Punting is an option for a Christian, but it isn't a very brave or thoughtful one. Much of what the Christian faith teaches is just as scientifically absurd as creation ex nihilo, not least of all the idea that Jesus is fully God, fully man, and that he died, stayed dead for three days, and then resurrected himself. Oh yes, and Jesus did all of this 2,000 years ago in order to save people from the eternal consequences that adultery brings. So really, Christians shouldn't wuss out on Genesis One because they haven't thought through their authority structures with regard to truth, too much is at stake.

If a Christian does go ahead and own Genesis one, then the modern world will look at them incredulously. They seem to be denying the obvious: the universe is 'old', not new. This is, in the end, an appeal to authority, and science is a good authority. It is observable, and it is testable, and it works. It works almost every time.

We can use science to fight disease, determine age, and make a multitude of discoveries about the universe and everything in it. But something God does something unusual, like instantly eradicating cancer, raising someone from the dead, or create an entire universe out of nothing. This is where science will fail. It simply cannot be used to test the veracity of a miracle; it cannot prove a miracle has occurred.

Herein lies the dilemma of the scientist or naturalistic man. The religious man has to decide if he wants to punt on Genesis for the sake of science. The naturalist has to decide if he wants to punt miracles, and ultimately the existence of God, so that science can be his supreme authority.

I do not write about these things merely to convince the naturalist to believe the Bible. I write these things so that both Christians and scientists can understand what is at stake when they discuss these things. This is about miracles, God, and science. The Christian can live with all three. The naturalist cannot.

The Good Death

2011-06-28T09:45:00.005-04:00

Death is a strange and morbid topic. At least, many consider it to be so. Myself, I think about dying almost every day. It comes with my vocation. I know many people, and because of this, I go to many funerals. Everyone dies. You will die. I am going to die. I think about this every time I speak at a funeral or simply attend the funeral of an acquaintance or a loved one.

I have never been to a funeral where the actual death of the person is not discussed. It would be absurd if it weren't. Sometimes, it is quietly discussed when the means of death is dishonorable. Yet, hushed or open, the means of death is discussed. It does not matter if it is suicide or cancer, accident or old age, sudden or foreseen. The manner of death is always discussed. Quite often, this is followed by a judgment on whether or not this is a good way to go, and personal preferences on the method of death are discussed. The general consensus seems to be that most people want to die suddenly with as little foresight as possible. Dropping dead instantly of a heart attack or dying in one's sleep is the means of choice.

I do not want to go out like that, though I confess I have no choice in the matter. I hope that I have a window of time that I might see the approach of the inevitable. I would like, if at all possible, a time of reflection before I die. After all, I am spending every day of my life preparing for my demise. Dying will be a big day for me. I do not look at death as a dread, though I admit I do not look forward to the pain involved, I do not dread the actual being dead part.

You may find me hopelessly morbid, but I do daydream about dying from time to time. There are several constants in my daydream. My wife is always there, because I hope that she will outlive me. This is very important to me because when I die, I want to die faithful to her. I want her to be there without regret, and I want the vows that bound us so many years before to be more meaningful and beautiful on that day than on the day we made them. I want for her to feel and know that she has been loved. I want her to know that each day I had with her has been to me the highest of all of my privileges here in this life.

My children are also there. Every day, I pray that my heavenly Father will make me a good father to my children, that they will know that I love them, and that they will feel treasured by me. I want them to know that being their father has been the highest privilege I have had in this life.

This may cause the reader a bit of confusion since I just wrote that I want my wife to know that being her husband has been my greatest privilege. Reflection upon death and life and love has led me to realize many things that confuse others but do not bother me in the slightest. I believe in a Triune God who is One Being in Three Persons. I adore each person of the Trinity as the only True God. It is no great stretch for me to suppose then that I have more than one greatest privilege in life. I love more than one person "the most". I cannot divide the substance of the love I have for my wife and my children and my friends, it is the same and yet different. Perhaps I cannot explain this to anyone else in a way that will satisfy, but in my heart I know the truth of it.

This brings me to another constant: my friends. I have some friends that I have known and loved for most of my life. May they all outlive me and exceed me! In my dreams, they are there as well. They are there in my deathly daydream because they will know that I have loved them and they have loved me for it. They will be there because they will know that I have counted their friendship as the highest privilege in my life here.

My daydream ends with me surrounded by those who I have loved so much that they cannot deny that they have been loved by me. This is what it means for me to live each day as if it would be my last. If I could only die this way, then I could fly to my Savior unashamed. He is the one who bound me to all of these by the cords of love, and this is the only and greatest burden that He ever put on me as his servant. He has commanded me to love, and he is teaching me to do it. I hope that I will be found faithful until that day comes, and I pray that I will live each day with dying in mind so that I might live well until I do.

Lamentations

2011-06-17T10:01:00.003-04:00

Jeremiah sat in the dust of a city in its death throes. The streets, once packed with people and activity, were now mostly silent. The stillness only being broken by the occasional wail of grief or agony, the garbled cries of the dying for the dead. The smell of the market place, once rich with the smell of fruits, spices, and bread, now bore only the stench of rot.

"Young and old lie on the ground in the streets; my young women and my young men have fallen by the sword; You have slain them in the day of your anger, you have slaughtered and not pitied." The corpses of his people littered the streets like refuse. Jeremiah had to cover his face for the smell of them and gather his robes to step over them. He saw them, like skin and bones, dead by the sword, by hunger, and by disease. He said the Yahweh had done this. His God whom he served had slain his own people. God had given their bodies to the birds.

"You summoned as if to a festival day my terrors on every side, and on the day of the anger of the LORD no one escaped or survived; those whom I held and raised my enemy destroyed." Jeremiah saw his friends die. He saw them perish by the sword in the streets; he saw them die desperately in their homes of hunger; he watched them waste of disease and die in their own filth with no one to help. God invited him to survey the slaughter, and his God moved his pen to write of the horror he beheld.

"See, O LORD, and consider! To whom have You done this? Should the women eat their offspring, the children they have cuddled?...the hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children; they became their food during the destruction of the daughter of my people." They ate their own children. They boiled them for food. Jeremiah bore witness. "I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of His wrath. He has led me and made me walk in darkness and not in light." God thrust him into the horrors. His God, whom he loved, compelled him into the darkness, into the nightmare of Jerusalem, to see the gaping mouths of the dead. The disfigured forms of the starved and maimed, eyes transfixed in horror. The Lord made him look, see, and write.

Such sights might drive a man insane, but this man Jeremiah recorded what he saw in a poem. It is called the Lamentations. He wrote it under the inspiration of the God who brought the slaughter. God did this for at least two reasons. One is for you and me. That we may see the just recompense for wickedness, and the hellish consequences of a life lived in abandonment of God. Secondly, he writes that we may read this, "The LORD is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul who seeks Him. It is good that one should hope and wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD...Let him sit alone and keep silent, because God has laid it on him; let him put his mouth in the dust---there may yet be hope. Let him give his cheek to the one who strikes him, and be full of reproach."

Christian, have you read the Lamentations and pondered upon the terror that God brought upon Israel? For what? It is very important that you ask yourself this question, lest you get swept up into the hysteria of this age and forget what is important. God did not judge Israel for running up a national deficit. God crushed his beloved, his own garden, because the men were not faithful to the wives of their youth, because they were swindlers and cheats, because they exploited the poor, because they perverted justice for a bribe, and because they pursued their own lusts with abandon. And why did they do these things? They did them because they did not love God with all their heart, he who is lovely above all things, and because they chose a lesser glory, they became objects of contempt.

Behold the end of a people who claimed a form of godliness and denied the power thereof. Behold the end of a people who pay lip service to God, but are inwardly ravenous wolves. Read the Lamentations, and then pray that God would drive the idols that you pursue far from you.

Where There is no Sin, There is no Forgiveness

2011-06-15T10:14:00.006-04:00

I wonder, when was the last time you saw the word 'sin' in the newspaper. I think that it is exceedingly rare to see that word in print. Have you noticed that? Think of the most recent scandals in the political world. Has anyone said that the former governor of California sinned? The recent texting/twitter scandal in Congress has moved many to call for the offending politician's resignation. But has anyone said that he sinned against his wife or the American people?

This is not a rant about the media not knowing about the difference between right and wrong or good and evil. The actions of these particular men have been fairly well condemned by all, or at least they have been ridiculed. I'm not trying to make the point that their behavior has been deemed acceptable by the lack of the use of the word "sin". I want, instead, to point out something else.

The reason, I suppose, that we are loathe to use the word 'sin' is because sin is a religious word. Perhaps it is too closely tied in with the idea of an offended deity, and as such, it is unpalatable to the mainstream. Besides, if we can simply use "wrong" or "irresponsible" or "moral failure" to communicate the same idea with the heavy religious baggage, isn't that sufficient?

I confess that the word sin is a loaded word. It does conjure up the idea of an offended deity or an objective moral standard. This type of standard is, seemingly, more and more passe in our society. But with the death of the concept of sin, it seems to me that the ideas of repentance and forgiveness are also falling by the wayside.

Part of this, I admit, comes from the fact that most folks seem hardly repentant. Further, public apologies seem contrived in order to save face or maintain political position. I get that. But still, I have this nagging feeling that as we lose our ability to call things 'sin', we may be, by accident, losing our ability to forgive sin as well.

If we have a society that does not believe in sin, that does not believe in an objective moral standard, then we may also come to live in a society that cannot find a place for absolution. Think for a moment about that governor and that congressman. What can they do to find absolution? Public apology? That certainly will be received with much seriousness. And what of their wives? If they decide to forgive their spouse, how can they do such a thing and not look like a weakling?

If there is no God, then there is no sin. There is simply stupid behavior that gets you fired and kills your marriage. But if there is a God, and there is sin, then there is also the chance for absolution for the sinner and the sinned against. If God is real, then He knows about everyone's sin. He knows what you've done in your house, in your bedroom, and in your mind. He knows where you've gone on your computer, and He knows what has motivated your actions. And God has offered to every sinner absolution through Christ. Someone who believes this knows what it means to be forgiven of sin and what it means to be genuinely changed by forgiveness. It can make them strong enough even to forgive. Strong like Christ Jesus, who stooped to wear a thorny crown in order to win our absolution.

I fear that a society that loses its grip on what sin is will ultimately lose its grip on compassion and forgiveness. Where there is no sin, there is no forgiveness. I fear that such a society will spiral into a sort of cynicism that will cause it to be unable to trust any public figure. Is this what we are coming to? Are we already there?

I'm not saying that the former governor or the current congressman is truly repentant. I am saying that they have both sinned. They sinned against their wives, their families, and Almighty God. Therapy cannot fix this, and neither can resignation. But I also want them to know that there is a place for the sinner to find forgiveness, and I want their spouses to know that real forgiveness is borne out of might, not weakness. It takes courage to forgive, and it takes faith. This courage and faith can only come from one who has himself or herself already experienced the power of the forgiveness of sin.

The former governor and the congressman and their families have already experienced the power of sin, whether they would call it that or not. I pray, and I truly hope, that they may also find out about the power of grace and forgiveness through Christ.

What is Our Major Malfunction?

2011-06-13T11:34:00.003-04:00

One of the major aspects of pastoral ministry is the ministry of counseling. Unfortunately, for many the idea of counseling conjures up a sort of session where one fellow is on a couch talking about his problems and another fellow listening, nodding at the appropriate times, and jotting down notes that, undoubtedly, will lead to a cure for the patient's problems.

This brings us to the second problem of the view of counseling, that is the idea that someone who seeks out help is a 'patient'. By that, I mean the idea that because someone perceives that someone is wrong with them, or wrong in their life, and that this problem is perhaps beyond their fixing without help, makes them weak, a patient, or someone who needs special treatment.

Both of these things are at least partially true. A good deal of pastoral counseling is one on one, it does involve careful listening, and it does include taking note of what is being said. Secondly, it is true that someone being counseled needs help. The problem is that we fail to recognize that everyone needs help, including the counselor. No one is above human weakness, and by weakness I mean the effects of sin. We are all sinning and being sinned against, we live in a world that is contaminated by the fall of man, and so everyone needs counseling. Every single person needs help. Including me. Perhaps especially me!

This is precisely why Christ instituted the church. We are not meant to go it alone. We are, by nature, covenant creatures meant to live in community with one another. It is through community that real change can take place, and by change I do not mean simple shift in behavior. I mean real sanctification, or progress in godliness. Change takes place by conviction from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit works through the fellowship of the church, teaching from the Scripture, and the accountability that friendship brings within in the Christian community.

Where do our major malfunctions come from? Are they mainly biological? That is, are some people melancholy by nature because of their genes? Are some people predisposed to certain behaviors because of DNA? Or, are we a product of our environment? That is, do we behave in certain ways because of how our parents raised us? Or because they abandoned us? Over-protected us? Under-protected us? If the answer is yes, then how can the church help with these things?

I believe that the answer is yes. We are a product of our DNA, and we are products of our environment. I think that we also have a host of issues that are our own making that cannot be linked to DNA or parenting. However, none of these things give us an "out". That is, we are still responsible for our actions. Because of the fall, we have inherited spiritual, mental, and physical infirmities. The ultimate cure for these things is found in Jesus Christ who has come to restore all things; he himself is the wonderful counselor.

So what is our major malfunction? We are sinners, surrounded by sinners, in a world where sin permeates everything. How are we able to overcome this? By the applied counsel of God's Word and by following Jesus as the center of the universe. When we do this, in the context of a healthy church community, God re-orients the desires of our heart, unmasks our selfishness, convicts us of our need for change, enables us to change, and teaches us about patience and forgiveness.

What is the Final End? His Glory

2011-06-07T12:03:00.004-04:00

I confess that, once upon a time, I read a bunch of Jonathan Edwards. What is even cooler is that, on occasion, I understood what Jonathan wrote. When I did, it was totally worth the hours of effort I had to put into it. One such work that I understood, mostly, was The End for which God Created the World.

In this work, Edwards observes that every action we take is a means to a calculated end. That is, we always have some goal in mind when we act, some larger purpose. Somehow, each action we take fits into our larger plan that we are attempting to achieve. If we understand the "end goal", be it our own or someone else's, then we will be in a better position to determine who that person really is and what motivates them to act as they do.

For example, let's take something simple act like helping an old lady across the street. Is this a good action? Is it a good deed? What if the boy is helping the lady across the street because he wants to earn a Boy Scout badge for community service? But that badge isn't really his end. He wants to earn the badge because he wants to become an Eagle Scout, and he wants to become an Eagle Scout because it will garner him praise. Also, being an Eagle Scout might help him get into the college he desires, a prestigious college, and a degree there will get him praise as well. This boy, then, has helped the lady across the street because he desires praise.

My intention here is not judge this particular boy, it is only to make a point. That point is that everything we do is motivated by a goal, whether we are directly conscious of that goal or not. God, too, has a goal. That is what Edward's book is about. He is exploring the end for which God created the world. His conclusion is very, very important for us if he is correct. Here is Edwards' conclusion: God created the world, and everything in it, in order to glorify Himself.

God, then, created the world, we might say the universe, for Himself. God wanted to display his glory. That means that we are only a means to an end, not the end itself. The universe, if Edwards is correct, is not about you and me. It is about God. Salvation is also not about us, our salvation is also a means to God's end. That is, salvation is about glorifying God. We are not the center of God's universe. God is the center of God's universe. We are a means to an end, and that end is to display the awesomeness of God. That is God's end. To put it jarringly, God's plan is to show off.

I believe that Edwards' thesis is solidly confirmed in Scripture. We know that the Father's plan is to unite all things under His Son, Jesus Christ. As Paul puts it, in Christ God is "making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth" (Eph. 1:9-10). God the Father's end is to unite all things in Christ, to the praise of His glory.

For his part, the Son seeks to glorify the Father. That is his chief end. The Son seeks to glorify the Father through the very act that the Father brings glory to the Son. Nowhere are their "ends" clearer than in Philippians 2:9-11, "Therefore God (the Father) has highly exalted him (the Son) and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." See that? God the Father exalts God the Son who turns the glory to God the Father who continually turns every eye to His Son. And what does the Holy Spirit do? He joins the Father and the Son in their pursuit. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is not glorified? Certainly not, for as the Father and Son are glorified, so is the Holy Spirit because, in the end, they are all One.

That means that salvation, evangelism, the church, our children, and everything else in all of creation is moving towards one all-encompassing end: the exaltation of God Almighty. Our privilege lies, not in that we are indispensable as the chief end, but in the fact that we are privileged to get to see God's glory. This is the essence of eternal life. Jesus said it like this, "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3). This is what eternal life is: to know the glory of God.

The good news is, as many have said before, that God's self-revelation of His own awesomeness is a very, very good thing. It is something that will keep us eternally satisfied and happy, and it is so wonderful that it will blow to smithereens any idols we have crafted and coveted here on earth.

Find...and Fulfill your Destiny

2011-06-06T12:01:00.004-04:00

This is a short regarding the foreknowledge of God. In general, I do not think that Christians have thought very deeply about the implications of God's exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events and how that might relate to their own personal freedom and autonomy. Sometimes, it's fun to think about something that has the potential to blow your mind, so put your thinking cap on and let's think about the omniscience of God.

Most of the time, when I talk to people about God's foreknowledge, they generally conceive of it in terms of God's knowledge of events in the future. I get the feeling that people conceive of foreknowledge as a more robust sort of prophecy, that is, God when they think of foreknowledge, they have the idea of God passively watching the future from His armchair in the past. God, from his seat in the past, watches future history unfold as determined by the free will choices of the subjects he has created.

There are several interesting conundrums that arise from this view of foreknowledge. First, it doesn't deal adequately with God's omnipresence. Specifically, that means if God could comfortably watch the future unfold from the past, he would always see himself working in the future because he himself is already in the future. God cannot "passively" watch the future because God is always active in the future. In other words, because God already perfectly knows Himself and how he will "react", and because he already knows where he wants the future to wind up, God cannot simply "look ahead" to see what will happen. The future cannot exist without God, and because God knows God and God exhaustively knows his creation, he must necessarily know the end from the beginning, just as he said he does. This seems to exclude the idea that God is anxiously sitting in his armchair waiting to see what his "free" creatures will do: he already knows.

This puts the idea of human free will in a precarious position. That is, if God is influencing every moment of every day, and if he already exhaustively knows the outcome of every event, and if he is actively guiding the universe to a predetermined outcome, then are we really free at all? In other words, if God wants person A to marry person B, and the outcome of his plan for history hinges on person A to marry person B, and God already foreknows that person A and B will marry, do these people really have a choice in the matter?

This is where the idea of the "two wills of God" comes into play. It is clear that God does not desire men to murder one another. Yet, men murder. So, does God abdicate his will in the matter and allow men to freely murder each other, or does God, though forbidding murder actual plan for men to murder one another. The easiest example of this sort of destiny is the murder of Jesus. Did God will the murder of Jesus or not? On the one hand, He certainly willed the murder of Jesus. He planned the murder of Jesus in order to save men. On the other hand, God found the murder of Jesus repulsive, and He will hold men responsible for this crime.

How is it, then, that God can plan an event, ordain an event, foreknow an event, and actively make certain that an event comes to pass, and then blame men when they execute His plans and call their actions sinful? The apostle Paul felt this tension, which is why he wrote this in Romans 9:19-20, "'Why does (God) still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'"

Some have decided that this is simply absurd. Something has to go. Some have ditched the idea that God can know the free will actions of creatures. That is, free actions are by nature unknowable, therefore God does not know what men will choose in the future. This gets rid of the problem, but it eviscerates the teaching of the Bible. How? Because the Bible demonstrates that God does know the future actions of his creatures, one of those being the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot.

Another place some will go is to embrace destiny to the point that all of our actions are basically meaningless. They believe that since God has already orchestrated every event, then there is no reason for them to try to preach the gospel, or really do anything other than what they fill like doing. Because if they do anything, it must be because God meant them to do it. This is partially true, but partial truths are terribly dangerous. This type of thinking destroys the Bible's teaching on human responsibility. God planned for Joseph to be sold into slavery in order to save his family, but God still condemns the act of his brothers in the selling of Joseph. In other words, they should not have done it, and it is no excuse that they did it because the event was ordained.

Alas, this post is already too long. Maybe tomorrow or the next day I will write a continuation on this thought experiment...if the Lord wills. Feel free to ask questions or pontificate in the comment section.

Your Kung Fu is Weak

2011-06-01T10:59:00.008-04:00

My wife and I have jumped on the latest exercise fad/bandwagon. We just started working out using the P90X videos. These videos promise that in 90 days, if we keep up the work, we will go from an expanding waistline to completely ripped abs and awesomeness. All it takes is dedication on our part, and a lot of rolling about in the floor trying to do one more push-up/sit-up/crunchy frog. Should be fun.

As I was looking at the upcoming exercise videos, I noticed that one of the routines is called "Kempo". I imagine that this is a sort of kick-boxing type of training akin to the now out-dated Billy Blanks Tae Bo videos. That is, we'll be jumping around acting like we are doing martial arts, but instead of actually training to fight people, we'll only be fighting the battle of the bulge.

The thought of my wife and I jumping around in the living room doing karate kicks after we put the kids in the bed is a rather funny thought for me. It also makes me laugh to think that karate, which was invented to help people defend themselves, has now been re-invented to help us keep from getting fat. As I was musing upon our upcoming karate exercise night, I thought about how ridiculous it would be for me to start thinking that because I had done a bunch of Billy Blanks Tae Bo and now P90X Kempo, I was now a deadly martial artist. Can you imagine how silly that is?

Reality would soon settle in if I ever tried to test out my battle prowess I've learned on exercise videos in a ring against a real opponent. The wise words of Mike Tyson come to mind, "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." As humorous as these thoughts are, it suddenly occurred to me that this is exactly how many Christians treat their study of the Bible.

What I mean is that many Christians spend all of their time with other Christians. They have never really been around non-Christians,and they have never had any of their views challenged philosophically or theologically. The extent of their arguing has been when they are talking about other religions with other Christians. It's easy to prove how silly atheistic beliefs are when you are talking to another Christian. If a Christian is never really challenged, they wind up like the guy exercising to a Tae Bo video. They start to feel like they are strong, like they have pretty good kicks and punches, and therefore they must be a fairly deadly fighter. And then, an atheist or agnostic or Muslim or Jehovah's Witness or college professor punches them, theologically of course, right in the mouth.

It's not just heresy that will catch such a Christian off-guard, but also life in general. Tae Bo Christianity is unprepared for death, tragedy, tornadoes, infidelity, and grief. Life punches you in the mouth, and all the comfortable cliches in the world can't stop the bleeding. Some lose their faith completely because they are so devastated by the onslaught that they imagined they were prepared for.

So how do we keep ourselves from becoming Tae Bo Christians? We must actually challenge one another. If we are all a bunch of Daniel LaRusso's, then we need some Mr. Miyagi's to help us see the light. That is, wax on/wax off might really help us, but we are going to need Mr. Miyagi to throw a few punches our way so we can realize we are able to defend ourselves.

The lesson is that we, as Christians, need to challenge one another, no holds barred. We have to ask questions like these: How do you know that God is Sovereign? What does it mean for man to be depraved? How can you know that there is a God? What makes you so sure that Jesus rose from the dead? How do you reconcile the theory of evolution to the Bible's teaching of creation? What happens to babies when they die? And once we have asked these questions, we must not be satisfied until they are Biblically, rationally, and soundly answered. If not, somebody out there is going to punch us in the face, and the result is not going to be very pretty. If our Kung Fu is weak, we want to know about it before we meet the crazy guy with the knife, right?

Eternity in Our Hearts

2011-05-27T11:20:00.003-04:00

Where do dreams come from? What is fantasy? Everyone wishes that they were someone else, a better someone, a more powerful someone. This is part of the reason we read books, play games, and day-dream at the office. We have dreams for our children. We want them to live out dreams that we have had, experience things of which we were capable but missed along the way out of folly or cowardice. This is why fathers scream at little boys playing t-ball.

What do these things have to do with eternity? Before we can answer that, or think about that, we have to first wonder what an eternity is. Do you think that eternity is simply time extended to infinity? When Solomon wrote, "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end" (Ecclesiastes 3:11), did he simply mean that man has the ability to think about time extended to infinity?

I think it could be the case that dreams are born from the eternity placed in our hearts. Eternity is not merely time extended into infinity. It is a place where death is no longer allowed to hunt us. When death is banished, and where youth is eternal, dreams can flourish and come true.

Solomon says that eternity is set in our hearts, yet in a way that we cannot find out what God has done and what he is going to do. The eternity we have in our hearts is put there to make us stretch out, to dream, to grasp what could have been, what should have been, and what might be. Our dreams and hopes are stirred by an eternal longing for something better: for ourselves, for our children, and for our friends.

The whisper of eternity blows through our dreams. We dream of being stronger, smarter, and more attractive. We want to be a hero. We want to slay the dragon. We want to be admired. We want this for our children. The love that we have for them is a desperate kind of love, and this too is born from eternity.

The naturalist may say that we are only evolved protozoa, but when love springs to life and bonds them to a child, they will fight and die for their dreams for their children. Is this mere chemical, evolutionary bonding? Or is it that innate whispering that only the parent of the child really hears, that whisper that affirms that this child is special, not simply because he is yours, but because he simply is. Every parent knows that his child is special, that his child is the best, this is not mere conceit: it is the gift of eternity, the gift of significance, the fragrance of love on the wind of eternity that promises more than we now see and hear.

Some day, when death is gone, we will have time to become what we should be. God has not withheld His plan from us because He is cruel; He has withheld it so we may dream dreams that only eternity can deliver (1 Corinthians 2:6-10).

The Folly of Works Based Righteousness

2011-05-25T15:33:00.003-04:00

One of the best rebukes I ever received came from a beloved friend and former Marine. He and I were shopping at K-Mart and, amongst the other assorted goodies that I had come to buy, I purchased an extension cord. As I checked out, I had the feeling that something wasn't quite right. It seemed that I was getting out of there just a bit too cheaply. As I walked towards the car, I examined the contents of my bag versus the receipt I had received. Sure enough, the clerk did not charge me for the extension cord.

I hurried myself back into the store and told the cashier that they had forgotten to charge me for the cord, and I asked to pay for it. The clerk shrugged, and acted like I was being a bother. I should have accepted my good fortune and moved on. I could not do that, I explained, as that would be stealing.

I got back to the vehicle after the exchange, and my friend asked me what had taken so long. Quite proud of myself, I quickly explained how I had to return to pay for the extension cord, despite the protest of the clerk. He looked at me with a bit of disdain and said, "Well, don't get proud of it. You only did what you should have done." I was a bit ruffled. I was seeking praise for a good deed, not a rebuke for pride.

Of course, the problem is that he was exactly right. I only did what I should have done. A person does not deserve praise for doing what is required. This is how people, even Christians, misunderstand the law of God. We know that God says that we should not steal, or covet, or cheat on our spouse, or lie. We congratulate ourselves when we avoid these no-no's, and we think that we have accomplished something. Such self-righteous congratulation is the ultimate proof of our moral stupidity.

God has other laws in the Bible. For example, God tells his people not to have sex with animals, or one's mother, or one's sister. I do not know anyone, thankfully, who comes to the end of the day and writes in their journal, "Dear journal, I was exceptionally righteous today. I did not lay with a goat, my sister, my brother, or any other relative."

I know that these are extreme and somewhat offensive examples for our tastes. So let us return to the easier commands. How about not lying and stealing? Should a man have to be told not to lie or steal? And if he refrains himself from lying and stealing, does he deserve a congratulations? If a man refrains from beating his wife, should we pat him on the back?

The innate desire to turn the law of God into a check list for righteousness is why we have such trouble understanding Jesus' sermon on the mount in Matthew 5. Jesus tells us there that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Then he informs us that not only should we not murder, but if you call your brother a fool you are in danger of hell. He goes on to say that committing adultery isn't just bad, it is bad when you lust after a woman with lustful intent. Jesus is saying that the law isn't a checklist, it is a principle. The law is given to show us what we should be like, and the fact that we have contrary desires indicates that something is wrong with us.

All the law of God flows from two principles: Love God; love your neighbor. Any violation of God's law comes because our love of God and neighbor is defective. So if a man refrains from adultery, thievery, and lying...big deal! He's only doing what a man ought to do. If every man agrees that these things are wrong, then refraining from them does not merit reward. And if everyman agrees with these things in principle, what shall become of the man who violates them?

This is why the law kills but cannot heal. This is why salvation from sin, which is what we call law-breaking, must come from somewhere other than the simple resolve to keep laws everyone regularly breaks.

The Scandal of Christianity

2011-05-24T10:55:00.004-04:00

Harold Camping is right about at least one thing: according to the Scriptures, Jesus is going to return again. I hate to have to agree with someone who so recently made an utter fool of himself and harmed many through his false teachings, but let us be sure to put the scandal in perspective and in the right place.

The scandalous teaching of Harold Camping is that, among other things, he believed/believes that he can tell us what day Jesus is returning. This is plainly un-biblical, as it has been pointed out many times, Jesus said, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Matthew 24:36). That should have been enough to end the prediction and the hub-bub surrounding Camping's harmful teaching.

Having said that, let us be careful in our observation of what is being ridiculed. It isn't simply that Camping put a date to the "rapture", it is the fact that Christians believe that a God-man is going to "come down from the sky" and "lift the faithful into the sky to be with him." How ridiculous does that sound? What is more ridiculous to an unbeliever? That Camping put a date to our heavenly flight, or that we believe a God-man is going to come to save the faithful by rapturing them before he tosses fire onto the heads of the infidel?

I am writing as I would think a non-Christian might phrase our apparently absurd beliefs. We do believe this, right? After all, Paul wrote, "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). We believe that dead people are going to come out of the grave, and that Christians will fly into the air to meet the God-man as he descends from that other-worldly place called heaven. Do you see, dear Christian, why atheists think we are totally insane and/or extremely gullible?

Let's give them more ammo, shall we? We believe that God created the world, out of nothing, in six days. At least, that is what Genesis One seems to plainly say without linguistic manipulation that would make a politician proud. We also believe in a global, world-wide flood, that a guy named Noah packed all the animals on the ark two-by-two, that Israel walked across the Red Sea as the waters parted, and that the man named Jesus of Nazareth died substitutionally for our sins on a cross and then came back from the dead three days later.

So yes, Harold Camping is a false teacher to be soundly denounced. However, Christianity is very much at odds with a naturalistic, evolutionary world-view. We are a people who believe in the super-natural and in miracles. We believe in a God-man. We believe in good and evil and an objective morality. To those outside the faith, this would be laughable if it weren't so serious. And sometimes, they laugh anyway. Peter wrote that they would say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation" (2 Peter 3:4).

I am not writing these things in order to ridicule people who do not believe in Christianity. I am writing this for Christians who have grown comfortable in their beliefs because they have surrounded themselves with people who think like they do. Christianity is radical, and it looks like madness to those outside the faith. We ought to know that, and we ought to be able to explain why Christianity actually explains the universe better than closed naturalism does. If we do not understand the challenges we face, then we certainly will not be equipped to meet the challenge.

So think about the scandal of Christianity, Christian, and prepare yourself to make a reasonable defense of the hope that you have.

John Jay Study Reveals Why Priests Abused Boys

2011-05-18T11:27:00.008-04:00

The Roman Catholic Church commissioned a study to find out why some priests sexually abused young boys in their pastoral care. There are so many things that one could say in observation to this. First, I find it fascinating that when it comes to sin, any form of sin, the "church" would have to commission an outside study to figure out why it is happening. Seriously?

But even more jaw-dropping than this is the conclusion the study came to. Here it is...are you ready? I quote:

The study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York instead said that the problem was largely the result of poor seminary training and insufficient emotional support for men ordained in the 1940s and 1950s, who were not able to withstand the social upheaval they confronted as pastors in the 1960's

Ahh..the social upheaval of the 1960's caught the church unprepared to deal with pedophiles and sexual perverts. I had no idea that this was something that only occurred in the 1960's. The Roman Catholic Church, who boasts that she is the only true church on earth, has not experienced anything that would prepare her to deal with this type of thing.

I want to address the notion that clerical celebacy had nothing to do with priests molesting children. I admit that when I was single, I believe child molestation to be a heinous crime, and that my celebacy never, ever led me to think about molesting a child. But this study isn't simply about the fact that singleness does not necessarily lead to pedophilia. It is a statement about how it was handled.

I said that I thought child molestation was heinous when I was single. Now, I am a father of two children. It makes a difference. A man who has children does not need a study to figure out how to deal with a pervert who is preying on children. A father of two does not have to call his superiors and have a hand-wringing session over what to do with with a pervert who is molesting children in his care. A father of two does not need to have "seminary training" to learn how to be careful enough to spot a person who stalks the young. When a pervert is discovered, a father of two does not need a study to determine if this is caused by same-sex attraction or celebacy.

This crime has been perpetrated in all religions, and it has been committed in homes by trusted friends and loved ones. The church ought to have the answer as to why this happens. The church ought to know better. The church is a place of refuge from this wicked world. If the church is having to commission studies on why this is happening, she might as well just start putting on pipe organ shows and bring in the dancing monkeys.

This study is a farce and a shame. I am sorry that it has come to this.

Stephen Hawking is a Computer

2011-05-16T10:51:00.005-04:00

At least, I am deluded, according to Stephen Hawking. If you are interested in a philosophical discussion of existence and purpose, you should go and read this brief interview of the renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking. I want to look at a few quotes in that article as food for thought, to see if people really want to go down the road that Hawking goes down.

In 2010, Hawking said, in essence, that science will win out over religion because science works. Ponder that for a moment. First, it is clear that Hawking believes that science and religion in general are at odds with one another. What is the conflict that he perceives? That religion cannot cure cancer or diabetes? That religion cannot explain the origins of life as well as science? The problem, as I see it, is Hawking is trying to do with science what it cannot possibly do, and that is science cannot lay the foundation for its own work.

Here is what I mean by that. Why do we have medicine? Medicine is a science. New medications are made by meticulous scientific research and study. Surely, there is hardly anything religious about studying protein chains, control groups, and chemical reactions at the cellular level, is there? Christianity cannot possibly hope to help us with how it is that the drug in Nexium might help with H. pylori bacteria that cause peptic ulcers, can it?

It certainly can and does. The reason that people study medicine is because they see an intrinsic value in life. Christians stayed behind to tend to plague victims because they believed that man's dignity rested in his being made in God's image. So Christians founded hospitals and began to research treatments because they believed in God. Religion was the foundation for the science of medical study.

It cannot be denied that much research in science is now motivated, perhaps, by greed over the concern for the sick. That is, the dollar drives science, not a benevolence born from the belief that God's image resides in man. I will grant that. However, if you want to say that pursuing medical cures for greedy gain is bad, then you are right back into religion again, aren't you? Consider another quote from Hawking,

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

The human being, in Hawking's man, is a product of chance. If human beings are really only like computers, then how can we accuse men of greed? Do you think that your computer is greedy? Isn't "greed" just a survival concept made up by the weak to keep the strong from getting their stuff?

Consider this quote, I think it is the most mind-boggling of anything that Hawking says, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going." Hmmm...so, the eternal law of gravity existed when there was nothing? Does that sound like science to you? How can something come from absolutely nothing? What was making the gravity in "space"? Isn't space something rather than nothing? Is this any more believable than invoking God?

This is precisely why Hawking thinks that science and religion are in conflict. Science is Hawking's religion. It is his god. Hawking sounds like a television, flim-flam evangelist trying to get us to align ourselves with his personal religion. He says, "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." See! The reason that people are religious is because they are afraid of the dark! If we were brave, we would embrace the nihilism that consumes everything.

The problem is that we don't embrace religion just because we are afraid of the dark. We embrace Jesus Christ because darkness exists. Evil is real. The fact that there is a God and a judgment does not make us cowards. It can, however, give us a reason to be a scientist, something that Hawking's religion utterly fails to do.

King Solomon on Facebook and Twitter

2011-05-12T10:36:00.000-04:00

Social media is both a blessing and curse. The advent of Facebook, Twitter, and the rise of blogging has led to much happiness for me and for others. I have been able to share my thoughts with friends, reconnect with old buddies, and look at pictures of their families. I have greatly enjoyed writing on my blog, receiving feedback from others, and I have a hard time imagining life without email.

But as with all technology, there are draw backs. After all, a glass bottle can be used to hold Coca-Cola or to knock a man in the head. A person that uses a knife must take care lest they cut themselves with it. So while social media are useful for relationships and education, they can also be a source of pain.

I have read stories of people who have lost their jobs due to posts on the internet about how they hate their jobs or co-workers. I have known of relationships damaged by a careless 'tweet' or Facebook update. While it should be obvious that we ought to be wise in what we put up for the world to see, the fact is that no one is always wise.

Consider then, this word from Solomon, "Do not take to heart all the things that people say, lest you hear your servant cursing you. Your heart knows that many times you have yourself cursed others" (Ecclesiastes 7:21-22). Many employers need to take this to heart, as do the owners of professional sports teams, and the head coaches of football programs.

If you are a person who has authority over others, and if you decide to "friend" or "follow" those over whom you have authority, then go into that knowing that you may be insulted by them. This is part of the folly of being human. We say things in moments of frustration that we regret. We all talk about aspects of our job that we hate or things about co-workers that annoy us. Mostly, we do this behind the back of others. But we do not always intend harm of it, and we rarely weigh the consequences of our words in such matters. Social media makes this type of foolish talk much easier to be "overheard."

So what should employers do when they look on Facebook and see a worker talking about how bad their job stinks or how cruel their boss is? Solomon says, "Ignore it, dude. You do the same thing." Consider this, "Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense" (Proverbs 19:11). Let it go. I roll my eyes when I hear of cases where student-athletes are banned from twitter over an insult to the coach, or when an employee is fired by griping about a surly boss.

What if the insult is grievous or harmful to the company or team morale? Then a visit, a personal visit might be in order. Sit down with the offender and say, "Look friend/employee/student, I know you are frustrated, but be wise with your words. They can hurt others. I saw what you put up on Facebook. I understand what you wrote, but remember that you represent others before you tweet or update your status, okay?"

Wouldn't everyone want a boss/friend/coach like that? So strive to be that person. Overlook offense, and remember that others are human, just like you.

Osama bin Laden: Justice Served?

2011-05-10T09:20:00.004-04:00

There are several things that I would like to say about the death of Osama Bin Laden. I have found the reaction of the public to be interesting and even a bit upsetting at times. I also find in my own heart that there is a tension to how I actually feel about his death and how I think I should feel about his death.

I have read, many times, that a Christian should not rejoice over the death of the wicked, in this case Osama Bin Laden, but rather we should rejoice that justice has been done. I want to question part of that statement. I question whether or not justice was done by shooting Bin Laden in the head.

Christians ought to be wiser when they speak about things like this. Surely, the mere death of this wicked man did not bring true justice. This man is responsible for the murders of thousands of people, and he was a catalyst for war, bigotry, and hate all over the globe. His nefarious plans put the entire Western world under a blanket of fear that has covered all, including Muslims. His death rectified none of this.

The reason that Christians ought to be wise when they speak of 'justice' is because, when they speak of it, they mean something different than the culture at large. At least, in the Christian idea of justice, there is much more packed into that concept than 'ceasing to exist'. Christians believe in a judgment. We believe that every man must give an account before his Maker for all the works that he has done, and that at this judgment, justice will be served.

For someone who is agnostic, atheist, or simply undecided, this is an avenue of thought that they might consider exploring if Christians were educated enough to speak of it. If there is no God, then there is no judgment. Thus, true justice is unobtainable. Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say that, tomorrow, as I leave the office, a masked man demands my wallet at gun point. Out of fear for my life, I hand over my wallet. Unsatisfied with the wallet, the robber decides to beat me and leave me for dead. In the end, I recover and the criminal is caught. He is forced by the justice system to repay me seven-fold for what he took, and he even apologizes for the incident. Is justice served? Who decides? Is justice really served when I still get panic attacks when I leave the office, or when I am approached by a stranger? Can true justice take that away? How much more unsatisfactory is 'justice' when I murderer is simply put to death? Does that really make the families of murder victims feels that real justice is served?

Justice was not served when Osama bin Laden was shot to death. If we are not careful, we put government in the place of God when we say this. The government is ordained of God to maintain order and to meet out justice, as we know it, here in this world. But government is only a servant of God. Government, in the case of bin Laden, served as a sort of bailiff that ushered him into the presence of the only Judge who can actually dispense justice. For now, bin Laden is awaiting that final judgment. Rest assured, his wait is not pleasant, but the final verdict yet remains.

So Christian, as you think about the death of wicked men and about the concept of justice, be careful how you speak. Do not attribute final justice to the barrel of a gun, but rather, to God alone. The Christian idea of justice is both rich and soul-satisfying, do not miss an opportunity to speak about it to those who may never have heard of it before.

The Selfish Quest for Holiness?

2011-05-04T12:02:00.004-04:00

Is it possible to seek holiness in a selfish way? If one does seek holiness for a totally selfish reason, will it necessarily abort the effort? I want to say that one can certainly seek sanctification for selfish reasons, that was are not sanctified for self only, and that even if we seek holiness for a selfish reason, it may not necessarily ruin the pursuit.

When I say that one is seeking holiness or sanctification, I mean that one is seeking to become more like God would have us be. We often say that someone is "godly", and by that we generally mean that they remind us of what God would have us be, or even that this person reminds us of what we know of God. Sometimes, I believe we think that becoming holy, sanctified, godly, or Christ-like means becoming more like God, and this is true. However, there are ways in which we cannot be like God, and we were never meant to be God at all, but rather servants of God who seek to exalt God.

This is precisely part of the process of becoming holy. It is finding out, by God's grace, the places in our hearts where we are seeking to act like God when we shouldn't, and when we aren't being like God when we should. Then, after becoming painfully aware of our failures in both areas, we seek for God to change us for the better in both categories so that we don't have to try and be godly. That is, we want it to be our natural character.

Here is how we might seek holiness selfishly. A man might, for example, read in the book of Ephesians that a man is to be the head of his wife, and that wives ought to submit to their husbands. Armed with this revelation and determined to be godly, he sets off to become the boss of his house, to wear the pants, and gets busy trying to rule his wife and home. To this end, he might even force his wife to listen to him pray for her, have patronizing "family Bible studies", and generally be a very foolish man in all of his attempts to get her to knuckle under to his manliness. He may become dismayed that his wife seems resistant to his leadership, and even seems to have grown resentful of his person.

Now, this fellow might imagine that his wife is resistant because she is recalcitrant. Or, by God's grace, he may realize that he has been an utter buffoon, has completely botched his attempts to lead in a Christ-like manner, and may heartily seek the Lord's forgiveness and that of his wife. She might even grant it, and Christ certainly will. As he reflects upon his stupid behavior, he may even be sickened by it. His wife, no doubt, will be delighted. He will not be trying at all to quit being a jerk. He is genuinely changed because God, by His grace, has shown him what an idiot he is.

And so, his seeking to be a good leader in his home has resulted in him finally becoming a good leader, even though he began as an imbecile. This epiphany came to me, not only by being an idiot at home, but also through pastoral duties. There was a time when I was impressed with my own self and my gifts of elocution. But as I began to listen to my own sermons, a terrible sense of my own ridiculousness began to overwhelm me. Not only that, people sometimes repeated things I had said, and this frightened me greatly. So, I began to pray that God would somehow, someway, bless me to stop being an idiot preacher, and for the sake of His beloved flock, not for the sake of the jackanape in the pulpit, would he please, please, please bless the sermon that His sheep would live and not die. As for myself, I would be content to die, or landscape, if it meant the growth of his people who He had taught me to love. Then, by God's grace, I think I began to be a better preacher and pastor.

So yes, I am convinced that we often set out to become holy for purely selfish reasons, and we often execute our intentions with fleshly means to our great shame. Yet, God uses it all for our good, and he molds us by our own folly. He does this because, in the end, he is sanctifying us, not for ourselves only, but for Himself and for His glory.

On Suffering and Evil

2011-05-03T10:31:00.005-04:00

In the wake of massive damage and loss of life here in Alabama, I am reminded again of the problem of evil and the problem of suffering. Tornadoes, death, and suffering are a kind of message to all of us, whether we are a Christian or an atheist. They say something about the world in which we live, and if we believe in God they must say something about the God we believe in. Regardless of where we are theologically, disaster and calamity dig deep into our hearts and root up age old questions and quandaries.

There are those, I'm sure, who are convinced atheists due to scientific reason alone. They have been convinced that logic alone should drive everyone to see that there is no God or gods, and that our belief in such is simply what drives us to behave for the propagation of the species. Death by tornado, or famine, or drought, is a random process exactly like the randomness that produced life in the first place. You cannot explain randomness in a big picture way; it simply is. We feel the loss, but even these emotions come from the need to self-preserve. It is natural, and we must cope the best way we know how.

I suspect, however, that at least as many people are atheist and agnostic because of what disaster would imply about a God or a group of gods who would supposedly rule over this world. If there is an omnipotent God who is good, why are children dying of cancer? Why are people starving? From the data, one might well reason that such a God is either not omnipotent or not good. And so goes the old quip about what the atheist really believes, "There is no God, and I hate Him."

I am a convinced Theist, and I believe that there is one God who is both omnipotent and good. I am aware, painfully aware, that there is much suffering in this world. Suffering marks us all. I know that pain and suffering can pull a veil over the eyes with regard to spiritual things, especially regarding an omnipotent God who loves and is good. Pain and suffering are like a stormy night at sea, all stars are obscured, navigation is not possible, and sometimes the best a man can do is batten down the hatches and hope for daylight.

I feel as if unbelief is a kind of blindfold that can ruin a man. It will embitter his soul, and it blinds him from any hope and dooms him to a sort of pessimism that cannot be hidden or squelched. It breeds cynicism. He may be able to see a crack of light from under the veil, just enough to keep his feet moving forward, but it prevents him from seeing that there is, indeed, a real hope and a big picture. This is why, at best, such a man would see me as a naive optimist, or perhaps a weak fool who cannot embrace the reality of this world and so I must embrace fairy tales to survive.

Somehow, it is my prayer that despite the input of pain and suffering, I can patiently, seriously, and steadfastly point to a hope that can bring peace. I am not seeking to give perfect understanding, that is naive. But I am seeking to point to a light in the darkness, a guiding star in the storm.

Some would think it cruel to tell a person who is suffering that God is good, and indeed, it may be presented in such a way. But I think it cruel not to give hope to a man drowning in despair. If there is an empty tomb, if there is a God who resurrects the dead, if there is a God who alone can bring perfect justice, if there is a God who fashioned, formed, and sustains the earth, if there is an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful God who strikes and heals, who brings down and lifts up, who calms the sea and causes it to rage, then I ought to say so. Pain is real, and it is terrible. But the pain that bring darkness can also bring clarity. As the Puritans said, the same sun that melts the ice hardens the clay.

When I encounter suffering, as I am bound to in the next few weeks, I want to start with the grave of Jesus of Nazareth. I don't want to be cliche, I don't want to be Polyanna, I want to be grave yard serious. Is the tomb empty, or isn't it? If it isn't, then I despair and embrace the darkness that must swallow all. But if it is, if that man Jesus really did shake the earth and rise from the grave, then there is a hope that beats back the darkness, and a dawn that calms the storm.

Prayer as a Discipline

2011-04-26T10:31:00.003-04:00

Our prayer lives tell us what kind of people we are. As a disclaimer, I know that nearly every Christian thinks that they should pray more, but we rarely sift our hearts to find out why. We really should discipline ourselves to find out what the problem is so that we may find the cure. Most likely, the sins that keep us from prayer keep us from intimacy with God and others in many different ways.

First, we should admit that we simply do not take the time to pray. Many do not set aside even five mintues a day to purposefully pray. By that, I mean that this amount of time is blocked off only to pray. It doesn't have to be the same time every day, but we ought to have a scheduled time to pray to God. This is not legalism. This is Christianity. We have a duty to pray. We have a mandate to call upon the Lord. We do not pray to ingratiate ourselves to God; we pray because God is gracious to us.

Our inability to set aside a time to pray to God demonstrates that we are lazy at best or that Christianity isn't really that important to us at worst. It certainly means that we do not believe that God answers our prayers. It is evident that if we believed this, we would spend far more time in intercession than we do.

There is almost no human being on earth who cannot block off thirty mintues a day to pray. Perhaps you think that you do not have enough to keep you busy with God for that amount of time. This also demonstrates that we are lazy and that we do not take Christianity very seriously. You could easily spend thirty minutes interceding for your friends at church, by name and request, for thirty minutes a day. If you branch out to pray for missionaries your church supports, you will certainly find enough to keep you busy for thirty minutes. If you plead with God for people you know to be enlightened by the gospel who are now in darkness, you will soon find that thirty minutes is far too short a time to spend in prayer.

If you are not blocking off time to do this great work, you are being a lazy, unfaithful Christian. You are like a guard who falls asleep on duty. You are like an air traffic controller watching movies instead of guiding planes. Get a notebook. Fill it up with requests. Set a time. Fight for your friends through prayer, and dare God to answer. See what He will do if you provoke Him through intercession.

I write this, knowing that my words will be measured against me. May God help me be faithful to pray.

The Bucket List

2011-04-20T11:41:00.005-04:00

Everyone has things that they want to do before they die. Some want to make a lot of money. Some want to be married. Some want to have children, or to see their children marry, or to play with their grandchildren. Some people have a list of places that they would like to see or a list of activities that they would like to do. Everyone has these dreams. It gives us things to look forward to in life.

This is Holy Week. This is the week that led to the death of Jesus Christ. Did Jesus have a bucket list? Did it look typical?

Christians believe that Jesus knew his death was imminent. He had predicted his death for some time, and he knew that he was going into Jerusalem to meet that fate. So how did he live, knowing that he only had a week left on earth?

He spent his time teaching people. He had compassion on the crowds. One event that he looked most forward to in his final week was celebrating the Passover with his friends. He loved them so much that, after supper, he got a basin of water and washed the feet of his friends. During his last night of freedom, Jesus was a servant.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was in anguish in his final days. His soul was sorrowful to the point of death. He knew one of his friends would betray him. He knew he would soon bare the wrath of God. And yet, his concern is again for others, "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me...I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also" (John 14:1, 3). Jesus, though hurting himself, concerns himself with the pain of his friends. He seeks to alleviate their pain and sorrow while he bears his own. In his need, he asks them to pray with him. They sleep, and yet his concern is still for them.

If I were told that I had one week to live, I would like to spend that week as Jesus did. Not in the selfish pursuit of personal gratification, but in the pursuit of serving my friends. I wish that I would spend it telling them it would be alright, or in the words of Jesus, "A little while, and you will see me no longer, and again a little while, and you will see me" (John 16:17). I would spend time with my family and with my friends. I would love nothing more than a simple meal with my most beloved, and I would try to serve them to my last breath. At least, I hope I would do this.

I know that I would want to sit with my son and daughter especially, and tell them that I am going to a place that they cannot go to now. But soon, because of Jesus, they will be able to join me there. All this because Jesus' bucket list was not typical. It was selfless and not selfish. He gave himself to prepare a better place for us, and he will come back again so that we may all be together with him forever.

Holy Week

2011-04-19T16:03:00.003-04:00

This week is a particularly thoughtful time of the year for me. As most people here in the United States know, this Sunday is Easter Sunday, or more appropriately, "Resurrection Sunday". I take the opportunity that this week affords and I think about what Jesus did on each day leading up to his crucifixion and resurrection.

This week reminds me that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is really what Christianity is all about. It is the foundation and touchstone of who I am as a person. If Jesus of Nazareth did not rise from the dead, then my faith and my life are to be pitied.

I wish that people understood this better. I wish that "Christians" understood this better. I wish that folks who weren't Christians saw that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is our motivation for everything that we do. Our belief in the resurrection, and our subsequent allegiance to Jesus, is what determines our votes, our ethics, and our charity.

Everything the Christian does goes back to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and that in this event, God declared him to be both Lord and Christ (Romans 1:4). Even if others disagree with what Christians do, I wish we were better at showing that all of our reasoning goes back to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

This week, I hope that God will keep me focused on this essential and foundational truth of Christianity.

On Burning the Koran, Fear and Insanity

2011-04-14T11:35:00.004-04:00

I am certain that the world is almost entirely insane. The burning of a single Koran in Florida highlights the fact that the world is crazier than any Kafka short-story I had to read in college. Either that, or I am nuts myself.

Let me start out of the gate by saying that the guy in Florida who burnt the Koran is probably an ignorant wretch. He is not exemplary for Christianity, and as far as I can tell, basically his entire congregation has left him. Having said all that, I think he may be the least insane person in this entire fiasco.

First, I think that it is good that he is free to burn a Koran, or a Bible, or whatever "Holy" book he wants. If he bought 5,000 Bibles and burnt them, I seriously doubt it would make the news, and it would at most elicit a shoulder shrug from me and almost every believer I know. It would be somewhat offensive to me, but I realize that he should be free to do that. This is coming from a person who loves the Bible and has dedicated his entire life to teaching it.

So how is it that this guy in Florida who burnt the Koran is the least crazy person in the scenario I'm thinking about? There are three parties I have in mind in this critique:

1. The guy who burnt the Koran.
2. The media that reported it.
3. The Muslims in the Middle East who pillaged, murdered, and caused general mayhem in response to the burning of the Koran.

The media, in this instance, is crazier than the guy who burnt the Koran. I watched an interview with this guy in Florida, and the reporter was livid that this guy had dared to burn a holy book. The interviewer mentioned that the burning of the Koran had caused the deaths of innocent people in the Middle East. But when he mentioned this fact, he did not seem to be at all aggravated at the people actually doing the murdering!

Now here is where things get surreal. Did you know that in 2009, the United States Army burned copies of the Bible? There really is only one reason for this: the people of the United States, including the Army, are terribly frightened of Muslims in the Middle East. They are not, however, frightened of Christians. The fear of reprisal by Muslims has made them set up insane double standards, and it is wreaking havoc on our personal liberties. (TSA, anyone?)

Then we get to the Muslims in the Middle East who are killing people over what the lesser crazy guy in Florida did. Do I even need to point out that these are the nuttiest of all? Does Allah really need for them to protect his honor by burning down shops and killing people if he is omnipotent. Here's a contrast for you: Jesus, the Messiah of Christianity, offered himself to dishonor to save his people. Allah, by contrast, apparently demands a barbarian episode if someone burns his book. Big difference in that, I think.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I don't think we ought to go around burning books. It is uncouth. It is also unhelpful to one's cause. All I am saying is that the media's outrage towards the crazy guy in Florida is out of proportion to the lack of outrage at the insanity that ensued after that book was burned. Finally, the people who kill over burnt book are the craziest of all. Seriously.

Choice and the Fall

2011-04-13T10:51:00.004-04:00

I argued in the last post that freedom of choice cannot be the real marker of freedom. True freedom lies in the ability to act without regret; true freedom lies in the ability to act with the certainty that what one is doing is right and good. In order for this freedom to exist, a man would only have one real "choice" in each and every scenario, wisdom would eliminate all other possibilities.

So then, if freedom is not really found in the choosing, why was Adam given a choice in the garden? Why did God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place? Why did he allow the serpent in the garden? Surely this means that God wanted to give us the freedom of choice, doesn't it?

This would seem to be the easy answer, but really, the fall is not about choice, though a choice was certainly made. The fall is about a faulty quest for wisdom. That is, Adam and Eve pursued wisdom apart from God's counsel. If you look at Genesis three, you will find that the serpent of "more crafty" than any beast of the field (3:1). That word for crafty means "wise". And behold why the woman ate: she saw that "the tree was to be desired to make one wise" (3:6). Adam and Eve sought wisdom, but they sought it through disobedience to God. By seeking wisdom in this way, they became fools. In reality, Adam and Eve were not given a choice; they were given a command: Do not eat.

Adam and Eve were created good, and they were created innocent. They had never experienced sin and the effects of sin. They only knew that there was one thing that they should not do: eat of the tree. They were told that the consequence of their actions meant "death", but they really had no idea what that meant. Now, we do. Knowing what you know now, would you eat that piece of fruit? (You might, actually. You are not yet perfected.)

But let's fast forward a bit. Let's go all the way to the end of all things as we know it. You, believer, are glorified and in the celestial kingdom of peace. What, do you suppose, will keep you from falling again? It doesn't take a piece of fruit. The devil fell without eating the fruit. So, what will keep you from falling? What will keep you from sin?

Eating the forbidden fruit should never have been an option for Adam. From here, we can see the sheer madness of it. It is more insane than a man dosing himself with radiation in the hopes that he will get the powers of Spider-Man. When, in the judgment, we see the absolute folly of rebellion against God, when we see the total horror of sin and the foolishness of it; we will be cured of sin. Two things will be compared that we cannot imagine now as we will some day see: the glory of God and the ugliness of sin. We will be wiser than Adam.

Why did God put the tree of knowledge in the garden? He did it for His own glory. He did it so that in five million years, if God says, "No", we will know that it is infinitely wise and good to obey, even if we cannot see the reason or the consequences.

The Confusion of Choice

2011-03-29T15:42:00.008-04:00

Choice leads to slavery, not freedom. At least, it most certainly can, and our ability to choose, or the necessity of choice, may mean that we are to be pitied more than it means we are free. Ever wanted to smack the dude in line in front of you at Subway because he is taking forever to decided between flat-bread, Italian Bread, Honey Oat, Parmesan/Oregano, Sourdough, or go with the wrap? Have pity, he is enslaved to choice. He cannot figure out which choice is best, and so he stammers and holds up the line.

Those who love to trumpet "free will" love to revel in the fact that we can choose. Pelagius, that ancient heretic, said that man was able to choose between good and evil by his own will. Man could choose good or man could choose evil, and if you take away that choice, you take away freedom. Man becomes a robot if he isn't free to choose. Our choices determine who we are, after all.

What if I told you that the opposite were true? What if I said that the dilemma of choice could be the best indication that we are a broken, pitiful people? What if I told you that the problem of choice demonstrates, better than any philosophy I know, that man is a finite, confused being?

Augustine is Pelagius' better. He triumphed over Pelagius by Scripture and by reason, but not in the way that many today would think. Augustine saw what Pelagius couldn't, that is, choice is not the ultimate qualifier of whether or not the will is free. Indeed, choice indicates that something is wrong with the will. Freedom of the will must excel simple choice, freedom is greater than the ability to choose. Choice indicates a shattered mind, not a whole one.

Man, when faced with a "moral dilemma", must make a choice. Augustine taught that, if we were perfect and unfallen, then there would be no "choice" to make. If it is 32 degrees outside, and I say that you may go outside with a coat or a t-shirt, a wise man takes a coat. It isn't a choice, it is obvious. If I tell you that for lunch, you may have rat poison or you may have a T-bone steak, you would certainly choose the latter over the former. Freedom, then, lies not in the power of choice, but in clarity of thought. The fact that we are traumatized by moral choices means that we do not see clearly, we cannot tell what the ultimate good is, so we stammer and stumble.

I think of this when someone says that we are "free" to choose or reject God's Son, Jesus, then they insist that it is this very choice that makes them free. This is like saying freedom consists in the liberty of shooting one's brains out with a shotgun or not. Man doesn't reject God and the gospel because man is free and is mighty to choose, man rejects God and the gospel because he is a suicidal maniac who cannot tell right from wrong. Man doesn't need to be free to choose, man needs to be freed from the shackles of madness that make evil choices appealing in the first place.

Freedom does not lie in the ability to choose. Freedom comes when choice is married with proper affections for that which is good. If God would only fix our wicked hearts, choice would vanish and we would be free to act unfettered. Why? Because anything other than holiness would simply be unthinkable, or if you must, a non-choice.

Oh God, rid me of my choices by shackling me to the good and true. Free me from inaction by showing me the path most pleasing to you. Unite my divided soul by the beauty of your truth. Let anything other than what glorifies you be a non-choice in my sight so that Christ may receive the most glory. Amen.

He Has Conquered Me

2011-03-29T10:20:00.004-04:00

I will tell you that I have been conquered by force. God made war on me, He broke down the walls of my stronghold, He smashed down my gates, and then He killed me in the ruin of my own tower. All my fortifications were in made in vain with the Lord of Hosts appeared, and when He did appear, I threw my idols over the wall. Except for myself. I would not give up myself, and in the end, He would not turn back until He had me.

But the Lord of Hosts did not destroy me as a man might destroy another. For the Almighty did not only have the power to force me on my knees, He brought with Him the power to break my will and change my heart. The weapons that overcame were not simply threatenings, but they were weapons of truth against which no self-deception could stand.

My tower was constructed of lies I had spun. I had compared myself to others and judged myself good. I had done a few kindnesses and thought myself generous. I showed favor to some, and I judged myself loving. And thus my bulwark was constructed by my vanity, and I deemed my works unassailable by God or man. I was a good man.

First, there came a herald of God's law. All the commandments, all ten of them, seemed just save one: Love the Lord God and serve Him only. All the others, I fancied I could keep and confessed that they were good. I would make war on thieves, liars, and adulterers. I would honor my parents. I would not covet another man's gains. But I would not kneel to this King. His glory was no better than my own splendor. And so I strutted about my castle and hurled my insults at His majesty.

Then, the herald came again. I read that this King said that my lustful looks were adulterous, that my anger was the fountain of murder, and that I should give up my coat to anyone who asks. I knew that this was going too far. No one could live as this man demanded. He was a tyrant, and I must keep him out at all costs. His tyranny extended to my very thoughts, into my own soul and person, and I knew that I willed to do none of the things He said I must do to be good. So I hunkered down for war.

At last, the King came as his own herald. He wore no armor, and He had no fear. The first thing I saw was that He was already bloodied with battle, but not battle against me, but a battle fought on my behalf. His image seized me, as did His selflessness, and I saw in Him everything that I was not. My fortress of comparison could not stand against Him. I could compare myself to any man, or so I fancied, but certainly not this One.

When He spoke, my tower began to shake and come undone. He spoke to me of love and hate, of sin and of righteousness, of good and evil. He showed me the glory of his Father, and he opened my eyes to what it is to be holy. My towers of self-righteousness fell, my barred gates of excusing myself crumbled at his words, and I was laid without defense in the dust.

The King slew me that day with His truth. His love undid me. His justice was perfect. I no longer wanted to be King. I cast off my own delusions of self-righteousness. I no longer wanted to be free; I wanted to be ruled by this King. I begged, in dust and ashes, to be his servant. He took my hand and lifted me on my feet; he embraced me; he forgave me my transgressions against his majesty; he clothed me as his own brother.

I am sickened that I ever lived in that tower I had made. I am so grateful that the King broke me to pieces. I am so happy that Jesus defeated my tyranny and placed me under his rule in place of my own. Every time I think of it, I am conquered again. Long live the King!

Evolutionary Conundrum

2011-03-28T10:06:00.002-04:00

I am no evolutionist because I believe it to be silly. I know that my believing this leads some to think that I am very silly because I think this way. To those who think so, let them be consoled in the knowledge that I evolved this silly, stubborn mindset and that I am merely trapped inside my own DNA. This way, I will merely be a slight evolutionary throw-back instead of something to be despised.

Since I am on the subject of my own silliness, I have a thought that I would like to interject for study. It is a real dilemma for me in my backwardness, and no doubt my unsophisticated thoughts here will be a delight for the more evolutionarily enlightened. But I have noticed that mankind seems to be going backward on the evolutionary climb and not forward. If I believed in evolution, this would greatly worry me

I have noticed that we seem to regard ourselves, and other species, as making "progress" in evolution. First of all, I am not certain as to how this is measured. Perhaps this is my mistake. But if the point of evolution is to make certain that the species remains viable, prolific, and avoid extinction, then I believe we have taken a bad turn in our march upwards on the evolutionary chart.

It seems to me that insects are doing better than we are. After watching the Discovery Channel, I realized that bugs and creeping things far outnumber our species. The ants alone are a marvel of the random process of evolution. They defeat human beings in every conceivable category. They are more numerous, they breed faster, and they cooperate within the hive with one another far better than humans. Yes, it is true that we can step on any ant as we please, but they are in no real danger for all our stomping. We could not get rid of them all even if we tried.

If we go back even further "down" the evolutionary chain, I find that bacteria are even more successful than the bugs. Bacteria are everywhere, virtually countless in number, and are able to invade human colonies and wipe them out. Visit any hospital and you will see that I am telling the truth. This is why they have hand sanitizer virtually everywhere in the place. Bacteria are everywhere, and they cannot be stopped. We can only hope to contain them.

So I conclude that if evolution is true, humans have been cheated by chance. We should have remained bacteria. We would be more numerous, more viable, and much harder to ultimately get rid of. I can't help but wonder why we didn't remain contented with the evolutionary marvels that we were. Why did we, by chance, become so big and easy to wipe out?

In the end, I must conclude that evolution is a cruel mistress. It must be that Evolution chanced us to become what we are out of a cruel sense of humor. You see, Evolution evolved us with a brain so that we could reason in order that we might realize, "Oh drat, we should have remained bacteria."

Maybe, if we are lucky, we can go back to being ooze.

Our Loves, Our Idols

2011-03-24T11:05:00.005-04:00

I have many loves in my life, and I am certain that you do as well. I love my wife, and I love my children. I love my family, and I love my friends. I love my health, and I love to eat. I love to play, and I love to read, and I love to think. I love to run and to walk and to drive. I have many loves.

I do not love them all equally. No one can. We must love one thing over another, and sometimes one thing will take priority over another. Everyone feels this tension in life. Do I stay in my chair and read this book, or do I get up and throw baseballs with my son? Do I watch my favorite show, or do I go with my wife to Wal-Mart? Do I save my money, or do I go in debt with a newer car? All of these things boil down to love and priority.

But there is one love and priority that lives above the rest. In our souls, things clamor for attention. All our loves are potential tyrants, potential idols. The struggle over love and prior can tear a soul apart, unless above this clamor for attention from our lesser loves we can hear this: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26-27).

Our first love is our God or it is our god. Our first love is the Savior or the destroyer of our soul. Every day, I have to take inventory of my loves. My first love must be my God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Are any of my lesser loves coming between my soul and Him? Is it my wife? My children? My job? My pride?

Some might think, "Wait, if my children get between myself and the Lord, I must sacrifice my children." Oh, how wrong that is. How very wrong. The child is not the problem. Nor the wife. Nor the job. What needs to go on the altar is you. It's me. They are so beautiful, my wife, my children, and my job. They are such gifts, and they cannot be loved or appreciated enough. What needs to die is the idolatrous heart that exalts them above God, that demands from these beautiful things more than they can be expected to give.

Oh wicked hearts that demand something from this world that it was not made to give! It is like a thief that demands $1,000 dollars from an innocent, and then murders him because he is too poor to comply. How much should one love one's wife? She is a treasure from God, a reflection of His grace, she is in his image, and a sure sign of God's kindness. She cannot be loved too much for what she is, but she cannot be loved for what she is not. She is not God; she is from God. If you try to make her be the source of happiness, you will murder who she is. You will be an insane idol maker like a man who carves a stone and says to it, "Protect me! Shelter me! Love me! Provide for me!" It is an affront to both the stone and the God who made it.

Instead of sacrificing the wife or the kids, we must put to death our sinful desire to elevate them to places that they do not belong. We may think we love things better by worshipping them instead of God, but in reality, we love them less. It is as if my wife said, "I love you because I believe you are the President of the United States!" And I say, "But I am not the President." She may snap, "Yes you are, now act like it!" And I say, "But beloved, I am not he." And she says, "Then I do not love you at all! What a dissappointment you are to me!"

See the violence we do to others in our idolatry? Is it any wonder that our idols grieve and anger our God? Not simply because it is an affront to his dignity, but also because it does violence to his creation.

Let us order our loves rightly. Let us offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God that we might love as we ought. Let us agree with Augustine who wrote, "He loves Thee too little, who loves anything together with Thee, which he loves not for Thy sake." And finally, let us heed the exhortation of John, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21).

The Sweet Death

2011-03-22T14:29:00.009-04:00

I was stillborn. I was dead and yet still dying. I was dead to love. I was unfeeling. My death throes sent me grabbing for any sliver of pleasure I thought might hold me up, but I sank down in the dark with fists that could not hold the happiness for which I longed.

I was born blind. Slivers of light would dart across my eyes, but I could not tell from where they had come or where they went. So, I cursed my darkness and swelled with hate.

I was born ignorant. My thoughts could not grasp the truth, and I raged that there was none to be had. No food for my starving mind, only ceaseless thoughts that could not satisfy my famished, dead, and dying soul.

I could not taste. All of life soon became bland, even the sweet pleasures I stole became tasteless in my mouth. I wasted because I could find no savory food.

And then I saw you, my God. You offered me your body, and so I took it. I ate your flesh and drank your blood. I felt and tasted your love between my teeth. I saw the truth of my death and my life in your death and life. I put my hands in yours and felt the nails pierce my skin. At last, my misery died there with you in your embrace, and so I finally began to live.

It Really is This Simple

2011-03-21T10:48:00.003-04:00

I fear that many Christians make Christianity far more complicated than they need to make it. Christianity is about Jesus of Nazareth, period. Christianity is about who Jesus is, what he claimed, and ultimately, it is about whether or not he rose from the dead.

Let's take the last one first. Did Jesus rise from the dead after having been crucified? If the answer is no, then Christianity is a total waste of time. This is not simply conjecture, it is what the apostle Paul taught. He wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins...if in this life only we have hoped in (the resurrection of) Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:14-19).

It breaks down like this:
1. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, preaching Jesus is worthless.
2. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your belief in Jesus is worthless.
3. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, you lie about God when you tell people he did.
4. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Paul is self-admitted liar.
5. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christians are pitiful.

It really is that simple. Christian, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, do something else.

However, if Jesus did rise from the dead, then that is spectacular. People don't just get up from the grave after being dead for three days. And, as Paul goes on to write, "In fact, Christ has been raised from the dead" (1 Cor. 15:20). It is in this resurrection from the dead that Jesus' teachings and and "Christ" title are validated. Again, Paul writes that Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).

Technically speaking, crucifixion is not that awesome. Lots and lots of people were crucified in the first century. However, rising from the dead is a marvelous feat to say the least. Since Jesus rose from the dead, it means that he merits an audience. We ought to listen to this man and what he taught because he alone has the answer to death. He is only one to defeat it.

So ask yourself, if you are a Christian. Is this what defines you? Is this what your co-worker would say defines you? Do they know that you do what you do because Jesus conquered death? Do they know that you obey Jesus because you believe him to be both Lord of all Creation, Conqueror of Death, and Savior of Mankind, and that you believe this because he rose from the dead?

Or do they think that you are simply a moralist? They probably know about your "do and don't do" list, but do they have any idea how you got that list? Do you implicitly or explicitly impose that list onto others without speaking of the resurrection of the dead?

What I mean by that is this: When someone advocates a cause or behavior that you know is not pleasing to the Lord, is your first impulse to declare yourself against it, or is your first impulse that you need to speak about Christ's resurrection? Because if you say what you are against wihtout giving the foundation for why you are against it, you are going to hang yourself out to dry at best, and at worst you will become a moralist.

So talk more about the resurrection of Jesus and the fact that he has the power to grant eternal life. Then, having talked about that until you are certain that everyone knows you are obsessed with it, you may then proceed to unpack why you are for or against certain behaviors.

How a Nuclear Power Plant Works

2011-03-16T11:14:00.004-04:00

I am fairly certain that the average person knows next to nothing about how nuclear power plants generate electricity. I would also hazard to guess that the average person's research into the matter probably goes no further than the education that they have received watching Homer Simpson at work. That's okay. Until recently, that's about all the working knowledge I had of nuclear power as well. Today, I will give to you, free of charge, an elementary education on how nuclear power plants produce electricity, and shortly, why the plants in Japan are in such big trouble.

First off, nuclear power plants do not work by magic, and they are not powered by glowing goo. In reality, a nuclear power plant produces power by heating water and making steam. I know that is a little bit of a let down, but it is nevertheless true. Nuclear power plants are simply glorified coal plants. They make electricity the same way, only coal is replaced by uranium pellets.

So here is the very simplified, layman's description of how this works. Uranium pellets, which are generally no bigger than the width of a dime, are put into rods and bundled together. These uranium pellets get hot naturally by nuclear fission. By naturally, I mean that uranium naturally "fizzes" all the time. The atoms in it are unstable and fling off neurons, which strike other atoms of uranium which causes those atoms to split and fling off neurons. This process causes heat to be generated, a lot of heat. The difference between a nuclear power plant and an atom bomb is the amount of uranium in the pellets. Nuclear power plant pellets are enriched 2-3%. Bombs are enriched to 90%. In short, a nuclear power plant has less "neuron flinging" than a bomb. That's a good thing.

So theses uranium rods are inserted into water, they get really, really hot, and they make steam. The heat they make is monitored, and if they get too hot, another kind of rod can be inserted into the mix that catches flung neurons. This rod is called a "control rod" and is usually made of zirconium. (The same stuff a fake diamond is made out of.) This control rod serves to cool the uranium's heat generated by slowing the process of nuclear fission. If flung neurons are like little bullets, then the control rod is like a bullet proof vest over the uranium. If the uranium starts getting too cool, the control rod can be lifted. So these rods, combined with the liquid that the uranium rods are in, serve to cool the reactor core down. The control rods, however, do not really "cool" the uranium, they only serve to slow down the reaction. This does lead to cooling the reaction chamber, but it doesn't take away the heat already present.

Simply put, a nuclear power plant works by putting hot uranium into water, which then evaporates and pushes a turbine. The steam cools, turns back into water, and then is re-introduced to hot uranium. Neat.

So why is it that the Japanese facility keeps blowing up? The answer is that uranium gets hot. Really, really hot. After the earthquake/tsunami, all power was lost at the plant, both regular power and back-up power. Despite the fact that the control rods were inserted as a precaution during the earthquake, there was no power left to pump in cool water. The control rods do slow down the reaction, but they cannot vent the heat by themselves. This heat will eventually damage the control rods themselves, which means the nuclear fission will heat up again, and then all bets are off. To compound this problem, as the control rods fail, the water that is present gets so hot that they start popping off hydrogen atoms. This turns water into hydrogen, and hydrogen has a tendency to blow up. (Oh, the humanity!) If it blows up the reactor, then all that radioactive material goes up with it. Not good.

So the Japanese are pumping salt water into the reactors now to try and cool the uranium. Let's hope it works.

Of Sin and Hell

2011-03-15T10:34:00.004-04:00

Sin and hell have this in common: they are both terrible things. However, they are terrible in different ways. Sin is terrible because it is rebellion against God. Hell is terrible because it highlights how awful that rebellion is. Without hell, we would not understand the grievous treason that it is to shake our collective fist in the face of the Almighty God.

In my series of posts on the doctrine of hell, I have tried to demonstrate that hell is a real place, and that it is a just place. The horror of hell lies not in the mere fact of its existence, but in the fact that it must and should exist. If there is to be any sort of cosmic justice, then we must have a place where iniquity is punished to the proper degree. Hell is that place.

Dear reader, if you are not in Christ Jesus you are most certainly going to hell when you die. Everyone not found in Christ Jesus at the great day of God's judgment will forever suffer in that place where the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched. Your life is even now precarious. You could perish this very day and your soul would be required of you. It does not matter what you think of me, or of your justness, or of your wisdom, or of your own righteousness, you will certainly perish if you are not found in Christ. Your sins will weigh you down. You will not stand before God guiltless. You will surely die in your sins, if not for Jesus Christ. "Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it," says Jonathan Edwards. He is certainly correct.

You must, if you have any vestige of conscience, admit that you are a lawbreaker. You have sinned, and your sin will damn you. The reason you have sinned is because you have a corrupted heart. Your own sin has flung open the doors for your own death and damnation. No other witness will be required but your own deeds. Your stolen pleasures, your lusts, your lies, and your thieving will bear witness against you. Every thought of your heart will be laid bear; every action will be examined; every word you spoke will be judged.

A converted soul will see that sin is heinous and should never exist and that hell is just and must exist. The fleshly, self-flatterer will say to themselves that sin is not really that bad and that hell is heinous. The regenerated, born-again soul will see it in the reverse. If you are a Christian, then you know this is true. This is precisely why you cling to Christ in the first place. He is the only one who can save you from your sin. We have a Savior who is come to save us from our sin. He isn't come first to save us from hell. A converted soul will first realize that they must have deliverance from sin. A converted soul will see the truth of their rebellion and see that they need a Savior from sin.

If you are reading this and do not agree, know that I have written this in hopes that you will be awakened to the danger that you are now in. If you are reading this and do agree, then it is my hope that you might be awakened to the danger of those souls around you. Their only hope is Christ Jesus. Pray for their awakening, and pray that you might be bold enough to speak the truth to them in love.

Prayer is Flesh-Killing Work

2011-03-11T09:57:00.003-05:00

Prayer, real mountain moving prayer, is not something that comes naturally. It is certainly not easy. This is evident in request Jesus' disciples made when they asked, "Lord, teach us to pray" (Luke 11:1). If prayer is so easy, then why did the disciples have to ask Jesus to teach them to do it? Take heart, then, if prayer does not come easily for you. It doesn't come naturally as some pretend that it does.

First, the very nature of prayer is pride-killing because it is God dependant. Prayer is the act of asking for something you feel unable to provide for oneself. It follows then that if you are a talented, self-assured, self-confident person, you will not be naturally inclined to pray often or fervently. Pride is the enemy of genuine prayer because pride causes us to under-estimate our need and over-estimate our ability. Is your prayer life sporadic and less-than desperate? It is probably because you are proud.

The second reason that our prayer life is listless is because prayer is not meant to be for our own sake. At first glance, that statement may strike you as completely wrong. After all, if you were convicted in the last paragraph that you were indeed too proud to pray, and you asked God to humble you, is this not for your own benefit? Consider first the words of James, "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions" (James 4:3). So, if you ask God to cure you of pride so that you might become a person of prayer in order that you may simply soothe your own conscience for being a bad prayer or so that you might consider yourself a better Christian, then you are asking for God to kill pride to build pride. What folly! The purpose of humility is to make us better servants of God and others. We must be a praying people in order that we might be a serving people. We do not become good prayers that we might boast in our praying.

Let me illustrate what I mean. When we read James' warning, we naturally and rightly think that he is speaking of a selfish prayer where someone might simply want a newer car, a better job, or a pretty wife just because he isn't content with the car or job or wife he has. That is an easy selfish prayer to spot. But think of this, when you pray for yourself, do you pray because you are aggravated that you failed your own standard or because you failed God's standard? Are you more upset that you failed yourself or that you failed God? And in your heart, are you hoping that God will make you better so that you will feel better about yourself or because you long to be a self-denying servant like Christ? Are you more concerned with how your failures effect you or others? Examine yourself before the Lord and see if you aren't praying to boost your own self-image instead of the Christ-image in you.

Your prayer ought to be born out of a self-despair but a Godward hope. Ask yourself a few simple questions: Can you convert a single soul? Can you kill a single sin that plagues you? Are you strong enough to beat down your own selfishness? Can you keep your children alive? Can you keep your spouse faithful? Can you pray as you ought? Do you have the strength to love as you should? Can you help your friend in sickness? Can you lend them your might? Can you heal the broken hearted?

We can't do any of those things. Before we can really pray, we need to realize how impotent we truly are.

But then we must ask more questions: Can God convert a single soul? Is He mighty to save or not? Can He destroy the sin that plagues you? Is He strong enough to beat down your selfishness? Can He keep your children alive? Can He keep your spouse faithful? Can He pray for me when I cannot pray as I ought? Does He have the strength to love? Can He help a friend in sickness? Can He lend them His might? Can He heal the broken hearted?

We then, are we not praying? Isn't it because we are altogether selifsh? Prayer is flesh-killing, pride-destroying, Christ-exalting work. Please pray for yourself, friend. Not so that you may boast in how awesome you've become, not that you would ever say that out loud, but so that Christ Himself might shine through you for His glory.

Of the Fall of Man

2011-03-10T12:25:00.004-05:00

We believe that man was created in holiness, under the law of his Maker (1); but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state (2); in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners (3), not by constraint, but choice (4); being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin (5), without defense or excuse(6).

This is the third article of the 1833/53 New Hampshire Baptist Confession. This article, if embraced by the world, would be sufficient to change the world. I cannot think of another religion that teaches that man is totaly depraved, or as the confession puts it "all mankind are now sinners, not by constraint, but choice; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil."

If such is the very basic nature of mankind, then something much more radical than self-esteem, self-help, or personal examination is called for. What we must have is a Savior, or we we will certainly be held "under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse."

The Doctrine of Hell, Part 2

2011-03-03T09:20:00.003-05:00

In yesterday's part one on the doctrine of hell, I pointed out that the Bible teaches that hell is a place, that hell is a place where justice is meted out, and that hell is a place that God Himself created. Hell is a good place, though it is quite terrible. It is good because hell is a just place. Hell is where sin is punished exactly as it ought to be punished. The failure to understand that hell is a place where justice prevails is, perhaps, one of the primary reasons we shirk the doctrine of hell altogether.

Though we are all sinful and selfish beings, we all have an innate sense that there is something called "justice." We may, and often do, disagree as to what justice might look like, but we have a keen sense of "fair" and "unfair." This is why the idea that a loving God would not send anyone to hell simply falls flat on its face, even in a cursory examination. We understand that crimes deserve punishment. If an infamous criminal came before a judge, and the judge said, "I'm going to let you go because I am too loving to punish the guilty." We would immediately protest. The families of the victim of the criminal would be especially upset. How could God get away with being less just than a human judge?

So then, I do not think that the idea that a loving God would not send anyone to hell is really a very serious argument at all. It could be that this objection really comes from the idea that hell is too harsh for the crimes committed. This, in my opinion, is a much better objection. How can God punish for eternity something done in a finite time? Also, how can God punish someone in hell simply for failing to believe that God exists and/or that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? Do people really deserve an eternity of agony for not capitulating to God? And if they do, doesn't this make God some sort of tyrant unfit to be worshipped or served?

These are excellent questions, and these questions are why feathers get ruffled by the idea that Ghandi might be in the same hell as Hitler. Christians ought to take time to work through these questions for the sake of their own sanity, and for the sake of those who would sincerely like to know how we could believe such a thing. The Bible teaches, quite clearly, that if Ghandi died a Christ-rejector then he does go into the same hell as a Christ-rejecting Hitler. How can this be just?

First, we have to recognize that rejecting Jesus of Nazareth is not the same as rebuffing the friendship of just any other person. Jesus is the Messiah, the perfect representative of God on earth, for in Christ "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9). God is not like our neighbor. Here is a partial description of what God is like from the Westminster Catechism:

God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, not deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory, in by, unto, and upon them: he is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things.

Follow this simple logic. God is the fountain of all being. God is good. Therefore, all the good that we enjoy comes from the fountain of God's being. Let me break down what that means for us.

Because God is the fountain of all the good we enjoy, we are experiencing a gift from God when we love, kiss, eat, sleep, hug our family members, hold our spouse, and play with our children. Every happy thought, every joyful tear, these are all little drops of pleasure that had their source in the mind of God. When we reject Jesus Christ, and by rejecting Christ we reject God, we are rejecting the source of all of those things that are good. We are trying, in our rebellion, to get at the streams of joy without having to love the fountain from which they flow. This is pure folly and the root of all evil. What this does to us is it demonstrates that we are, in this condition, unfit for good things because we do not love the most wonderful thing of all: God Himself. Secondly, this folly cuts us off from enjoying the good things of life as we should.

Here is how rejecting God sullies the joys that we do have. Imagine a clear mountain stream. As it flows, it is crystal clear, it is cold, and it is refreshing. It will even remain liquid below freezing temperatures because it is moving. For some strange reason, we decide we love the water but hate the stream. So, we dam off a little section for ourself. The water is stilled. We play in it, but we soon find it is muddied. If we leave it alone, it freezes. As it sits alone, it also begins to stagnate. It is no longer refreshing, clear, or safe to drink. So what do we do? We curse the stream and blame it for our lousy water.

Hell may be described as a place where people go who hate God. There, they are cut off from the stream of God's goodness. Hell is a place where all of God's favor is withdrawn, even the muddy pools of our own making. God is the source and rightful owner of even the waters we muddy. For the rejection of Christ, God has decreed that we are to be cut off from the fountains of His goodness. So then, hell is partially the agony of remembering the sweet taste of stolen waters that we are no longer allowed to enjoy, and it is partially the consuming hatred of the Being who refuses to share this water on our terms.

This is why Ghandi, if he died in rebellion to Christ, goes to the same hell as Hitler. Ghandi enjoyed his muddied version of peace and equality, but if He did not love the Prince of Peace, then he cannot keep it. Hitler loved authority. But if he died not loving the Sovereign God, then he cannot keep it.

Do we still worry about Ghandi? We shouldn't if we believe in a just God. God will give Ghandi exactly what he deserves, and so it will be with Hitler. The punishment will be neither too great nor too little. It will be perfect justice. All who look on the punishment of hell will marvel. They will marvel at the folly that put people there, and they will marvel at the justice meted out in that place.

On the last post in this series, I will look at why the outright denial of hell belittles the salvation found in Jesus Christ the Lord.

On the Doctrine of Hell, Part 1

2011-03-01T11:16:00.007-05:00

Recently, there has been a great imbroglio on the internet over the doctrine of hell. I do not wish to get into the specifics of that particular brouhaha in this post. However, there are a few things that need to be said regarding our understanding of eternal punishment and of the reality of hell. Christians need to understand this doctrine if they are to understand themselves, their neighbors, and most of all, the glory of God manifested in the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is not unusual for Christians to be uncomfortable with the idea of hell. The idea of neighbors and family being in eternal torment is not an easy thing to stomach. We would rather talk about heaven. Or, we would rather talk about the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins on the cross. But there is a disconnect in our speech and thought if we speak of "heaven" or being "saved" if we do never think about hell. What is the alternative to heaven? And what, exactly, are we being "saved" from?

First, we ought to think about hell as a place. Though we might be shy about it, Jesus certainly wasn't. Jesus spoke of hell as a place "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48). The book of Revelation describes it as a place where "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name" (Rev. 14:11). When you compare the Revelation passage to the passages in the Old Testament which teach that burnt offerings are a pleasing aroma to the Lord, you have a very difficult teaching about the purpose of this place called hell.

Secondly, one ought to consider how hell even came into existence in the first place. The catechism we teach our children here has these questions and answers:

Question #1: Who made you? Answer: God made me.
Question #2: What else did God make? God made all things.

If God made all things, then it is certain that God made hell. Satan is not the ruler of hell. He is not there with a pitchfork dunking the wicked in pots of boiling oil. Hell is a place where Satan himself will be tormented for his crimes. Hell is a place that Satan dreads. God created hell as a place where perfect justice would be meted out to all those who hate Him and His decrees. So then, hell is not a bad place. It is a terrible place. It is an awful place. It is even a horrific place. But it is not a bad place. It is a place where we will behold, for the first time, true justice.

It has been said that hell was only created for Satan and his angels, and I think due to the misapplication of this verse: "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). The problem with this understanding is that God never does anything as an afterthought. He didn't suddenly come to the realization, "Oh my! There sure are a lot of human beings who hate me as bad as Satan does. What shall I do with them? Oh yes, I'll put them into hell with the devil then. What a great idea!" Rather, the meaning here is that rebellious people go to hell with Satan and his angels because they are like Satan and his angels.

Finally, it is my understanding of Scripture that hell will not be uniform for everyone. Jesus said, "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows" (Luke 12:47-48). I take this to mean that hell will be a more wretched experience for some than others. I confess that I do not understand how that will be, but I trust that it is the truth. Every being in hell will have a different experience of that place, but all there will be as miserable as they can be. Conversely, I believe that there will be different experiences of heaven as well, but that all will be happy.

In the next post on the doctrine of hell, I will write about why an orthodox understanding of hell helps us to understand the grace of the forgiveness of sins through the slaughter of God's Son. Really, there are no more epic topics which we, as human beings, may discuss. I hope that you will give me the chance to explain the Biblical teachings on these things.

Are You Salty?

2011-02-28T11:35:00.002-05:00

Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Luke 14:34-35).

One thing is certain, a disciple of Jesus Christ is not to be bland. A Christian ought to be earnest. He ought to be plucky. He ought to be divisive.

If you find that last fact shocking, or perhaps even errant, then I wonder if you are being salty enough. Behold the context from which that quote comes:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Lk. 14:26). Jesus then urges his listeners to count the cost of being his disciple. One of those costs is this: if you cling to Jesus above all others as your only hope, you will be alienated from others that you love. You will become, by virtue of your faith, a divisive person.

This is not to say that Christians should be belligerent and try to stir up trouble. Certainly, we ought to heed the wise words of our Master and be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." However, if we are never ruffling feathers, if we are never irritating people with our convictions, then we simply are not being New Testament Christians. Jesus said this, "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother" (Luke 12:51-53).

This divisiveness that Jesus brings is one of the most detestable things in our culture. Our culture values peace above reason and justice. It values obfuscation above forthrightness. It values doubt above certitude. It finds absolute truth claims in the area of theology, philosophy, and therefore morality to be nigh ludicrous. Therefore, if a person asserts the fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, the reality of eternal judgment to come, or if he should condemn an act as sinful, then he is in danger of that dread label of "fundamentalist."

This is not rant or a complaint; I want to be clear about that. It is a simple observation that, in this life, the Christian cannot avoid these things if he wishes to be salty and therefore useful. We have the only Savior who can actually save. We worship the only God who is actually God. We have the only book that is actually inspired. If you believe these things alone, you will automatically become a persona non grata in many circles.

Let me end this little post with a couple of exhortations. First, just because people will think you are an imbecile does not mean you have to act like one. You do not have to cruise for fights, and you do not have to act indignant when they come. Just remain calm and faithful, and be prepared to give a reasonable answer for the faith that you hold dear. So think about these things: One: Have your convictions caused any friction lately? Why or why not? Is it because you are actually being abrasive? Or secondly, if you have caused no friction, is it because you have ducked opportunities to be salty?

Mustard Seed Faith

2011-02-24T11:08:00.006-05:00

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20).

A mustard seed is really small. It is barely 2mm across. Jesus teaches us that if we have an itty bitty faith, then nothing will be impossible for us. I find this teaching difficult to believe because some of things I want I know full well are impossible for me to attain.

The interesting thing is that my confession here is ironic. It is ironic because I said that I find it very difficult to believe that if I have a little belief mountains will move and the impossible will be done. I say difficult to believe, but not impossible. Could it be, then, that my tiny bit of belief mixed in with my doubt will be sufficient to prove Jesus promise?

Today, I was reminded of this parable because I did not feel like praying, and when I did pray, I did not feel particularly inspired. I asked God to help me, not because I felt like I needed help, but because I know that I do. I prayed for my family, for my fellow elders, and for my friends. If they had heard me pray, they would have probably doubted my sincerity as much as I did. I was tired, distracted, and did not feel particularly earnest. I had the ear of heaven, and I rambled. I confess it is true. It is a sad beginning to the day when even your prayers discourage you.

I felt like I needed to go and have a prayer "do-over." I felt like maybe I needed to apologize for my lack of passion in prayer. Then, this beautiful promise from God's Word burst forth in my soul, "If you have faith like a grain of a mustard seed..." I immediately seized this passage, and I wielded against my doubtful soul. I asked, "Soul, why do you doubt that God has heard your prayer, pitiful as it was? Because you did not feel passion? Because you doubt that He will hear and answer your cry?" My soul answered, "Yes, this is precisely the case." I then asked, "Soul, why did you even bother to pray? Why did you bother to read the requests you have written before the Lord? Was it merely out of duty?" My soul answered, "No, I did it because I hoped, even in my doubt, that God would hear me and help me." Then I answered my soul, "Ah, my soul, then be content to know that your Lord has certainly heard you and will help you. He loves you, even in your doubting, and He will surely answer you for His Name's sake."

A mustard seed is a small thing beloved. I confess that I often bring it before the Lord wrapped in the kernel of my doubt. But he sees it, my little mustard seed faith, and he hears me. He will hear you in your doubting, too. He will move your mountains, and he will make the impossible possible.

Why are you cast down, O my soul,
and why are you in turmoil within me?
Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,
my salvation and my God. (Psalm 42:11).

The Image of God Explains Who We Are

2011-02-22T10:27:00.005-05:00

Imago Dei is latin for "The Image of God." It is the Christian doctrine which teaches the mankind bears the image of the Creator. This is not the same as pantheism which teaches that we are a part of the of God as an emanation of the one Being. Strictly speaking, in pantheism, there is no "creation", simply various manifestations of God. Rather, Christianity teaches that mankind bears the stamp of the Creator. This marking, this imaging of God, is a mystery. We are, according to the Christian Scriptures, a reflection of God, but we are not God. Much like a poem reflects the thoughts and feelings of the poet. The poem is not the poet, but we can learn much about the poet by reading his poetry.

Because we are made in the image of God, we do 'God-like' things. One of these things that we do is make art. We draw drawings; we paint pictures; we write books; we make music. These endeavors express our longing to express ourselves. We want to say something about the concepts of truth, justice, despair, longing, and beauty. We see these things as something outside ourselves, and though we feel them, we are consternated in that we also feel that we cannot reach them. Like pleasure, we brush these things, are delighted by them, but they cannot be held for long, nor fully explained in reflection. However, we can try, and sometimes our efforts capture something of what we have seen and felt and known.

Christianity also teaches that the Imago Dei has been corrupted. We are shattered reflections of God because of sin. We are then, akin to mirrors. In our original, unbroken state allowed us to reflect beauty without marring it in the process. So, if I felt love in that state, I could turn to you and reflect it to you in all its beauty, and as you understood and felt love, you could reflect it back to me again. Only it would be enhanced in the return because sharing love between two people makes the thing shared seem greater. We do this when we mutually praise our favorite songs and television shows and art pieces, we enjoy it alone, but we enjoy it more with company.

This explains the glory and sadness of art. We are trying, in our broken way, to share the things we feel. The greatest artists understands that this effort is taxing and often feels vain. This is why a great artist may despair over his own work and feel it a failure. He knows it does not fully express what he wanted to say, and yet it expresses enough that we marvel at it.

This realization of imperfect expression can plunge the artist into despair, and it often does. They know, innately, that something is wrong. That they have not expressed the glory of their subject perfectly, and because of this, they know that you are not feeling and enjoying it as you ought. This can lead to a terrible retreat into nihilism or relativism. That is, it could lead one to conclude that these feelings are subjective anyway. This takes away the sting that objective truth brings. It lowers the bar by teaching that since their is no objective truth of beauty, justice, or glory, then you cannot possibly express it correctly anyway so the pressure is off. If we retreat to nihilism, then everything is meaningless anyway, so why torture yourself with the trying?

Christianity teaches, on the other hand, that objective truth is real but inexpressable. We believe in justice as a fact, but we also believe that we cannot achieve justice here because of the fall. Not perfectly. But we do not quit the field, and we do not quit making art. We keep trying to refract, as best we can, the truths of God that we know in order to point people, however imperfectly, back to the Great Artist we were made to reflect. We long for Him to fix this marred world, we believe that He will, but most of all, we long for the Artist Himself. He is love, joy, justice, peace, wrath, and mercy. He is the source of all of these things we are trying to get at through our music and poetry.

So Still and So Restful

2011-02-18T14:02:00.001-05:00

So still and so restful she lays,
Cold against mother’s breast
The warmth that was hers fading
Even as hot tears come to mother’s cheek.

Her life was brilliant and short
Like a shooting star streaking and burning~
Mother saw and wished and hoped
But could not keep her here

So mother holds her and remembers
The kicks and rolls and sickness
And joy and wonders why she went
So quickly and could not stay

So still and so restful she lays,
Mother’s shooting star that
Seared the joy of life into her heart
And has left her mark there forever

(I wrote this poem in 2008)

Art and the Language of Transcendence

2011-02-17T10:55:00.003-05:00

I wrote a post recently on some very basic, simplistic steps that I take when I consider the merit of a piece of art. You can read that article here. However, if you are really interested in a fascinating interview on art, and especially how it might intersect in the life of a Christian, I encourage you to go and watch this thirty minute interview of Mako Fujimura. I would actually beg you to go and watch it if that would compel you to do so.

I find that I live in a place where art, as a concept of expression, is little thought about or understood. Art, whether it be oration, poetry, painting, or writing, is a vehicle through we we attempt to capture the transcendent. Even saying such a word like "transcendent" might sound a little arty to some readers, but let me explain what is meant by that word, and hopefully, it will help you begin to think about art and how you might more thoroughly enjoy it.

What is transcendence? Transcendence is something you experience. Everyone has a brush with the transcendent, they may not have had a word for it, but they have brushed up against it often. Transcendence is a feeling. It is a moment. Transcendence is that thrill you get when you ask a girl on a date who you really, really like, and she says yes. Transcendence is when you hold hands with your beloved for the first time. Transcendence is when your child takes its first step. Transcendence is when your child does the right thing and your heart swells. How do you know what is transcendent? You can know transcendence when you lack the words, when you lack the ability, to communicate the full extent of what you just felt. That is transcendence.

So what the artist is doing in poetry, in speaking, in painting, and in literature, what he or she is doing is trying to capture that moment or feeling. This is why certain songs move us. When a couple hears a song that is "their song", it jogs their memories of transcendent moments. Anything, any creative art, has the power to conjure these feelings. This is why art can haunt us and thrill us at the same time. My grandmother, who recently passed away, loved to buck dance. I can remember seeing her dance a jig when she was well into her eighties. She was full of life and joy, and it was infectious. When I see my daughter dance, it reminds me of that. It brings me....I was going to write joy, but it isn't joy. The word joy isn't big enough. I feel joy, sad, , hope, happy. I feel a connection between my daughter's life and my grandmother's life.

Dancing is art. We dance for a reason. We dance for love. We dance for joy. We dance because we long for touch. We cannot help it: our emotions compel us to move and paint and speak. Why must we cry at funerals? Because words won't do. They just won't do. Our feelings demand to be expressed, and so we weep.

Think of the movie "Old Yeller." Why do people cry when the boy shoots the dog? It isn't your dog. It isn't even a real dog. The dog doesn't even really get shot. So why cry? We cry because the essence of the story, the tragedy and the heroics of both boy and dog. We cry because sometimes duty and honor call us to do things that hurt us. That story, that art, touches something primal and beautiful that resonates within our souls.

This is what the artist is doing: from Rembrandt to Pollack. Think about what they are trying to "say" through their medium. What is Beethoven expressing in his 9th Symphony? And why do people like Hank Williams Jr.'s All My Rowdy Friends Have Settled Down? What was Andy Warhol going on about? Why do people still read Shakespeare? Why do people like Harry Potter?

Art is an attempt to capture the deepest things of the heart, to share the experience of one heart to another heart. In this way, all of language is art. I may say to my wife, "I love you." She understands what I mean by that, doesn't she? But somehow, that doesn't satisfy me. I may want to write her a note, or if I am brave, I might write her a poem. I might buy her a gift, or plan a romantic evening. This is expression and 'common' art that should not be overlooked.

So think about that the next time you read something or see a painting. Maybe you will find out why certain things resonate with you. Either way, I hope that we all can grow in our appreciation of the artistic disiciplines.

Concerning Real Beauty, Brethren

2011-02-15T11:48:00.004-05:00

Perhaps it is only my circle of "Twitter" friends, but I have noticed something a bit off-putting in the way some of my brethren have been speaking about their wives. I know that they do this in an attempt to honor their wives, but in their speech, they actually give them less honor than they deserve and might even debase them by accident.

I have noticed that it is now in vogue to "tweet" about how "Smoking hot" our significant others are. Truly, I am delighted when a brother believes his wife is super-abundantly attractive. However, this sort of language might be best left to the intimacy between spouses than it is for public consumption on Facebook or Twitter. Before you dismiss me as a prude, let me explain.

First, you do not gain anything by this public declaration. You will never convince me that your wife is prettier than mine on the grounds that you are dead wrong. Secondly, your continued public appraisal of her "smoking hotness" seems to objectify her in only sexual terms. Protest all you like, this phrase does not carry the same freight as words like "beautiful" and "lovely." If the only way you know to praise your wife's physical beauty is by such language, you should probably spend more time with the poets and less time absorbing the language of Budweiser commercials.

Consider this as well, brethren. Physical beauty, or smoking hotness, is not the greatest praise you can offer your wife. It is not, ultimately, what she wants to hear about if she is, indeed, a true beauty. Why? Read this carefully:

Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate. (Prov. 31:30-31).

I think that my wife is the most beautiful woman among ten thousand. It isn't only because I find her eyes seductive, her curves glorious, and her hair as beautiful as a king's crown. It is because she fears the LORD that I give her the highest praise and her love of the King provokes my highest admiration. The works of her hands in her care of our children and her service to Christ's Church are far above all the accolades I can give concerning her smoking hotness.

Yes, you ought to tell your wife that she is smoking hot. You should tell her many, many things that are none of my business. But we should not give the impression to her or to the public that her smoking hotness is the attribute we cherish most. I thank God, above all else, that my wife loves King Jesus. My wife fears the Lord, and this is a beauty that outshines the rest.

Broken by Love

2011-02-14T11:39:00.003-05:00

In honor of Valentine's Day, I want to say a few things about how love has humiliated me in all the right ways. That is, not my love for others, but specifically, the love that God has for me. Love has changed my life, and I believe that it is, at the end of the day, the only thing that really can.

The law of God is useful, but it is not as powerful as love. The Law of God is the negative side of love; that is, it points us to what God loves by showing us what God hates. When God says, "Thou shalt not steal," It means that God hates thievery. On the flip side, God loves honesty. When God says, "Do not murder," itmeans that He hates jealousy, envy, and strife. On the other hand, it teaches us that God loves life. "Do not covet" teaches us a similar lesson about what God hates, and it teaches us that God loves it when we are contented with what we have.

Herein lies the weakness of the law: it reveals hateful things in me. I confess that "not stealing" is a good law and it is holy. I love that God hates stealing. But what I find in my soul is thievery. Also, I find when God says, "Do not covet," there is a propensity in me to long for those things that aren't mine. I do this when I lust and scheme and get jealous. The law draws up the battle lines between myself and God, and in my flesh, I dig in when I hear it.

If the law of God draws up the battle lines, the love of God crosses the lines waving the flag of truce. God's love says, "You have assaulted the things that are good. You have embraced evil. You have loved wickedness. But come here to my flag of truce. I love you still. Let us have peace. I would have you for my son." And so God appeals to us in love in ways that the law cannot. The law of God says not to covet; the love of God gives me a reason not to.

Here is where I am broken by love: I see that Jesus has come because of love. I see that he was sent because of love. I see that Jesus himself is God's flag of truce. I see that Jesus has given himself, that he has died for my rebellion, and I see in that act the horror of my own sins. The law of God revealed the rebel; the love of God has broken him.

So then, I want to remember on Valentine's Day the love that broke the rebellion. I see that the One who hates murder was willing to be murdered by me so that I might see how terrible murder is. I see that the One who has all riches was willing to be impoverished so that I could see what is valuable. I see that the One who hates sin was willing to be sin so that I might become the righteousness of God. There are no words adequate to describe this love, this grace, that caused my surrender to my God. He won my surrender through His love. He showed me the foulness of my sin through His love. I am so thankful for the love of God in Christ Jesus my Lord.

That is worth pondering on Valentine's Day. I pray that you will.

Contextualization, Culture, and Ministry

2011-02-11T12:41:00.003-05:00

I have been reading and thinking through Tim Challies interview with John MacArthur. I encourage you to go and read it if you have any interest at all in this issue. I want to talk a little bit about the issues of contextualization, culture, and ministry as I see it.

What is contextualization? In the best sense, it is the process of understanding your culture/audience well enough to be able to speak the gospel of Jesus Christ to them in a clear and undistracting way. For example, if you want to be able to have a conversation with guys in Alabama, you should probably learn something about hunting, fishing, or NASCAR. If you want to have a conversation with the local redneck, you should probably realize that if he offers you a Budweiser, he's being nice and not testing your teetotal conviction. You should further realize that, if you refuse his offer, you need to do so in such a way that he you do not needlessly offend him over the matter.

If that's all it meant, then John MacArthur would probably not be saying the things he is saying. I do not think that John MacArthur wants the Acts 29 guys to start wearing suits and ties. I do not think he minds a soul patch, cool glasses, and Steve Jobs type sweaters. He just does not think that our evangelistic strategy should center on our cultural relevance. Not that culture is unimportant. It is the fact that culture shifts pretty fast, it takes a great deal of energy to keep up with it, and the payoff at the end will not be worth the effort to stay abreast of the trends.

I think he's right. I think I need to hear that correction. I'm not anti-contextualization. Seriously, I'm not. I'm also not an anti-cultural Luddite. However, I find that it is easier for me to study culture and contextualization than it is to really pray for people and do ministry.

First, let me say that I do not believe that this is an "either/or" proposition. I am saying that I think that this could easily get out of balance, and I think that maybe it does for people like me. That is, I find it far easier to buy a new shirt than I do to pray for men. I find it easier to make friends when I talk their talk and wear their clothes than I do when I begin to speak of God's law and the gospel. I can get the feeling that I am getting somewhere with a guy when I "blend", culturally speaking. And perhaps I can. But what I really need is to be filled with Holy Spirit, I need Him to come in power, and I need His wisdom to let me know when to speak, when to be silent, and when to turn the conversation to NASCAR or the gospel.

Here's the bottom line, you could dress up like Bozo the Clown, go into town, and if the Holy Spirit came "suddenly" like he did at Pentecost, people would be convicted and saved through your witness. You could also get relevant, dress like the world, look like the world, gain the favor of the world, and after you have fit in you might open your mouth to speak truth, and the world would run you out of town in mockery. Again, it isn't either/or, but given the choice, I will choose the easy way. The easy way is conforming to the world, not conforming in prayer.

All of our strategies: Super Bowl parties, clothing choices, TV watching for relevance, bus ministries, door-to-door witnessing, none of this matters one bit without the power of the Holy Spirit. I hear a lot about contextualization. I hear little about prayer. Puritans talked about prayer and holy living. We talk about context and culture. Maybe Jonathan Edwards should have thought harder about his wig choice. I don't know. But I do know that I need to think more about prayer and my dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

The Words Conservative and Liberal aren't Helping

2011-02-10T16:03:00.003-05:00

In the last post, I pointed to an article that pointed out the fact that the overwhelming majority of psychologists are liberal. This revelation probably provoked a cry of "No duh!" to everyone but the psychologists, but there you have it nevertheless.

But when you think about it, what does it even mean to be a "liberal"? What does it mean to be a conservative? I suppose that most people think conservative means that you are for conserving traditional values. A liberal might say that a conservative is someone who is more comfortable with the devil that you know than you are with the devil that you don't. That may be fair, actually. Or, it could be that a conservative is someone who is simply frightened of change.

So what, then, is a liberal? According to wikipedia a liberalism "is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion." Is that really what it means to be liberal? Because if it is, then I am confused. I am for, to a degree, every one of the ideals that liberals love.

I write all of this to say that I hear these words thrown out by either "side" like they are slang words for "boogeyman." When Rush Limbaugh, who I do not listen to, says that President Obama is a liberal, what does he mean by that? Does he mean that President Obama loves fair and equal elections? That he loves freedom of religion? Why would anyone get mad about that? And why, while I am asking, is it easier for me to listen to "Fresh Air" than it is for me to listen to Limbaugh? I'm beginning to think that if I am a conservative, then I must be the lousiest one around.

Honestly, I do not think of myself as a conservative or a liberal, and I do not think much of any commentary that banties those words around to score political points. I am a Christian, and as such, I am called to be discerning. I care for people's liberty. In fact, the letters I write to my representatives are almost exlusively about "liberal" issues. I write to them about people who are imprisoned because of their religious beliefs, and I write to them in order to speak for the unborn. I do not like bad stewardship, but it has not yet provoked me to write letters.

I hope that someday, Americans will realize that we can do better than listen to people who lob around words like musket balls. That is, they fire them off all over the place even though they might be wildly inaccurate. Seriously, do you want to know what a candidate thinks? Write him or her a letter. Tell them your concerns. Every time I have written a representative, I have received a cordial response.

Here's the bottom line on all this. When you throw out the word "liberal" with disdain, you haven't accomplished a thing. Whoever self-identifies as a liberal is not insulted, and people who agree with you already do not need to have their mind changed. So drop the label, and focus on the issues that matter to you. Write the person a letter. Attempt a dialogue. If we did this, I can guarantee you that there would still be strong disagreement, but it would change the political climate for the better.

Liberals, Conservatives, and the Social Sciences

2011-02-08T11:06:00.003-05:00

If you haven't already read this article in the New York Times regarding psychology's assessment of its liberal bias, you really should. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, it should prove most interesting.

I think that this article forces us to wonder how it came to pass that, if it is true that 40% of Americans self-identify as conservatives and only 20% as liberal, 80% of psychologists are liberal? There are a few immediate answers to this question.

It could be that the more you learn about human beings, the more liberal you become. That is, it could be that psychological studies naturally makes people more liberal because that is the way that we should be. Perhaps this study makes one compassionate, and therefore, more liberal. If indeed liberalism is more compassionate.

It could also be that psychology is inherently liberal at its core. If that is the case, it is natural that conservative thinkers would be put off by psychology from the beginning, therefore they naturally tend to study an alternate discipline. To alter that slightly, it could be that the core foundation began as slightly more liberal, so in the beginning, it attracted more liberal thinkers than conservative. Over time, liberals came to make more and more of a majority, thereby moving the foundational thought more liberal in the field as a whole.

My two cents? Of all that I have studied of psychology, it seems to me that the field is a sort of secular religion. That is, psychologists act as a modern priest to secular man. Now, instead of turning to a pastor or religious figure for counsel, people turn to psychologists. An interesting thought experiment might be to ask yourself whether you think it would be better to seek counsel from a person trained in pastoral ministry or a psychologist? Ask yourself why you picked one or the other? Isn't your choice rooted in your beliefs? This is probably why the field is dominated by a people of a particular perspective.

Life is interesting when you begin to poke around at foundations, isn't it? I believe that psychology, as practiced today, is liberal at its roots. It is a sort of secular religion, as I have said. Here's why I think that. Christianity teaches that man is, at his core, sinful and rebellious. What does psychology teach man is at his core? (In the majority, that is). Also, Chrsitianity teaches that man is a spritual being who has a body. Does psychology teach this? Why or why not?

Like I said, fun thought experiment.

A Letter To My Non-Christian Friend

2011-02-04T11:25:00.002-05:00

I hope that this letter finds you well. I have sat down to write this letter today in order to try and clear up some awkwardness that has sprouted in our relationship due to my faith in Jesus Christ. It could be that this letter will only serve to deepen that discomfort. Nevertheless, I am committed to being your friend, and I hope that we will find that the differences we have will serve to help us grow as persons.

There are many sources of contention between us regarding my faith and yours. I say "your faith" because we all implicitly place our hope in something. I place my hope in Jesus Christ and his teachings as outlined in the Bible. I know that some of the things that are in the Bible, and that I therefore believe, make you uncomfortable. They may even seem monstrous. I want to confess to you that there are many things in the Scriptures that make me uncomfortable as well, even if I am conscience bound to believe them.

Let's cut to the most difficult Biblical teaching first: the doctrine of hell. Hell is no minor point in the Bible. Jesus himself describes it as a place where "there worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48). It is alternately described as a place of oppressing darkness, of unending despair, a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and an everlasting separation. It is an awful place.

More liberal theologians have attempted to soft-peddle this doctrine. They have alternately tried to deny that it exists, or that no one but "the truly terrible" will ever go there. This is an injustice to the Bible and to the historical teaching of Christ and Christians. If I were to eliminate this from my system of beliefs, it would undermine my faith. Though it sickens me, I believe that there is a hell. I believe that those who fail to love Jesus will ultimately spend their eternity there.

This is what moves me to write this letter. I want to explain how I can believe this and remain sane. I want to explain because I never want you to go there. My attempts to talk to you about Jesus are not rooted in arrogance on my part, though I confess to arrogance and pride in many, if not all, of our discussions. It is certainly not about one-upmanship. All of our disagreements, over what constitutes sexual immorality, how much one should drink, and even the 'personhood' of babies in the womb; they all flow from my understanding of Jesus and the judgment to come. Practically speaking, your sex life is infinitely less important to me than is your understanding of Jesus. If I could somehow communicate to you his grandeur, his 'realness', and his grace, then I am convinced that he could teach you all these things far better than I, and he could ultimately lead you into far more joy.

Regarding hell, you must wonder how I could believe that anyone could deserve such a fate. I believe that when any crime is committed, that the punishment must fit the crime. We probably share this core belief. So then, if hell is really that bad, the question is whether or not Jesus is that good. I believe that he is. I truly believe that. Here's why.

First, I believe that every good thing that we have is because of him. Have you loved? I know that you have. Our loves come from him. He made everything good. He gave us both the sweet fruit and the taste buds to enjoy them. He made skin and sex. He designed everything about our bodies: our eyes and eyes and nose. He gave us smell and sight and hearing. He made us in his image, and it is this image that gives birth to the impulse of music and art and joy and poems. We are little creators, copiers really. We are moved to created because we can see, unlike every other animal, the beauty of God's work, even if we do not realize that this is what moves us. This is why primitive men drew the deer running in the cave, and this is why Rembrandt painted. They saw something transcendent even in the mundane. They saw the hand of God.

Jesus is the incarnation of God. He is God with us. I believe that there is one God in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God; Three Persons. I cannot fathom how this can be because God alone is like this. But I believe his very being is why we have community, love, and relationships. It is stamped on our persons. It is why I am your friend.

What does all of this have to do with hell? This still does not explain how I can believe that people will go there. First, I will start with myself. My friend, I should be in hell. I have been pridefully arrogant towards you in ways that would warrant my punishment. Think of this: if Jesus of Nazareth was really so good, so kind, and so gentle, why on earth did they kill him? This man healed lepers, reached out to prostitutes and thieves, and even dined with the religious. He shared his love and wisdom with all. So why kill a man like this?

Because it is precisely this goodness that makes us push him away. We do not, it turns out, love what is good. We like that Jesus healed lepers. We do not like that he commanded the adulteress and the sexually immoral to cease their sin or perish. It turns out that we are fired up about his gifts: sex, relationships, and freedom, but we are not fired up about him. So we, like thieves, steal that which belongs to him and flows from him, and use it in ways which he never intended, like a child who uses a screwdriver to punch holes in the wall instead of using it for its intended purpose.

The consequences of this behavior are that we wind up not really enjoying the gift as we should. We also harm others in the process. And ultimately, we run away from God with our precious sins. We run away into the dark, like Golem with his precious, and we stroke our sin and love it, even if it proves our undoing. This truth is ever present within myself. I have done this. I am guilty. But Jesus has come to save me, not just from the things that I have done and do, but he has come to save me from myself.

I believe, ultimately, that this is precisely what hell is. It is an eternal justice in this regard: it is the permanent giving over to conceit and selfishness, devoid of the current common graces we now enjoy. It is God coming into the room with the disobedient child and taking back his screwdriver. He is saying, "You will no longer harm others with my gifts." And when he takes back that which is his, it is natural to scream, and howl, and suffer. It is a horrible fate to ever love the gift, to be addicted to it, and to never learn to love the giver.

Take abortion for example. God says that every life is sacred. He says that children are good. Abortion says that children are a burden, inconvenient, and not worthy of life. Sexual immorality says, "I know how to make me happy with sex. I know what it is for." God says, "No you don't. I'm telling you what it is for and how it can add to your happiness." Yet, we refuse his counsel, we do whatever we wish, and when we are not satisfied we blame him or those who seem to speak for him.

I know that many Christians are a pain. I know that many are judgmental. I know that many who claim to be Christians really aren't, and they are truly as foul as you think that they are. I grieve at that. I find it difficult to share the truth about Jesus because of them. I find it hard to show you the love of God displayed for us in the death of Jesus.

This letter is already too long. I thank you if you have made it this far. Perhaps what I have said has further angered you. I beg of you, please let me know where and how. I am willing to listen. I would not be much of a friend if I didn't.

I want to close this letter with a few questions. Really, I want to ask you to think about something upon which everything else hinges. Who do you think Jesus of Nazareth is? You know what I think. What do you think?

Do you think he really rose from the dead? Think about that. If he didn't, it is the grandest conspiracy in the history of the world. It means that Peter, Paul, and hundreds of the early Christians were liars. It is historically undoubtable that they either lied or that they saw Jesus alive after he died and was buried. Could it be that he really did rise from the dead? I confess to you that if I were persuaded that he didn't, I would cease to be a Christian immediately. All my hope is fixed on the resurrection of Jesus. Could it be that he really did rise from the dead? If he did it changes everything. Could it be that he really was the Son of God? That he really did die to change us; to purge us of our sins? I urge you to give him a chance.

Again, I thank you for reading this.

Your friend,

Brad

We Must Suffer, but Only a Little

2011-02-02T16:27:00.002-05:00

"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—" (Philippians 3:8-9).

Suffering is certain in this life, even for the Christian. Perhaps I should say especially for the Christian. The types of sufferings we might experience in this world are limited only by experience and the imagination. People suffer terribly of sickness, hunger, from the beast of war, and death. There are infinite ways to break the heart, but there is really only one way to heal it.

This is why the "prosperity" gospel fails so spectacularly. This is why "name it and claim it" theology is so heart-breaking. This aberration of the gospel, which is really no gospel at all, tells the unwary that if you only believe God enough, then he will prosper you in this life. This is fine in good times. It kills in the bad. It kills faith when one is diagnosed with terminal cancer, when a beloved child is struck and killed crossing the street, or when a spouse betrays marriage vows. Then, the person is inevitably left twisting in the wind, thinking that all these things have come upon them because of a lack of personal faith. This is not so. It cannot be so!

Our Lord Jesus left infinite riches to become a pauper with no home. He was a King, a sovereign despot, who died with only eleven close subjects. And my, how he died! No one ever believed in God as Jesus did, and yet he was stripped of his only worldly goods, the clothes on his back, and he was nailed to a tree. The testimony of Jesus utterly overthrows the notion that we will not suffer. The Lord Himself said, "Take up your cross and follow me." Follow him where, you may ask? To calvary, of course. We must follow him up that lonely road and die there with him. It is the only way to live.

So, we will suffer. We will suffer scorn for righteousness sake. Some of us will contract diseases and waste away in the flesh. Some of us will spend many days in agony as life drains from this mortal coil. Some of us will suffer betrayals of the worst kind, from those whom we dearly love, and we will mourn. Ah me, how every Christian will mourn here! Anyone who fights in a war knows grief. We will see casualties of Satan, we will be wounded ourselves, and we will mourn the darkness. Our mourning and our cries will ascend to high heaven, and God will treasure up our tears by number. We will suffer. We will mourn. Some will grow old and go down to the grave with gray hairs. We will walk feebly on walkers. We will be fed Ensure with a spoon held by others. Our pride and strength will be wasted. We will return to the dust.

And after all this, after all this suffering, we will see the King of Glory. He will greet us as sons and daughters. He will delight over us. He will usher us into his joy. He himself will wipe away our tears. He will clothe us with his own robes. He will give us a crown. He will make us whole in every way. We will know that he heard our cries. We will know that he knew our sorrows, and that he cared. And in that day, we will look back upon the canvas of our lives and say with Paul, "Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord!" We shall say it was worth it?! It is true indeed that Christian people are a strange lot. We are mad, actually. We are mad with hope. It is why our elderly, our infirm, and our sick can suffer so valiantly. We are crazy with hope. This is why we can call death gain, and this is why we do not mourn like the world.

I grieve for the world, and I know I must suffer. I am sorry to say that you must suffer as well. It is the way of this fallen world. But I will tell you this, dear child, you will only suffer a little compared to the glory that will be revealed in you. You must suffer...but only a little.

He Lives to Intercede

2011-01-27T11:56:00.005-05:00

There is great comfort to be found in this verse, "He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25). It is the type of comfort that can drive away the dark night of despair; it is the type of truth that can warm a heart grown cold.

Jesus is the Christ; he is the Son of the Living God; he is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. By his will, the world holds together. He framed our night sky with billions of stars; he knows the name of each one of them. He knows when we rise up, and he knows when we lie down. He knows every word we speak even before it passes our lips. He knows the length of our days, and he knows the frailty of our flesh. He is incomparable. He is mighty. He is God. He is all this, and he is interceding for you.

Robert Murray M'Cheyne said it like this, "If I could hear Christ praying for me in the next room, I would not fear a million enemies. Yet distance makes no difference. He is praying for me." We would do well to lay hold of this truth for ourselves. Peter reminds us, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you" (1 Peter 5:6-7). You see that Christ cares for you? Do you feel that, when your flesh is weak, it moves our Lord Jesus to intercede? Jesus the Mighty kneels for us. He stoops for us. He prays for us. Are you surprised? The enemy of our souls would like for us to think that Jesus was done with us when he rose from the dead, as if the resurrection was the final mission accomplished. No, our Lord ascended to the right hand of His Father where he ever lives to intercede for his beloved people.

Oh, blessed thought, Jesus intercedes for me and for you! He asks of the Father on our behalf, and the Father delights to answer. You are safe today, beloved. Jesus has prayed for you. He loves you today as he did at Calvary. You are not forgotten; you are engraved on his hands; you are the love of his heart.

A House of Horrors

2011-01-19T15:59:00.002-05:00

I read an article today that horrified me. It horrified me because it is a true story. It horrified me because of the absolute depravity that it depicted. It horrified me because there were so many willing accomplices to the crime.

I am speaking of the recent arrest of Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia. Dr. Gosnell ran an abortion clinic that was really more of a baby "chop shop" than it was a clinic in any form. You may read the story here. I want to add my thoughts and reactions to having read this article.

For one, I wonder about the people who worked at this clinic. How could they participate in such work? Could you watch as a doctor severed a living child's spinal cord with a pair of scissors? Not once, but at least seven times?

Secondly, I was aghast that, even though this place was known as a House of Horrors, people still came from overseas to have their children killed there. I have an image in my mind of a mother, drugged into a stupor, lying helplessly unaware as her crying baby's life is mercilessly extinguished by a man wielding a pair of scissors. I have to temper this image with the understanding that the mother was complicit in this death. It is sickening.

Finally, I imagine that some pro-abortion people will say that this is exactly what will happen if abortion is outlawed. I must force myself to acknowledge that this may be true. It could be that these "Houses of Horror" would indeed spring up in the back alleys of major cities. I have some reactions to that.

First, it makes it clear that this is not an issue of mere legality. This is, in the end, an issue of convincing people that human life is sacred. If everyone believed that human life was sacred, it would be unnecessary to make abortion illegal, they would simply cease.

Secondly, just because these macabre clinics might indeed spring up, that is no reason to keep abortion "sanitary." That is, if a baby is indeed being murdered, having a clean scalpel does not make the act any more dignifying. We shouldn't legalize wickedness in an attempt to make it safe and sanitary.

This story grieves me. God have mercy.

HT:

Some Things Every Pastor Should Know

2011-01-13T12:48:00.003-05:00

I have been in the pastoral ministry for seven years now. It is not at all what I thought it would be when I began. It is not at all what I thought it would be when I graduated seminary. It is so unusual, in fact, that I find it is very difficult to explain what it means to be a pastor.

I know that it is my duty, as a pastor, to display the glory of God through the proclamation of the atoning death and glorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. I also know that it is my duty to display the glory of God in such a way that it will cause Christians to love God and one another more. The difficulty then, lies not in the job description, but in the carrying out of one's duty.

In the best case scenario, a young man who aspires to enter the pastoral ministry does so because he wants to do exactly what the job description calls for. Unfortunately, a young man enters the ministry with the idea that he can actually accomplish it. He goes to seminary, learns to parse Greek and Hebrew words, he learns to preach, and he might even learn to say prayers. He will then get hired, go to a church, use those skills confidently, and quickly find that his skills do not avail him.

For myself, I was under the impression that simply preaching the Word of God rightly would lead to the growth of the church, the salvation of souls, and the general progress of others in holiness. What I did not realize was that none of these things can be measured very accurately, that true spiritual growth is like fighting an uphill battle against a deeply entrenched foe, and that the vast majority of pastoral work is actually personal. I need to explain this because I believe it is far too often overlooked in the mentoring process of training a pastor.

I confess that when I began as a pastor that I thought I was an above average Christian. I thought that I was smarter than the average pew-sitter, and that I was more zealous for my God than many of my contemporaries. I even reckoned myself as one of the better preachers that I had ever heard. I thought that this would mean that I would be a great pastor and that the goodness and mercy of God would be showered upon those who would sit under my ministry. I have hardly met a pastor who did not esteem himself in the same way.

I want to be exceedingly careful here, lest I be misunderstood. I ask you to allow me to grant that what I thought was and is actually true. Grant to me, that compared to the average Christian, that I am of above average zeal and talent, and that I am an above average preacher. Here's what I learned: even if you grant me this, it is utterly and completely insignificant. I was, in the beginning, impressed with my skills even if God wasn't. It is difficult to learn that God is not interested in sharpening our talents and skills per se. He loves us far more holistically than this.

This leads to one of the greatest discoveries in the ministry. When a young man is preparing for the ministry, he believes that God is preparing him to use these skills to help others, and so he does. However, for a young pastor in pursuit of the heart of God, he will quickly find that the tools he thought were meant for others will first be turned upon himself. The sermons he prepares for others will convict him deeply if he has a modicum of true zeal for personal holiness. The Word will reveal to him his own failures and sin, and most often, he will ascend to the pulpit knowing that he preaches as the hypocrite. It is marvelous thing to watch a man preach "Thus saith the Lord!" when it is apparent that he himself keenly feels the weight of those words, and I highly doubt that God corrects a flock when He hasn't first dealt the shepherd the brunt of the blow.

This is how we begin to see how insignificant talent and skill are. By this, I do not mean that skill in the Word of God is useless. I simply mean that the pastor does not develop his sermon for eloquence. He approaches the Scriptures as one who goes to God, like David, and says, "Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!" (Psalm 139:23-24). Sermons are for the heart, and they are for the whole church, the pastor included. When a man preaches to others, he ought to know first that he preaches to himself. If he should forget this, he will be a poor pastor, and he will become an enemy to the flock and to his own soul besides.

Pastoral ministry is particularly out of step with modern times, and this poses its own challenges to the modern pastor. It is decidedly not a forty hour a week job, and the product which the pastor produces cannot be measured. These two truths are permanently inter-twined. A man never gets a break from the all-seeing gaze of God. David wrote, "You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether" (Ps. 139:2-4). The primary responsibility for the pastor is to walk humbly with his God and to bare himself unflinchingly every moment to the light of God's grace. Every action must be measured; every word must be weighed. Everything that he does must be done to display God's worth, even when he sits to eat. A pastor who opens himself to the scrutiny of God will not falter under the scrutiny of man.

This is slow, necessary, and lonely work The pastor must place himself under the discipline of the Lord; he must feel the weight of his yoke upon him. And when the pastor sees that his own sin is deep and odious, and when he finds that the chastening stripes of the Lord are gentle and loving, then he will be prepared to face the flock of the Lord in a right spirit. Oh how naive is the thought that learning Greek and parsing verbs is the major portion of sermon preparation! People often ask me how long it takes to prepare for a sermon. I often say, "It has taken me my entire life." We usually both laugh at that, but I could not be more sincere.

I have not touched on how the title of "pastor" will cause others to treat you differently, and it will hinder genuine relationships as much as it helps. Maybe some day I'll write on those aspects, but this post is already too long. I am very grateful that God has given me the privilege to pastor, and I hope that if you are a believer reading this, you will take a moment to pray for your own pastor as he seeks to love both you and Lord with all of his might.

A Brief Thought about the Tucson Massacre

2011-01-11T11:18:00.003-05:00

I read a great blog post today by Kevin DeYoung. I encourage you to read it here. He brings up a couple of very good points that I think are definitely worth pondering. Here are a couple that struck me.

One, for all the talk about the murders, have you heard a single person in the media place the responsibility for the shooting squarely on the shoulders of the shooter himself? I cannot recall a single one. I heard the local sheriff blame ramped up political rhetoric and things of that nature. Some have blamed this on the man's "mental illness." But I have not heard anyone say, "This guy was a wicked, evil wretch. That's why he shot the Representative and the nine year old girl."

So I will say it, this man was evil. The blame for the murder of innocents falls squarely on his shoulders, and he should be the one to pay for the crime. There is no excuse, no upbringing, and no mental disorder that justifies his behavior. If he had the wherewithal to purchase a pistol and plan a murder, then he is morally culpable and wicked. It isn't the fault of either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Does that sound like radical talk to you?

How to Think About Art

2011-01-06T10:57:00.007-05:00

Before I write about the nature of artistic endeavor, I want to be clear from the start that I am not a stereo-typical "artist." In speaking of art, I feel a bit like the guy who can play G, C, D, A, and E chords on the guitar. Sure, I can play basically every country music song ever written with those, but does that mean I can play the guitar? Listen first to Eliot Fisk play the guitar, and then you can tell me if the ability to perform a five chord progression qualifies one as a "guitarist."

I am, however, a bit of a wordsmith. I am also an orator. The proof of the former is that you are reading this. The second proof is that I am a preacher. Unfortunately, the art of oration is a bit of an under appreciated art form in this era of history. (Insert angsty sigh here to prove my artistry.) This does not qualify me to define what art is or does, but I'm going to give it a try for you anyway.

I am writing this, primarily, with the Christian in mind. I fear that many of my fellow Christians, especially evangelicals, have no clear grasp of what art is for and what it is should do. This is evident in the way that we condemn works of art like Harry Potter or "modern" art. Each is sniffed at or assailed for different reasons, and those reasons more often reveal the ignorance of the observer than it does the quality of the art. Yes, sometimes art is bad. But if art is bad, it absolutely must be bad for some other reason that "It offends me." Being offended is not the cardinal sin, nor is a measure of the value of something communicated. My wife may say, "You're being an idiot." I may say, "You've offended me!" My nearby friend may say, "Nevertheless, you're being an idiot." Not a very artistic conversation, but it can demonstrate that offense taken is no measuring stick for value.

So let me take a few criteria we can use to judge the value of an artistic expression, whether it be art by painting, by music, by oratory, poetry, or writing in general. These are made up criteria for myself. I use them to make certain that my personal sensibilities, which are sometimes wrong, are not getting in the way of a more objective consideration of what I am being presented. These are not in order of importance, but rather, they represent a series of questions I ask myself as I analyze art. Some questions I answer are not "stand alone", but naturally lead to other questions.

1. Is this piece presenting something that corresponds to reality?
I need this criteria when I am presented with something that is offensive to me. If I am watching a television show, reading a book, or looking at a painting, I ask myself if this is corresponding to reality. Even abstract art is attempting to say something about reality. If I am reading a novel, and one of the characters is flirting with adultery, it alarms me. I do not like it. But does this correspond to reality? Yes. Is it sinful for me to read about this? Not necessarily. If it were, the story of David and Bathsheba is too obscene to consider. So first, I ask if this corresponds to something in reality. Sin is reality. Simply presenting things as they are is not necessarily bad.
2. What is this art saying about reality?
I am reminded here about an art display I once saw where a man had taken a dead cow, put it behind glass, and put maggots and flies in there to display a rotting carcass. All that was missing was smell. The visceral reaction to that is, "That isn't art! That's just disgusting!" Well no, it was presented as art. This guy was "dead" serious. Was it reality? Yes. We die and we rot. Is it disgusting to look at? Yes, it most certainly is disgusting. So what was the man saying about reality? I think he was saying, "You are going to die, rot, and the maggots will eat you."

This is true, but is the piece trying to say that this is all we have to look forward to? Did it mean to do that, or did it only mean to spark the conversation?

Now remember, not every art piece is a Rembrandt. This very blog post is a work of art, if I may say so. It is low art, and it will be quickly forgotten. But it is serving a purpose. But hopefully, it may lead the reader to further thought. Dead, maggot filled cows will not be around in a 100 years like Rembrandt, but I thought that the artist who offered the dead, rotting cow was very brave, and he reminded me of a harsh reality. Death is real. Death is ugly. Death is coming. That isn't the whole story, but it is a true story and people need to be confronted with that reality from time to time, especially in a sanitized, clean, high-brow art museum. It was an unforgettable display to be sure. I'm still writing about it.

3. Does the art "keep it between the lines?"
I judge art on a continuum. This is most helpful in judging stories, movies, but it might apply to paintings and such. Imagine a line at the top that is called "cheesy" and at the bottom there is a line called "indulgently/erroneously wicked." I define cheesy as a movie whose message is, in reality, too good to be true. For example, and I hope I do not get hate mail for this, "Facing the Giants" stayed mostly above the "cheesy" line. Does that mean it is bad art? Not necessarily. I would say that it is what it is. It didn't win an academy award for a reason. Does that mean it is useless? No. It was entertaining, and there were elements that can lead someone to introspection and thought.

On the flip side, I recently played through a game called "Bioshock." Can games be art? Certainly they are, just as comic books are art. I think that Bioshock dipped below the "Indulgently/erroneously wicked" line. (I can't think of a better antonym for "cheesy".) The characters in the game were irredeemable. The story gave you no reason to feel any sorrow or sympathy for the villains. That is below the line because "good" stories should give us pause when we consider the villain. Great art does that. Consider gollum in "The Lord of the Rings." Was he a wicked little thing? Indeed, most wicked. Did the story move us to pity him? Yes, it did. There was a reason that Frodo didn't slay him outright. The ability of a story to help us see wickedness as pitiful is a mark of reality and it says something right about reality. Hope springs eternal for the redemption of others, and when they aren't redeemed, we should feel grief.

The reason I take pains to point out a few steps I take in regarding the arts is because I get the sense that many Christians feel that if a movie, painting, or book depicts wickedness then that movie, painting, or book itself is wicked. If this were the case, then the Bible would be wicked. Rather, a piece of art ought to deal with reality as it is, but not indulgently one way or another.

Finally, I want to be clear that not everyone has to enjoy or work at understanding artistic expression. I have an acquaintance who is a police officer, and his job is to troll the internet to look for child pornography. He has to sift through thousands of pornographic images every day and try to determine if those depicted are under age. I pray for him and others who have his job.

For me, it is important as a Christian to understand those who are around me. Why are they watching "The Office"? Why is this guy putting a dead cow under glass? What are the video games that children are playing teaching them about reality? What's right with it? What's wrong with it? I need to be able to have a conversation with someone, in a sane manner, that demonstrates that I have, in good faith, tried to understand what they are saying. Then, they will be more prone to give my words a fair hearing as well.

One Starry-Eyed Astronomer and his "Potential"

2010-12-21T09:36:00.005-05:00

It wasn't too long ago that Ben Stein, that master of dead pan, came out with a movie called, Expelled in which he and others claimed that creationist scientists were being thrusted out of academia by atheistic scientists. I am the first to admit that creationists, and especially evangelical folk, can sometimes be a little alarmist in the reporting of the nefarious doings of others. But this time, I think Ben Stein may have a point.

Today, I read an article about an astronomer named C. Martin Gaskell. He currently holds a position at the University of Nebraska and was a leading candidate for the head of an observatory at the University of Kentucky. Gaskell claims that he did not receive the job because of his religious beliefs. He may be right. You can check out the article here, and I hope that you do. The money quote is a snippet of an exchange between staff members at the University of Kentucky concerning Gaskell, "Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with, but potentially evangelical." Potentially evangelical?! Oh my! Oh noes! We can't have that kind of guy moving into the neighborhood, that would drive housing prices down for sure!

Okay, atheists and evolutionists think that evangelicals are idiots. We get that. We think that they are foolish. However, and this is a note to atheists, believing in a Supreme Being and that miracles happen hardly puts you outside the mainstream, nor does it hinder serious scientific endeavor. I recommend that Gaskell gets the job, and that everyone on that staff has to read C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man." If only!

HT: @Phil_Johnson_

The Real and Reasonable Darkness in Harry Potter

2010-12-17T10:38:00.005-05:00

I am a bit ashamed when Christians get bent out of shape over the magic of Harry Potter. It demonstrates a lack of critical thinking, a Luddite approach to the arts, and a very valuable missed opportunity to engage with culture in a meaningful way. If anyone reads the Harry Potter series and comes away thinking that the main point is spell-casting and the making of witches, then they simply fail to grasp the point of the series. The themes in Harry Potter are much deeper than wand waving and wizardry.

Truly, the heaviest theme in the series is not witchcraft, it is the exploration of death and dying. I would make the argument that death is the central theme of the Harry Potter series. How the main characters deal with death essentially defines who they will be as a person. Death, in one way or another, profoundly shapes Harry Potter, Voldemort, and even Severus Snape. The reason that Voldemort has any followers is that he has promised them immortality. They are the "Death Eaters," the ones who will escape death.

This is precisely why the "darkness" in Harry Potter grows as Harry grows and as the series continues. As a child, Harry is haunted by the murder of his parents. But because he is a child, death still seems a far off notion, the world of the living and the world of magic are what fascinate Harry. Harry is innocent, and though he has had to deal with the spectre of death his entire life, "The Boy Who Lived" is still just a boy at the outset.

As the story progresses, Harry has to cope with more and more death because, as I mentioned before, Voldemort is really, really evil. Harry not only has to deal with the murder of his parents, but by the end of the series he has had to deal with the death of his beloved "adoptive" father Sirius Black, he sees his friend Cedric Diggory murdered before his eyes, Mad-Eye Moody is slain, his pet owl Hedwig is killed, and his faithful servant Dobby the Elf is also killed by an evil witch. All of these deaths are tragic, but noble. Harry's friends my die, but they all do so acting quite bravely, each one dying in defense of Harry himself.

Ghosts first clue us in to this struggle with death. Ghosts are funny things, a sort of darkly humorous side item that appears in the series. "Nearly Headless Nick", who is played by John Cleese in the movies, is especially funny. When Harry's father figure, Sirius Black, is slain in battle with Death Eaters, Harry is hopeful that Sirius will return as a ghost. He speaks to Nearly-Headless Nick about it, but Nick tells him that Sirius will never be a ghost. Ghosts are people who died but were afraid to "cross over." Ghosts, then, are rather pathetic creatures in this light. They are those who are unliving, longing to live as they once did, but unable to embrace the fact that they never will.

Another magnificent scene in the series is when Harry gets into the carriage that takes the students to Hogwarts the year after he sees Cedric Diggory die. Up until that year, Harry, along with most of the students, believes that the carriages are drawn by magic. This time, Harry sees that the carriages are really drawn by red-eyed, leathery winged horse creatures. His friend Luna Lovegood informs him that these are "Thestrals" and that only those who have "seen death" can see Thestrals. This is a wonderful bit of writing. It symbolizes how Harry's eyes are being opened to the reality of death. Harry's battle, in the end, is not really against Voldemort. Voldemort is really more pitiful than a ghost. Harry's battle is with death, and once Harry faces the fear of death, and recognizes the fact that he must indeed die, then he is free from all the threats of Voldemort.

So if one wishes to be critical of Harry Potter, I hope that they will not do it because he waves a wand and shouts Latin"ish" phrases. Be critical because of how the series explores death, friendship, love, and bravery. I believe, if a Christian or anyone else, will judge the books on those merits, Harry Potter will come out a winner every time. The growing darkness of Harry Potter is not due to Mrs. Rowling's turn to the darkside. The growing darkness is because as Harry becomes aware of the reality of evil and death as he matures, so does the reader. It is a natural progression, not an increase of wickedness. Like Thestrals, the darkness was always there, you just couldn't see it before.

A Great Sign of the Apocalypse

2010-12-14T09:16:00.002-05:00

When someone mentions the apocalypse, I wonder what pops into your mind? Do you think of the sun growing dark or the moon turning to blood? To you imagine chaos in the streets, rioting, looting, and things burning? Do you imagine war and death and horror? Are these the signs of an apocalypse? Do you imagine a catclysm of epic proportions?

These may be signs of the apocalypse, but I want to say that there is a sign of the apocalypse that is far more familiar and wonderful. We are about to celebrate the dawn of the apocalypse. It did not begin with a great deal of fanfare.

The apocalypse began, and I use the term "began" very loosely, with a silent invasion. It was not a massive army that invaded, but a single subversive. He did not ride in on a war horse, he came as a baby, the son of a poor carpenter of Nazareth named Joseph.

You may have not thought of Jesus as being a sign of the apocalypse. You have probably never thought of Christmas as a time to commemorate the greatest invasion in the history of the world. But he is a sign of the apocalypse. The innocent baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger came to bring a sword, to ultimately slay all of his enemies, and to rule the world with a rod of iron. This baby will celebrate on Christmas will make the mountains quake, he will shake the stars from the heavens, and he will smite the world by the words from his mouth. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, and the rule of his kingdom will never end.

Simeon knew this. Simeon was a godly man who lived for the day of this king's arrival, this rebel who would overthrow the prince of darkness. Simeon took the baby from the arms of his young mother and said, "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34). Simeon saw that this baby was the beginning of the end of the world as it was, and that he would usher in the world to come.

I know that many of you that read my blog believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and I know that some of you do not. I beg you all to consider this sign again. When you pass a nativity, even a cheesy nativity, and you look at that scene of the donkey and sheep and doting mother and father, please consider what you see. Consider who this baby is that angels announce his birth. That so many, myself included, swear to their last breath that this little baby is the future King of Earth, the defeater of Death, and the scourge of Satan. Are we Christians all mad? Am I insane? Maybe. Or maybe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Is it true, or is it not true that this baby would grow up to be crucified and then rise from the dead? Did he come out of the tomb or didn't he? If he didn't, then I am a fool. If he did, then you are a fool if you do not consider what I say. Take heed this Christmas season in the midst of your giving and receiving of gifts. You are celebrating something as old as the fallen world: the promise of an apocalypse. This child has come for judgment, both yours and the world.

My dear friends, I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas. Above all, I want you to see that Jesus Christ is Lord. It is true! The little baby did grow up and conquer sin, death, and hell. Won't you at least consider the possibility? And if you already believe it, I hope that you will believe it enough to tell someone how Jesus brought the sword to your own soul.

Tax Cuts!

2010-12-09T10:52:00.003-05:00

I recently posted an article in which I announced my epiphany regarding the great recession. You can check it out here if you like. Since that day of revelation, I have been doing more pondering on the state of the American economy, and what it might mean to me and my family and friends.

First, we must take note that we are currently operating at around a $13 trillion dollar deficit. That, my friends, is a chunk of change. It's a fairy tale chunk of change, really. If you were buried under 13 trillion dollars, and you freed yourself at the rate of a million dollars a day it would take you ten million days to be free. That's around 27,400 years to freedom. Katy bar the door!

So now all the hype in politics is the suggested tax cuts that are about to be voted on. I admit to being undecided on the issue, as I have strong feeling both ways. I will go with the "tax the rich guys!" impulse first, and then work my way back to rational thought from there.

First, I admit that the selfish, fleshly, knee-jerk reaction to tax cuts for rich people is for me to cry, "NO!!!! Stick it to the man!" But alas, emotive jealousy will not serve in the place of proper argument except in Ford vs. Chevy discussions. So, my only real argument for higher taxes on the rich is that, well, they can afford it. And secondly, to those whom much is given, much is required. I am also not very persuaded that a tax cut on the rich necessarily means that they will re-invest that savings back into the economy. That might sit on it, especially if they see financial Armageddon on the horizon in the form of a 13 trillion dollar debt.

I know that there might be other reasons to disproportionally gouge the rich more than the poor, but none of them overcome this other selfish, fleshly, knee-jerk reaction: I hate taxes. I don't hate them like George Washington hated them. This guy went beserk and shot people over a three cent stamp tax. I hate them in a "Hey, get your own money, dude!" type of hate. I understand taxing me for roads, armies, bridges, and even a very limited welfare. However, keeping folks on perpetual unemployment seems to be an abuse of the working man. I am not about wealth redistribution, especially when it is my wealth that is being redistributed.

Also, I abhor estate taxes. I nearly hate them as bad as George Washington hated stamp taxes or like Ben Franklin hated tea taxes. Unless I am wrong, majorly and happily wrong, no one is going to leave me anywhere near the $5 million dollar allowable before tax. (Dad, you can correct me if I'm wrong, gloriously and shockingly wrong.) But it gripes me to think that a guy works hard, pays his rich guy tax bracket, amasses a tidy fortune, only to have it get ravaged to the tune of 45% upon his death. That's like spitting on a grave, if you ask me. Plus, when that wealth is applied to land, it really gets ugly. Some farmers might be land rich but money poor. That means that they have to sell the farm to pay the inheritance tax. Ben Franklin, where are you now?

But let me attempt to shine a small ray of hope into all this deficit talk and tax bracket wrangling. The deficit is actually an estimate, right? The government can only guess how much the American people will make this year and how much tax revenue there will be. So here's what we do: Let's all make an extra $120,000 this year in gross income and pay off Uncle Sam's debt that greedy bankers and home owners saddled us with. Or maybe, we could find another 100 guys as rich as Bill Gates and just steal all their money. Of course, that would ulitmately mean that everyone who worked at Microsoft multiplied by 100 would suddenly be unemployed. *sigh* This thing is more complicated than it looks.

The Story of Christmas, from the Beginning

2010-12-07T11:00:00.004-05:00

Once upon a time, and this is a true story, a man named Adam and a woman named Eve lived in a garden paradise. There was no death in that place. The animals were obedient to the man and woman. Every tree in that garden was good for food, except one. That one was not to be eaten from. It was the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and the man and the woman were to avoid it.

The most wonderful thing about this garden was that God visited it. He came to walk in it, and He came to fellowship with Adam and Eve. God loved the man and the woman, and He made everything: the sun, the moon, the stars, the trees, the water, and the world, so that they might have life and enjoy it and Him. But they betrayed God. They listened to that great enemy of man, Satan, as he slandered the motives of God for withholding from them that one tree. They disobeyed God and ate from it. For their crime, they were cast out of paradise. Death entered the world of men. Labor became intense and less fruitful. Child-bearing became an agony. And worst of all, God no longer walked with men as He once had.

But He still loved them, but his people were changed and twisted. Hate had taken root in their hearts. They no longer trusted God or each other. The man that God had lovingly made from the dust, the woman whom He had made from the man, they were now incapable of love. They had fallen far and were broken things, as hideous and twisted as the serpent who assailed them.

God would not leave his children, broken as they were, without hope. Adam and Eve heard the serpent's doom, "Hatred shall be between her seed and your seed. You shall bruise his heel, but he shall bruise your head!" So Adam and Eve went away from God and they had children. Their first were Cain and Abel. Perhaps one of them would be the one to crush the serpent? Alas! The bitterness of death and sin! Cain rose up and crushed his own brother, not the head of the serpent. Abel lay murdered by the hand of his own brother. The earth drank his blood and mourned. Even the earth was in agony over the paradise that was lost.

And so Adam and Eve grieved, but all was not lost. God gave them another son, and they named him Seth. Eve exclaimed, "God has appointed for me another seed in the place of Abel, for Cain murdered him!" Perhaps Seth would be the one to crush the head of the serpent.

But no, God's plan lay far into the future. Adam and Eve grew old and died, as did Seth, and Cain, and all the children of men. As each one died, his body, ravaged by death, would be put into the ground like a grain of wheat at planting, hoping that one day it may rise again. Men were not made for dying.

The men of earth turned their backs ever more away from God. The garden was like a dream. The bright skies of paradise were replaced by the fog of death. The trees, once fruitful, became useless for food save only a few. The fertile fields that once volunteered grain in abundance now made weeds and bramble. Men accepted this world. They ceased to long for paradise and the good God who made it. They murdered. They coveted. They sought paradise in their own pride and name. God looked and was grieved.

These people were made in God's image, and they were made to love one another. Every robbery, every murder, every wicked deed was an assault against that remnant of beauty that God had implanted. The key to paradise, the door to heaven, was unlocked with unselfish love. But instead of loving each other and serving one another, they used and abused one another. God was sorry that He had made them at all.

So the Lord determined to start all over. He decided to kill them all and be rid of them, for they were very wicked and even spent all their time plotting evil. Yet, God still loved them, and a descendant of Seth was especially beloved. His name was Noah. God spared Noah from his wrath. He kept Noah safe in an ark while the world perished around him in a cleansing wash from heaven.

Noah lived and had sons. One of them was named Shem. God loved Shem and blessed him, and he had many sons himself. The world grew evil once again in the days of Shem, and God cursed them to wander separated. Perhaps if they were apart, they could invent less evil.

What of the serpent? He continued to whisper lies into the ears of men, who were only too willing to listen. He lied and led them astray. He taught them new evils and schemes and always told them that they were gods. He piled up judgment for himself as he wrecked the world out of selfishness and spite. The serpent wanted to be God as well. He coveted the Lord's throne and beauty. He was a rebel and a liar from the beginning, and he ruled as a usurper over the sons of men.

But God had not forgotten his words. And so, from out of the sons of men he chose a man named Abram, another descendant of Seth, and a descendant of Shem. He called to Abram and said, "Abram! Come out of that land in which you are living and bring your wife Sarah. I will bring you into a land you have never seen before. I will give you many children, but most of all, the seed of promise will come from you. Through you and your seed, Abram, I will bless the world." And so Abram went out as God said, and God loved Abram and was his friend.

Abram had a difficult time. Sarah never had a baby of her own, and Abram grew frustrated. In the land which God had promised, Abram owned nothing. He had no children, and all that he owned would pass to a servant born in his house. One day, when Abram was near despair, God visited his friend and said, "Do not worry, Abram. I am your reward and I am your shield." Abram scoffed and said, "Lord, you have given me no children!" The Lord said, "I will surely give you a child through Sarah your wife. You will have more children than there are stars in the sky, my friend. Count them, if you are able, so shall your offspring be." And Abram believed God, and God declared him righteous. God saw this loyalty, this faith, and He said, "Abram! I'm changing your name! No longer will you be called Abram, you will be called Abraham, because you shall be the father of many!" (Abraham means Father of Many.) So it came to pass that Sarah had a son in her old age, and they named him Isaac, which means "Laughter", for this boy gave laughter that drove away the darkness of despair.

In the course of time, the baby became a young boy, and Abraham loved his son. One day, God appeared to his friend Abraham and said, "Abraham, take your son, your only son whom you love, and go and sacrifice him to me on the mountain I will show you." Abraham saddled up and left with Isaac and a few servants, fully intending to sacrifice his son. For Abraham trusted God with his most beloved things; Abraham believed that if he obeyed, God would raise Isaac from the dead. God saw this and rejoiced. He stopped Abraham and said, "I will surely bless you! I will surely bring the seed of promise through you! You have obeyed me even in this, surely your seed shall bless the world!"

And so Isaac was spared. Isaac himself had sons, one of them was named Jacob. Jacob was a bit of a scoundrel, but God loved him. Jacob had an older twin brother named Esau. Jacob plotted and swindled Esau out of his birthright and his inheritance. Esau was so angry that he vowed to murder Jacob. Jacob fled for his life, and God saved him out of all his troubles. After many years, Jacob was to return home and face Esau. The angel of the Lord appeared to Jacob, and they wrestled. Jacob wrestled with the Lord all night, and the Lord wrenched Jacob's hip out of socket, yet Jacob still would not let go. He cried, "Bless me! Bless me! I will not let you go until you bless me!" The Lord said, "I will bless you! No longer will you be Jacob, but Israel! Surely, the seed of promise will come from you, for you have wrestled with man and with God, and you have prevailed!"

Israel had twelve sons. One of these sons was named Judah. Judah was a proud man, and his pride led to him plotting to sell his younger brother Joseph into slavery. It also led to him nearly unjustly murdering his daughter-in-law. But God was with Judah, and he led him to do what was right. In the end, he put the interests of his family ahead of his own, and he was willing to live his live as a slave if it meant setting his youngest brother Benjamin free. God moved Israel to bless Judah saying, "Judah! To you belongs the promise! Your seed shall have the obedience of the nations! The rule of the world will never depart from him!"

And so time passed. Satan, that old serpent, went about murdering and lying, and men went on sinning. The children of Abraham became slaves to Egypt, but God delivered them. He eventually brought them back to the land promised to Abraham, and they grew and multiplied. The sons of Judah were many, and one of them was destined to rule. Out of Judah sprang up a young man who loved God with all of his heart. His name was David.

David was born the son of a sheep herder, and he himself was a shepherd. But God knew his heart, and He meant David to watch over more than sheep. He wanted to David to watch over Israel, and so God made him king. One day, while David was worshipping and thanking God for His kindness toward him, God came to David and said, "David! I will bless you! Your seed shall sit upon the throne forever! Through him, I will bless the world!" David saw that his son would not only sit on the throne of Israel, but that his son would deliver them into a new kingdom. One like the long-lost paradise of old. David saw that his son would take away the original sin of his people, and David rejoiced.

Israel waxed wicked after the death of David, and many of David's sons rebelled against God. It got so bad that many of God's people despaired, and so God sent prophets to encourage the faithful and to warn the unruly. One of his prophets was named Isaiah, and Isaiah said, "I can see what it will be like when the Son of David comes! The wolves and lambs will lie down in peace! The lion will eat grass like an ox! People will not die anymore, and no one will murder or kill or make war! And David's Son will sit on the throne! And look! Look! The Son of David is not just an ordinary man, he is God's own Son! He will come and take away our sins! God will lay on him all our wickedness, and David's son will pay for them. We will call him Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace! His kingdom will never cease to grow! It will fill the earth! He will reign in justice and righteousness forever!" Many of God's people rejoiced, but many did wickedly. God told Isaiah that when His Son came, most of his people would reject him and despise him, just as they despised God himself. The people turned on Isaiah because of his message, and under the orders of the King Manasseh, he was sawn in half.

As the years went on, Israel grew evil, as evil as the time when God destroyed the world by water, and so God scattered Israel and made them be the servants of other nations. The House of David fell into reproach and poverty. Everyone forgot the former glory, except for God. He watched over the house of David. God saw and loved a poor son of David named Joseph. Joseph was a righteous man, and he was engaged to a girl named Mary. Mary was also righteous and her heart was devoted to God. The Lord said, "Ah! At last! These two shall raise my son! These two shall hold the son of promise and the hope of the world!"

And so the Lord God sent an angel named Gabriel to Mary, and the angel told her that the savior of Adam, the Hope of Eve, the seed of Abraham, the pride of Judah, and the heir of King David would be conceived in her womb. Mary was overwhelmed and cried, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name!..He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our father, to Abraham and to his seed forever!"

At last! At last! It came to pass that the one who would crush Satan was coming! He would be born the son of a virgin from the House of Israel, and his father would be a son of David named Joseph. Caeser decreed that all should go to the city of their fathers to be taxed, and so Joseph went with Mary to his ancestral city called Bethlehem, and there the future King was born. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a feeding trough because the inns were full. They named the little boy "Jesus", for He would save his people from their sins. (Jesus means "Savior".)

And so it was that the promise of God and the prophecies of his servants were fulfilled that night in Bethlehem. As it is written, "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."

So the boy Jesus grew in stature before both God and man. He was just and kind, and the Holy Spirit of God was upon Him. But the people were wicked still, and because they hated God and could not endure loving anything but themselves, they could not love Jesus.

To be continued at Easter....

The Promise of Christmas Part 1

2010-12-06T10:45:00.005-05:00

I often feel that Christians handle prophecy rather poorly. Normally, when someone hears someone speak about prophecy, we think of visions of apocalyptic doom. I get a little bit squirmy when most people talk about prophecy, and if a prophecy lecture were like a bus-ride, I try and get off the bus at about the point where folks begin to talk about scorpions being helicopters, China being Magog, and speculating that if President Ahmadinejad puts on a purple turban then he is indeed the anti-Christ. I can, however, stomach charts which have up and down arrows representing the time of the "rapture."

Fortunately, prophecies are easier than all that silliness that usually passes for prophetic interpretation, and they are aspects of it that are far more important than speculating on the identity of the country who is Gog. I am speaking of the prophecies concerning the Immanuel, whose birthday we are about to celebrate. Are the prophecies concerning the advent of the Messiah clear or not? I believe that they are clear; I just don't think the average Christian has given them much thought. This is tragic both to personal faith and for credibility towards those who are looking from the outside in. It is, for example, far more important to understand what the Old Testament has to say about the Messiah than it is to get the greeter at Wal-Mart to say "Merry Christmas!" instead of "Happy Holidays!" Yet we see where many invest the majority of their energies. Indignation is easier than study.

So I thought that we might start at the very first Christmas prophecy, Genesis 3:15. The scenario is bleak. Satan, that old serpent, has just talked Adam and Eve into a vain power grab. Satan told them that God had withheld the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because God knew that if they ate it they would become like God themselves. They coveted God's authority, power, beauty, and Being, and so they ate. Ironically, they did come to know good and evil. They now knew good as a memory, for everything good that they had ever known had come from being in right fellowship with the good God who made them. They knew evil as their reality; evil is being alienated from God.

Into this predicament steps God Himself. He seeks out the man and woman, and He curses them for their own good*. He also has these words for that old serpent Satan, He says:

Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

Two things, two very important things are foretold here by God. He says that the serpent will "eat dust" all his life as he "crawls on his belly." This does not simply mean that, as a serpent, he suddenly became legless. It means that the serpent, who is the devil, will suffer continual defeat forever. He will never triumph. He will always eat dirt. In the prophecy of Isaiah, Isaiah sees a day when, "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food" (Isaiah 65:25). You see that, even in the restoration of all things when all manner of beasts live in harmony, the serpent is still eating dust. The enemy of men, the devil, will still live in abject defeat when God restores all things.

The second important prophecy is how this ultimate defeat is going to come about. It will happen through a battle with the "seed" of the woman. This person will be bruised by this seed in the battle. His heel will be bruised, indicating a crippling, but not life-threatening wound. The serpent, however, will have his head bruised, indicating a mortal wound. (It can be translated "crushed in both instances instead of bruised. It indicates more than a superficial wound.)

The rest of the Old Testament develops this idea of who this seed will be. Is it Cain? Abel? Seth? We must wait to find out the answer to that as the Biblical narrative unfolds. Who will crush the head of Satan? Who will usher in the time when the wolf shall graze with the lamb?

I'll take a look at how the story is revealed as Christmas approaches, and I hope that you will see that it all leads to a manger in Bethlehem and a cross in Jerusalem.

___________________________________________________

*That God designed the curse for our good may sound ridiculous, but I very much believe that it is true. Going into all those details will require another post all its own.

I Think I'm Starting to Understand the Recession

2010-12-03T09:47:00.005-05:00

I'm not a financial guru. I do know a few things about not being foolish with my money. I know, for example, that credit card debt is like being pirated by permission, so I do not have any credit card debt. I also know that cars are about the best way to throw away money that you can think of due to depreciation. So I have resolved to buy used cars until I have money to throw away. I also know that, over the long haul, the stock market is not a bad investment if you put your money into reputable companies and diversify. I also know that, as a Christian, it is my duty to be a good steward of the resources that I have.

Recently, I have been thinking of buying a small farm. I would like to have a few acres to grow some watermelons, some sweet corn, and some peas and beans. Not a large scale operation, just a place where my children can grow up outdoors and win prizes for goats at 4-H. I have some money saved up, interest rates are low, and so I decided the time is right for such a venture.

As I was shopping for a loan, I was pleasantly surprised, at first, to find that the government will back a farm loan through an entity called the FSA for up to 90%. That is, if I borrow the money and default, the bank is guaranteed to get back 90% of the investment from the government. I was perplexed to find, however, that the bank required 15% down for the land purchase. I asked why they would do this if they have a 90% guarantee, and they replied that they felt it was best if I "had some skin" in the investment. I responded by saying, "Here's my skin: 10% down. Where is your skin? You are making money day one because of the guarantee, right?"

Much to my amazement, I found that home loans have a similar backing by the FDIC (I believe). The government backs home loans, and correct me if you are in the know, up to 80%. That means if a bank loans $200,000 on a house, they are guaranteed a $160,000 payback on default by the government. If they require a 10% down payment, they are only risking $20,000 on the first day. That's a pretty safe risk on a 30 year mortgage with a person of good credit.

After finding these things out, I nodded at first and thought that this is a pretty good way to stimulate the economy. You lower the risk for banks so that they will not be afraid to loan money to people. People will then buy houses and open businesses, generating commerce. As I was having this happy thought, I began to think about how awesome it would be to open a bank if all those loans were practically guaranteed and risk free....

And then my happy thought went away. I suddenly realized that if banks had very little risk, they might just get greedy and make lots and lots of loans, knowing that the government would have to bail them out if people defaulted. They might even go from the standard 10% down to something like a 0% percent down to get people to buy. If you couple this with low-interest, front end, ballooning loans, you might just make a bunch of money. Unless, of course, lots and lots of people started defaulting and you starting bleeding those 10-20% losses all over the place.

Oh my! Is that why the economy tanked? And here I thought it was all George Bush's fault! Or that some Wall Street broker goon did it. Could it have been that a policy designed to help people was twisted by greed and used corruptly, not by one person, but by thousands of people trying to grab too much too fast?

I don't know. This is my own little personal conspiracy theory. If I am totally wrong about this, I'd appreciate the correction.

Some Reflections on Harry Potter

2010-11-30T09:32:00.004-05:00

I want to do a littel mini-series in review of Harry Potter, so I will get going with this one and explore a few themes and characters as I go. Hope you enjoy.

The more I think about the Harry Potter series, the more marvelous they become to me. Indeed, I am convinced that the series is magical in every sense of the word, and I find it a pity that many of my brethren have been unable to enjoy it because of their superstitious fear of Harry's magic. This series is not about magic. Magic is a prop, just as lightsaber's are a prop in Star Wars. Truthfully, the use of the Force in Star Wars is far more theologically problematic than the use of magic in Harry Potter. I will leave that statement for now, I can pick it up later if anyone would like.

I believe that the Harry Potter series has suffered from being classified incorrectly. I suspect that this has as much to do with marketing as it does with Mrs. Rowling's intent. Harry Potter was marketed as a children's book, and in some ways it is a children's book, but it is far more than that. This is a series about death, life, loyalty, friendship, courage, and love. These themes grow as the series progresses, and as they grow, the content seems to grow darker and darker. This is on purpose, for such is the nature of life.

Harry's adventure begins with an invitation to Hogwarts' school of wizardry, which if I remember correctly, Harry receives on his twelfth birthday. Hogwarts is a welcomed escape for Harry, for Harry lives with an abusive Uncle and Aunt. Harry's foster parents are over-the-top belligerent. They threaten Harry constantly, but it is evident from the outset that they are simply full of bluster. This does not lessen their cruelty by much, but it will serve as a tremendous contrast to the type of evil we will see in Voldemort.

Ah Voldemort! The man whose very name brings a curse on those who speak it. He is the perfect villain. I confess that I have hardly ever read a more sinister character. He is a nearly souless, pitiless, murdering, self-loving, others-loathing fiend. There are no redeeming qualities in Voldemort. If you want a peek at what the devil is like, then Voldemorte is a good place to start.

Early in the series, the scariest, most evil characters we meet are Harry's Aunt and Uncle. As I mentioned, they are simply full of bluster. The other evil characters we meet are the Malfoys. They are cronies of Voldemort. Draco is a classmate of Harry. He is arrogant and annoying, and he serves as a proper rival and foil to Harry, but he poses no real danger beyond rivalry. Lucius, Draco's father, is a far more imposing figure. He hints and threatens that he could do harm to Harry, but he is mostly harmless. By the end of the series, the Malfoys are cowering in fear in their own home, terrified of their own master. It is striking that Lucius, so feared in the early books, is reduced in our eyes to a powerless toady, so impotent that he willingly gives up his own son, his own house, and his own wand. Lucius is evil because Lucius is a coward.

And so it is in the world of Harry Potter. Things that seem terrible to a lad of twelve are going to pale in comparison to what he will know as a man of eighteen. Harry has to grow up fast due to the horror that is Voldemort.

Old Testament Law as Martial Law

2010-11-24T12:20:00.003-05:00

One way I like to think about the Old Testament law is to view it as a sort of divine martial law. It is interesting that even the Ten Commandments do not make their debut until Exodus chapter 20, that means we have fifty chapters of Genesis and twenty chapters of Exodus before we have much law at all. Why is it, then, that discussions of the Old Testament are dominated by law? Is there another point to the narrative of the Old Testament besides the "Thou shalts" and "Thou shalt nots"?

The law makes it debut only after Israel's rescue from the captivity of Egypt. Specifically, the law begins to pile up on the nearly salvaged nation after each transgression of the law only recently given. God rescues Israel, gathers them at the foot of Mt. Sinai, calls Moses up the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments, and Israel throws a party and makes an idol before Moses can get back. You've all seen the movie, probably, of Charlton "Moses" Heston breaking the commandments and having to go back for more, right?

The Apostle Paul tells us why God gave the Law to Israel. He writes:

This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made" (Galatians 3:17-21).

Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promise was made to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through his "seed" or his "offspring." Paul interprets this Messianically, meaning that the "seed" through whom the world would be blessed is the Messiah, whom Paul professed to be Jesus of Nazareth. Paul's explanation of the law is rather simple. Israel was so obstinate in the wilderness and so unfaithful to God, that God had to issue a sort of "divine martial law" to keep Israel in check until the Messiah came to redeem them and establish a New Covenant with them.

Martial law is established in a country that has become chaotic, often during a rebellion or riotous protests against a government. This is what we see in the Old Testament. The sinful people of God rebelled against him time after time in their wilderness travel. So God clamped down on them through the enforcement of divine martial law. He told them what to eat, how to shave, what to wear, when to take a holiday, when to work, and when not to work. All of this so that their rebellion would not utterly destroy them before the time of redemption.

Since Jesus is the promised Messiah, the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David, and since he has instituted the New Covenant by his own death and resurrection, martial law has been lifted. That isn't to say that the divine martial law was wicked. It all, every rule, jot, and tittle, flowed from the two commandments of loving God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving one's neighbor as oneself.

So it isn't moral relativism to insist in one epoch the abstaining from shellfish and then to eat it in another. It is simply a different circumstance. It is a good thing for a government to institute curfews during a period of martial law so that order can be maintained. This is the purpose that the law serves: to restrain wickedness. It serves, spiritually speaking, to keep the spiritual looters and rioters from harming the people of God.

The Djembe

2010-11-23T12:48:00.005-05:00

I've never given a thought to percussion. I have dabbled in the piano, the guitar, and learned to sing harmony in the choir, but for some reason the thought of percussion being part of the "music" had escaped me. That is, I hadn't until I heard a guy sit and play the djembe. It blew me away, and I instantly wanted to learn to play that instrument. Only three or so things stood in my way:

1) My perceived inherent lack of serious rythmn.
2) The "Africanness" of the djembe: I didn't want to look like a poseur.
3) I didn't own a djembe nor know anyone who did.

I finally swallowed my excuses, bought a djembe, and even though I may be a rhythmnless white dude from rural America, I love it. I can, sort of, keep 4/4, 3/4, and 6/8 time now. I'm still working on really playing, which means hearing and replicating cool "grooves.".

Anyway, I thought I'd include a video for your enjoyment of what a skilled djembe player can make it do. It's marvelous. Her name is Adjoa Skinner, and I think that this is a combination of three African folk songs which means "For all that you have done for me, I thank you everyday, I thank you all my life." I suspect that it is a sort of folk worship song.

And no, I can't play this well. Not even close. And I can't smile that pretty, either.

Uncomfortable Old Testament Laws

2010-11-22T10:02:00.003-05:00

My friend Alvin brought up a few salient in the comment section about Old Testament laws and the effect that Jesus had upon the Law through his life and ministry. Did Jesus abrogate the laws of the Old Testament? Did God change them because they were flawed? Should they be a source of embarrassment for Christians? These are good questions, and they have to be answered if a Christian expects anyone to take his faith seriously.

So, let me put forward a few propositions that should make my position on the matter clear, and then I will deal with one of the verses in particular:

1) It is just to put adulterers to death.
2) It is just to put a son to death who beats his parents.
3) The bond of marriage is sacred.
4) Evil is to be resisted to the death.

Now, the obvious come back to this is that we do not put adulterers to death, and Jesus let an adulterous woman go. So, are we, and more importantly is Jesus, acting in a morally relative manner?

I will say that being merciful necessarily means that justice has not been served. If it were just to be merciful, then mercy would be meaningless. If Jesus lets the adulterous woman go, it does not mean that she did not deserve death. It simply means that Jesus demonstrated mercy. Christians believe that this woman will meet Jesus one day as judge, and in that day she will give an account for her deeds. Until then, she has been blanketed with grace by the King himself.

Because the Lord Jesus has extended this mercy, it is now acceptable for us to live by his example. This does not mean that new laws giving the death penalty for adultery would be unjust. Nor does it mean that Christians no longer believe that adultery is a crime against our neighbor and against God. We believe that hell awaits the unrepentant, and that is far worse than death by stoning.

Now, let me deal with what I think is the most difficult of the OT passages mentioned:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

This sounds horrible, if we understand "seize" in this passage to mean rape. The NIV certainly translates it that way, and I think that is a mistake. The verb used here in the Hebrew is a different verb used in verse 25. In verse 25, the verb definitely means "to prevail over, to strengthen against." Here in verse 28, it means, "to grab, to seize, to lay hold of." I believe it is significant that the verb is changed. Further, we have an almost exact parallel to this passage in Exodus 22:15-16. I understand Deut. 22:28-29 to describe a consensual scenario as is paralleled in Exodus 22:15-16. The verb "to grab" is used here to underscore the passion of the moment and the violation that occurs in intercourse outside of marriage, not that it is forced on the woman.

I also have an explanation as to why it is okay to eat shellfish and catfish now that Jesus has been crucified and resurrected, and it has nothing to do with moral relativism either. Hopefully that is enough to get the discussion going for those who are interested.

Vocation and Education

2010-11-17T10:47:00.003-05:00

I have a few regrets about my college years. The most keen regret that I feel is that I was a poor student for most of my time in college. I had no understanding of what an opportunity for enrichment education truly is, nor did I realize that education is far more than the learning of facts or learning a trade.

I fear that the notion I had about education is endemic to our culture. When children are very small, we begin to ask them "what they want to be when they grow up." It is an interesting question or else we would not ask it, and I believe that it is an important question because it gives us a little peek into their souls if we are wise.

If you ask a child what he wants to be when he grows up, especially a little boy, he may tell you that he wants to be an astronaut, a fireman, a garbage man, or a police officer. Surely, no adult is under the illusion that the child has the slightest idea of what it means to be an astronaut or what it takes to become one. Children just like the idea of going into outerspace, and that is a fine thing for a child to want to do.

When a child says that he wants to be a garbage man, what he is really saying is that he wants to ride on the back of a great big truck all day and explore the town. (Alas, garbage men no longer get to do this in my town.) When a child says that he wants to be a fireman, he really means that he'd like to be someone's hero. When a child says that he wants to be a police officer, he really means that he would like to capture bad guys and carry a gun. It is the budding virtues that ought to be encouraged in a child, and that is precisely the foundation for all good education: the teaching of virtue.

This is why there is often a disconnect between education and vocation. A boy who wants to be a police officer does not understand the point of studying Shakespeare. A girl whose greatest ambition is to be a nurse may not see the point in studying Western Civilization. But police officers ought to be schooled in Shakespeare, at least, they ought to be taught why he is relevant to non-barbarians.

Shakespeare is important to police work because Shakespeare wrote about criminals. MacBeth was a criminal. He was a murderer and a usurper. He struggled with his decision. MacBeth struggled with his criminal impulse. He said, "We but teach
bloody instructions, which being taught return to plague the inventor." Ah, you see, MacBeth knew that murder was a bloody schoolmaster, and that murderers tended themselves to be murdered. Murder is unwise, MacBeth says. Think of it, MacBeth was murdering the king in order to be the king. If king's are subject to such betrayal, then what will stop the next opportunist from killing MacBeth? If everyone behaved as MacBeth, then the society could not function.

MacBeth is filled with the idea of morality, criminal activity, and the consequences thereof. So is Hamlet. All the classics of literature grapple with these great questions and help to shape our moral thinking. History is a grand drama in itself, greater than anything that Shakespeare imagined. I say that because he pulled his stories from the common experience of mankind. He echoed in his fiction what was wrought in the reality of the world. This is why nurses ought to study history and firemen should study literature. This is why we do not go to college to simply learn engineering or accounting. This way, when an officer is offered a bribe, he will be prepared to refuse it because all the greatest sages have warned him of the consequences of corruption.

I should like it very much if, instead of bending down to little toddlers and asking them what they would like to be when they grow up, if we would also ask of their parents, "What would you like for your child to be when he grows up?" This would probably stump most parents. They might say something like, "Whatever he would like to be." I would say, "And what if he would like to be a criminal?" I imagine no parent wants that for their child. For myself, I wish for my children to be people of virtue and character. I do not care if he is a ditch-digger, a landscape architect, or a medical doctor. I want my children to be, above all, godly. My endeavor is to instill in them wisdom, virtue, and moral character. After that, they can do whatever they like.

I wonder, is that how we look at education? Do we agree with this from Solomon? "How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver" and "The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight" (Proverbs 16:16, 4:7).

Another Reason to Believe

2010-11-16T15:12:00.004-05:00

There are a number of reasons that I find to believe in the veracity of the gospels and the New Testament. One that always sticks out in my mind is the brutal honesty with which the followers of Jesus are depicted, and even the way in which the ministry of Jesus itself is depicted.

The first and most obviously interesting thing about the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is that they were not written by Jesus. They were written by his immediate disciples. Either Matthew or Mark were written first, depending on who you believe, with John being the latest. Luke composed his gospel account based on eyewitness reporting (Luke 1:1-4). Mark, according to tradition, composed his gospel account under the watchful eye of Peter himself.

Most of the time, when someone writes a book that is a bit of an autobiography, you expect that person to appear in a somewhat favorable light. This is not the case in the gospels. There, we find the disciples being a group of near bunglers. They are constantly misunderstanding Jesus, apparently clueless as to his teaching, and seem to bicker incessantly about who is the best disciple (Matt. 16:10-12; John 12:12-16; Luke 9:46, 22:44). They are not, to say the least, portrayed in a very flattering light.

Imagine if you were Peter, the great leader of the early church, would you be especially keen on including that episode where Jesus called you Satan? (Mark 8:33). Or, would you want to include that part where you denied Jesus three times out of fear being identified with Jesus? (Mark 14:66-72). That took some serious humility to include that, something almost unprecidented in the history of autobiography.

And what are we to make of John's gospel account? By the time John wrote, many of the other disciples were already dead. Yet, he doesn't even name himself in his own book. He only refers to himself as "The One Whom Jesus Loved," which might also be translated, "The One Whom Jesus Kept Loving." What sort of men are these who write about themselves in such a manner?

So imagine these men, these great men, Peter, Matthew, and John. All three of them are followers of Jesus from the beginning. They all had the chance to write down the greatest adventures of their lives, and instead of their books being about them, they chose to write themselves a bit part in order to introduce the world to Jesus. We would not even know of Peter's raising Tabitha from the dead if it weren't for Luke's account in Acts.

I can understand writing a biography about a great man. I can even imagine the disciples wanting to write a great book on the things that Jesus did. I understand seeing greatness and wishing to share that greatness with others. Jesus, since so many books have been written about him, must be great indeed. Yet, here is what I do not so often see. I do not often see a man that is so great that he not only compels men to write books about himself, but that he is so great that he compels men to write truth about themselves. That is the marvelous thing about Jesus, and that is why I believe his disciples. They tell the truth, not only about Jesus, but also about themselves.

Cam Newton: This is Beyond Football

2010-11-12T11:47:00.003-05:00

I need to make a few disclaimers before I write this piece so that my biases, if any, are clear to the reader who may stop by. I'm an Alabama fan. I spent four years of my life on that campus, actually received a diploma from that distinguished University, and I will be making a trip down on Thursday to introduce my son to Alabama football, tailgating, and Denny Chimes. I also want to confess that this controversy has put me in the uncomfortable position of being proud of an Auburn football coach for defending his player. It seems obvious to me that Coach Chizik is not simply concerned about his career or his program, but that he is genuinely interested in protecting Cam Newton as an individual. I say good on him. I tip my hat to you, sir. I will never call him Coach Cheesedip or Coach Cheezit again, and that privilege is a right to every Alabama fan that I give up willingly for his manful defense of his player.

This business with Cam Newton has horrified me. It has brought me zero joy as a fan of Alabama football and the sworn enemy of all things orange and blue. It has horrified me as an American, and it has horrified me as a Christian. This isn't funny. Nothing about this is funny. To me, this is dead serious.

Let me deliver a few more disclaimers, if I may. I have no doubt that Cam Newton or his daddy is capable of taking a bribe. I believe that I am capable of taking a bribe. I believe in the falleness of humanity, the power of greed, curfews, and not letting my daughter date until she is 20, and even then I want to vet every candidate. The reason I believe in these things is because I believe in the sinfulness of humanity. All this to say that every Alabama football player could be taking bribes and it would not ruffle my worldview in the least. As G.K. Chesterton rightly notes, "It is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes. It is a part of Christian dogma; it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part of obvious human history...In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this moment." Indeed and amen. Since Cam Newton and his family are human, it is no trouble at all for me to imagine them being attracted to the prospect of a $180,000 signing bonus to a top-tier University.

Our wise forefathers recognized this tendency toward reprobation in the best of men, and therefore they designed a system of law that declared every man innocent until proven guilty. That, at the outset, may appear counter-intuitive. Actually, it might be one of the greatest strokes of genius in the history of the world. We must assume every man innocent precisely because we are prone to believe, as history and the Bible inevitably teach us, that all men are capable of the most heinous crimes. The catch is that sometimes men are innocent. Sometimes they refuse bribes. Sometimes they behave altruistically. Sometimes, men are not scoundrels. Better to set ten scoundrels free than impugn the beauty of the one man who said no to wickedness.

Therein lies my revulsion at what has occurred in the media. Cam Newton, a young man of undeniably superior talent, has been the victim of slanderous accusations with no recourse whatsoever. He has not had his day in court. Records which are protected by Federal Law have been unsealed for the world to mock. His rights as a citizen have been violated. Irrelevant charges have been brought forward to besmirch his reputation. True or false, these are matters for investigative committees who have the authority to look into such things. So that, if these charges are spurious, they may pass by without the character of an individual being assassinated. These are basic human rights over which we go to war and shoot and kill and die. This is beyond football. This is beyond rivalry. We are talking about due process and the rights of a fellow citizen, not just whether or not a young man ought to play football next week or win the Heisman trophy.

There are many things that I would like to see happen in the weeks to come. One is that I would love to see Alabama take Auburn to the woodshed. I want this to be an honorable and fair context where the best team wins. I want sportsmanship to prevail throughout the contest. I would also like to see every lawyer that graduated from the University of Alabama prepared to defend the civil rights of Cam Newton and the lofty ideal of due process. Let the man have his day in court, and let him have his privacy as well.

Jesus Said That

2010-11-10T11:12:00.007-05:00

I always find it curious when someone who is not a Christian proceeds to tell Christians that they are not good Christians. Usually, the phrases that get used are something like, "Judge not that you be not judged!" or "God loves everyone just the way that they are." Usually, this comes about when a Christian has voiced his or her opinion about some type of behavior being sinful.

Now, the first thing that a Christian must keep in mind is that this sort of argument is not to be taken personally. Secondly, they must remember not to get angry about this because it is patently silly. Silly things should not make us angry or defensive. If my buddy Matt tells me that he is the Queen of Sheba, anger should not be my first impulse.

Once these first two impulses are squashed, the third imperative can follow. That is, we must remember that the main issue is always Jesus. Who is Jesus? What did Jesus teach? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? This is far more important than debating marriage laws, polygamy, homosexuality, or whether or not someone should vote Republican.

So if I say, "I believe that 'gay marriage' is as ridiculous as a squared circle," and someone retorts that I'm being a judgmental bigot who is unworthy to call myself a human being, much less a Christian, because Jesus would never say such a preposterous thing, I need to think, "Heeeey...this person doesn't know about Jesus very well" not "Heeeey...he just called me a BIGOT!"

Here is something that Jesus actually said, "He whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:34-36). Jesus makes some pretty big claims in this passage.

First, Jesus claims that God sent him. Next, Jesus claims that when he is speaking, he is uttering the very words of God. Then, Jesus claims to be the rightful ruler of all things because God gave him everything. Finally, Jesus says that whoever does not obey him will perish under the wrath of Almighty God. Jesus made it abundantly clear throughout the gospels that he believed himself to be the only way to get to God (John 14:6). He also defined marriage, and a great list of other things whilst he was here, including affirmations of the Old Testament.

This is how the Christian can deal with name-calling and misunderstanding. Jesus said, "It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matthew 10:25). Basically, if someone objects to the teaching of Jesus, even though it is a hapless Christian merely parroting the words of the Great Teacher, the one who is objecting falls under the condemnation of which Jesus spoke. In reality then, it could be Jesus who is the judgmental bigot who is unfit to be a human being, or he could be the King of the Universe who gets to make the rules for the creation that he himself helped make and currently sustains.

Straight Couple Wants a Civil Union

2010-11-09T13:54:00.003-05:00

Despite having a terribly misleading title,this AP article is interesting to me on several levels. There is a straight couple living in Britain who would like to form a civil union instead of a marriage. Their reasoning, and I quote from the article here, is that "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners — we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that."

My problem is that I cannot understand that statement at all. Forget the controversy about "gay" marriage and "civil unions" for a minute. I'm having trouble following simple language of late.

I know that I said to forget the controversy, and I hope that you can because my point here is more subtle. For all of known history, the very definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. I don't think that this is seriously disputed by anyone. What some would like to do is to change that definition to include homosexual unions. I don't know what that definition change might be. It's going to have to be more complicated than it used to be. I know that for certain. Somehow, you have to define it so that we can put the whammy on polygamy, beastiality, child marriage, and the appearance of incest. (Yes, there are adult people out there who do all of these things, I've seen them on Jerry Springer. There is even a polygamist with his own show now.)

My problem today is when people start using words, words that are well defined, as if they weren't well-defined. Or, at the very least, using words as if they cannot be bothered to look them up in a dictionary. Figuring that it must be me who is the dim-wit, I took the time to look up "Civil Union" in the encyclopedia. Here's what it said, "legal recognition of the committed, marriagelike partnership of two individuals." Underscore "marriagelike" in your brain and look at the reasoning behind the straight couple's desire to have a civil union. I wonder what part of their relationship isn't marriage-like? The vowing part? The forsaking all others part?

As if this didn't cause me enough confusion, I saw that "gay activists" are supporting this couple's bid for a civil union. This didn't surprise me, and at the very least I am glad that they are being consistent. But look at their reasoning behind backing this couple, "They are being backed by gay rights activists, who hope a ruling that allows straight couples the right to a civil partnership would mean, in turn, that gay couples have the right to wed." You see that? They are hoping that this will allow them to wed.

So, let me try to sort this all out here for my sanity's sake. Remember, this is about definitions here, not just marriage controversy. The straight couple does not want to be "married" because they don't feel particularly husband or wife-like, but they still want to be recognized in a legally binding union that is legally equivalent to marriage. This gives them what they want because they can be united under law, before their peers, and get tax breaks without them having to feel like husband and wife. The gay people, on the other hand, want to get married because they want to feel like husbands and wives. Even though it has previously been impossible for one to be a husband unless one actually had a wife. They want the state to legally bind them together in a way that benefits them with taxes, gives them equal rights, and etc., which they already have in civil unions, only they want to be "wed."

I think that this is marvelous in our mad, mad world. The only thing standing in either the gay activists or this straight couple's path is this nonsense of definition and meaning. And perhaps, common sense.

But what do I know? I'm a dinosaur who believes in objective truth and www.dictionary.com.

What is Truth?

2010-11-04T16:19:00.003-04:00

Pontius Pilate, in his fascinating conversation with Jesus of Nazareth, asked Jesus if he were a king. Jesus said, "For this purpose i was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" (John 18:37-38).

This conversation stops me in my tracks. Pilate asked a great question, and interestingly enough, John does not give Jesus' reply. He leaves the question dangling in the air, echoing down the millennia until it reaches us. I can still hear Pilate ask it. He was so close to truth that it was literally staring him in the face.

For several centuries, Christianity has enjoyed a hegemony on truth in the West. Western civilization was shaped by the Bible, Christendom enforced the Bible onto the populace to the point where unbelievers and deviants were persecuted. For good and for ill, the Bible was used and abused to force conformity amongst the Western populace.

That is, until the rise of the Anabaptists and Mennonites and others like them. They rebelled against the "church-state" paradigm. They believed that conversion could not come by the government or the sword, but only by grace through faith in the gospel. Eventually, persecution led many of them to the New World. There, Baptists would eventually be instrumental in insuring the separation of Church and State and the freedom of religion for all people, even freedom to worship the devil.

Believe it or not, that grand and great dream laid down by the early American Republic has had a major impact upon truth. As the early Baptists suspected, if given the chance to freely worship the devil, some people would. And some would be Buddhists, and some would be Hindus, and some would be Moonies, and some would be atheists altogether. Being a Baptist myself, I am altogether delighted that they have the freedom to be as wrong as they please.

For the first couple of centuries, the people of the United States spoke Bible, as did their ancestors in Europe. I do not mean that all the people in the United States were Christian; I would never argue that. However, it is apparent that they all filtered their understanding of life, predominantly, through a Biblically colored lens.

Take Thomas Jefferson as an example. He was, from what I can tell, a Christian heretic par excellence. He famously cut out the miraculous parts of the Bible, leaving in all the laws and the moral code and the ethical teachings of Jesus. It seems that he admired the teachings of Jesus. Such would have been the attitude of many in that day: the default lens for interpreting right from wrong was a Biblical one. One can hardly read a novel or or thinker who wrote from the beginning of the republic until the early 1950's who wasn't profoundly aware of Biblical traditions of right and wrong, and even the moral stories* that the Bible contains.

Now, things are on different. Christianity does not enjoy the hegemony it once did. That's not to say that its influence isn't strong and felt. It surely is. However, there is a much greater competition of ideas out there in the market. Some are compltely foreign to a Biblical worldview. Jefferson did away with the miracles. Post-Modern America has ditched most of the Christian ethic.

This brings me back around to Pilate and his question to Jesus: What is truth? I think for many, Pilate's original question may even assume too much. Instead, the question of the day might be, "Is there such a thing as Truth?"

I believe that there is Truth that is objective, real, and unchanging. I believe that Truth is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. The challenge for Christians is now, as it has always been, is to take the gospel, the story and teachings of Jesus, and put them into the market place of ideas. The gospel is a narrative without parallel. The beauty of Jesus is without rival. He is a teacher without equal. If Christians would just see that He is the message, we could be a far more winsome and compelling people.

Does This Make Me the Bully?

2010-11-03T14:56:00.004-04:00

Many of you will remember the very recent tragedy of the young man who committed suicide at Rutgers because his roommate recorded him in an "encounter" with another male. The young man's name was Tyler Clementi. You can read the story here. Tyler's suicide prompted a nation-wide call to end the bullying of people based upon their sexual preference. This was a call echoed by many Christians as well, myself included.

I firmly believe that no one ought to be bullied. I find it reprehensible that Tyler's roommate recorded his tryst and put it up on the internet. I can only imagine the shame that could have been mine if any of my roommates had a well-placed camera hidden in my room back in the day. Perish the thought! How awful!

Today, I saw this article about Kye Allums. Kye is a female who believes that she is male. Upon graduation, Kye wants to undergo surgery and hormone therapy to become a man. Until that time, she wants to be recognized as a man on the women's basketball team. George Washington University has honored her request and now recognizes her as a man on the women's basketball team.

You really should go and read the article. I want to give you a quote from it here for consideration, "At a time when many college athletes feel uncomfortable publicly revealing that they are gay or lesbian for fear or backlash or repercussions, Allums should be lauded, cheered, propped up and respected for being brave enough to announce his differences without shame." First, notice that Kye is always referred to as a "he" throughout the article. Secondly, notice that Kye is to be lauded, cheered, and propped up for her decision to be recognized as a man, even though she is still biologically a woman. She feels like she is man, therefore she is a man.

I find myself in a dilemma. Upon reading this article, the utter insanity of Kye's request, the fact that it was granted by George Washington University, and the fact that this decision is to be lauded initially made me check to make sure I wasn't reading the Onion. When I found out this was a real story, I immediately realized, to my horror, that if I said out loud that I thought this was absurd that people would immediately call me a bully on par with Tyler's roommates.

Is this situation absurd? Is Kye's request that she be recognized as a man because she feels like a man absurd? Is my pointing out the absurdity of the request evil and mean-spirited? Let the reader judge, but let me first give a goofy scenario that is actually true.

My grandfather's name was Nokomis Williams. My great-grandfather's name was Powhatan Williams. My father wanted to name me Powhatan but my mother refused. I got the interesting name of John Williams instead. The fact is that I have enough Native American heritage to apply for, and perhaps receive, a tribal card and Native American status. I could have gotten money for college and received the benefits of a minority. I felt at the time that this was taking advantage of the system since I am at least 4/5's white dude, live in middle-class suburbia, and I have no immediate relations to a single indian. Would I have been an abuser if I had insisted on being called an Iroquois? Perhaps not.

But what if I decided I was an African american? I have no black ancestry. But, I have always felt African American. I like their clothing. I'm a good dancer. I'm more attracted to black folks than white folks. Therefore, I insist that everyone treat me as black, give me full status as an African American, and after college I intend on dying my sin darker and take hormone treatments to look more African American.

I imagine I would get bullied. People would think that this is ridiculous. African Americans would probably be offended. Would it be wrong if people said I was being ridiculous?

Or am I just being a bully?

Election Day is Over

2010-11-03T09:34:00.004-04:00

It is good to be a citizen of the United States of America. This morning, we awake again to a peaceful transition of power in the House of Representatives. It may not seem peaceful with all the rhetoric and accusations that fly about during election cycles, but it is. I am so very thankful that even my political enemies will ascend to Capitol Hill with mud-stained and not blood-stained vestments.

For the Christian "non-statesman", it is time to get back to the work that God has called us to do. That is, we are to "be subject to the governing authorities." And, we are to remember that "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Romans 13:1-2). And again Paul says, "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed" (Rom. 13:7). If Paul wrote this concerning a regime that would eventually chop off his head, surely Christians can pray for Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid.

It is true that some government officials are immoral rascals. It is imminently true that all government officials are capable of the most heinous crimes, even our darling favorites. G.K. Chesterton puts it nicely: "It is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes. It is a part of Christian dogma; it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part of obvious human history...In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this moment."

This is why it is the duty of Christians everywhere to pray for and to support those who rule over them. We are to encourage our officials; we are to help our officials. This does not mean we are not to speak the truth to them, or that we are not allowed to disagree, or that we should not give our opinions. These things are all helpful to our leaders. We must, however, always conduct ourselves with a posture of submission, humility, and respect. We are never to speak slanderously of our rulers, and we are never to debase them by name-calling. Such things ought never to happen amongst Christians, yet it does and the faith suffers.

So Christian, pray for your leaders today. Remember that your hope rests in the kingdom that is coming. King Jesus will be here soon enough. Until he appears, obey him by submitting to the leaders he has appointed.

She Kissed His Feet (Lk. 7:36-50)

2010-10-29T11:05:00.004-04:00

Simon was a religious man. He understood morality; he understood right from wrong. He knew what things a good person should do and what things a good person should avoid. Mostly, I would guess that Simon and I would probably cast similar votes on election day. I would guess that he and I would avoid the same places, habits, and people. One day, Simon had the privilege of having Jesus over to his house for dinner.

During the course of that meal, a very unusual thing happened. A woman who was a known "sinner" came over and began to kiss Jesus' feet. She kissed his feet. She was crying as she did this, and she was wiping off his feet with her hair. How awkward for Simon. How awkward this is for me to watch, you might say, as I read this story. I am a by-stander, these many years later, to a very intimate, and potentially humiliating moment.

I am not really concerned with Simon. I don't need to analyze his thinking. I understand him well enough because I'm like him. I relate to Simon. I think most people I know are probably like Simon.

I have also known a few women like the one in this story. That is, I have known some sinful women. I have known some, what others call, "loose" women. I only mention this to say that I know some folks like her; who do and have done the things she did. She is hardly an unusual character.

I do not understand Jesus. I do not know anyone like him. He is the odd thing in this story for me, and the one that I most want to be like. I can relate to Simon because I am Simon. And really, I think he is the most common, if not the most easily despised character in the story. I can understand the immoral woman. I cannot understand Jesus, and yet I must.

I know that the main point of this story is that the immoral woman loved Jesus more than Simon. I get that part of the story. I amen that part of the story. I love it that Jesus rebukes Simon's, and therefore my, pettiness. I need more than that.

I want to know how Jesus did it. How did he gain this woman's love, real love. She was a woman of "ill repute." She knew what it was for men to desire her. She knew what it was to enjoy a man. So, I have to wonder, how was her encounter so different with Jesus? He obviously did not pursue her as an object of lust. I want to know what he said to her. I want to know where he met her. I want to know how his kindness to her and his love for her as an individual was made so obvious to her that it broke her heart and healed it at the same time. I want to know what he did or said that was so powerful that it would overcome her probable dislike of Simon so much that she would break taboo to go into Simon's house and kiss Jesus' feet! How did he do that? I say with those gathered, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" I say this and I know who he is. He amazes me.

There are plenty of Simons in my town, and there are plenty of people of ill-repute. I want the church to be like Jesus, who was able to sit with both, who was able to amaze both. Oh that God would help the church to be amazing again like his Son is! For myself, today I must be contented to watch Jesus as the woman kisses his feet while Simon scowls, and the guests shift nervously in their seats.

Go Outside and Play

2010-10-28T10:27:00.002-04:00

Oh yes, this is nerd pwnage at it's glorious height. This is what every WoW gamer dreams of doing to all the grand poobahs on Q&A panels. This would be the pasotral equivalent of flummoxing John Piper with a question on propitiation.

Red Shirt guy, FTW!! Oh yes, and in general it is bad form to wear a red shirt to a sci fi convention, unless you want to die before the away mission is over.

A Tale of Fat Man and Skinny Man

2010-10-26T10:06:00.004-04:00

In a common town, in an unremarkable state, there were born on the same day two boys; one was Skinny man and the other was Fat Man. The boys grew up in the same town, and they both had an average childhood. Both of them went off to school, got happily married, and fathered a few lovely children.

When Skinny Man hit middle age, he began to notice that his fondness for donuts and cake and sweets of all sorts had begun to take a toll. Because he loved his family, and because he enjoyed playing with his children, Skinny decided to discipline himself. He began to excercise three times a week, and he rarely ate the sweets that he so enjoyed. Over a short period of time, Skinny was a pretty fit man.

When Fat Man hit middle age, he began to notice a little bulge around the middle as well. His love of cakes and goodies and sitting about had led to a tipping of the scales. Because he loved his sweets and leisure, Fatty did not change his life style. Over time, Fatty got fatter.

Skinny was an active fellow. Though he missed his sweets and sloth, he did not miss his children's baseball games, soccer games, or events of any kind due to fatigue or illness. He took his children on hikes in the mountains. He played ball with them in the yard.

Fatty liked to watch television. He loved his children, but his knees always hurt so he couldn't participate in their games. He could go to their games and watch, but sitting in those bleachers was hard on his back. He didn't go hiking much; his feet would swell. But he loved his pastries, and he ate all he wanted.

Skinny also enjoyed his grandchildren. Because he was fit, he got to enjoy with them the same things he enjoyed with his children. He could still run and play. He had more energy than most younger men. He went to all his grandchildren's games. He and his wife would take them on vacations to beautiful and fascinating places. They explored both the woods and the city.

Fatty enjoyed his grandchildren as well, but he mostly kept to his recliner in his older years. His back gave him serious problems, and he had already had a few surgeries on his knees. He didn't get to many games; he couldn't take sitting on the bleachers anymore at all. He didn't get to take his wife on many of the vacations that they had dreamed of in retirement; he simply was not able to go and enjoy it. But he did get his sweets, and he watched plenty of television.

It came to pass, as fate would have it, that both Skinny and Fatty died on the same day. Skinny had a stroke. Fatty had a massive heart attack. Skinny's self-discipline did not give him a single day of life advantage over Fatty. Could it be that all that exercise was a waste of time?