Theophilus

How we Reacted

2011-09-14T02:37:00.001-05:00

(The Reactions to Oslo)

Enough time has passed since this summer's events in Oslo to give an opportunity to reflect. The way we reacted says much about what we believe about ourselves, one other, and humanity at large.

In Oslo, Norway, "one man with a belief" (a quote the killer used) murdered nearly 100 strangers in cold blood [I will not use his name. He is unworthy of the attention.]

Reaction to the slaughter was predictable. It was denounced and called tragic, and rightly so.

Assumptions and accusations abounded.

First, there was an expectation that it was a violent Islamist. With the trends in such events since 9/11, this should come as no great surprise.

Next, Muslim groups were outraged that people made the assumption that Islamists were responsible. Implication: only an anti-Muslim bigot would assume that Islamists were connected to such an act of violence. No. Wait. Only an anti-Muslim racist, or this one Islamist who tried to claim responsibility for it, but retracted the claim when it turned out to be some blond local. It seems al-Nasser didn't get the talking points.

One scapegoat down. Three to go.

The (not-so) New Atheism has taught us to believe that the religion is the source of all the world's ills. They apply some classic Monty Python logic:

"If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood... and therefore ... a witch!"

And so... *drum roll*... he must be a Christian extremist!

Of course the killer is a Christian. He even said so in his Manifesto! (right?)

He writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian. -- [red text / Underline is mine.] (source)

That statement's author cannot distinguish between affinity for the cultural trappings of Christian influence, and True faith in Christ. Sadly, neither can many self-styled pastors.

Jesus himself teaches that it takes more than a *claim* of faith to actually *have* it. People today are offended when someone asks them to authenticate their claims of Christian faith and practice. But it needs to be done. (Matt 7; Matt 23) We're even taught to test *ourselves* to see whether we are in the faith.

Fortunately, the "Militant Christian" angle didn't gather very much momentum. His association with the political right was either accepted without comment, or considered tangential to his motives, because that angle was quickly ignored, as well. They soon went looking elsewhere.

The really interesting part is where people went next.

It was almost universally assumed that he was a "sick individual", he was "mentally ill", he was "troubled" or some other term that would identify him as having acted by reason of being mentally unfit to make a rational decision.

The nearly universal reaction could be summed up with the phrase "rational people don't do such things."

Mental illness is used as the last scapegoat, which is pretty unfair to all of those who, while suffering from mental illness do not endanger themselves or others.

It lead me to consider why so many commentators felt obliged to make that point. Ultimately, if a monster of his magnitude is found to be "sane", it would have some very unsettling implications:

If he's an otherwise rational person, these heinous actions would have been performed by man with a rational mind.

This would clash with our cherished belief in the basic 'goodness' of humanity.

If *not all* people are good, then I am no longer *automatically* justified as good.

This would clash with our popular (idolatrous) belief in the supremacy of Reason.

If an otherwise rational person can commit atrocities, then the link between convictions and behavior proves that some belief really *is* objectively wrong, however 'sincerely' it may be held.

This clashes with Post-Modern Pluralism and cultural Relativism.

If no clinical/biological explanation exists to distinguish him as being "inhuman" and "other"...

The gap between what he is, and who we are grows uncomfortably small. It opens the possibility that we might (under some very rare and specific circumstances) be capable of making the same cold-blooded choices that he did.

( And which of us wants to seriously consider ourselves capable of such dark motives

If we cannot blame his actions on some medical or mental deficiency, we are left with the one explanation we have being trying to rule out and suppress since the Enlightenment

The Existence of Moral Evil.

Titus -- The intersection of Grace and Holiness

2011-07-19T05:21:00.000-05:00

The pendulum forever swings.

No matter how carefully people are taught, we have a history of over-correcting the problems we purpose to solve.

You've seen it: the guy who plans to get back into shape, starts to spend 40 hours a week at the gym. The shy kid from High School, becomes the Campus Party Animal. The girl who somehow became the next Imelda Marcos when all she wanted was update her wardrobe.

It's no different with ideas. Even 'religious' ones.

The classic example is the relationship between grace and holiness.

Let's start with a group of Christians who see their faith as a rigid system of do's and don'ts. A preacher comes to town, and explains to people that Grace is a gift. That God's love for us doesn't rise and fall with the moral value of our behaviour. We come to him with the faith of a child. Gospel! Good news!. A joy, freedom and relief washes over that group.

Time passes, until some socially acceptable sin, widely practiced by the group needs correcting. They were just taught about grace. How can this be? And some take offense to the "legalism" of the preacher who (until recently) spoke so kindly to them.

In any group where Holiness is greatly emphasized, there is a danger of becoming morally self-reliant. In other groups where Grace is emphasized, there is a danger of neglecting --or even rejecting-- the ethical obligations that are implicit in basic Christian living.

Paul's short letter to Titus does a great job of holding the two ideas in balance.

Are you prone to ethical self-reliance? Paul answers this clearly.

Titus 3:4-7 (ESV)
⁴But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, ⁵he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, ⁶whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

There is nothing in ourselves that we can point to as an explanation for why He showed mercy to us rather than the guy next door.

Right now, this is the part that Christians really like to hear. That is, this message does nothing to endanger our subjective, Post-modern, anti-authority culture that elevates 'Self' to the highest place in determining value, meaning and ethics.

But what happens when you mention Christian ethical obligation? Hardly a moment goes by before they point to Galatians and Colossians, and verses that touch upon the Law. They chafe and argue that the Law is irrelevant, that it is for freedom that we were set free, and that Christians were set free from the Law.

Without going into a breakdown of Propitiation (the meaning of Christ doing away with the Curse of the Law) let's confine our discussion to this same little book by Paul. The one that already affirmed salvation apart from works.

In this book, Paul teaches:

Titus1:1 -- That he is a servant of God, and that the knowledge of truth accords with godliness.
Titus 1:5-7 -- The qualifications of an elder. There are vices which would exclude him from eligibility, and virtues whose absence would exclude him. In short, there are ethical expectations on both the elder personally, and also (verse 9) vocationally.
Titus 1:10-11 -- Insubordination (The self-rule that defines the current generation) is condemned. Empty talkers (people whose teaching departs from Biblical authority, in opposition to what is taught 2 Peter 1:20) are not to be entertained, embraced, or understood, but to be silenced. In fact, it goes on to say that a sharp rebuke is necessary that their faith be sound.
Titus 1:16 -- "They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work." Notice the weight given to the actions of these people. They say all the right things, but are not believers, and here's how we know it, by what they do.
Titus 2:1-8 has a comprehensive list of who should exhibit positive behaviour. Old and young. Man and woman. Even slaves toward their masters, have ethics that are expected of them simply because they are Christian. The dominant theme is self-control.

What reason is given for this list? in 2:5, it is so that the Word of God may not be reviled, in verse 8, it is to keep our opponents from having anything evil to say of us, and n verse 10, that our conduct would "adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."

What is the Christian life about? 2:11-14 "Grace has appeared, bringing salvation, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age... who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works."

To drive the point home still further, he reminds us in Titus 3:3 that we were once worldly, but ought not be so any longer, but (in response to Titus 3:4, quoted above) we are admonished in no uncertain terms:

Titus 3:8 (ESV)
⁸The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

And yet, even after all these admonitions to good works, with specific godly behaviour encouraged, and specific sins condemned, he seemed to think it necessary to add one last time, in verse 3:14:

"And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need and not be unfruitful.

Is it legalistic to raise an ethical standard for Christians to follow? Is it a rejection of the Grace Paul preached with such care? Well, looking at the fact that this same Paul wrote the letter to Titus, and it was thick with encouragement to objectively moral behaviour, it would not seem these things need to be at odds with one another.

Open Response to an Enviromentalist's Objections

2011-04-12T02:33:00.000-05:00

The status update I wrote that started this off said:

The environmental crowd keeps telling me to use electricity on off-peak hours because it is better for the environment...
...so -- I set my oven to self-clean during Earth Hour

The Environmentalist on my friends list was upset, and replied:

that's awfully christian of you. you'd think that trying to look out for the environment and working towards minimizing one's carbon footprint so the future might be a little less toxic and there might be fewer issues with scarcity would b...e on the game plan for the one god and his followers in the 21st century. I guess the flat earther mentality of "It was put here for me to use and abuse as I see fit" is still alive and well even after the age of colonialism...

taking pride in working against something that is intended to be a positive gesture and tool for educating people on the dangers that our world is facing due to poor resource allocation and exploitation instead of putting forth a different strategy (if that is one's issue with the whole thing and not just a blatant disregard for the well being of the environment and those that share it with you/those that will inherit it) is pretty shameful if you ask me.

Then he added:

I bet if J.C. were alive today he would be a environmental socialist. Just saying...

Here is my reply:

Like you, I am intentionally provoking an emotional response, with the hope that people will stop and re-think certain things.
If you want to talk about what those things are, or what I think a more reasonable approach to Environmental stewardship should look like, or the hypocrisy within the movement that I object to, I will be happy to do so.

But I would first like to take a moment to specifically discuss your reaction to my statement, as I had said when I first replied to you.

There seem to be 2 things you come to my fb page to weigh in on. One -- to defame Christ personally (or Christians generally), the other -- to tout a particular brand of Environmentalism.

I don't see this as a coincidence.
These are two things that you obviously care about. You aren't stopping in to talk about your personal triumphs and tragedies, or ask about mine -- you are coming with Issues in mind. This is not a complaint, I actually enjoy the dialogue with people I disagree with. It forces me to think about my own positions more clearly, and either re-frame, or change them entirely.

I suspect that the visceral nature of the your first post has an unrehearsed honesty to it. Your statements also have a familiar ring to them.

Your use of emotional appeals and accusations of guilt in an attempt to either "convert" me to your view or abandon my own...
Your language laying out a "Heaven" (better world) and "Hell" (toxic, scarce) as the moral consequence of my choices...
Your personal indignation in response to my lack of eco-Orthodoxy and (heretic that I am?) your impulse to brand me with a "scarlet letter" (Colonialist Flat-Earther) and pass judgment my personal morality (Shameful) as a result of my eco-apostasy.

How is this unlike judging others by a "Canon" of Prophets, Saints and Sacred writings? (Perhaps ancient texts and holy men, have been replaced with Avatar, Suzuki, IPCC, and WWF, but the effect is the same.)

But there's more, isn't there?
There is a Plan of Salvation (Reduce, Reuse Recycle). Or should I say Creed?
There is a system of atonement and absolution (Carbon Offsets, "Terrapass") for those sins you "simply must commit". -- Maybe indulgences would be a better term?

I wonder if you appreciate that your world view is unable to sustain the objectively moral demands you place on it?
Your antagonism toward God seems much like the supposed "New Atheism", which could best be summed up with the phrase "There is no God and I hate him".

From roughly that starting point, you have attempted to lay moral guilt at my feet. Now, don't misunderstand me, Moral guilt really is something I have in abundant supply. But your accusations against me are in direct conflict with your convictions.

Here's why:

Either we were created by a personal God, or we are an uncreated and random coalition of atoms.
If created, a failure to live according to that purpose could incur real moral guilt. (But you reject this view.)
If uncreated, we have no set purpose, and thus, no objective measurement for guilt or innocence.

You're smart enough to realize that random coalitions of atoms make no moral distinction between planting a forest, or burning it down. Between toxic, or non-toxic. Between life, or non-life.
Scarcity and abundance become morally ambivalent ideas. Even arguments about what is left for following generations -- while emotionally compelling -- are, in this framework, sadly irrational.

Do lightning strikes, tsunamis, volanoes, and locust swarms bear moral guilt for their environmental impact? No. So, if we are merely part of an ecosystem, a biological cog in the wheel, why should it matter? Does it make any difference, ethically, whether the forest was destroyed by the careless match or the locust cloud if it's equally gone either way?
But--
As you have rightly demonstrated, our behaviours and choices actually Do matter! Objectively!
There IS such a thing as moral guilt. We Do have a conscience. Defying it really Does produce guilt. Certain types of putting one's own interests ahead of others Really ARE shameful!

It is clear that you are very zealous for your present religion.
Even so, it would not surprise me if -- when this one eventually proves inadequate for you -- that this religious energy of yours turn toward its proper Object:
The One who bore your moral guilt on Himself, to reconcile you to Himself, and give you Peace.
The One who Loves you even while you hate Him.

Your are right to say that many Christians hold their convictions for superficial, emotional and irrational reasons. (As do many environmentalists.) This is a fair criticism.
This does nothing to negate the legitimate rational arguments that either group put forward.
Cheers!

An Exposition: (Philippians 1:1) "In Christ"

2011-03-01T05:25:00.001-05:00

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: (Phil 1:1)

The greeting in a letter is often scanned without much thought or fanfare given to the content -- much like the opening credits of a film: the audience tends to view it as a distracting formality, and not part of the content itself.

But if we hold to the inspiration of scripture (as I hope you do) it follows that even the simple opening lines of the letters were chosen intentionally, and have something to say to the reader today.

In the simple act of identifying the author and recipient of the letter, we learn much about: how the authors identify themselves (and something about their theology), how they identify their audience, and something about the intended purpose of the letter itself.

"Paul and Timothy" are credited as sending this letter. Some letters, Paul sent in his own name only. Peter's letters only carried his own name, as did James and Jude. John didn't even use his own name. But Paul chose to include Timothy's name along with his own.

Paul was conscientious about fulfilling the command to 'make disciples'. He did this with regular believers, but beyond that, he also specifically trained leaders (like Timothy and Titus) to equip the Church, and he trained his leaders to do the same. Including Timothy's name beside his own, he has included Timothy in the writing of this letter. He is not threatened by the rise of new leaders, but rather, he is helping them rise. All who read this letter will now identify Timothy as a faithful Christian leader in whom Paul has confidence. As such, they too, will have confidence in him.

They identify themselves as servants of Christ Jesus. This is one of Paul's favorite titles for himself. The greek word used is servant or slave, but the manner in which Paul uses it springs from an Old Testament practice of voluntarily committing to the lifelong service of a master you love, even after he has declared you a free man. (1,2) This is a beautiful picture of the gospel.

Specifically, they are servants of Christ Jesus. Paul might have said "God", or "the Lord" or even "the Lord Jesus Christ" (which he uses later this chapter) but he chose "Christ Jesus".

For one thing, this affirms Jesus' Resurrection. Obviously, one cannot be the personal property of a dead man or an idea. If Raised, then that affirms His humanity. This was important in the period where Greek understanding of metaphysics had a dim view of the material world, and Gnostic heresies were rampant. At the same time, no pious Jew would hold a mere man in the place of esteem that only God deserves. This would be idolatry. One must conclude, if he is no idolater, that Paul is affirming Jesus' divinity.

Notice the lack of title "Lord" with His name. I would argue that this omission, together with the devotion implicit in his use of servant, takes us beyond the mere Sovereign/subject relationship and sets up a genuine personal affection for Jesus in Himself, apart from the titles, majesty, and the creature-ly obligation of worship. It underscores his own eagerness to do so freely and with joy. This ought to move us to a similar adoration not merely of God in the abstract, but of the person of Jesus himself.

Now to the recipients.

This was an open letter to "all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi". It was customary for the Early Church to gather together and read aloud the letters they and other Churches had received from the apostles (Example: 1) publicly and for the edification of all.

The word "saints" causes some confusion. It can be translated "holy", "sacred", or "saint". In today's vernacular, that often expresses a person of magnificent character, or who is unusually self-sacrificing in some way. That is not what is being said in this context.

Paul's letter is directed to a large group, a body from which two smaller groups (overseers and deacons) can be identified. The modern sense of the word would stress "few" but this stresses "many" especially with the use of "all". In fact, the "all" is to bring attention to the wide scope of people the letter is intended to benefit. This isn't just for the guys in charge, but to "all the saints" meaning, the whole assembly of believers.

I especially appreciate that Paul mentioned the entire city. Doubtless there are factions of believers here, as there were in Corinth. (Some follow Paul, some Cephas, etc). Nevertheless, the message was for all believers throughout the city regardless of their sectarian loyalties. This is consistent with Paul's vision of the unity of Christ's body transcending our various differences.

"In Christ" is key to understanding Paul's use of "saint" (sacred/holy). It is the hinge upon which his epistle to the Romans turns: we have been united to Him in His death, and raised with Him in new life. (see Romans 6 for more detail.) This is the New Birth, the Gift of Christ's Righteousness ('alien righteousness'), our Adoption as Sons and Heirs. This is the Sinner's hope of the Gospel, and the faith we profess.

Finally, it addresses those who lead in the Church, in 2 categories. The "Overseers" and the "Deacons". These two categories of leadership are both important in the Church. In order to become such a leader, one must first demonstrate certain qualities of Christian maturity, wisdom and character. At least, that is the Biblical expectation.

They differ in the roles they play, however. The Deacon - as we see in Acts 6 is important in that it makes sure the day-to-day operations of the church are correctly tended to. In this case, the feeding of widows. In the modern sense, this can take various forms. Key to the understanding of this passage is that the Twelve understood the importance of the continual giving of themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word.

How many pastors today are so burdened with the minutia of book-keeping and building maintenance that they cannot give proper place to the very thing that the Twelve carefully guarded their time for doing? If you read to the end of that passage in Acts, once the Deacons step up and take up the miscellany of running the Church, and free up the Twelve for prayer and the ministry of the word, what happened in verse 7? A "move of God".

7. Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Maybe Churches today could look to see what lessons could be learned from that?

To sum up:
We saw where Paul and Timothy looked to find their identity. It is "In Christ".
We saw where they looked to find the Church in Philippi's identity: also "In Christ".

This tells us where we ought to find our identity. More than our position in society, employment, position in family, education, where we're from or where we think we're going. We, too, must look to Christ to find our identity. Ultimately we are either "in Him", or we are Outsiders(1), "strangers to the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world"(2).

If you find yourself in the second group, and desire mercy, cry out to Him, he is good and gracious to give it.

Priority of Place.

2010-10-14T01:46:00.001-05:00

What most fascinates me about the internet, is that it can spark dialogue between people who might otherwise never meet.

It happens every so often, that I get the chance to engage in a back-and-forth exchange about beliefs. These exchanges can stretch our thinking, expose weaknesses in our positions and arguments, challenge assumptions, and can even expose wrong motives, like pride.

Other times, however, it's just one more trip through a well-worn cul-de-sac. In this case, it was a typical sales pitch for why his denomination was the best one.

Consider, as a backdrop for the conversation, the text in Luke 9:49-50. Here, the disciples saw someone acting in Jesus' name, and were planning to stop them. [The conversation is related with some different details in Mark 9:38-41.] This same zealous attitude was also seen in Joshua in Numbers 11.

There are two points that Jesus is raising here. Properly held in tension, these two points keep us from going off the rails toward either extreme..

Jesus makes it as clear as one might possibly make it, that there are no gray areas in our allegiances. You are "all in" or "not at all in" when it comes to your allegiance with Jesus. This chafes against our post-modern, politically correct attitudes of today. But then, that ought not surprise us, because "friendship with the world is emnity to God".

When Jesus said that "whoever is not against you is for you", one possible explanation would be to say that tolerance or even indifference is the same as support. That which doesn't actively oppose you is for you. -- Can it be shown that Jesus was actually forcing a binary yes/no, in/out choice?

Look at the other things he said. Jesus threw down the gauntlet when he said "whoever is not with me is against me, whoever does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 11:30. He spoke of dead men as sleeping, and unbelieving men as dead, even as they lived. He berated the leaders of his day in Matthew 23, leaders who bar the way to heaven, and do not go themselves. They tie up heavy burdens, and do not lift a finger to help. These he called unclean, making those who trusted them impure, harming those who trusted him.

He called Zaccheaus saved, though he had been lost. His parables were binary, too: sheep and goats, seeing and blind, lost and found.

Jesus, throughout the gospels, saw our position with God in black-and-white clarity.

What is the counter-point, that is held in tension?

Jesus had a set of followers. The Apostles. He had hand-chosen men to do the work of proclaiming the Gospel and building His Church. Right? This is true. He did pick them, and that was why.

But at the same moment that Jesus is telling us that there IS a clear and essential difference between in and out, for and against, he tells us something else, as well.

God, in his wisdom, knows fallen man's tendency to became tribal. It's the same story that we've all heard before:

You are like me, so you are good. but they are "other" so they are 'bad'.

So, naturally, God, in Scripture, records some people who are not part of Jesus entourage:
-- The guy casting out demons in Jesus name in the passage we began with
-- The man from whom "Legion" was cast into the swine? He wanted to follow Jesus. But instead, he was commanded by Jesus to 'tell them how much the Lord has done" for him "and how he has had mercy" on him. So he became an evangelist to the Decapolis.
-- A Samaritan woman - herself an outcast woman among an outcast people - led much of her village to faith in Jesus.
-- There was also the small matter of a guy named Saul, who was not one of the original disciples, and specifically disavowed any tutoring by any of the Apostles.

None of these were part of the "entourage". They were (only some of the) outsiders who had a love and faith in God. Who proclaimed Jesus, and yet had no connections to the "right" group of believers.

Jesus specifically named the first guy as an ally. Thus, as part of His kingdom.
The man we identify with "Legion" was commanded to proclaim the good news in Decapolis, as surely as the Apostles were commanded to do so in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the outermost parts of the earth.
The Samaritan woman had the rare honor of having Jesus speak plainly about being the Messiah.
Saul became the Apostle Paul, by whose pen God gave us much of the New Testament.

What is the lesson here?
We must be conscious of where we are finding our identity.

It did not matter to Jesus whether you were one of the "Three" or the "Twelve" or the "Seventy" or the far-flung individuals whose lives he changed that never quite did attach to the 'core group' but instead brought their sparks of faith far and wide to their own corners of the world. To Jesus, you were not "with my group" or "against it". You were with ME or against ME.

When we talk about our faith, what do we talk about?

Do we not tire of people trying to win us over to join, or acknowledge the superior claim of another denomination? Out of the church that 'gets it wrong' and into the church that 'gets it'. (Whichever one that might be in your case.)

Is not this walk with God more than which position we take on a doctrine that does not touch the essentials of faith? Whether we are new technology, or old school liturgy? Chairs or Pews? Organs or Band?

When we speak, what do we glorify? Is it ourselves? "Our" church? (As though anyone less than Jesus himself can truly call it "mine".) Our favourite pastor or author? Our methods? Our favourite doctrines? Our cultural relevance? Our programs, or Missions effectiveness, or outreach tools, etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Or do we speak of Jesus Christ, first, last and always, with the sort of awe and love that could be expected from a people that claims that he really IS the Great, Good, God and Redeemer of all who will call on His precious Name.

Let us look first to Jesus Christ, and whether we are one in Him. Let our us-and-them divisions instead be based on whether or not He calls us "His".

We may find that some of our differences are not so big as we thought.

What Kind of a God? A Brief Rationale of the Gospel.

2010-08-10T22:15:00.005-05:00

It shouldn't be too controversial to say that if ANY God is to be worshiped and adored, that God must be worth worshiping.

It might also seem reasonable to say that any God worth worshiping must necessarily be "Good". (In fact, if this were not so, Atheists would not be attempting to demonstrate that God is "Not" good.)

What do we know about someone who is "Good"?

Someone who is Good is not indifferent to pain, oppression, wickedness, or suffering.

Someone who is Good AND possesses Authority will prevent and/or adequately punish those who have done such things.

If God judged "greater" evils (mentioned above), but not "lesser" evils, then He could not be perfectly Good, and would become unworthy of worship, love, or adoration.

Problem -- if God fully judged EVERY wicked thought, word, and deed, His Goodness would be vindicated. But that same Goodness would sweep up our own guilty thoughts, words, and deeds (and us with it) in judgment.

Solution -- Mercy is provided. A choice is offered.

THIS is the Good News: Those who would recognize both the Goodness of God, and their own wickedness are offered a Saviour.

They are offered a Saviour who loved and valued them while they were "still wicked". Jesus Himself was morally innocent, but accepted our guilt. He is worthy to Judge, but submitted to Judgment. He is worthy of Worship, but accepted the Wrath due Our sins.

We can trust in Christ as the one who "stood in our Law-place", and died the death or sins required. We can share the New Life that his Resurrection promises, and (most importantly) we can be Reconciled to God in Christ.

The sin we are guilty of is not simply dismissed, or waved away. It is fully punished in the obscene trial, humiliation, beating, mocking, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The Cross is evidence of just how committed God is to remaining Good, even while providing a means of Mercy to sinful men.

Those of us who trust in Christ, stand forgiven. The Holy requirement of justice against sin is satisfied in Christ Jesus. That is why we esteem the work on the Cross so highly. The Christian has been Adopted into the Household of God, and knows the Love of God.

Some, sadly, will fail to recognize the Goodness of God. Others will deny and excuse their own wickedness. These will see no need to embrace God's mercy.

And yet, God will still be Good.

But consider this: a Good God whose mercy has been scorned has only one other card to play.

Righteous judgment of Evil.
-----------------------

Christ's head, or yours?
When the time comes to account for your sins, where will the judgment fall?

Jesus said (Luke 12):

⁴"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. ⁵But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

The Clash of Law and Grace

2010-04-27T23:45:00.005-05:00

Recent years have seen a subtle change in how people speak of "Law" and "Grace". The words themselves have not changed. The Biblical texts that are quoted haven't either. The shift might best be described as the emphasis, the mood, or the underpinning of each word.

Law is presented as a destructive force, a judgment to be feared, a prison to be escaped, and ultimately a primary tool of humanity's chief Adversary.

Grace, on the other hand, is portrayed as antagonistic to this Great Foe. It protects us from the Law. Some would say, destroys the Law. The Old and New Testaments would be (as it were) in conflict with one another.

It becomes important, therefore, to a Christian: Are Law and Grace in Conflict? And if so, what implication does this have on a Christian's life?

Students of Early Christian History may remember the name Marcion. He rejected the Old Testament because he saw God in the Old Testament as overly harsh, but Jesus in the Gospels as much nicer. He denied that they were the same God.

That's one approach to Law and Grace that is still taken today -- dismiss Law as irrelevant. Proceed as though the Old Testament was never written, or at least ignore large sections of it.

There are problems with this approach. 1) Jesus claimed to be the pivotal theme of Hebrew scriptures. (2) It also ignores Jesus' strong warning in Matthew concerning the Law. (3) The New Testament is deeply rooted in and intertwined with the Old Testament.

That said, there is clear evidence that there IS something of an either/or dilemma with Grace and Law. (Galatians and Romans in particular show this tension.)

The Christian life is exemplified by Faith, which is described as explicitly antithetical to righteousness by the Law. How do we resolve this?

First, as Christians, we must guard against adopting a false understanding of Law. The Muslim view, for example is sometimes mistaken for the Christian one.

Islam's view of Law is much different than the classical Christian (or Jewish) one. God, in the Muslim framework, can decree whatsoever he wishes, and the Decree is what causes something to become morally good or morally evil.

The Christian view is very different. God in himself is altogether Holy.
The Triune God does not arbitrarily choose to make some things good and some things evil. Quite the opposite.

God's own Holiness is the benchmark against which all moral measurements are made. For this same reason, He cannot Lie, He cannot be tempted by Evil, and He cannot deny Himself. Is this not the reason we love God's word? Because it is rooted in His person and character?

So then, His Character is unchanging. And the entire Bible finds its origin in this same unchanging Character. His Law as revealed in the Old Testament, is something of a window into God's own character. Even the Sermon on the Mount was an example of Jesus expounding on the Ten Commandments (e.g. Adultery, Murder) in the context of the New Covenant.

Whatever way we resolve this, we must be very careful to accurately depict some seemingly contrary things.

We must consider the Holiness of God's character as shown in His Law.
We must consider the futility of trying to satisfy God by keeping the Law.
We must consider the position of Grace working by faith.

We must reconcile these things without destroying what God has said about any of them.
We must do so in a way that honours the Person and Work of Christ.

The Law is Good (Romans 7:12, 7:16, 7:22, I Timothy 1:8).
The Law condemns us all as guilty. (Romans 3:20)
We do not discard the Law (Romans 3:31)
Those who seek justification by the Law are cursed if they do not keep it perfectly. (James 2:10, Gal 5:3)
Where does this leave us?
Since none of us has been righteous, we are all lawbreakers.
We all stand guilty before a perfectly righteous God.

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—
the LORD detests them both. -- Proverb 17:15

So what hope is there for us?

If the Curse is to be broken, there are only two options:
- The Law that demands death for our sin must change
- or We must change.

What did God do? What could He do?
If the Law is an expression of His Character, and His Character does not change, how could He change the Law?

The Law declared our guilty hearts to us. It revealed our weakness to us.
It caused a holy despair of trying to prove our own goodness to God.
It showed us that we need a Saviour.
It drove us to Christ.

So Jesus Christ, born of a woman and born under the Law (Gal 4:4), lived a guiltless life. Death held no claim on Him. And yet He (God) laid down His life for the ungodly. He, sinless, died the sinner's death.

[Is the Atheist's charge of "cosmic child abuse" fair? No. Because Christ died willingly, this isn't an accurate depiction of the Atonement. Jesus CHOSE to absorb the full wrath of a Holy God upon sin.]

Has the Law changed? Not one bit.

It is still the righteous demand of a Holy God? Yes.
Are we still under its judgment? No, with one condition: Not if we are "in Christ".
If we are "in Christ", we have died with Him, (and have been raised to new life).

The Law is just as it was.
But WE have been changed. (2 Cor 5:19)

Who's In Charge Here?

2010-04-15T04:05:00.005-05:00

Somewhere in the list of books I'll someday get around to reading is one by Craig Groeschel. It's called "The Christian Atheist: Believing in God but Living As If He Doesn't Exist." Scanning the table of contents at the bookstore recently got me to thinking along these lines.

The book addresses a key problem believers have faced throughout our history: practical unbelief.

Faith, at its root, is not so much a confidence or assent to FACTS, but a confidence in a Person.

As a litmus test, how do we react to difficult situations?

Believer (present or historical) faces a Problem:
the influence of God's people seems small, even declining.
-Today: Europe is basically Secular, North American churches are in a shambles.
- 1800s: "Darkest England" -- Wm Booth saw a nation in decline.
- 1700s: England -- John Wesley saw England ready to collapse into Civil War like France did.
- 1500s: Europe -- Luther, Calvin, Knox faced enormous opposition to defend Biblical authority.
- 1200s: Thomas Aquinas saw Europe threatened by a militant and advancing Islam
-Before that? Wars and heresies small and large. Persecutions. Athanasus exiled by the Church he tried to defend. Riots. Lions. Nero and the Caesars. Martyred Apostles. Beheading of John the Baptist.

But it went back futher, too. Israel chaffed at different times under Rome, Greece, Syria, Assyria, Philistines, Midians, These-ites and those-ites, Egyptians and more.

David lived in exile. Joshua lost a battle to Ai. Laban cheated Jacob, Lot was kidnapped.

What do all of these things have in common? The "bad guys" seemed to be winning.

STOP.

This is the point at which we must examine our thinking.

Our assumptions do one of two things:
1) Establish the problem as Bedrock reality that God might (or might not) be sufficient to change.
2) Establish God as Bedrock reality, trusting that God, can Sovereignly turn even the most terrible acts of His enemies to the fulfillment of His Holy purposes, and easily reverse any situation that He wishes to reverse.

Do we believe in a capital-B "Big" enemy with a lower-case-g-god? (Then our prayers are finished before they've started.) OR do we believe in a Great and Faithful God who is King over even His enemies?

Could our own assumptions be deceiving us?

Joseph went to Egypt as a slave, and was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. Why? To initiate God's promise of making them into a nation, and bringing them out by a great deliverance.
Did anyone know that at the time? -- No.
Did it matter that they didn't know it? -- No.

Joshua lost at Ai. Why? God did not grant them victory. He had to deal with their sin first.

Gideon cowered from the Midianites. God made their enemies strong. Why? They were chasing false gods, and hostile to YHWH. Then God threw those same enemies into confusion.

The Ark was captured by the Philistines, because they treated God as a means to an end. But even there God showed Himself greater than His enemies.

Problems are not always because of sin, either. Zechariah and Elisabeth didn't have a son, even into their old age. Was it sin? No. God had particular plans for the timing and nature of John the Baptist's birth.

The opposition we face is PART of God's plan. It can demonstrate the sustaining power of God even in hardship. It helps us to rely on Him, and not some external formula. It exalts God's ability to change an obstinate and wayward heart (Saul of Tarsus comes to mind) for His glory.

Roman might was overthrown by arms stretched out on crosses and necks stretched out before swords. "Jesus is Lord" was the final statement many of them would ever speak.

God prevailed.

The strength our enemies have are limited to the strength God permits them to have.
Even in their hate of Him, they are unintentionally glorifying the Greatness of His Name.
His Enemies are putting forward their strongest competing ideas, philosophies, governments, virtues, loves.
The Lord patiently permits them to put forward these best arguments, to have those idols shine in their fullest strength.
Until He tires of it, and sweeps them away into the rubbish heap with all the others.

He is MORE Glorious.
He is MOST Glorious.

Authority -- is it good or bad? (Part I -- Should we have leaders?)

2010-03-11T05:34:00.005-05:00

Someone I know (Let's call him "Mark") happened to quote Wm. Young (author of The Shack) in a facebook status update.

I am unable to quote it exactly, as he has since removed it, but the quote was typical of the tone of the book. Authority is viewed as a Bad Thing, and a cudgel the strong use to bully the weak.

I didn't ask whether "Mark" (himself a parent) feels that the exercise of parental authority constitutes bullying, but I doubt that would have really helped us engage the topic.

It was pretty clear he wasn't planning on listening to what I would say. I say this because he called me a liar claiming I hadn't even read the book when I explained my concerns about it. (I have read it.)

While considering how I would have answered him, in an actual conversation, it seemed this would be a good topic to explore a little.

Let me preface this by saying this is not to pick a fight with "Mark" specifically. My intention is to use his view (which, in light of the book's popularity is pretty widespread) to address those who share that view, generally, or know others who do.

There are so many angles to approach this question from, it's difficult to chose only one. Let's start by focusing on the Biblical role of leaders.

There are background factors that shed more light on "Mark's" use of that quote. He has a strong [think: All-caps, bold type, double-underlined "strong"] opinion that traditional Churches with paid pastoral staff, and that meet formally to worship as a group are somewhere between "inferior" and "heretical". (I say somewhere between, only because I'm not clear how far he's willing to take his opinion.)

"Mark" quotes the Bible often, nearly as often as he quotes his favorite scholars to prop up his position. To be fair, some of his objections are perfectly true. (I could give textual support for each, but as we are in agreement, it seems unnecessary.)

For example:
1) Any believer, however new in the faith, ought to have his concerns truly heard when he speaks about the Bible, or offers correction (personal and/or theological) to a brother in Christ.

2) Every believer is a minister. (This was foundational in Luther's Refomation, and continues to be a key distinction between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics).

3) There should be an attitude of mutual submission within the Body of Christ, with nobody Lording themselves over one another.

4) It was never the Biblical mandate for people to lock themselves into a building for an hour or two a week, and spend the next six days and twenty-some-odd hours completely disconnected from that time spent together.

BUT -

That does NOT mean that the Body of Christ is to be without leadership and direction, or that there are not people who have a special role, purpose, and function within that body.

Examples.

In Acts 6, there was rapid growth in the Church.

Part of that growth included widows who required their daily needs to be met. The Apostles recognized that their day was being spent in meeting the natural needs of the widows, and that was limiting their ability to do what they were supposed to do. What was that? Prayer, and the ministry of the Word.

The Apostles passed off the responsibility of "waiting on tables" (deacon translates roughly into "waiter") onto others, so they could dedicate themselves to "prayer and the ministry of the Word"

Why is this important? Because the deacons also did things like Preach (Stephen gave a tremendous sermon just before becoming the Church's first Martyr), Pray for the sick, and other things that 'every minister' can do. They were ALSO ministers of the gospel. So a close look at the text shows us that the time of prayer and ministry of the Word in the life of the Apostles was to be even more jealously guarded by the Apostles, than by the Deacons.

Notice that even becoming "just" Deacons, involved being set apart as leaders. (Laying on of hands) and it was not "everyone" that ordained them as leaders, but the Apostles who laid hands on them.

Ask yourself, does a stricter set of requirements and qualifications not Automatically create a distinction between two groups of people?

To be Redeemed, you must simply repent of dead works, and trust in the completed atoning work of Jesus Christ.

But that is not sufficient to be a LEADER in Christ's body, is it?

What does God say?
In Titus chapter One:

⁵The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. ⁶An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. ⁷Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁸Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. ⁹He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

It was a high priority of Paul's that particular people with pretty rigourous qualifications were set in place to "oversee" the Church. The terms "Elder" and "Overseer" (bishop in some translations) refer to the same people. Men of proven integrity and character who are able to rightly divide the word, and stand as a defense against those who would introduce heresies into the congregation.

A new convert does not have to uphold the same standards, (although there should be that desire) as someone who has been more firmly established in his faith.

The Body of Christ is more than an amorphous blob of individuals forming a Collectivist gathering where the parts are more or less interchangeable.

There is a wide gulf between the Biblical description of Community and the Communes of the Sixties. God has ordained the former, but denies the latter.

What we are instead offered is the Biblical Picture of the Body (Romans 12) where there are both prominent parts and modest ones, each having their unique value and contribution to the whole. They cannot be swapped out like cogs in a machine, because no two are quite alike.

And some have been equipped to minister to and strengthen Christ's Church, to help her endure various trials and temptations, and prepare her to fulfill the work of the Ministry.

Like all other things, it is centered on Christ. He is the Chief Shepherd, but he has appointed some as Under-shepherds of His Flock. (1 Peter 5:2) All Authority has it's center and Locus in Christ (Matthew 28) but He has appointed some to be Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers. (Eph 4) for the equipping of the Saints for the work of the Ministry.

If that is not enough, let the direct command of His Word settle the matter, with a word that is not very popular in our individualistic culture:

Heb 13:17 "¹⁷Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

God does not shy away from such use of godly Authority, but then again, that word will only be received if we truly believe God has the right to make such demands of us, won't it?

What's My Motivation?

2010-02-08T03:25:00.006-05:00

An old Newsboys song poses the question: "What's my motivation?"

In a time when even Christians don't seem to agree on what a believer's life ought to look like, this seems like a good question to ask.

The world observes us closely, to see what sort of a testimony we present; and it is telling that they often complain that we are too worldly. We seem to care about exactly the same things that they do, and only see Jesus as a more Church-y means to the same ends they are chasing.

Many of us have heard -- and perhaps even said-- the line,

"Come to Jesus and your (marriage, family, work situation, investments, addictions etc.) will get better."

Many in the world see this for what it really is: your basic Bait and Switch.

It looks something like this.
Premise One: "I believe that nothing I say about the Person of Jesus will persuade you to worship him."
Premise Two: "I believe that you might be persuaded to 'try' Christ, if you think there are additional 'perks' in seeking him, and after 'trying Christ' you will be convinced of His goodness, and will be converted and worship him."

What's wrong with this?
Wow. Where should I start?

1) If you appeal to temporal benefits, rather than eternal ones, the absolute best (scare quotes) "convert" you can hope for is the pseudo-convert of Mark 4:18,19.
2) This does not properly emphasize the true nature of sin/redemption/repentance/new birth... giving the "convert" a false assurance of salvation. ("Of COURSE I'm saved, I said the prayer.") If someone later presents the ACTUAL Gospel, they might dismiss it as redundant.
3) God is robbed of his glory. If you have to sweeten the pot to make God more attractive, you are making the declaration that the temporal world has greater intrinsic worth than the God who made it.
4) You cast doubt on why YOU are following Christ. It will be assumed that God is merely a means to YOUR end.
5) In using this tactic, you are behaving as a functional atheist. You are relying on your own persuasive ability to convert your subject. You have elevated yourself to the role of Holy Spirit and have put Him out of a job. Contrast this to Paul's approach in Thessolonica.

[Parenthetically -- Preach the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, and the repentance from dead works. Let the Holy Spirit supply the conviction and the New Birth. He's the only one who can anyway.]

If the New Testament believer has a greater hope than the Old Testament ones (and we do), should we not have a confidence on God that at least measures up to the Old Testament prophets? Consider Habakkuk, chapter three:

¹⁷ Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,
¹⁸ yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.

Is poverty or suffering a means of measuring piety? Absolutely not.
But neither is health or wealth.
If you have something, be (humbly) grateful to God for it.
Whether you do or not, be glad that you have God himself.

(If you do not, all the benefits this life offers are dust and ashes in the light of eternity. Be reconciled to God in Christ while you still have the chance.)

If opposition and suffering are part of the Christian pilgrim's life -- and they are! -- inviting people to a Candyland Christianity is more than just a disservice..,

It is an outright lie.

The Implications of Christmas

2009-12-14T04:37:00.003-05:00

The word "Christmas": what would most people say it brings to mind?

Something positive, surely.

Maybe friends and family. Traditions. Goodwill. The "spirit of giving". Something along those lines.

The meaning of Christmas stirs up strong feelings, too. Especially among those that try to defend the historical and traditional Christmas from it's commercialization.

But have you ever wondered about the implications of Christmas?

What do I mean by the question? Simply this: the fact that there WAS a first Christmas should draw our attention to the 'WHY' it had to happen in the first place. Have we asked this 'why' lately?

Look at the very familiar announcement in Luke2:10-11

"But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord."

The announcement describes the news, who it is for, how it should be received, and what it is about. How often to you see an important message where you are told about the emotional response to it? This one did. It was a message of great joy.

But it was not a private message of personal joy. This was a message of larger scope. The shepherds probably would not have known that this "all" was to include the entire world, and not the Israel only. But it was most certainly to all Israel, since it was the announcment of the awaited Saviour's arrival.

It has the 'When". Suddenly everything changed. People had waited, and watched, and prayed and hoped and longed for the promised Saviour. Families became nations, nations and empires rose and fell, and yet the promise was still always seen in the future tense: "Someday"

Suddenly, the vague and future "someday" crystallized into the force and reality of "today". God HAS been faithful. He kept his promise. It is really happening.

What is?

A Saviour was born. (More on that in a moment) He was identified by birthplace and title.

He was born in the City of David, during the census where everyone was to report to their ancestral home. This points to the Davidic line of Kings from which Jesus was descended. (Ancestry was critical to credibility as the Son of David.)

The child was also introduced as "Christ the Lord". Christ meant messiah- the annointed Saviour for whom all Israel longed. Put simply: The One. He was also called "Lord". This is a word for someone who has and exerts complete authority. A man can be lord over his property. A king can be lord over a nation, and God alone can be Lord over all Creation.

The Good news is for "all people", and therefore that Lordship is global.

Strange talk to commoners living in the days of Herod the Great, one of the most dynamic, influential and politically powerful kings in Israel in hundreds of years. Numerous of his buildings survive to this day. A baby -- a peasant, no less -- born in a village is this long-awaited king? And this baby is (not 'Will be') Lord?

But wait. He is a Saviour.

Christ did not come for a visit, to a wonderful world where everything was perfect. He came into a world chafing under its own rebellion against the very God who made it. There was a literal aspect to the "hell in a handbasket" adage.

He came not because we were wonderful, righteous people.

He came because we were broken, miserable and weak. Worse still, we were too blind and proud to know it of ourselves.

He came to bear in himself the punishment for our sin, that we might be granted eternal life.

Christmas has implications.
So does this message.

Implication One: if we enjoy and celebrate Christmas, we must acknowledge ourselves as the very purpose of His Incarnation. He took on flesh, to save a wicked and rebellious people. If we had never sinned, he would not have had to do so. It is evidence against us of our weakness, and our need of a rescuer.

If we do not accept this point, Christmas is a farce and a game. It has been emptied of any meaning and is on par with Labour day or Groundhog day. Any Christmas traditions you have without this are a testament to your own hypocrisy. Having nothing sacred to celebrate yourself, you've simply hijacked someone else's holiday, and you have no more authentic right to Christmas than you do to Hanukkah, Ramadan, or some forgotten feast for Athena.

But more than that, the Incarnation is evidence FOR God and his great love toward us, that while we were still actively his enemies, he came to seek and save us.

Second Implication: receive Jesus. If Christmas is to mean anything for us, we must receive him on His terms. Accept him as Saviour and Lord. Be the recipient of a transformed nature, heart, will and affections. Begin a new life with Him.

Third Implication: message of great joy for All people.

The Shepherds did not stay silent. If they had, we'd never know their story.

Ask yourself: do you believe that this is truly joyous news? That it matters? That it changes lives?

Then tell someone.

Every news that excites us, we tell people, whether they want to hear or not. (How many people have seen pictures of other people's grandchildren without really wanting to?)

If you are not excited about this news, ask God's help for renewing the joy of your salvation.

What was Jonah Thinking?

2009-11-25T03:33:00.006-05:00

Jonah was the famously reluctant prophet of Israel who was sent to a pagan city, warning of Divine wrath and the danger of Judgment. Besides running away from the task of bearing that message, (with the dramatic episodes of the storm, being thrown overboard, and spending 3 days studying marine life from the inside) he pitched a tantrum when he saw that they heard the warning. At the very moment that God's wrath was turned away, Jonah's was kindled. (Text for the Biblical account of Jonah here.)

What provoked such an extreme reaction? Why was Jonah hell-bent on their destruction?

To examine this question, we need a little background.

The timeline of Jonah is not certain, but he appears to be the same Jonah spoken of in 2 Kings 14:25 this puts him between the division of Israel into two kingdoms, and the Assyrian conquest of Northern Israel. This would place him in the reign of Jeroboam II, whose reign was in the high 700's and low 800's BC.. With 721 BC the year that Assyria conquered Israel, and sent them to exile, that could place Jonah's work perhaps only 30-50 years before Shalmaneser's conquest.

Looking backward, these events would happen about 100 years after Elijah's work. The spiritual climate of Israel itself in Jonah's day can be seen by the wickedness of their king, Jeroboam II. Israel as a whole has turned to the Idols of their neighbors, and have adopted their manner of pagan worship.

Where did he Jonah go off the rails? For one thing, Jonah had obvious misgivings about God's right to exercise His authority over people.

In disobeying God, he tried to place his own will above God's. Asking to be thrown overboard was a desperate act. His conduct later does not support the notion that he said this to save the lives of others. It is more probable that even there, Jonah was trying, if he could control nothing else, to control time and place of his death. But God exercised his authority to forgive, which was just as much his authority as his authority to judge. And Jonah struggled with that. God's authority over his creation is a major -- possibly THE major-- theme of this short book.

What was the Hebrew understanding of their relationship with God? Why was it special?

For one thing, God had declared that Israel was special. God made specific promises to Abraham, Issac and Jacob. It did not even extend to all the natural offspring of Abraham and Issac, but only to the children of promise. So point one, God Himself made that distinction.

Next, the relationship to God rested on Covenant. God made a promise, there was a covenant sign (circumcision) and Israel (ideally) approached God in specifically the ways that God said one should approach him. In fact, several moments of judgment in Israel's history were directly related to people worshiping God in a way that he had not mandated. Wrong person, wrong method, wrong place, etc. The lesson they learned and re-learned through their turbulent history: God was to be treated as Holy.

David himself, in the famous standoff with Goliath directly referenced Goliath's uncircumcised status, as a deciding factor in who God would support in that battle.

Even in the New Testament, there are similar reminders that gentiles were "without God and without hope, strangers to the covenant of promise." We were outsiders, and could not hope to be reconciled to God without entering into covenant with him, and -- sadly God did not appear to be establishing new children to Abraham. (At least, not by the natural means. More on that later.)

Added to fact that they were strangers they were also idolaters. They approached gods, but not the True God. Observant Jews had witnessed God frequently chasten his own covenant people, sometimes very harshly, for turning to false gods. If God dealt that way with his children, how much more would a Hebrew have assumed that He would deal harshly with a uncircumcised nation for the same crimes?

Moses himself records God's mercy and forgiveness in the same sentence as "by no means clearing the guilty."

And let us be clear: to a Jew, who understood that the very reason the people of Canaan were given over to Israel was because of their sin, not Israel's righteousness, Nineveh was exceptionally wicked, and ripe for judgment.

But what was Nineveh? It was a bustling city on the principle East-West trade route. They would have been very cosmopolitan, bringing people (and gods) from abroad. They even officially adopted some foreign gods and added them to their pantheon. Think New York, Toronto, London, or some similar large center of commerce.

But more notably, they were very warlike. Even before Jonah, Israel was at war with what one writer called 'the bloodiest ancient civilization'. They were a very real threat to Jewish national security. Even their art was brutal:

Another work, The Battle of Til-Tuba, dates to the reign of Ashurbanipal and its depiction of bloody warfare reinforces the Assyrians’ reputation for ruthlessness. Considered the finest large-scale composition in Assyrian art, the monumental relief shows the Assyrians defeating the Elamites of southern Iran. Scenes highlight the Elamite king’s chariot crashing down, the king’s flight from the wreckage, and his capture and beheading, with the severed head being carried back as a trophy to Assyria. The story unfolds amid a backdrop of horrible carnage and the confusion of battle. (quote in full context here)

Some harrowing images of Assyrian art from that era here. It wasn't made to be beautiful, but to inspire fear of their enemies.

Jonah did not have difficulty with God exercising his right to judge the wicked. In fact, he expected that he himself would be thus judged when he was flung into the sea.

Jonah simply did not have a category in his thinking, for a Holy God forgiving sin "just because". God was not basing it on an existing covenant. Not on faithful devotion. Not on the slightest hint of godliness on the part of the Ninevites. Not on anything but God's unmerited favour.

If you want to get closer to the full force of his thought processes, imagine for a minute that you are in post WWII Germany. The Nazi War Crimes Tribunals are being held. The courtroom is filled with people whose arms bear the tattooed evidence of their time in Treblinka or another of the Death Camps. Families devastated by the War. People seeking justice. (These events were cultural equivalents of actual Assyrian practices.)

Imagine the defendant of a very high profile case. Maybe someone in Hitler's inner circle. One of the diseased minds from which the Nazi doctrine originally sprang. Evidence is presented against him. He is incontrovertibly guilty. He admits it. He says he is sorry, and it will never happen again. The judge pauses a moment, smiles, and with one swing of the gavel, declares that all charges against him have been dropped. The apology has been accepted.

How do you think the courtroom would react? The country? You?

Would you be pleased with the decision, or outraged? Disgusted maybe? Why?

The judge would be thought of as no better than the guilty man who he set free. Why? Because a judge cannot "wish" away wrong-doing. Someone 'must pay' for justice to be satisfied. Justice is not a sinful or carnal demand. It's origins are found in God's own character.

It could be that the commentaries all have it right: Jonah simply didn't think that Nineveh was worthy of God's kindness. Jonah's problem was that he objected to "who" God saved.

I wonder, though, whether it may have been not just "who" but "how" God saved that gave him trouble. Could he have wondered "how" God could do so without discrediting his own Holiness?

If so, that is a higher view of God's holiness than most people today have. And more consistent with New Testament scripture, as well.

Jonah, naturally, could not see the Cross, since it wouldn't happen for another 800 years or so. He had no context for how a foreigner could be reconciled to God. How could they "possibly" be made righteous? Well, today we have an answer that he did not have.

But that objection fits completely with the big idea in Romans 3:26:

²⁶It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In the context of the Cross, this passage demonstrates that God was not only establishing our innocence (by propitiation) but also establishing HIS innocence as well. He is not a God who winks at sin. He cannot be wicked as the judge in the illustration would have been. God is not only merciful, but also fully Just. Mercy does not destroy Justice. It finds a way "despite" justice. Christ Jesus crucified and risen is that way.

The God who is proclaimed Holy Holy Holy by the angels cannot dismiss sin, he must punish it. That was the Cross.

Glorious Saviour who loves us so much.
Glorious God whose righteousness is forever established.

Only God could have arranged so Great a Salvation.

One Post in Three Parts -- Part 3: "Apostolic Faith and Tradition"

2009-11-18T03:15:00.006-05:00

History is important. That was post #1.

Sound Doctrine is important. That was post #2.

Ours is an Apostolic Faith. That is, we have received it from others.

We received the written Word of God, on the authority of the First generation of Christian Disciples. They were sent by Jesus. (This would include Paul.) Jesus Himself was sent by the Father. Technically, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the first Apostles, as they are both "sent".

Why is this important?

It places boundaries on how we should believe. We were given a pattern of what true belief looks like. We see it in the life of Christ, and we see it in the gospel. This was echoed in the life and message of the apostles He sent.

We cannot be faithful to the God of the Bible without being faithful to the Original Intent of its Author.

As far back as Eden, humanity wanted to "re-imagine" God's Word. We have been tempted to make it fit what we wanted or believed the world to be.

Does "has God REALLY said..." sound familiar?
It should.
And we're still hearing it today. The pretend-professors of faith haven't stopped. They know the "Christian-ese" lingo, they draw a crowd and profit handsomely. They are often 'cutting edge' and have the 'new revelations' and the 'latest thing' from God. Maybe this-or-that-unusual -experience. Something that makes them "special". They're never drawing people back to the well-worn road of biblical orthodoxy.

What do you suppose the itching ears verse was a warning against, if not this? Trendy preachers, and flashy shows. It was the false prophets in biblical times that drew big followings, and were well-loved by the worldly. Be cautious about the top selling (supposedly) Christian books and speakers. Examine what they tell you to believe. If Paul praised the Bereans for not taking the Apostle's word for what he was saying, but called them noble for measuring it against the Bible, should we not check our "celebrity preachers" today in the same way?

The newest doctrine or exciting experience are NOT what we should be chasing. We should desire HIM, especially in His Word.

Here are just three examples of God describing his Word as being of utmost importance: Moses, Deuteronomy, and King Saul. If that list is too short, search "word" in Biblegateway, and see a long list of others.

Moses' and Saul's examples are interesting. Moses had a "small deviation" from God's instructions. He was told to speak to the rock, and water would flow from it. He spoke to the people, and struck the rock. The fact that God worked a major miracle there did not change the fact that Moses was in sin for dishonoring God's word. Result? Moses was barred from entering the promised land. Lesson? Presence of a miracle is not a divine endorsement of behaviour.

Similar story with Saul. He was given instructions relating to the battle with the Amalekites: wipe them out, give no quarter. But Saul took the possessions and the King as trophies. Did he go to war? Yes. Did he defeat the Amalekites? Yes. As Saul tried to justify himself, he argued that most of them had been destroyed. But God didn't accept the excuses. He treated Saul's partial obedience as complete disobedience. Lesson? Success in your field of work is not a divine endorsement of behaviour, either.

Result? God gave Saul's kingdom away to "someone better".

If this seems overly extreme to you, maybe you underestimate how passionately God values his Word. God esteems it as highly as he does his Own Name. (He expects we should too.)

If anyone could have been qualified to preach from subjective experience, Jesus could have. He had so much to draw from, and was Himself completely untainted by sin. So did he preach experience? Nope. He Preached the Word. In fact it was the Word (not experience or emotionalism) that was preached throughout New Testament.

This is where history and sound doctrine dovetail.

Tradition: is it good or bad?

YES -- it can be either.

When it displaces God's Word, and co-opts it into new meanings, tradition is bad. Mark 7 deals with this. But tradition is also mentioned in a positive sense: I Cor 11:2 (keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you), as well as 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Thess 3:6.

Where does this leave us? How do we proceed with seemingly conflicting messages concerning the importance of tradition?

It works like this:
1) Begin with the Word of God. It is your starting point. Study it carefully.
2) Weigh it against the WHOLE COUNSEL of scripture, for a balanced view of what you are studying.
3) Bring an attitude of humility and prayer to seek the Author's original intent.
4) Compare that with the tradition handed down.

(This is where things can get dicey.)

If there is substantial agreement with your careful, prayerful reading of scripture, and the conclusions made by God's faithful from years gone by, you have probably divided God's word rightly.

If there is a substantial disagreement, you have tension between your studies and tradition, go back to the first 3 steps, and take your time.

One of you is wrong. Maybe both. There have been great moments in Church history when someone has rediscovered the meaning of the text, where one man with the Bible stood against the World. (Athanasius and Luther come to mind.) But it is far more likely that YOU are off in left field.

Find someone with a solid and mature faith, and discuss it with them. If they are as solid as you think, they can expose gaps in your understanding, and correct them.

If your reading STILL differs from the historically dominant one, make VERY CERTAIN that the entire Word of God affirms the point you are arriving at. Because Scripture is NOT of a private interpretation.

Either way, you will have grown with respect to your faith and God's word. Rejoice!

One Post in Three Parts -- Part 2: "Sound Doctrine"

2009-10-26T03:00:00.010-05:00

( Continued from PREVIOUS post)

In my last post, I argued for the validity and (especially) the importance of History, especially as Christians. This in turn was to prepare to address the claim that all sin except unbelief, for the redeemed and the damned alike, is Atoned for by the Cross. God willing, I will take the leap into the question itself shortly, but this post will be to discuss sound doctrine.

Whenever I am discussing Christianity with Christians, and I raise the importance of doctrine, or the study of the Word of God, or of orthodoxy, (to say nothing of Systematic Theology), there are usually two main objections. The first is that a revelation of / personal relationship with Jesus is the only thing that really matters. The next most common is a snide remark made towards either theology, or theologians. Almost on cue, both objections came up in the conversation that started this discussion off.

Both of these answers make the basic assumption that theology is like interpretive dance: all concept, no substance. -- That assumption is not shared by the authors of Scripture.

Three categories of use from the word we use as "doctrine" can help clarify how that word is to be understood.

Doctrine is used by Jesus to describe the (empty) rites and rituals that were of merely human origin that devout people were expected to observe. (Matt 15:9) It is also used to describe influence of demonic origin (James 3:15, I Tim 4:1) which is intended to deceive and corrupt us. Finally, and most importantly, it is used for the Pure doctrine of the Gospel of God. (As found in most of the examples in this search list.) What I am hoping you will notice is that in each of these, whether the authority is human, demonic, or divine, there is a connection between the belief one begins with and the resulting behaviour.

As I said, there is a prevailing belief that theology is merely theory that old men who smell like old books argue about in dusty rooms. Most people who think so got there one of two ways. They either have anti-intellectual biases: all study is inconsequential -- or secular biases: all religious study is inconsequential. Both attitudes run contrary to the Biblical pattern.

This is further exacerbated by:
(1) the Body of Christ (in the West, anyway) has drunk deeply of the worldly views and opinions of the culture we inhabit. The mistrust of authority that exploded in the Sixties is alive and well today.
(2) Subjectivism and Moral Relativism have radically altered the way that professing Christians understand their faith. Sometimes it even approaches uncomfortably close to the appeal made by the Mormons when they point to the biblical phrase: "Did not our hearts burn within us?" (They suggest that a similar subjective experience will "prove" the truth of their claims.) Too often Christians are heard echoing the secular phrase "it's true for me".

Our culture tells us to BE your personal Authority. To bring an all-you-can-eat-buffet attitude toward what is true, and to elect ourselves God and call 'true' the beliefs we like best. By contrast, the Apostles appealed to one authority only -- the Authority of God. The Authority of God specifically as revealed by the Authority of His Word.

Here's how this worked.

Look at the outline of many of the Epistles.

They address some profound points of theology. (Doctrine).
Next, they draw out the implications of that theology.
[Watch for words like "If / then", "Therefore", "But", and so on.]
Those implications are then carried forward into concrete examples of "life-lived-out".

Paul's letter to the Ephesians gives a good example.

Chapter one opens with the broad scope of Salvation, as a gracious unilateral gift from God. Chapter two moves into how that plan takes effect in the life of an individual believer... regeneration. Chapter 3 describes both Paul's and the Church's role in furthering this plan for others. Chapter 4 is how the Church is taught to conform to Christ, and immediately followed by specific concrete examples of what that looks like. Chapters 5&6 unpack the effect of the first 4 chapters on behaviour and relationships. As the Epistle closes, we are brought back to our dependency on God, so we are not left thinking we are to do these things in our own moral strength.

The Apostle Peter follows the same pattern. His Big Idea is in 1 Peter 1:3-5, God's mercy. Salvation. New Birth. Living Hope. Christ's Resurrection. Secure inheritance. Everything else in the letter draws from this starting point. The encouragements to be strong in the face of suffering and persecution, the call to humility, proper attitudes toward those in authority, relationships, and so forth.

If you are not yet convinced of the importance of Doctrine, look at Paul's instructions to Timothy.

Paul is leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus. Timothy is told: "remain in Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine." You see, for Paul, doctrine wasn't AN issue, it was THE issue.

Paul's ultimate aim was for that flock to have "love that issues from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith." Other people proclaimed themselves teachers and were leading those same people astray. Paul moves directly from there into a discussion about the Law, and how it is to be properly used. (This we may address separately, elsewhere. I know some who follow my blog have strong convictions on this point, but let's not get distracted.)

There is a laundry list of types of sin, with a really interesting phase upon which the idea transitions to the next part. After listing sins ranging from sexual sin, murder, and lying, to selling people into slavery, it broadens the net to include every sort of sin not mentioned in this list. So to condense the idea, the Law is for those who sin by doing these things "and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine in accordance with the gospel...".

The way he intended to Achieve the aim of sincere love, was by removing influences of false doctrine.

Paul drew a link between sin, and wrong teaching / belief.

Said differently -- wrong ideas lead to wrong behaviour.

I don't mean this in the way a humanist would, e.g. "if only they are properly educated, then they won't do all those horrible things."

What I mean is that any area where thinking is not yet conformed to Christ and His Word is an area where one will be prone to sin.

So Therefore:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)

One Post in Three parts -- Part one "History"

2009-10-15T00:55:00.008-05:00

Does theology matter in Christianity today? Modern or ancient? Is there a place for ancient theology in the modern world, or is it all about a personal revelation of - and relationship to - Christ?

These are the sorts of questions that came up in a conversation recently. It began when someone I appreciate and admire said "God does not impute sin to the world because all sin was imputed into the body of Christ when he hung on the cross 2000 yrs ago."

We wound up discussing 3 separate ideas.
1) Heresy.
2) Orthodoxy.
3) History. (the relevance of)

I aim to link these three points together in one series as they each relate to the initial question, moving from broadest to narrowest. I was hoping to do them on one post, but it got too long. So much like Douglas Adams's 'Trilogy in Five Parts' this will be one post in 3 parts.

Part the First -- The relevance of History in the context of Christianity.

The objection goes something like this:
Why should I care what some dead guy said however long ago. (Subsets of that objection include: The only thing that matters is that I know Jesus for myself. Or the apostles were uneducated fishermen, and look what they did!)

The reason that so many people make that objection is that there is a kernel of truth in it. Ultimately, the most important thing is that one has a real relationship with Christ Jesus. Similarly, people have been led astray by placing too much emphasis on traditional teaching, and too little on the Bible itself. (Jesus made this point in Mark 7)

But here's the problem with that:
(Someone else dealt with the fishermen objection nicely here)
As Christians, we have beliefs that mark us as uniquely Christian. We believe in the Triune God. We believe that Christ is fully man AND fully God. That God is Creator. We believe in the Cross... Resurrection... Ascension... and Return of Christ. Heaven and Hell. We believe that there are no other Gods.

Someone might say "I just love Jesus" and I could ask, 'Tell me about him." Muslims claim to honor Jesus. So did Ghandi. Napoleon respected him. Mormons think he's Satan's younger brother. J.W.'s think of him as the highest created angelic being, but not divine. Many call him a "good man", or "good teacher", but not deity.

Christians reject these false Christs and the false gospels that go with them. We need precision language to lay out the differences between the counterfeits and the faithful. It is important that Jesus had both human and Divine natures. It affects Redemption. It matters that he lived a sinless life. That he rose from death and did not merely "swoon".

Hebrews 5:12 makes the connection between having a developed walk with God, and the ability to teach others. Teach them what? The gospel? Yes! Does that mean John 3:16 only? No! Or else, God would not have needed to give us more than that. Like every other aspect of our maturity, our walk with God becomes more developed. More able to take the eternal truth from Biblical patterns, and apply them to life wherever we may find ourselves. Compare Romans 12:2.

Paul didn't rely on complex arguments to win people to Christ, he preached the Gospel. BUT you can be sure that Paul (among others) DID use complex arguments (even Peter said Paul was difficult to follow) to bring those young believers to maturity. So that they would have a robust understanding of Christ's person and work. Many would, after all, be killed for what they believed. It is best that you have a firm grasp of it.

Sure, we like the Bible. It's those other guys we don't care about. Those stuffy religious types.
There is something distasteful about assuming other peoples' faith and walk with God are inferior to yours. Oh, right. It's sin. (James 4:11) There are cultural differences, differences in style and liturgy. But those are not measurements of how well a person does or doesn't know God.

You like the Bible, you said? Ok, then, what was the purpose of the gifts mentioned in Eph 4?
The gifts: apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher.
They were given. By whom? By Christ.
For what purpose? That the body be built up. That we become mature. That we are solid, and not blown around by every wind and wave. There is mutual interdependence involved.
So the people that do these things are a gift by God to His Church? Because HE wants to accomplish HIS purposes?
So then, if people who were Ephesian 4 gifts to the Church write books, can we not profit from reading them? Does the same Spirit who informs me, also inform believers who lived before me? Can we not read C.S. Lewis, or Torrey, or Moody, or Spurgeon, or Luther, or Anselm, or Chrysostom, or Ignatius?

Put it another way -- do you refuse the wisdom of those in your church? Are you too "spiritual" to be instructed by those you know? How about others you admire? Do you read books, or listen to podcasts of your favorite preachers? How is that different?

TIME. That's the real objection, right? People from "back then" couldn't possibly have anything helpful to say about people today... could they? I Cor 10:13. The tricks and traps that lie in wait for the faithful today, whether sin, or deceptions are all recycled. They are adapted to new environments, but they are nothing new "under the sun". Frankly, there is safety in reading old books. Lewis said it this way:

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.

Since the tricks and traps the enemy uses today were already in circulation as far back as Plato's day (Atheism, Sophistry, Materialism, Relativism, etc) why not find out how they were shut down before?

Which is wisdom? To find the ways people before us successfully refuted problems that still exist today, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Or to stubbornly start from scratch and try to find a way to counter the work of the enemy?

Additionally, there is safety in comparing your understanding of Scripture to the historical consensus... it helps filter out a lot of loopy ideas. If your "personal revelation" is not supported by faithful students of God's Word from earlier generations, do your homework and MAKE DARNED SURE that the Bible really says what you think it does.

But I'm getting a little ahead of myself.

(Next post in the series here ---->)

Another lesson from David...

2009-10-08T04:23:00.002-05:00

The Big Idea I want to develop here is how different sorts of people can correct us when we're wrong. People who are a better example of right living (as Nathan was to David) and even those who are a worse example of proper conduct. (like Joab)

Since I've been reading about David lately, with some helpful background from Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible, I've picked up on some things that I hadn't noticed before.

Like the fact that the soldier whose wife David stole was actually listed as one of David's "Mighty Men" (2 Sam 23:39, Uriah the Hittite), or the role different people close to him played in his life.

Much has been made of David's sin with Bathsheba. I'm not about to break down the details of it here, except to say that it says much about what someone can and will do to hide their guilt.

He brought a soldier home from the front, and sent him to his wife's waiting arms. That didn't work. Then he got Uriah drunk, and tried to have him go home to his wife. That didn't work either. Why? Because he was a faithful and loyal soldier whose comrades were on the field of battle. They were not enjoying the comforts of home, and neither would he. Beyond that, his was a pious answer:

"the ARK and Israel are staying in tents... how could I go to my house...?"

(Do you think that just maybe such a show of loyalty and integrity singed David's conscience?) So David arranged to have Uriah killed in battle, and then take the widow for himself.
He was charged of his guilt by Nathan the prophet in 2 Sam 12:9

⁹ Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.

Uriah was one of David's Mighty men!
He was probably one of the men in Ziklag with him when he was in exile. Brothers-in-arms. Murdered by the treachery of the very king he faithfully served.

God got his attention. There was fallout for his sin. But he repented.

(Sidebar -- if "you despise the word of the Lord" sounds familiar, it should. Similar language resulted in Saul losing the kingdom. See 1 Sam 15:26.)

The second example is Joab.

Joab, if you remember, is the commander of David's armies. Two of his rivals were assassinated. David specifically instructed Solomon to use his wisdom to hold him accountable for those murders. (I Kings 2:5-6) Oh, right. He also murdered Absalom, David's renegade son, when the King specifically instructed people not to harm him. This is to say, Joab is NOT a nice guy.

But being a wretched man does not mean David should have dismissed what he said.

Look (1 Chronicles 21:1-7):

¹ Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. ² So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, "Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are." ³ But Joab replied, "May the LORD multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord's subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?" ⁴ The king's word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem. ⁵ Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. ⁶ But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the king's command was repulsive to him. ⁷ This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel.

I'm not going to argue what prompted the census (Chronicles points to Satan, 2 Samuel points to God's wrath) or exactly why taking a census was wrong (beyond the instructions that certain things must happen when a census takes place -- Ex 30:12 ).

The fact is, that David -- the same David that is described as being a man after God's own heart, had to be reigned in from a stupid, reckless, wicked act by a serial killer.

The point is not that David lived a perfect life.
The point is that however big he blew it, he came back to God.

What does that tell us?

1) We need to be receptive to correction. And, by extension, we need to be accountable to others. We are too good at inventing reasons that our sin is "minor" to do without it.
Sin isn't minor.
Ever.

2) We take comfort that even people that are esteemed greatly in scripture have blown it, in big ways, and still were used by God. (Hebrews 11:32 had David among the significant examples of faith.)

3) We need a Redeemer. None of us is free from sin's influence. We are slaves to sin until Christ sets us free from it.

That's the whole point of the Cross.

Is there an "I" in your "we"? (Snippets of Spurgeon)

2009-10-06T00:09:00.004-05:00

This portion of one of Spurgeon's sermons is taken from "Sermon VII, The Church of Christ".
(Spurgeon's text is Ezekiel 34:26 KJV.)

²⁶And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing. (Ezekiel 34:26, King James Version)

But notice, next, the personality of the blessing. "I will make them a blessing." "I will make each member of the church a blessing." Many people come up to the house of prayer, where the church assembles: and you say, "Well, what are you doing at such-and-such a place where you attend?" "Well, we are doing so-and-so." "How do you spell we?" "It is a plain monosyllable, " say you. "Yes, but do you put I in 'we?'" "No." There are a great many people who could easily spell "we" without an I in it ; for though they say, "We have been doing so-and-so," they do not say, "How much have I done? Did I do anything in it? Yes ; this chapel has been enlarged ; what did I subscribe? Twopence!" Of course it is done. Those who paid the money have done it. "We preach the gospel." Do we indeed? "Yes, we sit in our pew and listen a little, and do not pray for a blessing. We have got such a large Sunday School." Did you ever teach in it? "We have got a very good working society." Did you ever go to work in it? That is not the way to spell "we." It is, "I will make them a blessing." When Jerusalem was built, every man began nearest to his own house. That is where you must begin to build or do something. Do not let us tell a lie about it. If we do not have some share in the building, if we neither handle the trowel nor the spear, let us not talk about our church ; for the text says, "I will make them a blessing, " every one of them.
"But, sir, what can I do? I am nothing but a father at home ; I am so full of business, I can only see my children a little." But in your business, do you ever have any servants? "No ; I am a servant myself." You have fellow-servants? "No ' I work alone." Do you work alone, then, and live alone, like a monk in a cell? I don't believe that. But you have fellow-servants at work ' cannot you say a word to their conscience? "I don't like to intrude religion into the business." Quite right, too ' so say I ' when I am at business, let it be business; when you are at religion, let it be religion. But do you never have an opportunity? Why, you cannot go into an omnibus, or a railway carriage, but what you can say something for Jesus Christ. I have found it so, and I don't believe I am different from other people. Cannot do anything? Cannot you put a tract into your hat, and drop it where you go? Cannot yo uspeak a word to a child? Where does this man come from, that cannot do anything? There is a spider on the wall ; but he taketh hold on kings' palaces, and spinneth his web to rid the world of noxious flies. There is a nettle in the corner of the churchyard ; but the physician tells me it has its virtues. There is a tiny star in the sky ; but that is noted in the chart, and the mariner looks at it. There is an insect under water ; built it builds a rock. God made all these things for something ; but here is a man that God made and gave him nothing at all to do! I do not believe it. God never makes useless things; he has no superfluous workmanship. I care not what you are ; you have somewhat to do. And oh! may God show you what it its, and then make you do it, by the wonderous compulsion of his providence and his grace.

The passage quoted comes from Spurgeon's Sermons.

Like Father, Unlike Son (Saul and Jonathan)

2009-09-24T05:41:00.004-05:00

The number of people and commentators who have put Saul's and David's lives side-by-side for comparative studies must be staggering. I've even done so myself.

Less common, however, is the compare-and-contrast between Saul and Jonathan.

In the early chapters of I Samuel, are the intertwined stories of both men, and how they handled real-life situations.

First -- let's look at Saul

Saul had shown that he was a capable military leader (Chapter 11). He had seen battle before, and had defeated Israel's enemies before.
Saul had also seen evidence that should inspire him to trust the word of the prophet Samuel. Chapter 10 has an amazing string of prophesies and an instruction. Saul gives specific descriptions of who he is going to meet, and what is going to happen in the next few hours. You're going to meet 3 men, carrying specific things, and will give you some of them. You're going to join in a divinely orchestrated jam session with some singing prophets near a Philistine outpost, and the Spirit of God will come upon you dramatically. After that, go do what God compels you to.

All of these happened precisely, to the scantest detail, in the form and fashion that Samuel had said they would.

There was one final detail to this profoundly specific near-term prophesy:

⁸ "Go down ahead of me to Gilgal. I will surely come down to you to sacrifice burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, but you must wait seven days until I come to you and tell you what you are to do."

Samuel didn't say anything about the details or events that were to occur on that day, only that sacrifice was to occur at that time and place, followed by instructions from that generation's oracle of God.

So what did Saul do, armed with this information, and the confidence that this prophesy that was more detailed and specific than the vast majority of all prophetic instructions ever recorded in scripture?

⁵ The Philistines assembled to fight Israel, with three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They went up and camped at Micmash, east of Beth Aven. ⁶ When the men of Israel saw that their situation was critical and that their army was hard pressed, they hid in caves and thickets, among the rocks, and in pits and cisterns. ⁷ Some Hebrews even crossed the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead.
Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear. ⁸ He waited seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and Saul's men began to scatter. ⁹ So he said, "Bring me the burnt offering and the fellowship offerings. " And Saul offered up the burnt offering. ¹⁰ Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet him.

So, at the time Samuel mentioned, Israel had been met by an army they feared, many were deserting, Samuel was nowhere to be seen, and soldiers were deserting him. Did he turn to God or human solutions? He profaned God by offering the sacrifice, when he was not legally permitted to do so.

What was Saul's excuse? It was Samuel's fault! (What??) He blamed Samuel for not being there. There was a heavy irony that was entirely lost on Saul: Saul was blaming Samuel to his face, at the moment in which he was finishing the sacrifice. Samuel was there, just not before Saul caved to his panic, and carnal solutions to the task at hand.

This attitude was paralleled with Saul's attack on the Amalekites. (1 Samuel 15) Saul, who was not in the custom of building altars to memorialize the faithfulness of God (1 Sam 14:35: usual enough that it was mentioned as the "first time that he had done this") but he managed to build a memorial to himself and his own accomplishments. (1 Sam 15:12)

What did he say about these accomplishments? He greeted Samuel in the Lord's name, and said that he had (verse 13) carried out the Lord's instructions. Samuel pointed out the flaw in that theory, since the flocks and King Agag had not been put to the sword, as commanded by God.

Saul (like so many of us, if we're honest) tried to dress up his rebellion in spirituality. He gave sort of an "uh, these flocks here? They are, uh, for, uh, sacrifice to God, yeah, that's the ticket, sacrifice to God, that'll work..." response.

Samuel wasn't fooled by the pretense to spirituality. He reminded Saul of the commandment, and Saul's disobedience to it. For a second time in this same conversation, when faced with the truth of his own sin relative to God's command, Saul insisted that his Sin was actually Virtue.

The hammer fell, Saul was judged unworthy to reign, and another king (David) was to be raised up. Even afterward, Saul tried to avert the punishment by repenting after the consequence (no dice) so he begged that Samuel at least honor him before the elders, and worship together with Saul.

Compare that to his son, Jonathan.

The faith or fear test that Saul failed (by offering the sacrifice himself), Jonathan passed with flying colors. Context: Philistines have ensured that Israel does not have iron weapons, or even iron tools. Only the king and Jonathan had even a sword or spear.

So, militarily, Israel was disadvantaged. Morale was crumbling, it was REALLY bad. How bad? This was a point in their history (1 Sam 11) where citizens of a city had contemplated having their right eyes gouged out as a term of subjugation to their neighbors.

Jonathan decides to take action. He grabs his armor-bearer, leaves the safety of the garrison, and crosses into the enemy camp. Here's the text:

⁶ Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, "Come, let's go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised fellows. Perhaps the LORD will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few."
⁷ "Do all that you have in mind," his armor-bearer said. "Go ahead; I am with you heart and soul." ⁸ Jonathan said, "Come, then; we will cross over toward the men and let them see us. ⁹ If they say to us, 'Wait there until we come to you,' we will stay where we are and not go up to them. ¹⁰ But if they say, 'Come up to us,' we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the LORD has given them into our hands."
¹¹ So both of them showed themselves to the Philistine outpost. "Look!" said the Philistines. "The Hebrews are crawling out of the holes they were hiding in." ¹² The men of the outpost shouted to Jonathan and his armor-bearer, "Come up to us and we'll teach you a lesson." So Jonathan said to his armor-bearer, "Climb up after me; the LORD has given them into the hand of Israel." ¹³ Jonathan climbed up, using his hands and feet, with his armor-bearer right behind him. The Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer followed and killed behind him. ¹⁴ In that first attack Jonathan and his armor-bearer killed some twenty men in an area of about half an acre. ¹⁵ Then panic struck the whole army—those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties—and the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God.

Short form: They take action, confront the enemy, seek guidance from God in the midst of their action and they charge the enemy. Why? They trust in God's ability, not man's. (verse 6) They killed 20 men. (10:1 odds, mind you), and it had a cascade effect which put the enemy to flight.

Later in the same chapter, Saul makes one of his famously stupid vows, and places anyone who eats before the battle is won under a curse. Jonathan knows nothing of this, and innocently takes some honey with his staff, and touches it to his lips.

Philistines are being routed, and Saul asks for divine leading on how to proceed. God is silent. Saul swears to put to death whoever is guilty of whatever sin has resulted in God's silence. He could even argue that he has good precedent for this, with Achan (Joshua chapter 7). Eventually, Jonathan is shown to be guilty of breaking his father's dumb oath.

Moment of truth: how does Jonathan respond to this situation? 1 Sam 14:43 "I tasted a little honey with the tip of the staff that was in my hand. Here I am, I will die."

The biggest difference between the two men was their view of God.

First, in their trust of Him:
Saul, doubted the faithfulness of God, and when he saw the thing he really trusted in (public support, military or otherwise) crumbling (men were deserting) in the face of trouble, he demonstrated that he had a low view of the ability of God to be faithful, and of God to be the ultimate solution to the problems he faced.

Jonathan trusted the faithfulness of God. He identified the enemy as 'uncircumcised', meaning 'not having a covenant with a covenant-keeping God.' He glorified God even before the fight, "God is able to save by many or few", and without the benefit of a detailed prophesy like the one his dad blew off, he forged ahead into the fight.

Secondly, the differed in their view of His Holiness:
Saul played fast-and-loose with God's commandment. The parts he liked, he obeyed, when convenient. Should he sacrifice? Should he let Agag and the best of the flocks live? Sure, why not. Judgment fell against him because Saul had "rejected the word of the Lord" (1 Sam 15:26).
When he was convicted of sin, he blame-shifted, groveled, whined, squirmed, tried to justify himself, and tried to generally avoid the consequence attached to the sin.

Jonathan ate honey. It was not disobedience to God. It wasn't even disobedience at all, since he did not know about the prohibition. Eating honey is not sinful. He was not gluttonous, he simply had a 'little taste'. Why was it sin? Because his father, the king, had placed anyone who ate before the victory was won under a curse. God honored the reckless, stupid, and self-serving curse of a man in power as being a valid obligation with associated heavy penalties for violation. Jonathan did not contest it, he submitted to the penalty as the proper response to a violation of God's holiness.

We need to examine our own reaction to sin. Do we -- like Saul -- blow it off, as unimportant, insignificant, excusable? Bad idea. If so, we have either forgotten the nature of the One who Redeemed us, or perhaps never even been truly born again.

Why is our reaction to sin important?
Because if we have been given new life, we know what it cost us to get it:
The perfect, holy, Son of God took the judgment of sin upon himself, with abuse, beatings, shame and ultimately a painful and violent end, so that the wrath of God against sin would be satisfied. If we trust in Christ, we die with him, and we are given a new life in Christ, which gives us a hatred toward the sin that was so abhorrent that the thrice-holy God had to die in our place to deal with it. He grants, by His Spirit, victory over the sins that used to rule over us, and a love for God, people, and righteousness for its own sake.

Are you more like Saul, or Jonathan?
Have you trusted in Christ Jesus?

The Curious ending for Judges

2009-09-15T03:31:00.004-05:00

What exactly is going on in the last chapters of Judges?

(I'll resist the temptation of derailing into the significance of the last verses of Chapter 18 where it says Moses' grandson lead the tribe of Dan into idolatry.)

The earlier chapters had a crisis, repentance and a leader rising up to rescue the people.

The last two chapters are dealing with something different:

One man ( a Levite from Ephriam) is seeking to be reconciled with his concubine (19:1) / wife (v. 3, 4). He seeks to win her back, speaking kindly to her. (v.3)

They were traveling home, and could have turned into Jebus (Jerusalem) but did not, since it was a town of foreigners. He instead chose to turn into the town of Gibeah. Why? Probably thinking he would receive better treatment among a fellow heir of Abraham, rather than a pagan city.

They were not warmly treated. Nobody offered to show hospitality to the stranger, until an old man of Ephraim took him in.

The leaders of the city demanded the Levite be given to them so that they may "know" him. That is to say, this was a repeat of the events at Sodom, only magnified in the fact that they were a covenant people, and more should be expected of them.

Long story shorter, the concubine ends up outside, and they vent their baser impulses with an energy and rage that only a mob mentality can generate and sustain. The woman is found dead at the very threshold of the door to the house where she went for safety.

I cannot condone the choices made here. I cannot even understand the mentality of turning this woman out of their protection and into their clutches. But they gang-raped that woman to death.

The Levite demands justice, cutting her into 12 parts, and using that as a summons to the rest of Israel to deal with this matter. I expand more on the ensuing bloodbath in a previous post.

Benjamin, in refusing recognize and denounce evil in its midst (these were Leaders, let's remember) became co-conspirators.

What I want to point out is how Chapters 19, 20, and 21 fit together. Each of them is compelling reading on its own, but taken together they tell a larger story.

1) Sin was found in the midst. (Chapter 19)
2) Sin was confronted (Chapter 20)
3) Those who remained were restored (Chapter 21)

This can be seen as an episode of the faithfulness of God.
Each of the tribes, including Benjamin, were heirs of the covenant. Just as Moses pled for the continuance of the Nation of Israel, as he begged God not to judge (utterly destroy) them, Israel grieved at the loss of the tribe of Benjamin. (21:3), and as surely as they rose up as a nation to purge sin from the midst, they rose up as a nation to effect the restoration of those who remained after the chastening.

This is a picture of how Christ commands his redeemed to shepherd the Church.
Where sin exists, it must be detected, defined, and denounced. It must not be embraced.
But, where repentance has come, they must be restored.

Such is the richness of the mercy of God.

Taking God for Granted

2009-09-09T01:20:00.004-05:00

By the time we've come to the 10th chapter of Judges, Israel has gone through the cycle of success- sin-suffering-and-salvation several times.

Worship other gods, get slapped around by their neighbors, and when things get too tough, they roll out the token repentance.

Not this time.

Here's the text: (Judges 10:6-16)

⁶ Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD. They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines. And because the Israelites forsook the LORD and no longer served him, ⁷ he became angry with them. He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and the Ammonites, ⁸ who that year shattered and crushed them. For eighteen years they oppressed all the Israelites on the east side of the Jordan in Gilead, the land of the Amorites. ⁹ The Ammonites also crossed the Jordan to fight against Judah, Benjamin and the house of Ephraim; and Israel was in great distress. ¹⁰ Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD, "We have sinned against you, forsaking our God and serving the Baals." ¹¹ The LORD replied, "When the Egyptians, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, ¹² the Sidonians, the Amalekites and the Maonites ^a]">[a] oppressed you and you cried to me for help, did I not save you from their hands? ¹³ But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you. ¹⁴ Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!" ¹⁵ But the Israelites said to the LORD, "We have sinned. Do with us whatever you think best, but please rescue us now." ¹⁶ Then they got rid of the foreign gods among them and served the LORD. And he could bear Israel's misery no longer.

Looking at verse 6, there is a list of seven separately named gods that Israel worshiped. To worship anything other than God is to forsake the true God.

This is the problem with pluralism today. This is how Jesus later claimed that whoever has the Son has the Father, but whosoever denies the Son, denies the Father also. We cannot honor the Holy God who made us, and chase after the competing religions as if the difference does not matter. The others may be compatible with one another, but the God of Israel stands alone.

A little further down, Israel's Spiritual infidelity is followed by political turmoil. They are crushed and hard-pressed by their enemies.

So Israel does what they always had done. They approached God with Ritualized Repentance. "O, God we have sinned, please save us."

The response they were given was a flat "No."

Israel had made the serious mistake of treating God like we do sometimes. You know, like the socially awkward girl desperately hoping someone - anyone - might ask her to dance? Who could possibly be turned down by her?

God is not dependent on us or anyone else. God is Sovereign. He is not wringing His hands hoping somebody might like Him. He is glorious in His majesty. Even angels in their purity cover their faces at the sight of His Holiness.

If we are to approach Him, it will not be as a means to an end. He will not be Plan B. Are we so foolish as to think we can conceal our motives from Him?

God said no.
He even said why -- when seven other nations had oppressed Israel, God had come to the rescue each time they had cried out. He showed himself greater than anything those other nations had.

So what did Israel do? They served the same gods of the very nations that their God had repeatedly scattered. No kidding!

If your other gods are so great, pray to them!

God pressured them to choose.

Course correction. Israel again said the same thing: "We have sinned" but this time did so in a different way. They acknowledged their guilt, and the right of God as Lord. "Do to us whatever you think best."

Then they did what they hadn't done the first time: They put away their foreign gods, and served the Lord.

"And [God] could bear their misery no longer." -- Israel took God for granted, chased sin and hated holiness, faced consequences that they justly deserved, and still God pitied them.

Remember Jesus' words in Luke? "...there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." This is a triumph of grace over sin. God seems genuinely eager for the end of the lesson, so that he can intervene with mercy.

We see this idea clarified elsewhere:
Psalm 30:5 (...his anger lasts only a moment but his favour lasts a lifetime)
or Isaiah 54:8 "'In a surge of anger I hid my face for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy upon you' says the Lord Your Redeemer"

Let's recap, with a view to today.

Often, we find ourselves wanting to pray to God for something. Perhaps a need in our life or someone close to us. Perhaps wrestling with an unsettled conscience.

Do we pledge a good deed, or swearing off of some sin? Do you recite a formalized, but empty repentance, like Israel did. (Often the "Sinner's Prayer" is used this way.) That's a dead end.

Or do we approach Jesus, with nothing to offer him but our guilt and our weakness, and ask his help in putting away our sin, guilt and shame.

When Israel finally got it right, they recognized (1) His Majesty (do with us as you think best), (2) their complete dependence on him. ("but please rescue us), and they submitted themselves to His plan and purpose (3) they got rid of their foreign gods and served the Lord.

THAT is when he rescued them.

Put away your toxic gods and empty promises you chase that claim to offer satisfaction or significance, and trust in Christ to save both from sin and from the judgment He justly brings upon it.

Bonhoeffer - pt. 1

2009-09-08T02:40:00.005-05:00

"True Patriotism" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer is mainly a collection of letters Dr. Bonhoeffer has written during WWII. He was a German pastor, who remained faithful to Christ, and encouraged others to do the same.

He also recognized the evil inherent in the Nazi regime and actively sought to overthrow it. He helped smuggle 7 Jews into Switzerland, which resulted in his arrest and subsequent execution.

He was involved in the underground resistance, and went so far as to draft a detailed plan to ensure the continuation of a stable and free Germany in the event of a successful coup d'etat.

Many of the details in the personal letters (often to conscripted pastors) are touching, surprising, and put a personal face on the individual Germans who were conscripted to fight in the German war effort.

Some excerpts that stood out:

-"One of you writes in some distress that he can only be a soldier among soldiers and that in so doing he is trying to remain a Christian, but that he has no strength for more than this."(p.59)

-"I find Konigsberg to be a town in which a man can live well, unlike Stettin. But behind everything that one sees stands the spectre of other events" (Stettin was where "the Jews first began that ghastly episode of transportation.") -p.63

-"With regard to the attitude to the war, it is generally recognized among believing Christians that a victory of their (German) government will have the most fateful consequences for the Church in their own country as well as in other countries. On the other hand, they consider that a defeat of their country would probably mean its end as a nation. thus many have come to believe that whatever the outcome of it all will be, it will be an evil thing for them. One hears, however, also voices which say that after all the suffering which their country has brought upon others, they almost hope for an opportunity to pay the price by suffering themselves." -p.98-9

- [Included in a September 1941 letter proposing sedition against Germany, including naming likely leaders in a provisional government was the following statement. The group referred to is a small international body of Christians participating in the conspiracy and who are looking ahead to the post-war rebuilding period]
"Those who are conscious of their membership in this fellowship are as yet a small group, but they are nevertheless not unimportant, because they are practically the only international community which remains united in spite of war and conflict." -p.110

-[later in the same letter] "The deepest reason for the moral confusion in Germany, and to some extent in Europe as a whole, is not merely the opposition against Christian ethical convictions (for this by itself might have created clear fronts rather than 'chaos'), but rather the ability of National Socialism to present its injustice as the true justice. The railway wagon of Compiegne is as it were the symbol of this masking of injustice. There was just enough relative justice in some of Germany's claims to make it possible for Hitler to present himself as a prophet who came to re-establish justice. This is the main source of the present moral confusion. And it should not be forgotten that, by making concessions to Hitler which had been refused to his predecessors, the statesmen of other nations became the supporters of Hitler against the opposition groups in Germany. In this way it is explicable that it has become increasingly difficult for the German nation to understand the true character of the regime, and that relatively few have remained unshaken in their own conviction that it represented Satan masquerading as an angel of light." (p.111-2)

-[same letter again] The Anglo-Saxon world summarizes the struggle against the omnipotence of the State in the word 'freedom'. And Paton gives us a charter of human 'rights and liberties' which are to provide the norm of action by the State. but these expressions must, as Paton indicates, 'be translated into terms which relate them more closely to the life of other peoples'. For freedom is too negative a word to be used in a situation where all order has been destroyed. And liberties are not enough when men seek first of all for some minimum security. These words remind too much of the old liberalism which because of its failures is itself largely responsible for the development towards State absolutism." (p.113)

- "Apart from these brothers, who were particularly close to us throught our work together, others have been killed: [lists 5, with details about their lives before adding] Some of you will remember from my confirmation class Hans Friedrich von Kleist-Retzow and his brother Jurgen Christoph from Stettin. Both were killed in the east. An open copy of the New Testament was found beside Hans Friedrich."-(p.124)

- [speaking after encouraging friends and ministers in military service to find comfort by turning their thoughts to some great biblical truths]
Dear brothers, it may be that you now have little time or inclination for such thoughts. There are times in which all reality is so mysterious and oppresses us so much that any direct word seems to destroy the mystery of God for us, that we speak about and would like to hear about the last things only in hints. Everything that we can say about our belief then seems so flat and empty against the reality which we experience and behind which we believe there is an unspeakable mystery. It is the same with those of you at the front as it is with us at home: whateve is uttered vanishes in a flash, all formulas no longer make contact with reality. There can be something very real in all this, as long as one word does not vanish within us, namely the name of Jesus Christ. this name remains a word, the word around which we gather all our words. In this word alone lies clarity and strength. -(p.125-6)

- [In October 1941, writing to the president of the Federation of Swiss Churches, begging to allow even some Jews asylum]
"It is a question of the extreme distress in which many of our non-Aryan brothers and sisters have been in for some weeks... Since the middle of October the practice has been started of transporting to the east non-Aryans from Berlin and other towns. The whole matter confronts the Christian Churches with questions and needs in the face of which we are almost entirely helpless." -(p.131-2)

- "I have been struck, by reading about it in so many letters from the front, how the Bible, and even meditation, go with you right into the shell craters." -(p.130)

- Gerard Vibrans was hit by a flying-bomb just as he was about to join companions in singing from the New Hymnal. Anyone who knew this pure, selfless brother..." -(p.164-5)

There will likely be more thoughts to jot down as I am just getting to his time as a prisoner.

(If you're reading this on Facebook, there are color highlights you would only see on my blog www.dailytheophilus.blogspot.com )

Are we Post-Christian?

2009-09-07T03:02:00.007-05:00

How do you view hardship?
It depends on how you view God.

Sizing up today's culture, it would be easy to think that any "Golden Age" of the influence of Christianity is best seen in the rear view mirror, and that the faithful ought to live primarily on the defensive.

One of the things that practically leaps off the page as I read through the Pentateuch, Joshua and (especially) Judges is the Sovereignty of God even in the degree of success we have in what we do.

- The giving of the promised land to Israel was after the Amorites' sin demanded God's judgment.
- Rahab affirmed that she knew "that the Lord has given you the land and that the fear of you has fallen upon us and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you." The people in Jericho recognized the presence of the True God, and that any attempt to fight against him was hopeless. (Josh 2:9-11)
- The defeat at Ai was directly related to sin in Israel's camp.
- God chastened Israel for failing to possess the land, and refused to eject the remaining foreigners. (Judges 2:1-3):

¹ The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, ² and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? ³ Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you."

- Israel's cycle: Rebellion, the Rule of foreigners over them, Repentance, and Rescue happened over and over and over in Judges and beyond.

God explicitly, and repeatedly directed Israel to honor the covenant, and reject idolatry, lest the hand of God turn against them.

Here are two references:

^{Deut 28: 46-48} They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

Another one, in the larger context of that famous passage where Joshua pledges his household to the service of God was Joshua 24: 14-24. Israel responded saying they would too. Joshua called them liars. They still insisted they would be faithful to God.

Then what happened? Did they man up and do it?

Nope. The godly leadership died. Joshua who had a vital relationship died. Then those who had been eyewitnesses to the hand of God on and through Joshua died. The very next generation were wicked and served the Baals.

This is where we find ourselves today. The so-called Post-Christian generation. People are panicking because God and his Word seem to have little cultural influence.

Has the gospel lost its power? Is the devil in charge? Is it the Last days? Is it time to hop on the Rapture bus?

Hang on just a minute.

Revisit the pattern. (It's outlined in Judges 2:11-23)
God's established people have a measure of comfort, wealth and stability.
They forget what it means to be a covenant people.
They begin to live in a way that forgets God.
They get smacked around by their enemies.
They cry out to God.
He rescues them.
They repeat the process.

Now: Who is responsible for the strength of the enemies?
It was not the world or the devil. It was God.
Why? Because he cared about Israel enough to chastise them. (Heb 12:6)

I hear the objection now... "How could a loving God do such a thing?"

Let's look at the list. There were raiders, Cuahan-rishathaim, Moabites, Jabin, Abimelech (not even a foreigner), Midians, Philistines, Ammonites, civil war with Ephraim, Philistines again, and the tribe of Benjamin. To say nothing of what happens AFTER the book of Judges: civil wars, wars with neighbors, Assyria, Babylon, Medes and Persians, Greece, Rome... and so on.

Did God do this?

He claims to have done it.
Judges 2:13-14, 3:8; 4:2; 6:1-10-- and so on.

So, how CAN we reconcile the picture of a loving God we see with this text?
-Some might take an OT / NT spin on this and dismiss it as irrelevant for today.
Nope. It doesn't address core questions, like what happens now when we are stymied by the enemies of the gospel. It also falsifies scripurtes like (2 Tim 3:16).
-Some might say God permitted it. No, it uses an active voice. God gave them into the hand of... in direct response to sin.
- If God is portrayed in any sense as a helpless observer to influences (whether human or demonic) that wreck things God would rather not see wrecked, then such a god cannot actively help us. You have effectively embraced deism. It is good that we do not preach such a god.
-So does this endanger God's love for us?
Never! We just need a more correct view of love.
A child being spanked for running into traffic without looking, or playing with matches is loved. The brief moment of painful reminder lovingly applied to jr.'s backside is a small price to pay for the larger goal of NOT being either flat or crispy.

If we fully accept the Biblical representation of eternal judgment of sin by the perfectly Holy Son of God, we put our present sufferings into context.

War, famine, displacement, disrupted families, and all those other things can serve to redirect a wayward people back to God. Some suffering here - however sharp - while being reconciled to God for eternity is infinitely better than a quiet life here and now followed by an eternity of judgment.

What is God's promise?, Christ guarded the little Church in Philadelphia (Rev 3:10), while the other ones suffered.
So he CAN actively protect us. But sometimes, it seems that such protection is not in our best interests, be it for our Christian witness, or for our character.

God is well-able to breathe life into ourselves, our congregations, and our nations.
But how much do we really WANT it?

Will we humble ourselves and pray?
Will you?

Moses and our Modern Mandate

2009-09-01T03:03:00.007-05:00

The Church Militant.

You don't really hear that term anymore, but there was a time when the phrase itself would stir hearts. Why? What does it mean?

First, what it does NOT mean. It does not mean politically or economically dominating a population and coercing them to adopt your beliefs, customs and cultures. When preachers reduce spreading the gospel to a Coke vs. Pepsi, marketing battle they've got it about as wrong as it can be.

The Church militant is comprised of those people standing upright on Terra Firma, who are standing in the Here and Now, and look forward to the Hereafter. They have been Redeemed by Christ, and do (or should) contend for the faith, to persuade "whosoever will" to trust in Christ.

No armies, no bullets. Just an eternal and infallible Word proclaimed by temporal and fallible men.

Let's look in Deuteronomy 7 for a glimpse of how this looks.

(As you know, today we are not fighting to win territory but the hearts and minds of men.)

Verse 1: When the Lord brings you into the land you are entering to take possession of it and clears away many nations before you (names them) seven nations more numerous and mighty then yourselves...

When ... brings ... are entering... take possession ... clears away

There is no ambiguity in this language. There is no IF, of possibly, or conditional promise. There is a directive, and they have been thrust into it. In fact, at this point, it has already begun, because God ordained that 2 other nations initiated hostilities with Israel, that God could hand them over to Israel. (Deut 2:30-32, 3:1-11) Which can remind us that often when someone picks a fight with us, it's because God wants us to win it.

The Lord is also taking an ownership role in verse 1. He is bringing, and He is clearing away therefore, this promise is not a function of our method, our tactics, our manpower, our budget or whatever else we might trust in. The odds are against us, and that's exactly the way God wants it so He can be recognized as the ultimate architect of the victory. Two Thousand years of Church history with Empires and Ideologies falling like dominoes show us that God is still doing this today.

V. 2 "And when the Lord gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.

Working from the assumption of success prior to the attempt, Moses is telling them what to do with their victory. Defeat them. Destroy them. Do we destroy them today? Not the people, since our battle is for the hears and minds of men. But we must clash with ideas and ideologies. No covenant, no mercy. We do it in the same way that MADD (for example) is aggressively targeting the practice of drunk driving with the intention of thoroughly destroying it. We offer the olive branch to people, but not to poisonous ideas.

Today, the words NAZI and KKK are so thoroughly stigmatized and repulsive that people want to distance themselves from any association with these ideas. That is the objective here.

v. 3 is a warning against intermarriage, and v. 4 explains why: because their children would turn to worship other gods.

Much of Israel's historical problem came from Syncretism. That is, a blending of Jewish and pagan religious beliefs and practices. Not much has changed today. We have imprecise belief, and do-it-yourself theology. We've got golden calves popping up all over the place. We make judgments about what scripture we will or will not accept based on what we assume about God.

What happens when you've become a god-crafter, when you tweak Him to suit your tastes? What is he trying to avoid by putting such a strong emphasis of not merely co-existing with these ideologies? v. 4 goes on to say that God's wrath would include ourselves.

Illustration: your city's rickety apartment block that even the rats and cockroaches have abandoned for safety reasons is scheduled to be knocked down. Signs are posted. Explosives are set. You ignore them and hop the fence in the dark of night, sneak into a bedroom on the top floor, and congratulate yourself on your room with a view. You took up residence in a condemned building, knowing that you risked being caught in the destruction, but ignored the warnings. The building comes down with you in it. Who is responsible? You or the city? You, naturally. That's more or less what this is trying to convey.

(Notice the shift from "I" to "you". God is responsible for verses 1 and 2a. Israel for 2b through 4.)

God gives the solution: BUT...

Doesn't the goodness of God just blaze through that one word?
Danger. Don't go there. Don't cross that line. Stay out of harms' way. I'm going to tell you what you can do to avoid it. Hear me. Heed the warnings.

What does he say we must do?

Break down their altars. Dash in pieces their pillars. Chop down their Asherim. Burn their carved images with fire.

Target the idols and ideologies. Reduce them to nothing. Do not let them hold sway over people. Do not make peace with them or keep them as trophies. Do not adapt them to your culture. If it strives to rival the position and place of God, hunt it down.

Why? (v. 6) Because you are a people holy to the Lord.

If we truly value the righteousness and holiness of God, if the souls of men are precious to us, we do them no favours by playing patty-cake with the very ideas and convictions that enslave them and hold them back from knowing and loving Jesus Christ.

If we saw a child about to drink a bottle of drain cleaner, we would intervene. Yet we see people drinking the spirit of this age all the time, and do nothing. Which has the more far-reaching effect?

Jesus Christ lived the perfect life, and conquered sin, and suffered death, and rose to life eternal, so that we too, could share in His victory over sin, and the eternal life He offers.

The way we participate in the Holiness that makes us His treasured possessions, isn't from keeping score on an ethical check-list. It's by accepting that His death in my place and yours is sufficient to satisfy the same wrath of a holy God that verse 4 warned of, and that his righteousness is freely given as a gift to us. One we can never earn and could never repay. We are not his debtors, but his children, if we trust in Jesus, and turn from our sin.

The Olney Hymns #8

2009-08-24T04:31:00.001-05:00

These lyrics are from "The Complete Poetical Works of William Cowper."

It's number 8 in the series called the Olney Hymns.

VIII. O LORD, I WILL PRAISE THEE.—Isaiah xii.1.

I will praise thee every day,

Now thine anger’s turn’d away!

Comfortable thoughts arise

From the bleeding Sacrifice.

Here in the fair gospel-field,

Wells of free salvation yield

Streams of life, a plenteous store,

And my soul shall thirst no more.

Jesus is become at length

My salvation and my strength;

And his praises shall prolong,

While I live, my pleasant song.

Praise ye then his glorious name,

Publish his exalted fame!

Still his worth your praise exceeds,

Excellent are all his deeds.

Raise again the joyful sound,

Let the nations roll it round!

Zion, shout, for this is he,

God the Saviour dwells in thee!

This was sourced by CCEL (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) Check it out!

More Drama in the Desert

2009-08-12T02:08:00.004-05:00

The unfaithful hearts of those Moses led out of the wilderness were fast becoming obvious. Any little hurdle or hurt feeling to arise was an opportunity to doubt God, to question Moses, and to pine for the "good old days" in Egypt.

The recurring judgments, plagues and fires (even the Leprosy that stuck Moses' sister for what she said against Moses) were not sufficient deterrent for this cycle. They were locked in their way of thinking, no matter what God did to demonstrate Himself.

At this point in the Narrative, Israel has refused to march into the Promised land, and God has responded by committing the whole nation to a 40-year "time out" (to use modern language) where those who did not trust God to be able to do as He promised died in the desert. That is to say, in the physical embodiment of their unbelief.

Earlier in Numbers, certain of the Levites were given differing tasks. Some worked in the Tabernacle. Some cared for the tools of the priesthood, sort of a support role.

God named different families to their divinely-assigned roles.

As is typical, someone was not content with his role, and wanted 'something better'. They know they're going to die in the wilderness under Moses' leadership. He even said so. Things were not looking good to this ambitious fellow.

So, this guy who should have known better, (Korah) was a Levite whose role was the care of the sanctuary, no less, started a revolt. The Kohathites were camped in the Southern portion of the assembly. (This is where the Rubenites were also camped. )

So Korah used his circle of influence to foment a plot against Moses. He collected 250 chiefs of the congregation, well-known men to stand with him against Moses. (verses 2 & 3) Their claim was that Moses was trying to wrest power for himself.

Moses "fell on his face". He didn't argue, or try to demonstrate his authority. He didn't point to the tremendous series of events that took them from the fiery bush to the edge of the Promised Land. He offered God an opportunity to demonstrate who was right and who was wrong. Moses trusted that God would vindicate His servant as God saw fit.

Korah used God's word (poorly) to demonstrate the 'rightness' of his position. You're holy, we are too. We have just as much claim to authority as you.

Moses singled out Korah for chastisement, and focussed on his religious ambition: Is the role God gave you too small, that you want the priesthood, too? You haven't risen against us, you have risen up against God.

Next, Moses singled out the political leaders, Dathan and Abiram, and called them to meet with him. They refused, and accused Moses of trying to be "a Prince" over them. They left the "bounty" of Egypt (they even dared to speak of it as flowing with milk and honey!) only to die in the wilderness.

This was the test: Each party was to offer incense before the Lord.
God had already by this point indicated that He was prepared to wipe out all of Israel for this sin, but after Moses prayed, God restricted His wrath to the rebels themselves.

The people were warned to separate themselves from the offenders. Moses declared what was to happen, and it did.

The ground opened up under the tents of the three offenders, and swallowed up them, their possessions and their families*.

After that, (the next verse) fire went out and destroyed the 250 men that backed them.

So Israel learned its lesson, right? They repented and fell into line with God's plan?

Nope.

The VERY NEXT DAY, the congregation accused Moses and Aaron of killing the people of the Lord. (As though Moses somehow made God open the ground beneath their feet.)
The people had tested God's patience enough. Wrath went out and a plague began among the people.

Aaron ran, gathered some fire from the altar, some incense and ran to the place where the plague was fiercest. He "stood between the dead and the living" (verse 48) and the plague was stopped. He didn't have to risk his life by jumping into the middle of the plague. He could have said this judgment was just. But as High Priest, he advocated for the people, and appealed to God for Mercy. They did receive it.

The lesson was still not learned, as we see from Israel taking matters into their own hands a few more times under Moses.

Don't be true to your heart

2009-08-10T05:51:00.005-05:00

Many of the juicy tidbits in God's word are where you least expect to find them. The memorable things. The details that leap off the page and confront what you believe about the world and your place in it.

One of the myriad idols of the Western Culture is the elevation of ego. "To thine own self be true." "Let your heart lead you." Blah, blah, blah.

Insincerity is a greater evil -- in the eyes of many -- than actual morally disjointed behaviour.

Why? Because we are ceaselessly thumped over the head with the philosophical dogma that there are no moral absolutes... so be yourself. (At any cost.)

The framework of Numbers 15 handles this nicely.

It portrays the response of someone who has sinned, and wronged God by negligence. He slipped up, succumbed to temptation or whatever. Certain Old Covenant sacrifices are mandated. (These have since been surpassed and been made obsolete by Christ's finished work on the Cross.)

But that sacrifice in Numbers does NOT provide for the person who thumbs his nose at God.

You know him: the guy who wants to hang out in the religious crowd, who knows when to sit, stand or kneel in the service, but who does not actually have a heart submitted to God.

A perfect example of this is Proverbs 7:13-15. The adulterous woman is looking to seduce some young buck. She says she has "offered sacrifices and paid vows" (Jewish religious duties) and now she can press on and sin without restraint. Yeah, I've done the God thing, now I can go back to living my life the way I want. Really, what could HE do about it?

We know people like that today, don't we? If God wants me to 'play on His team', great. But He's gotta take me as I am, and I ain't gonna change for anybody, especially HIM. He should just count Himself lucky to have me at all.

Yuck. What a miserable attitude.
Actually, for the record, He doesn't HAVE TO Anything.

If you are more committed to that which is Hateful to God, than to Him, you have just identified your idol. He can leave you to find help and hope from that thing, until you are ready to love Him for Himself.

Here comes the objection: But if I don't do it the way I always have, I'm just a hypocrite, just like all you Christians.

Uh, not exactly. There is hypocrisy in everyone. It just means play-acting. Living behind a mask. Pretending to be what you are not.

God does not have to receive the people who presume upon grace, and continue in sin. Anyone in that category is storing up wrath for themselves for the day of Judgment.

In that same chapter, God instructs his people to wear tassels on their clothes. To remind them of God's law. He explains (without mincing words).

Numbers 15: 39,40 And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Your heart is the wrong place to look for guidance. It leads you away from Him.

Look rather to Him and His Word.

Mercy in the Midst of Judgment

2009-07-29T04:56:00.007-05:00

There is a temptation to read the Exodus account with the showdown between Moses and Pharaoh, and to find satisfaction in the smackdown God is dishing out.

Keep in mind, Israel is a nation of slaves, who emigrated to Egypt in a time of famine, but who never did call Egypt their homeland. They came to Egypt (with the exception of Joseph) as free men. They became slaves over time. Much of Egypt's position of wealth and power was directly linked to the instructions Joseph gave to a previous Pharaoh in response to God's dream.

Adding insult to injury, Israel had no reason to be slaves.

During the famine, Egypt's people had traded their freedom for food.

Genesis 47:19-22. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh. And give us seed that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate." So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe on them. The land became Pharaoh’s. As for the people, he made servants of them from one end of Egypt to the other. Only the land of the priests he did not buy, for the priests had a fixed allowance from Pharaoh and lived on the allowance that Pharaoh gave them; therefore they did not sell their land.

Egypt had forfeited their freedom, but Joseph and his family were not impoverished or begging for food. They would have had no reason to submit to the Pharaoh as a servant.

The Bible lapses into roughly a 400 year period of silence. Things change, families grow. Politics shift. The new regime has forgotten the contribution of Joseph and his family. The Pharaoh sees only a group of people who have not assimilated, do not consider this their homeland, and are a significant wild card should Egypt's enemies rise up against them. What should he do?

His solution is to reduce their strength. Kill their male children. We know the story, about how this backfires and lands Moses in the royal household.

When the conflict between the godly and the wicked heats up, why shouldn't a righteous person cheer? Justice has been meted out. Vindication of the oppressed! After all, aren't the judgments by God himself? What's not to like? The good guys are winning!

God takes a moment in the midst of His judgments to narrate His own story. By this point, we've had blood, frogs, gnats, flies, a killing plague on livestock, as well as boils. God is now setting the stage for a killing hail.

He's done something else, too. The first few plagues were generalized, and affected all of Egypt. Later, however the flies and the plague on livestock did not affect Goshen, where the Hebrews lived. Now He is giving even the Egyptians advanced warning and instruction about the next plague.

Why?

Because despite the antimony between God and Pharaoh, God is using Pharaoh to accomplish His goals. (Refer to Romans 9) It's a lot like how He used Judas.

What goals?
To make His Name Great.

Look at the speech Moses gives Pharaoh just before the Hail falls:

Ex 9: 14-21
For this time I will send all my plagues on you yourself, and on your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is none like me in all the earth. For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth. But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go. Behold, about this time tomorrow I will cause very heavy hail to fall, such as never has been in Egypt from the day it was founded until now. Now therefore send, get your livestock and all that you have in the field into safe shelter, for every man and beast that is in the field and is not brought home will die when the hail falls on them."'" Then whoever feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh hurried his slaves and his livestock into the houses, but whoever did not pay attention to the word of the LORD left his slaves and his livestock in the field. (emphasis mine)

God could have wiped Egypt out, but that did not suit His plan. Why? Some of the Egyptians began to "fear the Word of the Lord". (e.g. place confidence in what God said, and take action based on it.) When God's person is esteemed, and his Name is elevated, the outflow of that is an increased reverence for and obedience to His Word.

God is quick to show mercy. He seems to rejoice in it. Even to Egypt, the "enemy".

God patiently deals with them, and overcomes their objections to faith. Frogs and flies are gentle rebukes, but effective at getting attention. And some believed in time to respond in faith before the Killing Hail.

What response should this passage require of us?

We should be reminded to love our "enemies" and be prepared to extend God's mercy to them.
We should be aware of whether we esteem His Name, His Person, and His Word.
We should heed the commandments and warnings given in His Word.
We should be grateful for His patience in dealing with us, not according to His Justice, but according to His mercy.
We should be quick to accept his correction, before He has to use stronger methods of steering us away from sin.
We should seek to make His name great among those people who do not presently esteem it. For where it is Great, they will also esteem His Word, which will have a harvest of righteousness in their lives, for their eternal benefit.
And finally, we should see the parallel to the warning against the coming judgment of Hell. God seeks to get our attention in time to exalt His Name, and act upon the Word of the Lord.

Thumbing through Genesis

2009-07-15T03:33:00.005-05:00

In the latter part of Genesis, the story starts to skip around a bit, and becomes a little harder to follow.

Here's what I mean: Genesis 32, Jacob is afraid of Esau, and wrestles with God, gets name changed. / 33, Jacob timidly returns to meet Esau. / 34. Jacob's daughter is (to put it delicately) 'defiled'. Her brothers slay the man who did it, and his family. Then they plunder what's left. Jacob turns tail and runs. / 35. God comes again in a vision and again tells him his new name, reaffirms the covenant. Benjamin born, Rachel dies. Firstborn (Ruben) sleeps with Jacob's concubine (wife), Issac dies. / 36 Genealogy of Esau / 37 Joseph gave a 'bad report' about his half-brothers, was the favorite, got a special robe, had dreams of greatness, told his brothers, they plotted to kill him, then they changed their plan to selling him into slavery.
Then in 38, it leaves off with Joseph headed to Egypt, and jumps over to tell the story of Judah's family. Judah is one of Joseph's brothers, 3rd son of Leah and Jacob.

Judah's daughter in law was trying to have a family, but her 2 husbands died. The first one was wicked, so the Lord killed him. That's all it says. Then she becomes wife of his brother, to raise up a son to the dead brother. God kills him too. Hubby #2 doesn't mind sharing the bedroom, but apparently didn't want to provide the child. Fast forward: and Judah did not give her as wife to the next son when he was of age.

So Tamar is childless, but is supposed to have a member of the family sire a child for her. Then Judah's wife dies. Judah travels, and is seeking the comfort of a woman. Tamar deceives him, poses as a prostitute, and lo and behold, they conceive a child.

Her pregnancy becomes evident to all, and Judah accuses her of immorality, and calls for her to be burned alive. *

She produces the evidence that Judah is the baby's father (oops). Suddenly the call for sexually impure people's execution is forgotten, and she had twins. (Incidentally, one of these twins is in Jesus' family tree.)

From there, it pans back to the story of Joseph, his humiliation, accusation, incarceration, vindication and exaltation.

The famine comes, and he has the encounter with his brothers, where they are tested, left to twist awhile, but finally restored and forgiven.

How do we make sense of all these twists and turns? Yes, in one sense, this is a fairly orderly chronicling of the affairs of life. The births, the deaths, the interactions and the drama of life in their day. It paints some of the broad strokes of what life looked like with them.

In a redemptive history sense, it shows how God's hand of Providence upholds both the weak and the undeserving within His ultimate plan. The weak, as we see the vindication of two women wronged in different ways, Tamar, in particular, upheld by God more than once.

And my favourite: this passage shows Joseph as a type and shadow of Christ.

His own brothers count him an enemy, and seek his life. They plan his death, and put him in a sort of a tomb.

Death is cheated because the slave traders show up, but the garment is still provided as "proof" of his death. Through many twists and turns, he becomes the Prime-Minister of Egypt, second only to Pharaoh.

Consider the life and nature of the brothers in question. Besides attempted murder, kidnapping, and profiting from the trafficking in human slaves (their own brother, no less!), Simeon and Levi murdered a family after arrangements had been made for that family's son to marry Dinah. Ruben slept with his stepmother, Judah was going to execute his daughter-in-law for having slept with him. Sounds like prime-time TV, right?

These were not nice people. They murdered a whole family for defiling their sister, but did nothing when their brother slept with dad's wife. Mercy and justice simply were not words that they had a good grasp of.

Contrasted to that, Joseph lived a life where there was no moral failing in his life that God considered worth pointing out.

Joseph, in a position to jail, sell into slavery, or even kill those wicked brothers who had enslaved him, instead forgave(!) them, and still more amazing, gave them gifts.

Jesus, in a position to justly judge and condemn us to eternal hell for our sins, lived a perfect life, and offers us that righteousness he procured, and absorbs the Divine wrath in himself upon the Cross.

Wicked and undeserving brothers were welcomed and offered grace by the one who held their very lives in his hands.

Wicked and God-denying sinners are welcomed and offered grace by the Redeemer who holds our very eternity in his nail-pierced hands.

Such a glorious gospel!

Marriage and Prayer

2009-05-20T05:36:00.006-05:00

²But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. ³The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. ⁵Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.God's word is very frank and practical. It isn't afraid to directly address sensitive issues, or issues of practical importance.

What is being said here?
First, the obvious application of the passage: The preservation of the sanctity of marriage.

God acknowledges our natural appetites, and directs us to their proper and healthy uses.

Physical intimacy is sanctioned within marriage. [You might notice also, that there is no ambiguity about the relationship: one male, one female.]
More than sanctioned, the marriage covenant is elevated and sanctified in Hebrews 13.

Marriage is especially significant to a Christian because it is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church. -- but we will come to that point shortly.

What is required of husband and wife?

In contrast to the Shiite law which states that a man must be permitted to approach his wife every 4th day, the Bible requires that we respond to one another's affections. What this means is NOT a legalistic mark-the-days-on-the-calendar sense. Who wants their loved one to engage in a merely mechanical duty-based response? Yuck.

To belabour the point a little, the Bible is not a hard-and-fast-comply-at-gunpoint instruction in this matter. Every commandment is kept by loving (1) God and (2) one another.

As Christians we are to be available our spouses. No using intimacy as a leverage for behaviour modification. No punishing the spouse by withheld affection. Intimacy (at any level) is to be freely returned, because (and only because) of our mutual love. We have been made one, this motivates us to nurture the relationship. To fix quarrels quickly. To remain positive, kind and loving to one another. The only exception noted was fasting, and then only under an agreed circumstance. Recap: no unilateral withholding of intimacy with your spouse. (By the way... Men, this includes emotional intimacy.)

I Peter 3:7 shows a relationship between giving proper honor to your spouse and the effectiveness of your prayers. If you fail to honour your spouse (in this case, wife), it will inhibit your prayers.

REMEMBER: Marriage is to be a picture, or an echo of the relationship between Christ and His Church.

What does this tell us? First, that we should not think we who call Christ "Lord" can pick and choose which of his ways are worth following. He is Lord, or He is not. We can't have it both ways. He does not heap heavy burdens on us, and what he does ask of us is less than what He himself gave to us.

Second, since it tells us about our reasonable response to Christ, it also tells us about what we can expect about His reaction toward His bride (the Church).

He does not withdraw His affections. He is good. He has already given himself for His Church, and in so doing, proven His love for her. We should be confident that he hears and answers when we call.

Consider this, too: If natural marriage is given this instruction to safeguard the relationship between man and wife, so that they will delight in one another, and not seek some unlawful outside comfort, what does this tell us about Christ and his Church?

He is our delight. He is our delight in His PERSON, not just His benefits.

Would our good God and Saviour withdraw Himself from us? We are made to worship. We are "idol factories". If we do not find ourselves worshiping God, we worship elsewhere.

Whatever comfort, hope, identity, satisfaction or delight might lawfully be sought in God, is an abomination when sought in the Created Order. We cannot help ourselves, we worship. If God were to withdraw Himself, we would worship something else. Would a loving husband put his spouse intentionally into equivalent temptation? No! You can see a picture of how he guards and purifies his love in Hosea. Re-read that seldom-read Biblical book if you haven't lately.

Paul connects the dots in Ephesians. These (Eph 5:22-33) should be verses that inform and embolden us in our faith, and fan our love for the Lamb of God. They explicitly transpose some aspect of the unity and reciprocity of marriage to the mystery of Christ and His Church.

How Eternal is Eternal Life?

2009-04-27T03:02:00.006-05:00

I was asked an interesting question recently, which I will paraphrase this way:

Will there be Free Will and/or danger of falling again into Sin in Heaven?

There are two parts to this question. The first deals with our will, and the second deals with our security.

Let us begin with the will. Much is made of Free Will. Free will, in its truest meaning, is possessed only by God Himself. He has complete understanding of every situation, cannot be influenced by things 'outside of His control' (clearly), cannot be intimidated, bought, or act from a corrupt motive. He is free, every time, to make the best decision.

Nobody questions His free will, yet there are clearly things he "cannot" do. He cannot tempt or be tempted to sin(James 1:13), He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13). Are we perhaps misunderstanding "free will"?

Luther said this about the free-will (so-called) in his famous 'Bondage of the Will"

You describe the power of "free-will" as small, and wholly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Agreed? Now then, I ask you: If God's grace is wanting, if it is taken away from that small power, what can it do? It is ineffective, you say, and can do nothing good. So it will not do what God or His grace wills. Why? Because we have now taken God's grace away from it, and what the grace of God does not do is not good. Hence it follows that "free-will" without God's grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good.

Our will is not so free as we suppose when we begin, because we cannot, as fallen man, decide to be redeemed. We are dead in ourselves and must be made alive in Christ.

Romans 6:17-18 puts it this way:

¹⁷But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. ¹⁸You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

It works this way: You were once completely independent of an appetite for righteousness (Rom 6:20) you sinned, willingly and gladly. Put differently - you sinned of your own free will. What happens when you are Redeemed? You experience a New Birth. There is an internal overthrow of the Old and it begins to be replaced by the New. (1 Cor 5:17) We have new affections. We desire different things. We desire His Goodness, His kingdom. We Cherish His Lordship. Do we stumble? Yes. We are not yet conformed to His Image. But it grieves us. We cry out to Him for forgiveness (1 John 1:6-10) and strength to walk in Union with Him. This process of being transformed by the renewing of our minds is Sanctification.

We have the Surety (or down-payment) of our Redemption, none less than the Holy Spirit Himself.

We will be transformed, not merely in our bodies, but in our understanding, also. This mortality will put on immortality. We will no longer see in the glass darkly, but then face-to-face.

So, once we have been redeemed, we look forward to that great day when the promise becomes the reality.

The question, again, is can we lose our salvation once in Heaven?

I will ask you a question: Which has greater effect? Sin or Grace?
Romans 5:20-21 answers that for us. Sin abounds but Grace abounds much more.

Sin reigns over the sinner. To what end? Death and Hell. For how long? Eternally.
Can the condemned sinner ever "lose" his damnation? No. "It is where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. " or again.. "the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever and they have no rest day or night"

Romans 5:21 which tells us that sin reigns over the sinner to death, also tells us that grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Quickly breaking this down, arguing from the lessor to the greater: If we are confident that the eternal punishment is unyielding, unrelenting and undiminished for all eternity, what are we to suppose is meant by Grace (God's gift, not our effort) ruling?
How long is this rule? Eternal.
What is the eternal gift? Life.
By who or what is this gift provided? Through Jesus Christ Himself.

Still need assurance?
How about this?

One is Daniel's prophesy (remember that Son of Man is what Jesus called Himself)

¹³ “ I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
¹⁴ Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.

His possession, which He bought with His blood cannot be taken from Him, and it will not be diminished or destroyed. It shall not pass away. We are that possession purchased with His blood (Rev 5:9; 1Pet 1: 18-19).

He said of us: (John 10:27-29)

²⁷My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: ²⁸And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. ²⁹My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Are you concerned that you may yet be tempted in a place that has no need of Sun or Moon but that God Himself will be its illumination? In a place where there will be no night!

Remember that it is given unto man to die ONCE, and after that judgment (Heb 9:27)

Consider: Rev 21:27 -- nothing that defiles, nor abominations, nor anything that causes a lie shall enter, but only those in the Lamb's book of life.

And again: Rev 22:3

And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

[If you do not see a curse, sin must be absent, because Sin is linked to the curse throughout the Bible.]

And if that were not enough: Rev 22:4

They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.

Be encouraged. Stand strong. Put on the armor of light.
Your salvation is nearer now than when you first believed.

Not a Victim...

2009-04-08T02:41:00.002-05:00

It is the time of year where there we, as a culture, take time to remember the Crucifixion.
(If we are consistent, we must also remember Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension.)

Inevitably, there will be some that mourn and lament Good Friday's 'tragic hero'. "Isn't it sad that Jesus was so misunderstood," some would say, "and had to die?"

"Isn't it sad," some would say, "that the gentle Lamb was so horribly mistreated?"

Jesus was not blindsided by the Cross.
He was not mugged by men, scourged, and left to die on a cross.

He is on record as saying: (John 12:27)

Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.

Jesus was on a mission. He had a specific purpose. It was not merely to be a good example, or to provide some good teaching.

Luke 18:31 cites Jesus saying that the reason they were going to Jerusalem was so that everything spoken about him would be accomplished (teleo: completed, fulfilled, brought to perfection, put the finishing stroke upon).

This is perfectly consistent with the "It is Finished" statement in John 19:30.

So then, since he was no victim, what exactly was going on? He certainly seemed to be a victim, didn't he?

No. He was much more than a victim. He was a willing sacrifice. There is a world of difference between the 2.

He made this clear in John 10:17-18 where he explicitly said his life was not to be taken from him, but freely laid down. This is also echoed in his conversation with Pilate, or with his arrest in Gethsemane, it is not the will of man orchestrating the death of the Son of Man, but rather the decree of Almighty God himself.

Jesus is the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8)

But why?

It was the only means by which men, hostile to God, and alienated from him by their sin, could be restored. Jesus asked -- while he prayed in the garden -- whether there could be some other way. There was no other way.

Sin could not be left unpunished, or God must suppress His Justice.
Humanity could not be condemned entirely, or God must suppress His love.

What was it that motivated the Son to face the torment, and see it through to the end?
He had his goal in mind:

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)

What did this look like to the Father?

Isaiah 53 breaks this down in unmistakable detail. (I encourage you to read the entire chapter.)

I would like to focus our attention to a particular portion of it:

The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all... (v. 6)

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering (v. 10)

my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities (v. 11)

Jesus was here to bear our guilt. For us to even understand the Good news, we must first wrap our head around the fact that Sin is no merely abstract thing. It corrupts us. It changes our core nature. It sets on a collision course with God's goodness. It evokes a real divine response of real wrath.

If God were to just wave away sin, that would make him as bad as us.

Sin needed to be dealt with.

The reason we don't often understand Grace is that we know, deep down is that God does require moral perfection. He has been explicit about that throughout His Word. Because of that, we have a tendency to move the goalposts -- to give reasons we have achieved, in some way, that perfection. But the reality is, we haven't.

We try to make arbitrary checklists and say we have lived the godly life, if we can check off the right boxes. We tell ourselves we're 'good enough', forgetting that: "If we say we have no sin, we call God a liar." (1 John 1:9-10)

What we're doing when we do that, is we are trying to be our own Saviour. We are trying to be Christ. The merit we are looking for, that perfect life, does exist. But it isn't our merit. It isn't our perfection. It's HIS.

Christ did not come to change the Law. His coming fulfilled it.

He came to change US.

He did not come as a victim. He came as a conquering King. The foes he vanquished were sin and death.

Mission Accomplished.

The suffering Lamb is the Lion Rampant!

Rejoice in Him!

Trust to His merit, not your own.
Turn from sin, and turn to Christ.

Orissa Persecution Update

2009-03-30T00:01:00.006-05:00

Here is recent update concerning what has been happening in India since the horrors that befell Christians in Orissa last year.

Some excerpts:

Extremists are requiring Christians to reconvert to Hinduism, and in light of next month's elections, vote for the Hindu fundamentalist party. Believers also must withdraw any reports of violence that were submitted to the government.

--further down the article--

According to the All India Christian Council (AICC), the 2008 anti-Christian violence killed nearly 60 people, including 2 pastors. Christians in over 300 villages were targeted; 4,400 houses were burned, and 50,000 people were left homeless. Nearly 20,000 individuals were injured in attacks, and two women were gang-raped; one of them was a nun. Hindu extremists now are forcing Christians in Orissa to vote for the fundamentalist party in elections beginning April 16.

A Pastor in New Delhi was had a mob break into his home, beat him, his wife and son, and was robbed...A pastor somewhere else had fractures in his back and ribs after being attacked by Hindu radicals after a prayer meeting.

Treasure your freedom, but make use of it, too.

Thinking Biblically - Human Interactions

2009-03-25T02:35:00.010-05:00

If you were to take an informal poll of a hundred Christians, and ask them what the Christian is to do when sinned against, the vast majority here and now might say "forgive him".

The problems don't begin until you probe deeper.

What do you do before that, and why?

Let's back up a little and look at Luke 17.

How does Jesus begin?
He tells them (I'm paraphrasing):
It is inevitable that some will sin, and that some will cause others to sin. This has enormous consequences which should not be taken lightly (He then mentions a millstone and the sea to drive that point home).

With the seriousness of sin as the backdrop for what is to follow, Jesus says:
"Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him."

Let's look at "yourselves", "rebuke", "repents", and "forgive" a little more closely.

1) Be mutually accountable to one another.
"Yourselves" - heautou (Strong's #1438). One meaning is "reciprocal, mutual, one another".

2) Boldly speak concerning sin
"Rebuke" - (epitimaō Strong's # 2008) In NT spoken of an estimate or judgment put upon what is wrong, and hence, to admonish, reprove; admonish strongly with urgency, authority, that is to say to enjoin upon, charge strictly, the idea of rebuke or censure being employed.

3) Repent
"Repent" - (metanoeō Strong's #3340) "This change is always for the better, and denotes a change of moral thought and reflection; not merely to repent of, nor to forsake sin, but to change one's mind and apprehensions regarding it; hence, to repent in a moral and religious sense, with the feeling of remorse and sorrow"

Said differently, this is not merely "I did a bad thing".
It is not merely "I'm going to stop doing that bad thing".
It is in fact, a changing of the thinking toward the "bad thing" itself.

4) "Forgive" - (aphiēmi 863) Describes complete acquittal. Carries a sense of being sent away, or set free. Guilty person treated as innocent.

The person (after repentance) is expected to be granted full release, and treated as innocent of all charges, regardless of any actual original wrongdoing. (Notice this treatment is not offered to the person who justifies their sin, but the one who changes his thinking toward it.)

Next, Jesus immediately ups the ante, and directly commands his disciples to forgive as often as they are asked to forgive.

This thought was so foreign to their way of thinking that the disciples cried out to Jesus to increase their faith. He responded with two parables. The mustard seed and the servant making supper for the master.

The fist parable addresses the disciples' ability to look at yourselves / rebuke / repent / forgive. It is a function of faith, and it does not require a so-called spiritual giant to do this.

The second addresses submission. We are to do this -- plainly and simply because He is Lord.

We are to look/rebuke/repent/forgive because we have been told to.
We are also to have a humble attitude to this. You are not unusually gifted for having rebuked, or repented, or forgiven. You have simply lived the life you were supposed to.

You should have an attitude, not of having been unusually faithful, but of having measured up to the basic expectation of Christian conduct.

In so far as we are warned from sin, we preserve the dignity and character of the Church. As we do that, we protect His name from being blasphemed by our conduct, and safeguard the Glory of God.

Christian Imperative

2009-03-11T03:33:00.002-05:00

Imperative.

Noun:

-	a command.

-	something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity

The Church in the West needs to rediscover the word "imperative".

When we represent the Gospel, we need to be careful not to reduce our must to a mere should.
To moral relativists in our age, we need to speak plainly about what God Commands.

We cannot be shy in proclaiming His message. Simply put, because it is not ours to modify. Where God says Must, we cannot say 'should' without changing the message, and being unfaithful ambassadors of Christ.

Christ has been given all authority.
He has given the same authority to us. Why?
So that when we speak, we have the confidence that we (insofar as we are aligned with his revealed will in his Word) speak with the same imperial confidence.

Policemen do not urge people to reconsider the robbing of a bank. They command the criminal to stop. Why? Because they have been invested with the authority to do so. Furthermore, they have the means to do so.

Ambassadors have a more urgent task. We are to "go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in..." That's no passive invitation. We are to speak from a position of authority, as Jesus, Peter, Paul did.

You Must be born again.

You Must take up your cross daily.

There is no other name under heaven by which men Must be saved.

Whoever is great Must be a servant.

You Must be ready for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

You Must forgive ...

Scripture Must be fulfilled.

We Must obey God rather than men.

We Must not put Christ to the test.

You also Must help us by prayer.

We Must ALL appear before the Judgment seat of Christ...

One who is taught the word Must share all good things with one who teaches...

The list goes on and on and on.

We deny God as King if we cringe from stating plainly what the Author of Creation's imperatives are. We also cheat our hearers.

This is where the congregation needs to have two responses:
1) Recognize our need to pray for our leaders.

We hardly think of Paul as a coward, someone easily intimidated, or someone in need of any encouragement. In fact we tend to think of him as almost superhuman. But remember this: Paul solicited the prayers of the Church. Why? Here's the quote, Eph 6:18-20

To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, ¹⁹and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, ²⁰for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

Did you catch that? Paul was concerned he might not be as bold as he ought. If he needed these prayers, so do those Preaching and Teaching the Word of God in a corporate service. Pray for them.

2) We need to look inward, and prayerfully check our hearts, priorities and motives.

Are we so jealous of our glory that we are prepared to deny God his? That's called idolatry.

So many people stand ready to apologize (!) for believing some allegedly quirky archaic statements that are "obviously" not "really true" to an enlightened thinker. [How many 'sophisticated' Christians blush when an agnostic asks probing questions about New Testament references to the virgin birth, casting out demons, or walking on water?]

It is evidence of our own unbelief, and a hesitation to put our full confidence on the truth of His word. It illuminates lingering doubts that the detractors might be right. We are unwilling to seem like a knuckle-dragging idiot, and suspicious that we just might be one for believing it.

Jesus spoke about such things.

This is unbelief.
"An evil heart of unbelief," as Jesus termed it.

You need to repent of it. You Must.

And so must I.

The Merit of Heresy...

2009-02-18T06:05:00.001-05:00

(As published on my other blog)

As anyone who knows me must realize by now, I am deliberately and intentionally orthodox in my Christian beliefs.

I know I fall short, as -- certainly -- we all do, but I make it my aim to conform to Biblical Doctrine.

So why, of all things, would heresy be something I would commend?

Let me be clear.

I do not endorse heresy, but I welcome the challenge they provide -- because good ideas survive strong challenges. In fact, these are precisely the crucibles in which good ideas become better.

Where would the Christian understanding of the Trinity be without the heretical challenge of Arius and those who followed him? What if the Early Church did not have to identify True Scripture in response to the pretender Marcion's pseudo-canon? Would Augustine of Hippo have written his doctrinal masterpieces if he were not arguing against Pagans, Donatists, Arians, and Manichaeans?

Would Luther have touched off the Protestant Reformation without Tetzel and Pope Leo X?

The list goes on, and extends to scientific and social critique, too.

Issues of suffrage, property rights, personal liberties, human relations (both micro and macro) were advanced by such battles of ideas, as were astronomy, medicine, agriculture, mathematics, physics, chemistry etc..

But in today's world, we have some who would silence dissent.

Could someone in today's world freely classify Islam as a aberrant pseudo-Christian heresy? (Without facing a human rights tribunal?) Probably not.

But that's exactly what it was characterized by St. John of Damascus (Biography here and here) in his work on Heresies from "The Fount of Knowledge".

See a long excerpt in context here. John outlines their core doctrines as outlined in the 8th Century.

But Islam refuses to be held to the mirror, and would rather lodge official complaints and harass free citizens exercising their right to critique, or stir international outrage which sometimes boils over into riots and worse. (Remember a certain cartoon, or the murder of a documentary-maker?)

As sometimes the Secularists do, when people won't dance to their tune.

Here is a current story about a Canadian Government Insider (Warren Kinsella) trying to force a broadcaster to exclude a dissenting voice. (H/T Ezra Levant)

There is a long-running criticism of the Church, in rejecting Galileo.

The Catholic Church did not believe Galileo's heliocentric universe, claiming it ran contrary to existing belief.

Did it actually run contrary to existing belief? Yes, it did.

But was it for THEOLOGICAL reasons? Not principally. It is incorrect to say that it was because of their religious views, mainly. They had accepted the scientific position of a 1st Century (probably pagan) scientist named "Ptolemy". Who was this upstart (Galileo) to contest some 1400 years of "settled science".

Like some liberal theologians of today, they had reinterpreted the Word of God in a way that could be wed to the prevailing scientific views of the age.

Emnity...

2009-02-11T00:41:00.006-05:00

Conflict between adversaries is not unfamiliar to us.

Too many of us have seen -- maybe been part of -- marriage breakdown.
Each side makes their lines in the sand, and in some cases only a counselor (optimistically) or a judge (less optimistically) can help them untangle the deadlock and move forward.

Job Action is the same problem on a larger scale.
In my own city, a transit strike was held just before Christmas, because (in the words of the strikers) that was when they would have the most leverage. Management gave what they said was the best offer they were able to give. After that, neither side was willing to budge, both sides waged a media war, and the citizens of the city were left to sort out the fallout. Ultimately, only after the government was threatening back-to-work legislation, did both sides finally agree to arbitration. This was not resolved by two parties seeking understanding, but by an independent party deciding the way forward between them.

International news provides a still more serious scale of the same dynamic.
You could point to many different armed conflicts, but let's choose the perennial one that Western Administrations have been seeking to mediate for my entire lifetime: Israel.

Both sides cry foul, and say that the atrocities the other party are justification for any number of retaliatory responses. Israel points to their historic position in the land, and the borders spelled out in the Bible. Palestinians point to more recent history, to pre-1948, in which there was no Israeli state.

To complicate matters, the duly-elected government in the Gaza Strip is Hamas, internationally recognized as a terrorist organization. Their stated aim is the destruction of Israel. "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity," senior Hamas figure Fathi Hammad said... *

To make matters worse: “We will never recognize Israel,” senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan said before he was killed by an air strike in Gaza during the recent fighting. “There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination.” *

This is the most entangled of the three examples here, where there is continuous conflict, deep distrust, and several generations of blood feud to stoke old hatreds.

Nevertheless, every US presidency since Carter (if not earlier) has endeavoured to cobble together some sort of an Accord. Some Roadmap to Peace.

Is this a fool's errand? Perhaps. But this is a small conflict with an uncomplicated solution when measured against another one:

Holy God v. Sinful Man.

But surely, you think, it isn't as bad as all that!

Are you really so sure?

Let's scan through Proverbs:

Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—
the LORD detests them both. (17:15)

It is not good to be partial to the wicked
or to deprive the innocent of justice. (18:5)

We take the Cross so very lightly, as though it is only proper that God dust our sins under the rug, and take us back. We take his Love for granted, as though it is a safety net that should catch us, whether or not we wish to be caught. Our view of God is so impoverished.

We would hold in contempt people who believed that the dog you curse at, kick, and chase out of the room when you are angry should still come and lick your hand when you call it.

And yet our Western approach to God comes uncomfortably close to that paradigm. I'll do as I please for now, God, but I might need you later...

THAT is the hostility still resident among people who profess Christianity, to say nothing of the truly impenitent.

We weren't some lovable Hollywood-styled rogues who just needed rough edges smoothed over.

His redeeming us ran more counter to reason and good sense than you or I finding a rabid dog foaming in the ditch, and taking him home to live among our family.

His Holiness loomed over us like a guilty verdict, and the closer He would approach to us, the more wild we would become: deny, deflect, accuse, attack, evade, escape. These are our responses to His presence. Not honor, adore, worship, thank, praise, as is His due.

In placing Sin on the Son, he was protecting His own Virtue. He MUST punish sin. Imagine the worst sins you can think of, maybe Holocaust, or mass murder. Maybe infanticide, or pedophilia. Cannibalism? Torture? Rape? Idolatry? Blasphemy? Brain-washing legions of others to do these sorts of things? Have a few suggestions of your own? Add them up. Mix them together, put them with this list, and pour their guilt into a single person.

How mad would a good person be at such a one?

What would the Wrath of a Good God be at such a one?

Now imagine such a one who took that Wrath, but was Himself Innocent of all charges.

Such is Christ.

Such is His Love.

Such is the seriousness of His commitment to us.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men...

4How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant

Let us come boldly to the throne of Grace, knowing He loved us First, even in our hostility to Him. Let us confide in Him our weakness, knowing He sympathizes with our weakness, yet is without sin. Let us take comfort knowing he is our Advocate with the Father.

But mostly, let us consider the distance Christ moved us.

Our position, without a mediator, was more hopeless than failed marriages, job action, or international conflicts. We stood eternally guilty before a Just God.

He Ransomed us from certain, and justifiable destruction.

Let us never fail to praise Him.

$250 To Kill a Pastor , and other Persecution Accounts

2009-01-28T01:34:00.006-05:00

It is good, in the freedom we enjoy, to consider the fortunes of Christians elsewhere. Some endure suffering that our thinking does not have categories to describe.

Here are two examples:

The first from today's news, courtesy of Nova Scotia Scott, concerns three Chinese Christians specifically.

They have been sentenced to 're-education through labour', which means they will be sent to work-camps for a year. The crime they are punished for is organizing an "illegal" gathering of Christians in a private residence.

Pray for them. Consider contacting officials on their behalf, as well.

The second example is very close to my heart. Only while composing this did I realize there are breaking developments, so I will pass them along, too.

Orissa (an Indian State, here's a map) has had enormous backlash against Christians, especially in the last year. I personally know -- and once stayed as a guest of -- one of the people martyred there last summer.

I was going to post a summary of the effects (I remember reading the official count of dead was approx. 50, not counting the injured or the tens of thousands homeless or displaced) but can't remember where I read it. I'll link to this, instead, a news report giving an overview of what happened.

I have commented on events there, and detailed sources for same in earlier posts.
If you'd like to know some of the back-story behind the Persecution, there is a video, here.

My blood ran cold when I read about the bounty on Christians' heads there. "The going price to kill a pastor is $250" They are also encouraged to burn down homes. There was an attempt, at one point, to poison the water at refugee camps where they were already suffering with substandard food.

Here is the latest development there: relief camps are being shut down, Christians there are being sent out with roughly $200.00 US in local currency, and told to find somewhere to go. In many instances, the Hindus in their hometowns will only allow their return if they renounce their Christian beliefs.

Dobson V. Beck

2009-01-12T04:51:00.007-05:00

By now, many of you will have heard about the interview in which Glenn Beck promotes his book "A Christmas Sweater" being 'pulled' by Focus on the Family (FotF) in light of some protests.

The whole story can be found on "tv newser":

Cliff's/Cole's Notes version: Glenn was interviewed by FotF while promoting his book, and the interview was on their website. An evangelical theological 'watchdog' group opposing Mormon doctrines & practices pressured FotF to remove the interview because it was, they said, inappropriate for a Christian site to promote a Mormon's materials. Pressured, FotF pulled the article. Links to comments by all parties can be found in the "tv newser" link.

Should Christians boycott 'The Christmas Sweater' because it was authored by a Mormon? Emphatically, NO.

I personally admire Glenn for his show which I have listened to when I could since the first day it was broadcast in 610 WIOD, Florida. He typically handles difficult topics with humor, insight and a self-deprecating style, and seems to try to frame issues in terms of right/wrong more than right/left.

I also admire Dr. Dobson, and his tireless work trying to strengthen families in USA, and beyond.

That said, I think it is foolish to 'blackball' this book.

I have personally purchased 4 copies and gave them as gifts. I have read the book and enjoyed it.

It is a redemption story (small-r redemption). It is a story that elevates family above the usual materialism we are inundated with, especially in the holidays.

It even explicitly names Jesus in a positive sense, which is more than I expected from the book.

It is not a book of doctrine, nor is it principally an evangelistic tool. It is a call back to a simpler way of life, in which we valued stuff a little less, and each other a little more. (If it is doctrine you seek, look to the Bible, or a good textbook.)

Has any such watchdog group seriously railed against "A Christmas Carol"?

Dickens's classic is the quintessential warm-fuzzies Christmas redemption story, but theologically, it's a nightmare. (To say nothing of the doctrine of other well-worn favorites like "It's a Wonderful Life") Do we ban them? Or do we let them work on our culture to give place to a season in which He is celebrated.

How many novels do we read without asking whether the author is the "right sort of belief"? What about songs we listen to? The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is famous for its rendition of many classical and even explicitly Christian Pieces (Handel, for instance). Many are excellent works despite being produced by someone who does not share my faith.

I am strongly committed to the Christian faith with its historical Christian Doctrines. I believe that LDS presents a view of Jesus contrary to the Biblical one, and one insufficient for salvation. They hold to some doctrinal statements that thoroughly repulse me. I personally reject the book of Mormon (some of which I have read) as antagonistic to, rather than a supplement of, the Christian Bible. Further, I hope that Glenn (to quote Paul the Apostle) would be moved by God to "be even as I am".

These things, however, in no way prevent me from endorsing The Christmas Sweater, which I heartily commend to anyone who could use a refreshing 'back to basics' home-spun feel message.

God Bless you Glenn,
God Bless you reader,
and Have a very Happy New Year.

From around the Web..

2008-12-29T05:58:00.003-05:00

Here are some thing I've found from around the web recently...

The link between faith and family size...

Startling developments in Evangelicalism... belief in alternative means of salvation.

Two Christmas-themed postings by Dan Phillips. One, the Christmas Story, the other one was about the notable faith of Herod.

An exhortation to prayer from Desiring God.

Joseph Stalin is having his reputation restored in Russia. [Sarcasm on] So, what's wrong with a couple of million citizens dead under his command...? He got the job done, right? [/sarcasm off]

An interesting portrayal of the gospel.

What made Protestants... protest. A list of ten contrasts between Roman Catholicism and Protestants.

Christians are called to abandon public education as 14,000 classroom hours indoctrinate them into Christ-denying worldviews. Here is the website of the people making this appeal.

The Thrill of Giving

2008-12-24T04:26:00.005-05:00

When you pick out the perfect gift, and know how much joy it will bring, you can sometimes be even more excited about it than the person who'll unwrap it.

The first Christmas I was married, this is exactly what happened. I managed to get some tickets to Les Miserables, something my wife had dreamed of seeing live. I saw someone at the music store with a shrink-wrap machine. Long story shorter, on Christmas morning, there was a very ordinary looking Les Miserables CD with a wonderful secret hidden inside it.

On Christmas morning, I was practically vibrating with excitement. I wasn't so much interested in what I was going to get, so much as what she was going to get. Trouble was, it was a little TOO ordinary-looking. You see, Karen had gone out of her way to similarly go "all-out" for Christmas. She got a fancy present for me that was 'just right'. Then she opened hers, and was understandably disappointed to find an ordinary CD inside.

It almost ruined the entire day. She didn't want to even look at it. I had to prod her to open it, which she would have to do to reveal the 'real' gift. Once she found the tickets, she was thrilled and all was well.

You see, I, the giver, was excited about a gift that she, the recipient didn't even recognize as being something that she wanted.

Isn't that what happens with God so much of the time?

God had a plan. Since Jesus is the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), Adam's Fall did not change the plan, it simply set it in motion. Even at one of the darkest moments of human history, our loss of innocence, and eviction from paradise, God couldn't help Himself. He had to let us in on the secret, if only a little bit. (Genesis 3:15) Something is happening. He couldn't let us in on the whole story. So he did what any parent would do.

Guess what! I can't tell you what it is, but there's a really great surprise coming up for you. I can't wait for you to see it.

The parent hasn't given anything away, but he is building anticipation, trying to let the child share the joy of this excitement.

If a regular citizen of our nation were mis-represented as much as God is by His own Church, there would be a really good case for slander and libel action. God forgive us since we, His very own people -- on purpose or by accident -- have far too often portrayed Him as legalistic. As sour, dour and hard to get along with.

This is the Same Jesus whose first miracle was making wine for a wedding feast!

He REJOICES when the lost return to Him!

Now let's look at the Christmas story through fresh eyes. Don't imagine Linus from Peanuts reading in the semi-monotone voice, the same passages you have heard in so many Christmas pageants.

Instead, think of the God who was excited to get everyone in the house up on a Christmas morning.

Hey guys! Shepherds! I can't tell you the whole Story, it would ruin it. But I'll give you a clue:

“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

God was excited. HE knew about the incarnation. HE knew about Jesus' humiliation, trial, crucifixion, and subsequent resurrection from the dead. HE knew that death would be conquered, that the power of sin would be broken, that men could be reconciled to God, and enter into everlasting life. HE knew that. But we didn't yet.

But He couldn't help but give a clue. Peace (What peace? An end of hostility?) Yes, exactly. But with war raging all around us all down the centuries, how has earth had peace? Man still is at odds with man, and (according to Jesus' own words) He did not come to bring peace, at least in that sense.

Peace with God, of course! Glorious!

But wait... we can have no such peace with God, because He cannot look on sin. Peace with God can only come with sin's power being broken!

Don't you see? God was letting the angels proclaim the Good News!

Israel at that time, thought the answer to their problems could be found in a great national leader, like David.

They got their Saviour, but they didn't recognize Him, because they were looking for a solution to the wrong problem.

They thought their problem was Rome. Their problem, in truth, was Sin.

They cried out to be saved from the oppression of a tyrant. Jesus came and overthrew the tyranny of sin and death.

What do you see when you open the Gift?

Do you see the CD or the concert tickets inside it?

Do you see a Jesus: moral teacher / man / myth / historical figure?

Is He just Ghandi with more hair?

Or do you see the Incarnate Son of the living God, who came to bear upon Himself the Justice of God against Sin, so that we could receive the Mercy of God as adopted sons and daughters.

God bless you this Christmas, as you remember what it's really about!

We've been here before...

2008-11-26T04:26:00.003-05:00

News of late centers on global uncertainty in the financial markets.

The conventional wisdom of the experts seems to be that the government has to intervene, and prop everything up.

It all comes down to risk. What consequences are acceptable, and which ones should be circumvented?

There is an inherent problem to this question, though. Risk, like consequences, are never eliminated, they can only be managed or deflected.

Historically, risk has been managed by individuals or businesses weighing the pros and cons, and the relative likelihood of success before setting out on a task. This principle is what Jesus pointed to in his parables of the tower and of the approaching army. If you think risk is manageable, or outweighed by possible gains, then you proceed -- knowing what will happen if you have miscalculated.

There is a disturbing trend, lately, to deflect risk.

I used to often say that the difference between USA and the old Soviet regime was that the Russians promised freedom FROM unpleasantness, whereas the Americans promised freedom TO take profitable risks. It's time to update my expressions, because USA doesn't look like that anymore.

Someone who tries to pass off the risks of his choices on another is, effectively, also passing off authority to that same person or group. If you duck responsibility for your decisions, someone else bears the responsibility of those choices. They then have a right to make certain demands of you, relating to those decisions. You eventually become a slave to your "rescuer".

This bailout situation has its analog in the Bible. That is, not a merely superficial analog, but a close parallel to today's situation.

A little background: Genesis 41. Pharaoh had those famous dreams which foretold 7 years of abundance to be followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph set out a plan of taxation. (20% of crops are taxed and put in storage until needed.) The is a shift in focus to the revealing and reconcilliation between Joseph and his family, until it picks up again in chapter 47.

The people came to Pharaoh first as customers and free men. They bought grain for cash. (Genesis 47:13)
Then they came to haggle. They traded their livestock (their actual livelihood) for food. (Genesis 47:16-17) They continued to rely on Pharaoh.

When the food ran out, they made the desperate plea: "there is nothing left for our lord but our bodies and our land" and the still more desperate bargain:

19Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh. And give us seed that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate."

The Egyptian people ceded their rights as free men, for some security. The government now had a lawful claim to them, and to their land. The government became legitimately, and as result of a legal transaction, OWNER of its citizens, with the land-owner's right to charge its citizen-slaves for the use of ITS land, as recorded:

23Then Joseph said to the people, "Behold, I have this day bought you and your land for Pharaoh. Now here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land. 24And at the harvests you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh, and four fifths shall be your own, as seed for the field and as food for yourselves and your households, and as food for your little ones." 25And they said, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh." 26So Joseph made it a statute concerning the land of Egypt, and it stands to this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth; the land of the priests alone did not become Pharaoh’s.

Governments, once they have power, are very, very reluctant to give it up.

If you have the government bail out our industries, you are, inviting the government, to nationalize industries and to make us defacto slaves.

Proverbs 22:7
The Rich rules over the poor and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

Keep in mind, every totalitarian begins claiming he acts in the interest of 'the greater good', and
if we are not alert, we may find a new wave of totalitarians pops up worldwide, in response to this crisis.

Letting it run its course will be painful, but would never completely destroy the people.

Look around and count how many blacksmiths you see. Is this because their union negotiated poorly? Or is it because there was no longer a need for trational blacksmithing? We still have metal-workers, even though we no longer have smithys.

Let's not panic, alright?

Bunyan ... part 2

2008-09-22T09:14:00.003-05:00

Our protagonist, now identified as "Christian" is met on his way by his neighbors, Obstinate and Pliable.

Pliable decides to follow Christian. Obstinate only follows along until it is clear that Christian will not turn back. Christian appeals for both to follow him. Pliable is convinced but Obstinate replies, "What! and leave our friends and our comforts behind us?" After mocking them both, Obstinate returns home, alone.

Pliable follows because he likes what Christian is seeking: an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, that does not fade away. The more Christian spoke of the blessings of Heaven, the more excited Pliable became.

Excited, of course until he met with resistance.

They both, together, fell headlong into a bog, which turns out to be the Slough of Despond. This is a difficult obstacle for them both. They both struggled for footing, and floundered in the Slough.

Christian, determined to reach his goal, pressed onward. Pliable, however did not fare as well. The seemingly distant rewards of Heaven were no longer enough motivation to sustain him through hardships. It was easier to return to the nearer edge of the Slough, so he gave up his Pilgrimage, and returned home, in shame.

Christian actually had a more difficult time of it. He carried his burden upon his back, which caused him to sink, and hampered his progress across the slough, but he continued steadfastly toward his goal. He met one called Help, who encouraged him, and lent Christian a hand that he could get his feet back on solid ground. Christian then continued toward the Wicket Gate.

The reader is given a chance to understand the significance of the Slough of Despond. It lies before the Wicket Gate, and is synonymous with the awareness of guilt that precedes repentance from sin. It is where one despairs of their own ability to shrug their own burden off, and which underscores the necessity of Another to remove the Burden.

En route to the Wicket Gate, he will next encounter Mr. Worldly Wiseman.

Under Pressure

2008-09-08T05:17:00.006-05:00

The ongoing events in Orissa give a context for the question I am posing:

If faced with a decision between renouncing Christ, and losing your home and livelihood, (perhaps also your freedom and life) what would you or I do? (This is exactly the choice some are faced with today.)

It is easy to be critical of the Apostle Peter's renunciation of Christ when we aren't in danger of ourselves being subject to the same pressures he faced.

But more than that, Jesus gave Peter a curious comfort, promising that he, Peter, would die as Jesus had, finishing his race, and being faithful to the end.

People sometimes put themselves in the hypothetical and give themselves the benefit of the doubt. As in: "Of course! Even if everyone else denies you, I never will." (Has a familiar ring, doesn't it?)

It would, however, go without saying that if we claim we would be ready to DIE for Him -- which is a choice we can make but once -- we must first LIVE for Him, that is to say, take up the Cross daily. Die to ourselves, and live to Him.

I myself pray for, and encourage anyone who may read this to pray for those around the world who are suffering in His Name.

Furthermore, I encourage anyone reading this to also take the mandate to LIVE for Him seriously. Conforming inwardly to His Word, and (following that) living outwardly in a way congruent with it.

I pray God will comfort those, who in their weakness turned away from the Cross, and ask that He will restore them, as He has restored others with a renewed energy and dependence on the sufficiency of Christ.

These two passages of scripture I leave for your consideration:

Matt 10:28-40
28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Together with:

Hebrews 10:33-39
33sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37For,

"Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him."
39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

I include these to underscore the significance of the situation, the riches of Christ relative to the passing nature of this present age, and words given by God Himself to comfort us in times of trial.

Peace to you.

Faithful unto Death -- Just last week !

2008-09-02T00:43:00.005-05:00

I would like to thank the fine team at Pyromaniacs for their solid reporting of some horrific persecution being experienced in India.

You can click-through here and here to read it.

In 1996, I had the pleasure of spending several months in India, working with a missionary team, preaching and assisting in a Bible School.

The pastor I served with all those years ago, Pastor Samuel Nayak, was one of many Christians killed by violence directed specifically against Christians, their homes, businesses and Churches.

There are conflicting reports concerning the details, but he was either cut down by a knife-wielding mob while defending the Church building, or he was burned alive.

(His mother was also murdered)

He began numerous congregations in the villages near his home, began a Bible School for training leaders, and preached Christ in remote areas where His Name had not previously been known.

Please take time to remember the Christians there, (especially his wife and 2 surviving children) and if you are willing, to take action. The Links at Pyromaniacs provide contact details for those who would contact the government in Orissa.

If you would like further information about what is happening there, here are a few links to get you started:

OrissaBurning (very detailed blog reporting)

Asia News Christians beaten and cut to pieces

Baptist World Alliance

Persecution Update India

True Treasure

2008-08-28T03:15:00.003-05:00

The theme I attempted to convey in my previous post (however well or poorly) was the importance of having the right Treasure.

When we treasure something worldly, however seemingly benign, it can cloud our view of God's worth. They become competing values.

If we see nobility, or value, or entertainment, or harmlessness in sin, we can have no urgency in seeing people redeemed from it. We will not weep in prayer over lost loved ones, or even the moral failures in our own lives, and the damage they do the the credibility of the Gospel.

If we become pragmatic, we will inevitably become the silent watchman on the walls (Ezekiel 33:6). If we fail in this, we will not only forfeit the right to complain about the worsening of society, but the blame for it will rest squarely on our shoulders. (Not special interest groups; Not activist judges; Not Proselytizing Athiests or any of the rest -- the blame will be ours.)

Our children would be left with a worse situation than the one we were given, and face religious opposition more entrenched, bold, and potentially more dangerous than our own generation.

I found a short clip by John Piper that helps put these things in their proper context.

Take a minute to watch it, but more importantly, take a minute to consider the implications.

Why be moral?

2008-08-26T03:35:00.003-05:00

How many times are Christians exhorted to purity of thought and deed with some of those same old arguments:

You MUST be pure. (Duty)
It is WRONG to be impure. (Law)
There is a PENALTY for impurity. (Hell)

So... these arguments: were they sufficient for you? Did they keep you from sin? Were they enough for Old Testament Israel?

If your answer is "no", have you ever wondered why not?

Academically, these statements are all completely true. We DO have a moral obligation to purity. God is Holy, and we must therefore be holy. The impure DOES face a penalty for sin, namely Hell. It's a penalty far more real and harsh than anyone can really appreciate.

Problem is, this identifies the obligation, and the problem, but these statements don't have "life" in them. They do not provide the strength to obey.

If the Chrisitian life is summed up by the Great Commandment (Love), then we should look to align our motives with the Fruit of the Spirit. (The Law kills, but the Spirit gives life.)

We can see a remedy for this in Psalm 73.

It opens with the speaker envying the wicked.

(He envied the wealth of the wicked. Others may envy Position, Power, Praise, Posessions, Lifestyle, Recreation, Health, Appearance, or any of a thousand ways the World measures greatness.)

Up until verse 14, he is cataloging all the reasons the life of the wicked guy is better than his, and is tempted to believe that he has been wasting his time by seeking God, and remaining pure.

It took viewing it through the lens of faith to get proper context.

He weighed the sum of what the other guy had, without entering God into the equation. If you have everything this world has to offer, but die without knowing God, you have truly had nothing. You are 'without God and without hope in this world'.

Here is the realization he comes to:

21 Thus my heart was grieved,
And I was vexed in my mind.
22 I was so foolish and ignorant;
I was like a beast before You.
23 Nevertheless I am continually with You;
You hold me by my right hand.
24 You will guide me with Your counsel,
And afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but You?
And there is none upon earth that I desire besides You.
26 My flesh and my heart fail;
But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

If you envy them, you believe they have are "haves" and you are a "have not". You have determined that their estate as the lost [with benefit 'x'] is preferable to your estate of Redeemed [without benefit 'x']. Looking more closely, you will have decided that benefit 'x' is to be preferred above God.

If we will be honest with ourselves, if and when you or I find ourselves envying the wicked, we will have identified the problem:

We have lost sight of the true riches of Christ. How can I conclude that? Easily! There is nobody and nothing in all of creation as praise-worthy, true, pure, good, perfect, as the God who made it.

If we truly and fully believed that, we would gladly suffer any inconvenience or risk to please Him. He would be that treasure in the field that we (motivated by joy) sell everything to get. We would suffer imprisonment gladly rather than sin against His great Name. We could never be swayed by the same things we envy in the world, from the lists (above). Why?

Because we would view anyone who was without God as the Poorest and most destitute of all people anywhere. More urgent than mere famine (which kills the body) this variety of famine kills the soul with it, damning it eternally.

On the other side of the coin, having God as our true treasure would generate, as a spillover effect, a love of righteousness, and a concern for the lost.

Thus, we have a love of God that provides that love of righteousness that the Law demands.

Blogging Bunyan

2008-08-12T03:28:00.006-05:00

That (obviously) would be referring to John Bunyan, of "Pilgrim's Progress", not Paul Bunyan of the American tall tales.

It has been my great pleasure to revisit that old masterpiece "Pilgrim's Progress". I had forgotten just how thoroughly steeped in Scripture it is, and how it deals head-on with real issues Christians face concerning both the belief and practice of our faith.

There is so much to be gleaned from it, and so few people today have read it (comparatively) that I will hope to whet the appetite of anyone who might read this, to take the time to do so.

Failing that, I will try to pass along some of the truths and lessons of the original.

What sort of a book is it? This work contains (as I shamelessly quote "The Princess Bride"):

"Fencing. Fighting. Torture. Revenge. Giants. Monsters. Chases. Escapes. True love. Miracles." Ok, maybe not the revenge bit. But I'm pretty sure it has everything else.

If you wish to read it online, (and I strongly encourage you read it in some form or fashion) you may do so HERE.

The story begins with a narrator explaining that he is describing what he saw in his dream.

We are immediately introduced to the protagonist, who is found in turmoil: dressed in rags; reading a book; trembling and weeping; with (and this is important to understanding the story) a large burden on his back he is unable to remove.

He became convinced that his native city, and all its inhabitants -- himself and his family included -- were in imminent danger of being burned with fire from heaven. He spoke to his family, but they thought he was crazy. He wanted to run, but did not know where he could run to. He understood his problem, but not its solution. In short, he felt conviction of his sin.

He met with one by the name of Evangelist [as this is unabashedly a parable, the author freely uses character traits as the names of most of his characters and places] who asked why he was crying.

Our protagonist replied:
"Sir, I perceive by the book in my hand, that I am condemned to die, and after that to come to judgement [Heb. 9:27]; and I find that I am not willing to do the first [Job 16:21], nor able to do the second."

Evangelist asks why he is standing still. When the man admitted he didn't know where to go, Evangelist gave him two things.

1) A parchment, and
2) directions to the 'Wicket-gate' where he should find help with what he seeks.

Immediately Christian (for that was his name) ran for that place.

When his loved ones and neighbors cried after him to call him back, or mock, or threaten him, he covered his ears, and shouted "life, life, eternal life!", all the while running toward the wide field that lay between him and his goal.

Two of his neighbors (Obstinate and Pliable) resolved to drag him back by force, so they chased him out into the fields.

Now that the groundwork is set, I will -- Lord willing -- take the story up from this point another time.

Where, then, is Boasting?

2008-07-16T01:15:00.007-05:00

How can the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector help us correctly understand Romans?

Let me back up a little. I've had some conversations, over the last few months, discussing the moral condition of man.

What I see in God's word is that man is corrupt and wicked. We are (morally) dead men needing God to breathe life into us, rather than way-ward men needing to be guided into the correct path.

The opposite position -- in those discussions -- is that man is capable of genuine moral good, and just needs some help in following through. Things cited for support included some of the references to the righteous man in Proverbs, and the claim that the binary expression of people as Good/Evil is alien to the way people in New Testament times would have expressed themselves.

Perhaps I will be able to address the distinctions in detail in the future, but these opposite views can be reflected in the verses that follow.

To sum up: the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) contrasts two men. One trusted in his own righteousness and treated others with contempt, the other saw himself in need of God's forgiveness and grace.

The obvious, and main, application is the person who relies on his works for salvation being contrasted against the one who trusts completely to grace.

But I suggest that the "treated others with contempt" may be echoed in Romans, and help us take a different lesson from this as well.

We see in Romans, Chapter 4, that Paul is explaining the implication of being justified apart from works. Part of his argument (verse 2) was that if Abraham's works were responsible for his justification, he could not -- obviously -- boast before God, but he (notice this) would have legitimate cause for boasting before man.

What does this mean? In simple terms, he would still stand before God as a creature ought to before his creator. (e.g. the response you'd find in Luke 17:10)

But, if the critical element that landed him Heaven rather than Hell was his effort, then he would be morally CORRECT (suggests Paul) to be contemptuous of those who had not made that same effort, to be Justified.

The end of the parable, however centers on humility. We are without boasting, both before God (every knee shall bow), but also before each other. You or I cannot stand before another believer and say "good job!" and be referring to Salvation. We can only say: Glory to God, who is rich in Mercy.

Now, how does the debate I mentioned before tie into this equation?

Simple: how far are we willing to take the question of works? My counterpart would say that we were presented the "OPTION" of believing the Gospel, and so took it. Implied in this statement is "had the good sense to make the right choice." If that is so, then every believer is on solid ground if they criticize someone who has been presented with the Gospel and has rejected it. But that -- once again -- is boasting, which Paul said is "excluded"(Rom 3:27).

Alternatively, if God sovereignly determines that we are His Elect, and sets about to Ransom us from our sin, knowing what will (and will not) be effective in convincing us of the Gospel, and using those means, adds us to His Kingdom, we can't say that we were somehow "deserving" -- we're not. Neither can we say that the unbeliever has a deficient intellect (relative to the believer's) or is more wicked.

We can only say, with Jesus, "blessed are you [Simon -- or someone else] flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven (Matt 16:17).

Knowing this, we should be all the more:
1) humble. (Romans 11:20 -- They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.) Rather than see sinners as "those" people, realize that they are just like me, except without either God or hope in this world.

2) diligent. There are others to be added to the kingdom. We don't know which ones. We're not responsible for the reaction of the hearer, but we are responsible for the delivery of the message. [This should be comforting to the believer, in that we can boldly declare His truth, rather than feel obligated to "sell" it to someone, to make it 'less offensive' somehow, or to measure our success or failure in the reaction of those we reach out to.]

3) confident! God WILL save souls. He's not just hoping (yikes!) to "close the deal", but there are , even now, people ordained by God to be "Elect". They don't yet realize that they are waiting to meet their Saviour. (Often they don't look very "elect", either.)

It is Revelation from God (Like Peter's) that transitions someone from unbelief to faith, not their personal intellect or piety. Therefore, the Gates of Hell truly cannot (!) prevail against the success of the Gospel. His word cannot come back void without accomplishing the Purpose HE set it to accomplish.

Praise of Christ from An Unlikely Source

2008-06-10T00:39:00.005-05:00

Some time ago, I came across one of the most edifying comments (from secular sources) on Jesus' life and person I have ever had the privilege of reading.

Although I had looked for it, I could not find the whole quote, and was very disappointed.

In reading Ravi Zacharias's "Jesus Among other Gods" (a book worth reading), I found the same observation quoted at length.

(I begin with the paragraph introducing the quote, where Mr. Zacharias gives the following context:)

"Yet, in an extraordinarily staggering statement about Jesus Christ, Napoleon said something that is almost unexcelled by any political leader. I quote it at length because of its incredible insight. I only wish I had had it with me when I met with these generals. Napoleon expressed these thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, "Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?" The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:

Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day, millions will die for Him. ... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man. ... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me ... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. ... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural, love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength, nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Two other quotes, taken from the New York Times' Archives, show that these were not the words of someone trying to exalt his own views, but commenting on a faith he did not share.

De Toqueville's epitaph for Napoleon: "He was as great as a man can be without virtue."

And in his own words: "What a solace must Christianity be to one who has an undoubting conviction of its truth."

Miscellaneous Discoveries.

2008-06-03T01:40:00.008-05:00

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is one step closer now that England has approved human / animal hybrids. Of course, scientists will comply unfailingly with all legislation. We know, empirically, that "all people everywhere" fastidiously keep unenforceable laws like this one, and the inquisitive nature of science (and thoughts of tenure or notoriety resulting from a discovery) never tempts anyone to push the boundaries of conscience or ethics. Right?

--------

Another story from England, the Anglican Church has taken to wringing its hands about whether or not Christianity ought to be promoted to non-Christians. Some think it may be a tad insensitive. This is the text of the private member's motion that is causing a stir:

'That this Synod request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain's multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.'

For context, there are 8 private motions requiring votes. One will not be available for signatures until the Synod, which leaves 7 motions with vote tallies.

The motions includes:
(1) Sacred Britain strategy (relating to tourism) 134 signatures.
(2) Uniqueness of Christ in Multi-Faith Britain. 124 signatures.
(3) Race equality. [Rules dictating conduct, statements, and, specifically, political associations of members.] 111 signatures.
(4) H.R. Policy and Practice at Theological Colleges and Regional Courses. [Grievance resolution] 48 signatures.
(5) Administrative Burden of Diocesan Offices. 43 signatures.
(6) Date of Easter. 34 signatures
(7) Ban on Whaling. 21 signatures
(8) Fresh Expression Resources. (not yet available for signatures.)

What are their priorities? Tourism rated higher than the gospel, and a race policy specifically forbidding membership in the "British National Party" scored nearly has high as a policy affirming that Christ is unique, and sharing the gospel is a good thing. Leaving aside for a moment the objectionable positions taken by that party, since when is the Church supposed to be a POLITICAL entity???
At least I can say that point 5 has some Scriptural support in Acts 6.

Here's God's opinion on the matter, had anyone thought to ask. (Ezekiel 33:6):

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’

Has the fact that the church of England doesn't know what it stands for, and (perhaps consequently) only 1 in 20 people in England attend church had an impact on society?

You be the judge.
Here are some damning stats describing what was once a "great democracy".

-----

Jeff Foxworthy was spoofed in this wonderful piece entitled "You might be a Calvinist if..."

-----

Here are some sobering thoughts about the plight of Christians in hostile nations. It should embolden us to be salt and light where we are, to pray for them, and to be conscious of how fragile religious freedom is.

-----

In light of this, here's a plug and a reminder about the work done by Voice of the Martyrs.

Matthew 25: 39,40 "Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."

A response to Chrysostom -- (and the man who quoted him)

2008-05-21T03:19:00.008-05:00

I recently had a lively conversation with someone of the Orthodox persuasion.

He supplied this article to support his view that the Synergistic description of salvation is true to Scripture.

The article was a quote of Chrysostom's commentary on Romans 9.

Verse 20, 21. “Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter (Read Jeremiah 18:1-10) power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?”
Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. (emphasis supplied)

Is this really so?
The article continues to say:

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, divers incongruities will follow for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these , and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice.

Assertion 1. Romans 9 is not addressing God's sovereignty over man's will.
Assertion 2. If God is responsible for Election, man is not responsible for his actions.

And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice.

Assertion 3. The text does not claim that God chooses whether a 'vessel' is 'honorable or dishonorable', but in fact, man chooses the honor / dishonor of a vessel.

Verse 22, 23, 24. “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.”For that it is not God’s wish that His power be so made known , but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways.

Assertion 4. God's long-suffering with Pharaoh was principally to allow repentance, God did not desire that Pharaoh be destroyed.

As then Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey.

Assertion 5. There was a real (not merely theoretical) possibility of Pharaoh repenting of sin, and yielding to God.

Assertion 6. The essential distinction between objects of wrath and mercy rests entirely in the will of the creature.

Assertion 7. The Bible promotes the idea that man possesses free will, in the modern usage of "free will".

I was warned (after referencing Paul's praise of the Bereans for comparing Paul's teaching to Scripture) that, quote, "Challenging the accepted wisdom of the church universal is a dangerous thing to do when armed with only your (or my) personal (and failed) understanding of scripture.

My answer to this, speaking as a Protestant, is that I do not view any non-canonical source as above scrutiny. I make no apologies for this.

In fact, the more a text is associated with a tradition, the more natural it is to challenge whether its claims conform to Divine Writ. Man has an enormous ability to elevate tradition above God himself (as Jesus testified in Mark 7). Traditions are often accepted uncritically. If every true child of God is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, nothing prevents those who seek it to be led into all Truth by the same Spirit who was sent to do just that.

Let us weigh the statements made here, to determine whether they resonate with the clear tones of Scripture, or whether they run at cross-purposes.

Reply #1: This text is speaking directly, intentionally, and specifically to God's will being sovereign over man's destiny.
I maintain that this is consistent with the passage, (chapter and book) as well as the tone, direction and context:
a) The topic of the chapter: verses 1-6 Paul lamenting apostasy of Israel.
b) Apostasy is not to be considered evidence of God's word failing. (v. 6)
c) Children of promise are the TRUE Israel. (v.7,8) (Who's promise? God's!)
d) Contrast of Jacob / Esau --- Loved / hated, "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand" (v. 11, 12)
- Defense of God's righteous character with respect to selection "d". (v. 14/15)
- If decision had been based on the merit of Jacob's /Esau's choices (whether articulated as past or future events) who could possibly charge unfairness or favoritism? But if they are elect -- solely on God's decision -- then human views of reward / punishment will cry 'foul'. This explanation is provided for exactly that objection.
e) Mentions God's active will in v. 18 (whom he wants to harden)
f) Refers to the remnant, giving God credit for its existence. (compare "I have reserved for myself 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal.)

Reply #2: In answer to "election removes responsibility of man's actions."

Dead wrong.

Man is completely responsible for guilt. (All are guilty) What God is responsible for, is redemption or judgment.
a) God is not the author of sin.
b) Man's moral obligation to live uprightly still stands. If man did so, he would merit heaven. His moral inability -- rather than being a helpful excuse for this failure -- is a further evidence against him.
c) Man sins anyway. He has an appetite for sin. This causes man to prefer worldliness to godliness. It makes him an enemy of God, and subject to God's wrath.

John 3:19,20 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed

d) Divine justice would thoroughly vindicate a Holy God had He purposed to condemn the entire race. If He did, any man judged had only himself to blame. [...let not he who is tempted say he is tempted by God.](James 1:13)"
e) To some among this sorry lot of humanity -- each one being every bit as wicked and God-hating as the Devil himself -- God graciously grants saving faith. This faith, (itself a gift of God (Eph 2:8)) quickens the recipient to repent of sin, and exalt Jesus Christ.

Reply #3. In response to "the Potter (God) does not choose honor / dishonor, but the way it is used determines that."

Really?

Can an ashtray, garbage can or chamber pot be used "honorably?"
Is a clay pot on equal honor 'footing' with a Ming vase? Can an ashtray choose to be served as a fine China?
a) Review the context: "Then why does God still blame us?"
-Q. Blamed how? A. For moral failings worthy of eternal judgment.
- Q. Why ask this question? A. If God determined which articles are to be used "for honor" and which for "dishonor" how does man retain responsibility for a decision made by God?
- If the context is suggesting that God does NOT purpose the eternal destiny (Election) of men, [as is claimed by Chrysostom] then this question need not be asked let alone answered. It would be obvious that God has 'no part' in man's response to the invitation of grace, and it would be stupid to blame God for our response.
-Q. What distinctions are being made, what two groups are being represented in this imagery? Righteous / unrighteous... Jacob/Esau... etc. Answer: the elect and the condemned.
-who has resisted his will? (v. 19) (still trying to transfer blame for their condition to God)
-the cry might go up: "Unfair! You created me for destruction!"
-The Potter analogy is the answer the charge of God's choosing being somehow unfair, and its meaning (taken in context) is completely opposite to the one proposed by Chrysostom.

Reply #4 In answer to: "God was providing Pharaoh opportunity to repent. Destruction resulted only following his rejection of grace."
This is inconsistent with God's own account elsewhere.
a) God takes credit (assumes responsibility) for the hardening of Pharoah's heart. (See: Ex. 7:3,4; Ex 4:21; Ex 9:12; Ex 10:1; Ex 10:20, 10:27; Ex 11:10; Ex 14:4, 14:8; 14:17 etc.) This is also interspersed with other verses in which Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The hardened heart was BOTH/AND. Both God AND Pharaoh hardened the Pharaoh's heart.
b) There are scriptures where God is patient, waiting that all should repent. (2 Peter 3) Although cited above to imply God waited for Pharaoh's salvation, this does not, in context, mean God is waiting for all people to repent. It means God is suspending judgment until the end of the age for all who will repent, throughout all the ages. (See Matt 13)
c) Israel was made to wait until the earlier inhabitants of the promised land filled up the measure of their wickedness, before God gave it to them.

Reply #5. In response to: "yielding to God was a legitimate option realistically available to Pharaoh."
How could Pharaoh possibly have yielded to God?
-God was an active participant in the hardening of his heart.
-God resists the proud.
-Refer again to John 3:20.

Reply #6. In response to the notion that: whether something is an object of wrath or honour is entirely dependent upon the purposes (will) of the creature.
This is not borne out in scripture.
a) We are all commanded to repent, but some were told to repent and seek him, with no specific promise that God would accept them when the had done so. (Acts 8:22)
b) John 1:13 says specifically that salvation is not initiated by the agency of human will ("not of the will of man, but of God.")
c) We do not control the circumstances of our repentance.
-There is a time in which one may wish to repent, but will be unable to. Heb 12:16,17.
-There is a time in which "He may be found" Isaiah 55:6-7.

Reply #7. With respect to free will, this article claims that Paul "always bestows chief honor upon free choice."
What??
In what sense is man's will ever free in the modern, secular sense, particularly in the Pauline writings!?!
We are truly slaves either to sin or righteousness. Unless God is a liar, that is.

Romans 6:16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Truth be told, the Reformed position is genuinely consistent with free choice.

Sinful man:
-John 3:20 "hates the light, and will not come into it lest his deeds be exposed" and
-Has a carnal mind which
-is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)

-does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)

-will act in a manner consistent with his own character by embracing evil over good, when presented with both options. He will crucify the Lord of Glory, and call for the release of a murderer. To do otherwise is to deny the truth of his nature.
Even good itself does not appear to be "good" to such a person in the fallen state.

Try to pronounce life to Ezekiel's dead bones.
Call Lazarus from the grave.
Command the paralytic to stand and take up his mat.
Command the dead soul to "live to God".
What happens?
-Nothing, most of the time.
Nothing, if it is done merely "by the will of man".

If, however, it is accomplished through a divine miracle, we see with new eyes. We are given new affections and appetites. We have been granted faith to believe, and have become a new wineskin.

As truly as we authentically sought our own destruction, and could do nothing less, we now (being no longer blind) recognize the goodness of God, and embrace it.

Thus, God is truly Sovereign, and gets the glory due His Great Name.
Also, man has acted in complete agreement with his will.

Sufficiency of God's Word

2008-05-08T23:35:00.002-05:00

This week, we were meeting in our small group (ie: Bible-study) setting.

Since we are loosely following the lead of "A Body of Divinity" by Thomas Watson, this week we launched into the topic of God, and His nature.

(This is an excellent study, and I recommend it highly. Thanks Doug, from Clash Church, for introducing this resource to me.)

One of our supporting texts was Psalm 73, so we read it together.

The change in our group was tangible.

Many of us had come in with the typical ebb and flow of daily life on our minds.

Somehow, more than any sermon, music, or affirming words ever could, the unadorned reading of God's Word did its work.

We found ourselves having our focus returned to the 'big picture'.

So often, we try to get too cute by half.

If God's Word is powerful (Hebrews 4), and does not come back void (Isaiah 55:11), why do we so often put such emphasis on man's preaching?

Could it be we subtly believe we need to 'help' God along? Maybe make that Thousands-of-years-old Book a little more contemporary and useful? Give the Holy Spirit a "boost" as far as convicting, exhorting, and instructing goes?

Maybe if we simply got out of the way, and let God speak to His own people through His own Word, the Body would be stronger for it.

Just a thought.

World Gone Mad

2008-05-07T03:56:00.006-05:00

Should anyone doubt the process outlined in Romans 1, concerning man deifying nature, even as he "dethrones" God, you need look no further than this.

This article describes the proposal of elevating the status of plant life to a new moral plane. The place that once was occupied by humanity (only), was recently expanded to include animal life (look no further than PETA). Not satisfied with the inclusion of animals only, agitators are extending it yet again to include plants.

[No word yet on what such people suggest we use as food.]

Man had a unique place for a reason: Humanity, and humanity ALONE is made in the image of God. The Genesis mandate to be stewards of the world we inhabit implicitly holds that we are distinct from it. Killing a person is completely different from killing an animal for exactly this reason. Rights activists want to erase the distinction:

Eschewing humans as the pinnacle of "creation" (to borrow the term used in the Swiss constitution) has caused environmentalism to mutate from conservationism--a concern to properly steward resources and protect pristine environs and endangered species--into a willingness to thwart human flourishing to "save the planet." Indeed, the most radical "deep ecologists" have grown so virulently misanthropic that Paul Watson, the head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, called humans "the AIDS of the earth," requiring "radical invasive therapy" in order to reduce the population of the earth to under a billion.

Belief in evolution blurs the lines of separation. It claims to elevate nature to share in the exalted position man holds. In practice, however, it reduces man to bare biology. Secularists are naturally following their worldview to its conclusion: if all life came from some ooze, then all life is intrinsically equal. This does not elevate all life to 'sacred'. By eliminating the notion of sacred, all life is equally profane.

Quoting The Incredibles, "...if everybody is 'Super', then nobody is."

This idea, like most heresies, isn't really new. Augustine was debunking the Manichaeans in the 5th century, and their ideas weren't too far from this one.

As Albert Mohler points out in the post that led me to this article, the same people advocating for expanded rights for plants and animals, are often first in line to advocate abortion and euthanasia. It all ties together.

The Prevailing Will of God

2008-04-30T03:49:00.007-05:00

Have you ever noticed how so many people think they can defy God?

They try to outwit Him, out run Him, or simply press on as though they can escape the consequences of their decisions.

Using the text of 1 Kings 21:17-23 we can see how a Holy God pronounced judgment on a king who had abused his authority. For background, Ahab angered God by setting free a king who was to be destroyed. (I Kings 20:34, 39-43). Jezebel added her own sin by conspiring to have Naboth framed, and wrongfully executed. The reason? Envy. You see, Naboth had this really great vineyard. And he dared refuse to sell it.

This background itself would be a good starting point for numerous lessons on proper execution of justice, of greed and envy, of the proper role of leadership. The point, however, that I would like to examine, is the finality of the consequence.

Ahab and Jezebel had exhausted the mercy of God, and came face-to-face with His judgment. Here is the pronouncement:

17 Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: 18 "Go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He is now in Naboth's vineyard, where he has gone to take possession of it. 19 Say to him, 'This is what the LORD says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?' Then say to him, 'This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth's blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!' "
20 Ahab said to Elijah, "So you have found me, my enemy!"
"I have found you," he answered, "because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD. 21 'I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave or free. 22 I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.'
23 "And also concerning Jezebel the LORD says: 'Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of ^[a] Jezreel.'

So, just like Saul before him, Ahab had marked himself as an enemy of God. But he was smart enough, at least, to humble himself before God at the news. (v.29) which softened (but did not rescind) the punishment due him.

Some time later, there is a need to go up to battle. God has not forgotten the coming judgment.

Notice how Ahab first calls all the false prophets who promise (as they are paid to) "glorious victory".

Jehoshaphat asked whether there was a REAL prophet to inquire of.

Reluctantly, Ahab called for one. Then Ahab tries to influence the message. (verse 13). Micaiah parrots the party line. (One can imagine the sarcastic tone, perhaps like Elijah's, that the true prophet used to mock the false prophets' predictions-- verse 15.)

The king knows he's being made sport of, and demands a straight answer. So he gets one in verse 17. After this, Micaiah goes on to explain the plan of judgment unfolding before him.

There is a description of God addressing the Host of Heaven, a "Lying Spirit" (Chapter 22, verse 19-23) would successfully deceive Ahab, and lead him to his destruction. Funny thing is, that even when he was expressly told what was going on, he went anyway, just like God had said.

In verses 26-28, Ahab tries to punish Micaiah for giving the same news he demanded to hear back in verse 16. He probably would have jailed God himself, if he were able.

So, now aware of his own expiration date, he tries to trick God into accidentally killing the wrong king. Ahab told Jehoshaphat to dress in his full regalia. Ahab disguised himself. (v 29,30)

The king of Syria told his soldiers not to battle with anyone except the king of Israel. They mistook Jehoshaphat for Ahab, and chased him, but upon recognizing it was not him, they broke off pursuit. (verses 31-33)

Then a 'certain' soldier drew his bow at random, and let fly. He had not cleverly penetrated the king's disguise, and diligently obeyed his commander's order to kill Ahab. He actually disobeyed, and fired a round into the crowd.

(I shoot an arrow in the air, and where it falls...)

As it happens, this seemingly random arrow fatally wounds the one opponent he was authorized to fire upon. The army went home, unharmed. The blood in the chariot was washed off in the very place and manner in which the prophet had predicted. (v 34-38)

What comfort does this give to us, as Christian believers in the present day?

Much comfort indeed. The same providential hand that upholds the completion of His purposes to overthrow the wicked, is all the more diligent in upholding His purposes to the righteous.

Notice that Jehoshaphat was unharmed, despite Ahab trying to use him as a fall guy. Notice also that the masses, who had been promised that they would be scattered (which is a far sight better than buried) left in peace.

Whatever God's purposes for you, if you execute them faithfully, you can be sure that they will unfold in the way He has purposed that they should.

(disclaimer: Sometimes this will not look like "success". Jeremiah would agree, as would numerous martyrs ancient and modern. But it will build His kingdom, and His great Name. And this sort of success is, in the light of eternity, the only one that truly matters.)

More than Forgiven.

2008-04-14T01:48:00.003-05:00

Many Christians emphasize only the 'forgiven' aspect of the Christian life. Celestial fire insurance or something, I suppose.

If someone were to stop there, what would the point be?

Are we to just blunder from one sin to another, hoping that our next one isn't the "Deal-breaker"?

Of course not! Romans 6 gives a detailed explanation of this.

We are forgiven! Yes! We have propitiation for our sin.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

Propitiation
Pro*pi`ti*a"tion\, n. [L. propitiatio: cf. F. propitiation.]

1. The act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of making propitious.

2. (Theol.) That which propitiates; atonement or atoning sacrifice; specifically, the influence or effects of the death of Christ in appeasing the divine justice, and conciliating the divine favor.

He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins. --1 John ii. 2.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

But is that where it ends?

No, that's where it begins. First, Christ has satisfied -- in his own Death at the Cross -- Real, Divine Wrath upon real, personal sins. The kind you and I have both personally committed, and dreamed of committing without consequence. This is what removes the enmity between us and God, and permits Him to address us as children in need of restoration.

We began with inexhaustible pride. It caused us to deny our need of correction, of our failings, of our need of Him. We had what is called in His Word, "a heart of stone", or "ears that don't hear, and eyes that don't see." We were "stiff-necked" and "rebellious," and "slow of heart" to believe.

What we required was a change of our nature, of who we ARE. In earlier posts, I have described the new birth. If you are unfamiliar with this, please check it out, as one cannot truly understand what Christianity is all about without some understanding of what the New Birth entails.

Human beings are not sick people needing to be made well (morally) we are dead people needing the breath of life.

And, thus, the New Birth changes us.

This brings us to the 'beyond forgiven part', and introduces two terms.

1) Justification

2) Sanctification

Justification is the moral completeness of Christ attributed to the believer at the moment of salvation. We are equipped to be citizens of the Kingdom of heaven because we have been cleansed of our sin, and have been given the gift of Christ's moral perfection on the Divine ledger, so to speak.

Sanctification is the daily process of conforming to the life into which we were saved.

Grace is not merely a warm sentiment from God to you. Grace is God's gift to us, providing the very strength by which we overcome temptation, and otherwise live the Christian life.

God granted us new appetites. We actually enjoy (!) things that were once distasteful to us. Righteousness, and the things of God have become appealing to us, when once they were laughable. It takes us beyond being the "I'll get mine" crowd, the "me-first" generation. Compassion for people that hate us begins to make sense.

The Sermon on the Mount, the Camel through the eye of the Needle, and the other things Jesus said were so lofty in their expectations of us that we could not possibly fulfill them. Could not, that is, unless we were to become 'new wine skins'. The people to whom these challenges were being given must become thoroughly changed.

So, why do so few Christians live a life that gives evidence of that sort of a transformation?

Two reasons:

1) Not everyone who calls themselves Christian really is one. (see: Matt 7)

2) Some Christians are "nearsighted" (I Peter 1:8,9) They have allowed themselves to get 'caught up' in the mundane distractions of living, and have forgotten where Life truly originates.

Let's examine 1 Peter 1 a little further. verses 3 & 4 describe the Promises from Christ Jesus. Everything we need (truly need, not think we need) has already been given to us. Everything that follows is necessarily rooted and ground in Jesus. It's not a how-to, or a self-help. It is Christ-centered in its entirety. Remove Jesus from the equation, and there is no equation.

It mentions how our desires can be changed. Not that we will "never sin," but that sinning will become the exception, rather than the rule. (John Piper explained it well and in more detail, here.) Our union with God is how we escape the corruption of the world which is caused by evil desires.

If you are a Christian, allow these thoughts to encourage you to press toward the life to which we were called, one worthy of the Name we carry.

If you are not, the gospel is evident throughout this blog. By gospel, I mean good news. Good news that doesn't soft-shoe the problem, but rather, addressing the problem, presents a solution big enough to fix it.

The problem: our sins are real, and they have deeply offended a real God, who is morally pure...

The solution: that same God, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live the perfect life we ought to have lived, and die the death for sin we ought to suffered. Jesus rose from the dead, never to die again, and ascended into heaven. He has satisfied the wrath against Sin, and He gives His Spirit to transform whosoever will believe in Him. That means to not only "assent" to this, but to so thoroughly believe it that it resets your values, priorities, and secondary beliefs. Everything.

In a sense, we die to life as we had known it, and start afresh, with a new perspective.

Atheistic Activism Masquerading as Science

2008-03-31T00:29:00.007-05:00

As I've got a lot of fiscal year-end things to occupy my attention, here's something interesting for my loyal reader(s):

Dr. Mohler wrote an article describing (*ahem*) "objective" science's next big project.

Millions of dollars are being spent to "explain" the "evolutionary origins" of religion.

Fools have taken to sending themselves on errands, it would seem.

The Passion and its Cast.

2008-03-24T00:31:00.006-05:00

Yesterday was the day we took to remember Easter, that is, Jesus' triumph over sin and death. Friday, we remembered the Crucifixion.

In reviewing the account of His trial and crucifixion, I thought about the different players in the story.

The rabble. Those who hailed Jesus as King scant days earlier, not only called for His criminal sentencing, but they even demanded an execution in the most barbarous and degrading method available. They have history's dubious distinction of claiming responsibility for this overthrow of justice.

The Religious leaders. They knew the law, and were bound by such parts as were convenient to them. They were motivated, the Bible says, by envy. They bought Judas' betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, yet were too scrupulous to receive blood money into the treasury. (It was THEY who paid said blood money!) When Judas went to them with his conscience stricken, they blew him off and tried to distance themselves from his (their) murderous guilt.

Pilate. He had already had a tumultuous time as leader. He had been reigned in by Caesar for his over-use of force. Luke 13 makes reference to this. Now he found himself on the edge of another riot. The rabble were clamouring for Jesus' head. His wife claimed to have had a prophetic dream. As a legislator, he did not have enough evidence to convict of guilt. As a politician, he was under the shadow of Caesar, by whose name he was threatened. With a too-familiar tactic of public officials, he made the politically-expedient decision, and washed his hands of the personal, moral responsibility of his decision.

Herod. The petty tyrant. He had an idle curiosity towards Jesus, the way one might harbour a mild interest in a 2-headed calf. He wanted to see Jesus, but took no efforts to meet with Him in 3 1/2 years. When it became clear that Jesus wasn't another side-show act that would perform on cue, like a jester, dancer, or fire-eater, Herod became hostile. Notice Herod went from greatly pleased to mocking. Jesus did not conform to Herods' desires and expectations, so, childishly, Herod turned on Him.

Peter. Full of bluster and bravado. I'm not like the others. They may fail you, but I will not. His loyalty evaporated under the threat of association with Jesus and His sufferings. His later life was different, but at that moment, Peter -- and ALL the other disciples, too -- bravely ran away.

The other disciples' reaction was so vanilla that it barely rated this footnote: they fled.

Judas Iscariot. Used a kiss to betray Jesus to the leaders for some money he'd never spend. He committed suicide, and was dead even before the resurrection.

Barrabas. Known murderer. Best known for being set free in the process of condemning Jesus.

The Roman soldiers, just doing their job.

Two Thieves crucified with Jesus. They had both mocked Jesus. (One later realized his error, and asked Jesus to remember Him in His Kingdom.)

Look over this list for a moment, and compare the people in it to the following verse.

This is a faithful saying:

For if we died with Him, //We shall also live with Him.
If we endure, // We shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him, // He also will deny us.
If we are faithless, // He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself. - 2 Tim 2:11-13 (empahsis mine)

Nobody in that story was faithful, and upright, and noble in the crucifixion. (Except Jesus)

Weasels and petty kings, jealous religious leaders, and popular-opinion-obeying crowds, mercenaries and murderers, thieves and cowards and absentee friends all played their parts in this drama. And, somewhere in that list, you will find your reflection -- and mine.

In stark contrast, stands Jesus.

The King of Glory, abused and shamed by his own creation.
The Great physician, broken and bleeding.
The Prince of Peace being in His person the chastisement of our peace.

We are all in equal need of the grace of God.

Romans in chapters 3 & 4, portrays each of us as guilty before God.
This negates any temptation we may have to say to God "you owe me!" It similarity negates any "I'm better than him" boasting. (The true intent, I believe, of the boasting reference in this passage.)

If, then, as we mark this Easter, you find yourself a participant in His New Life, be grateful. Rejoice!

Whatever else can go wrong in your life, it cannot be the worst there is, since you do not have God's righteous wrath upon your sin! And whatever you may lack in this life, you cannot lack the best there is, because you already have the Immeasurable Worth of God Himself!

Jesus Christ is the only Name under heaven by which men must be saved. If you have not been reconciled to God, call upon Him now for salvation. While you still can.

It doesn't Wright a Wrong...

2008-03-19T02:33:00.009-05:00

Even here in Canada, you cannot turn on a television without seeing some reference to the (currently) favoured Democratic candidate, and his mentor's addled rantings.

I am, or course, referring to Obama's "pastor" Jeremiah Wright.

Those whose job it is to spin the news -- for and against him -- are all working overtime right now. Obama made a "landmark" speech on Race relations, the transcript of which can be read here. We were forced to endure endless parades of supposed experts speculating about what effect this will have on the electoral process, or race relations, and whether Wright's vitriol was shared by Obama, among other questions.

I find myself reflecting on two things, particularly:

What does this say about the man, Barack Obama?
What does this say about the preacher and his congregation as a whole?

If you saw the clips, did you notice the facial expressions of the crowd?

While Wright was damning people en masse because their skin is too light, and the country as a whole, the crowd did not betray one iota of shock, surprise, disbelief, disagreement, outrage, or similar appropriate reaction. This didn't blindside them. In fact, they didn't even appear to disagree with it. It was something to which they were accustomed. This flies in the face of some carefully nuanced words previously implying that the Senator was not present during any such message, and [so it was implied] was ignorant Wright's ever saying such things.

What does that matter?

Well, for someone trying to get a read on the Senator's judgment, it matters a great deal. Obama counts this Jeremiah Wright as a "mentor" or as an "uncle".

Some have suggested that Spiritual matters have no bearing on one's public life, and that he is simply a Spiritual advisor. You go to your barber, or doctor, or dentist, they say, to take care of some part of you, but you don't ask them for their political opinion. That quaint notion may have a warm and fuzzy appeal to the post-modern mind, but what does that mean exactly?

First, what does a 'Spiritual Advisor' do? Forget any images of Oracles of Delphi, Jojo's psychic alliance, or the Church of Elvis. A 'spiritual advisor', as the Secular media so crassly puts it, lays a foundation of the core principals that should guide someone's life.

A genuine pastor, for instance, will faithfully preach the Gospel from the Bible. He will not distort it, embellish it, or make it serve his political leanings. He will preach the Cross of Christ, and our need for redemption. These values become the fountainhead of his worldview, his beliefs on God, on ethics, on responsibility, on community, on the role of government, on humanity and human interaction, and so on.

Consider the word "mentor" for a minute. Several dictionaries define it as a "wise and trusted advisor." In the course of twenty years, the Senator has sat under this teaching. He has been married there. He has had his children baptized there. When you sit under Christian teaching, the intention is that one's thinking be shaped by what is being taught. Romans 12:1-2. It's called Discipleship. The apostle Paul said "follow me as I follow Christ." Jesus commanded that we go and "make disciples" of all nations.

Let us examine this mentor of his.
He is one of two things: he is either:
-"over-zealous in this one area", but generally within the bounds of legitimate Christianity, or
- a fraud who is using the guise of Christianity to push his personal agenda.

What do people point to for Wright's credibility? Military service, 4 (count 'em four!) earned degrees, several decades' worth of leading a church, and (drumroll please) a litany of public works projects. Aids programs, counselling centers, housing and who knows what else.

Ok, let's vet that list against Scripture to see if these credentials are the litmus test of a worthwhile leader.

1 Cor 13:2,3 -- And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

The portion in red indicates his credentials. The part in purple describes how to measure their worth. They are only valid insofar as he HAS love.

Are you surprised that these things are not necessarily a measure of 'love' in the Christian sense?

Let's examine his statements.

Wright called for God's wrath on USA. "God d-mn America!"

Compare to:

1 Tim 2:1-4 1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Luke 6:27,28 But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Wright speaks derisively about "White" people.

1 John 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

Matt 7:22, 23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The congregation likes the notion of meeting as a 'Black church.' They place their ethnicity/culture and not the Eternal Son of God as the foundation of their meetings. They do not embrace the message of Ephesians that we are no longer diverse people pitted against one another, but brothers in Christ. Our identity is found in Him, not our in nationality or skin colour.

The congregation sets themselves against the very Word of God in this issue. Wrong belief breeds wrong action. They are focused on that which divides, not Christ who unites. Thus, they can justify hate in their own mind as acceptable or at least understandable. Eternal life is shelved in favor of temporal gain.

Jesus gets demoted to token Cameo, walk-on appearances.

The crowd is given over to their itching ears.

And Obama, the would-be President, is among them.

If he cannot detect a fraud like his "Pastor", how is he fit to run the cash at a corner store, let alone be given the most powerful position in the free world?

By the way, if you wanted to know the ACTUAL credentials for a Christian leader? You can find them here and here.

Meanwhile, elsewhere....

2008-03-12T01:00:00.004-05:00

On Changing religions:
Chuck Norris vs. Oprah Winfrey
Hat tip to Frank Turk for the above story.

Free (?) Speech In Canada:
-This is what happens when "Tolerance" is given the force of Law. Free speech? Here in Canada, you are free to say exactly what your government says you can say.
-(Just ask Ezra Levant. Ezra was the subject of a "Human Rights" (heavy irony noted) Commission investigation. He was forced to pay crushing legal fees (while his accuser was funded by the taxpayer), because his paper ran "The Cartoon". The case was eventually dropped,(under public pressure) but he had been expected to PROVE HE WAS INNOCENT.)

This 'n' that:
Rebecca Stark is a good read, especially for her theological definitions.

Great British satire, (from the Telegraph) lampooning the Archbishop's talent for articulating elaborate nothings. (Thank-you Doug Wilson for the link.)

U.S. Politics & Religion:
-Spoof of Obama claiming Sermon on the Mount supports homosexual union.
-A serious article on same.

-Wearing a Crucifix now "Gang-related behaviour"... 2 students in Oregon suspended.

THIS JUST IN... SIN IS BAD:

Now, apparently the Vatican wants to remind you that sin is, in fact BAD. So bad, in fact, that they have revised the list of what can send a soul to hell. The new sin list is supposed to emphasize how sinning hurts other people.

Funny, aren't they supposed to be reminding us that sin is an act of treason against a Holy God?

"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. '" (Luke 15:21)

Nothing Left to Lose

2008-03-05T03:07:00.011-05:00

There is something indomitable in the life of someone who has nothing left to lose.

A person who has reconciled himself to achieving a goal at any price is a force to contend with. It doesn't matter whether the goal is noble or base. It doesn't matter if its displayed with reckless abandon, or dispassionate coolness. They can't be intimidated, bought, or distracted. These are the ones who can say "...or die trying" and really mean it.

Take a look at the life of Peter. He gets a bad rap sometimes. (My wife wrote a great post about it.) He had something of a dramatic change his life. He went from the being the guy who couldn't look a serving-girl in the eye and admit to even knowing Jesus, to an Apostle who was jailed, beaten, and eventually crucified (upside-down, if you please) for the Gospel's sake.

Why the change?

Some would point to Pentecost. Some would point to the Jesus praying that Peter's faith not fail.

I suggest that it was the post-resurrection conversation he had with Jesus.

First, in John 21, Jesus mirrored His first meeting with Peter. (No fish caught. Throw out the net again. Miraculous catch. Peter realizing his sin in the presence of holiness. Jesus redefining who Peter was to be --fisher of men-- and Peter leaving all to follow Christ.)

Peter had just received a huge shock from realizing the impotence of his self-reliance. He was profoundly humbled. He had deserted His friend and God when it counted most. The bravado, even cutting off some one's ear to "defend" Jesus, were worthless.

Peter needed a Mulligan. He needed a fresh start. Jesus was gracious enough to gently restore him to be what was previously promised.

But look at what happens next. After the "do you love me? / feed my sheep" exchange (notice the affirmations of Peter's love were equal to his previous denials), Jesus says this:

I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

The same One who confidently and accurately predicted Peter's greatest failure, namely the public denial of Jesus Christ, does something amazing. With that same confidence and authority, he predicted that Peter will live to become old. He will be faithful to the end, and that he will faithfully face a martyr's death.

You are no longer Simon! (reed, flimsy, vacillating)
You are Peter! (a rock, stable, sturdy, reliable)

This stop-and-start Peter became someone who faced the Jewish authorities fearlessly.

Why? Because he now understood that he really was in a no-lose situation.

So, what if he's opposed, beaten and jailed? His life is already forfeit, what more can people take? Comfort? Dignity? Reputation? None of these will matter. The martyr's death is not like the modern romantic notion we have. It is the death of a condemned criminal.

Peter had seen Jesus lead by example. He, the Lord of Glory laid down His life.

Peter now has assurance that this time, he will not cower and renounce Christ in favor of whatever he was afraid of losing. Why fear men whose power to hurt us ends when the body dies?

Look at the tone in his Epistles. Notice the high view of God's Sovereign Authority. There is a striking contrast between his views of this passing world, and of eternity. Suffering is no longer something to be dodged and avoided. Hear the grit in Peter's words:

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. (1 Peter 4:1,2 )

Peter has now embraced the lesson of carrying his cross daily, living (as the world sees it) the life of a condemned man. But what is that in light of the exceeding, eternal riches in Christ?

Paul went through something similar: At his conversion, Paul's future suffering was announced up-front. (Not very 'seeker-sensitive' of Jesus, now was it? Later, when someone prophesied that Paul would be jailed, he answered:

I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 21:13)

What about Jesus? Even our Lord went through a period of reconciling Himself to the suffering He was to go through.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, He asked His Father if there was any other way. He was in anguish. It was going to be horrible.

He faced His trial and execution as coolly as He did, because when He was alone in prayer He reconciled Himself to the will of His Father. They were not taking His life away -- they could not! He had, there in the Garden, already determined to lay it down. It was a fait accomplit.

The cure to the self-indulgent brand of Christianity we see around us must be to do as they did.

We need, I suspect, to rediscover the sort of prayer that submits the heart truly to God's will and Glory, however much that will and Glory might inconvenience us.

After all, what's the worst the world can do?

Kill us??? And then what?

Did the early disciples think that as horrifying a thought as we do? No.

But then, they loved God's kingdom far more than they loved the World, didn't they?

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony,
for they did not love their lives in the face of death. (Rev 12:11)

The Word, Scrutiny, and You

2008-02-20T02:42:00.005-05:00

It is interesting to watch people interact online. In any place where Christian themes are being discussed, there are two main approaches to Scripture.

First, there are people who accept that God's Word is final. Sometimes they will struggle to understand it, much less explain it. Maybe they will chafe under it. It may cause discomfort. It may run counter to everything they previously believed. Such a person, however, will recognize the Word as Divine in origin. If Divine, then trustworthy. If trustworthy, then worth loving, obeying, and proclaiming.

Next, there are people who scrutinize it. They weigh it against other things they believe, and find trustworthy. They keep the parts they like, and discard or qualify the parts they don't. Such a person would view events written as history as 'mere metaphor.' Such a person seldom struggles with Scripture, because it is retro-fitted to tuck neatly into their pre-existing values, beliefs and assumptions.

Boiling this down, we have one group which (to varying degrees of effectiveness) allows God's Word to judge and convict, and cause internal change. We have another group that takes an academic, or spectator's interest in Scripture. They critique it, examine it, and sift it for the parts they like.

Does it matter?

Does it make a real difference in life?

The Bible presents a recurring theme of two groups of people. Jesus separates Sheep from Goats. (Two Groups.) Heaven and Hell. Redeemed and Lost. Flesh and Spirit. Light and Darkness. There is no 'neutral' group mentioned, because there isn't one.

Jesus even went so far as to say some people were of "their father", the Devil.

Does the Divine Writ have examples of both groups of people interacting with God's Word? Does it shed light on which approach we should have to Scripture?

Yes, it does.

First, the temptation of Jesus (Luke 4)

3The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'[a]"
5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."
8Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'[b]"
9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. 10For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
11they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[c]"
12Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

In Luke 4, verses 4, 8, and 12, Jesus responds to each temptation the same way. "It is written". He did not rely on his knowledge. His reply was not based on willpower. It was not Human strength or goodness to which Jesus appealed. If anyone could have offered reliable personal experience, it would be him, but He did not. He allowed God's Word to set the boundaries for His life. In so doing, He submitted His life to the Word.

Notice how this contrasts with the other great temptation in human history.

Genesis 3:1-4

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Here's what God actually said: (Genesis 2:16, 17)

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

Notice that the serpent, and Eve both misrepresented the actual Word of God.

The serpent began by casting doubt on God's word. Did he say it? Did he mean it? Why should he restrict you?

Eve's response is to over-correct. She corrects the statement to limit it to only 1 tree. She invents a limitation not ordained by God, "shall not touch it". She uses language of doubt where God gave language of certainty. God said "will surely die". Eve said (in the original language) "Lest" you die. Lest, as in "might", "perhaps", "it could happen".

She did not accurately represent God's word.

The deception of the serpent was to take Eve from a simple acceptance of God's Word, to objectively examining it, and making it something that was uncertain, and lacking in authority. She made herself the judge of the Word, rather than letting the Word judge, rule, and guide her.

In so doing, she (whether she realized it or not) cast doubt on the very character of God. Had she not doubted God's character, His love, and His commitment to her best interests, she could never have entertained the idea of disobeying a direct commandment of His. We know what happened next.

So, what does that have to do with us?

The very Fall of Man hinged upon a departure from the simple acceptance of God's word. It was interpreted, processed, and made to mean something other than what He said.

Our redemption hinges upon Jesus' sinless life. It is sinless because He faced temptation, and did not fall to it. He did not, because He submitted to the Word of God. (One is reminded of James 4:7, submit therefore to God, resist the Devil, he will flee) He succeeded in the very point in which Adam and Eve failed.

If the attitude toward God's word was so instrumental in both the Fall and Redemption, we need to pay attention.

People's influences are reflected in their words and behaviour. If our influence is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, we will have a High view of His Word, just as He does.

If we treat the Bible like a human book, if we critique it, if we pick and choose which parts are worth believing, it isn't Christ we resemble. It's the world, and it's the Deceiver.

In such a case, it is important to ask:

Am I still dead in my sin?

If that is the case for you, there is good news:
Today is the day of salvation, if you will trust in Jesus Christ.

Looking for Leadership

2008-02-06T02:54:00.000-05:00

Once again, it is time for the United States to select a leader. While much has been made of the 'historic' nature of the female/minority candidate of the Dems, there is also a twist in Republican side: a Mormon is running for top spot.

This raises some questions.

1) Is the Mormon claim that they are just another variety of Christian valid?
2) Does a person's religious view affect his suitability for office?

Before diving into either of these 2 questions, it is important that we reflect on God's hand in this. Ultimately, it is He that oversees the rise and fall of nations. He sets our boundries. He oversees our going out and coming in. The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. He will ultimately achieve the unfolding of His purposes, whatever may happen.

Governments are, at best, a part of the natural, not spiritual order. While they may be governed at times by people who seek to faithfully discharge their duties before God and man, it is the Gospel, not a better government that can make a people pleasing to God.

That said, we each bear responsibility for our own decisions and actions. It behooves us to take seriously the responsibility of living in a land where we directly affect the ruling of our nation.

What should we look for in a leader? Ultimately, the one who comes nearest to the Biblical worldview in their governing. It is not merely a matter of being a Christian, either. It is possible to be a Christian with the wrong worldview. So, naturally, we must know the Word of God well enough to identify what a Christian worldview looks like.

In places like the US, where the public has a direct say in party leadership, the Primaries may even be the most critical step in selecting a decent leader.

In the current election process, since there is a Mormon candiate, some have claimed that Mormonism is just one of many expressions of Christianity. Are they correct?

The simple answer to this is no.

The differences, while many, hinge on the Person of Jesus.

In the Book of Mormon, for instance, they attribute the following words to Jesus

(Alma 7:1-2) "Behold my beloved bretheren, seeing that I have been permitted to come to you, therefore I attempt to address you in my language; yea, by my own mouth, seeing that it is the first time that I have spoken unto you by the words of my mouth, I having been wholly confined to the judgement-seat, having had much business that I could not come unto you. 2. And even I could not have come now at this time were it not that the judgement-seat hath been given to another, to reign in my stead; and the Lord in much mercy hath granted that I should come unto you."

(emphasis mine)

Without going further into their doctrine, this by itself is a blasphemous statement that NO believing Christian could accept as true of the Living God. Even if every other word written were to conform to the truth of Scripture (which it does not) this would be enough to make their doctrine a (literally) damnable lie.

So do you reject him because he is a Mormon?

There was an intersting point made in "Original Intent" by David Barton. The founding fathers took seriously the oath of office, particularily with the emphasis that they would become accountable before a Holy God for their actions while in said office. To paraphrase their view: the religious man, even if he is of a foreign religion (meaning Muslim, Jewish, Hundu, etc.) is always to be preferred above the irreligious man, so long as he believes that he will be accountable before that god in some sort of judgement hereafter (concerning the oath they swore) and exactly for that reason.

This is not to endorse one candidate or another.

My purpose was to reframe the question. Some have asked if electing someone from a different religion is morally acceptable. I would ask you to consider who that person, at whatever level of government, is running against, and what each candidate believes.

Some would default to the athiest if it fell to a choice between an athiest and a Hindu, or Muslim, Sikh, etc.

Athiesm is more pallatable to the public because we are accustomed to it, but do not give preference to an athiest over (another) pagan, simply because a pagan athiest is a more familiar heresy. Look closely at your candidates, whoever they may be.