Christ in the Center

The "Little Bang"?

2010-11-09T06:29:00.002-06:00

According to BBC news, scientists working with the new atom smasher in Switzerland, known as the "Large Hadron Collider", have successfully created what they call a "mini big bang". They smashed atomic particles together in a way to produce the kind of mixture they believe was the result of the "Big Bang", a colossal explosion of matter that is believed to have taken place at the very beginning of our universe. In other words, they think they made a "little bang" to produce their own mini-universe stuff.

It's a great moment for them, no doubt, especially considering how much work it has been to make this atom smasher, so much larger and more powerful than any of its predecessors. And they had to stay with the project after it broke down in initial trials. But genius and hard work can accomplish a lot.

But now, hold on... this experiment was entirely the result of years of planning and human invention, carefully staged and executed in a machine that boggles the ordinary mind for its complexity. And its result produced this "mini big bang", to illustrate, they say, an event that took place billions of years ago to form the materials of our universe, from which all matter, living and non-living, got its start.

But "they" also say the original "Bang" happened as a result of natural forces, not being directed by any intelligent or creative Being. It just happened, and now it took an immense army of scientists, technicians, inventors, and workers of all kinds (not to mention money) to make a teensie little example of what "just happened"?

Are these scientists too blinded by their humanistic, rational beliefs that they can't see the obvious? If there was such a beginning to our universe, surely it couldn't require less intelligence to produce something infinitely greater than a "mini bang" that required a human intelligence and effort that was itself the result of centuries of human learning and experimentation. I can only agree with what the apostle Paul said of such men, who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:7)

New morality, same results

2010-06-15T11:51:00.002-05:00

Surveys of modern America reveal a lot has changed since things were "left to Beaver" and "Father knew best". Not that these classic TV shows reflected all of society at that time, but the general morality of average Americans was still heavily against behaviors that are now commonplace and accepted by a majority of people.

We're told that 40% of births are to unmarried women. "Cohabitation" of unmarried men and women is becoming a quaint term to describe what is now a fully accepted practice, and is probably viewed by many as a judgmental term as well. Speaking publicly against behaviors condemned by society in Beaver's day is now called "hate speech", and some news pundits seemed shocked that anyone could still be opposed to marriage rights for all citizens.

For those who still believe God spoke once on these and other subjects of moral behavior, this "new morality" may be new to us as a society, but hardly new for the world as a whole. Moral decadence in respect to God's Word is as old as humanity, and the results will be the same as ever. And that result is not to be measured in human acceptance or judgment, not in polls or commentary. The result is summed up in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death."

What death, they might say? Indeed, the first tempter posed the same challenge, when he told the woman he was about to deceive, "You shall surely not die!" Sure, she didn't drop over dead, and neither do people who reject God's "old" morality for an updated version. But surely their souls die in respect to all that God created them to experience through living by His Word. And the deadness of the spirit, in which all humans are born, and in which they will persist until they are born again by the Spirit of God, cannot be undone so easily as the moral codes of a nation.

Perhaps this modern morality has changed our society's view of acceptable behaviors, but the result will be the same as always.

Do we need a "Day of Prayer" to pray?

2010-04-20T10:48:00.002-05:00

Just to be clear, I believe the action taken last week by Wisconsin District judge Barbara Crabb, branding the National Day of Prayer as "unconstitutional", is another cave-in to the atheist, secularizing groups and ideas that are gaining ground in America's courts. And, despite the failure of California atheist Michael Newdow to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, the battle to cleanse the political and public sphere of religion is far from over (and the Christian religion in particular, since no atheist seems overly concerned about the growth of Islamic influences in schools.)

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that the First Amendment's prohibition of "establishment of religion" should be understood in 18th century context. By "establishment", I think they sought to avoid the official recognition of a particular sect of the Christian faith as the "established" church, as the Lutheran church was in much of continental Europe and the Anglican church was in England. That kind of official status for a certain sect was not only a legal endorsement of beliefs, it was grounds for governmental discrimination and persecution of "non-established" religions.

Such an establishment is clearly not what's up in setting aside the 1st Thursday of May as a National Day of Prayer (for those who want to observe it, with no requirement to do so by any others.) No one is excluded by the proclamation, but only by their choice to abstain. No one will be prosecuted for "failure to pray". Nor will anyone be barred from public office or other governmental activities for being absent at the prayer rally.

So, two observations: First, while this decision is a sign of the growing influence of a negative attitude toward public religion, it's not yet to the point that public prayers will draw the wrath of some national prayer police, like might take place in any number of countries today. We don't need a "National Day of Prayer" to pray, if we just all agree to meet as individuals and churches and communities.

Second, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the group responsible for bringing this action to judge Crabb, should consider that the "freedom to embrace religion" is also a constitutional guarantee, including the freedom of a religious majority in our government to recognize a day for prayers among that majority in the nation as a whole. If Congress comes in time to have an atheist, agnostic or secular majority, then I'll stand up for their right to have a "National Day of No Prayer", or whatever they want to call it.

But again, to be clear, I believe all such freedoms and rights are for this world only. According to the Bible and the words of our Savior Jesus Christ, that will all come to end when "every knee will bow, and every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord." (Philippians 2:10-11) And there won't be any earthly judge to overturn that decision.

Beware religious scams

2010-03-30T08:37:00.003-05:00

Ever since the Devil first tricked humans into disobeying God, the world has been filled with imitation religion and spirituality. Some of them are bizarre, like folks waiting for aliens to come get them, and some are so close to the "authorized" version that it's easy for people to be confused. Of course, from a biblical view, there's only one truly "authorized" religion, and that's the one revealed personally by God, first through the prophets of Israel and finally through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

And the imitations and clones and other variations of real Christianity have been marketed by Satan ever since Jesus rose from the dead and sent His apostles into the world with the Gospel. The complete list of variants would be too numerous for this space, but just consider some current imitations that take up space in our news reports.

We have pedophiles masquerading as caring priests, hateful demonstrators pretending they're really standing up for God's Law. We see "preachers" enriching themselves by raking in the offerings of the gullible. And, in today's news we see a "Christian" militia group, claiming to prepare for Antichrist by arming themselves for an assault on the American government.

And the deadliest imitations are all the "fake Jesus" ideas, which Satan uses for those willing to believe that a man called Jesus really lived. But from that point the similarity between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of men's imaginations end. Some say He never claimed to be the Son of God - the Church made that up. Some say He didn't really die on the cross. Some say He died but didn't rise again. Some say He rose, and now we can be just like Him as a powerful, divine being.

Satan, like the scam artists waiting to sell you a fake Rolex or an imitation something else, is quite content with people using the name "Jesus", as long as it isn't the genuine article: the One who is God's only divine Son, equal with the Father, who is God's only atonement for sin, who is the Way, Truth and Life, and the only hope for eternal life by His resurrection from the dead.

Accept no substitutes! It may not be "politically correct", but if Jesus isn't the Way, then there's no way.

What makes us happy?

2010-03-05T16:43:00.005-06:00

There are a number things that are common to every person, such as the enjoyment of music, an appreciation for beauty and a capacity for love. In fact, this is another piece of evidence that we're all made by one God with a soul of humanity, rather than being some kind of evolved life-form. Another commonly held facet of humanity is that we all seek happiness, though, like our musical tastes, we have many different ideas of happiness.

And there are also many commonly shared experiences that make us happy, a fact which was the subject of a recent article of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Based on a review of some 51 studies of the relationship between happiness and types of positive thinking, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put forth five experiences that seem to increase personal happiness, experienced as "feelings of well-being." And, to look even briefly at the list, one sees there is general agreement between their list and behaviors advocated by the Bible.

The five life choices said to increase happiness are:

1. Be grateful, expressing thankfulness in some manner to those who have helped us.

2. Be optimistic, envisioning an ideal future and journaling about it.

3. Count your blessings, writing down three good things that happened to us recently.

4. Use your strengths, identifying and finding ways to use those strengths.

5. Commit acts of kindness, donating time to charity or to unselfish deeds to those in need.

All these things are bona fide happiness producers. There's one problem: The choices and behaviors listed can be done by anyone willing to do so, but each of them is an abstraction of a quality that is produced fully only by a heart of faith in God's Word; obedient to His commands and thankful for His blessings.

To do such things without a faith relationship to God is like the difference between working a job you love and working for someone you love. The first is something you do primarily for your own rewards, while the latter is something you do for those rewards and for the sake of the one you love.

The Bible describes real happiness as something we do, not just for ourselves or because it works for us, but because it ties us to the One who has given great promises to all who trust Him and accept His Lordship over their lives. Because of such promises, people of faith can give themselves to things God guarantees will bring true happiness; including some things not normally connected with well-being, like mourning, hungering and thirsting, and even being persecuted. (Matthew 5:3-10)

But that's the thing about true happiness - it's not about what's happening now and how that makes us feel. It's about what route in life we choose to travel, based on where it's going and why we're going there. When the goodness and power of God is our assurance, then anything we do for Him is guaranteed to bring lasting happiness, not just "feelings of well-being" for today.

Are we headed "full circle?"

2010-01-13T10:31:00.002-06:00

At the dawn of the Christian Church, the apostles faced some determined opposition in the Jewish Council, which met and agreed that this new sect of "The Way", as it became known, was getting too risky to just take a live-and-let-live policy. They brought in the ringleaders, Peter and John, and told them "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." (Acts 4:18) There was to be no attempts to enroll others in their religion, or they would risk prosecution and imprisonment; as did in fact happen.

2000 years later, the circle of intolerance seems to be coming around for Americans. Oh, it's not entirely new for Christians to get the crack-down from a government or competing religion. That kind of thing is routine in other nations, as Christians are persecuted by zealots and leaders of Muslim or Hindu religion, or a secular state like China. But America's constitutional freedoms of religion have precluded such discrimination.

But popular and prevailing culture is another force of opposition; less centralized and codified than government, but just as powerful in enforcing its will. And the evidence of current controversy in the forum of religious discussion and events suggests that an intolerance toward "speaking in the name of Jesus" is getting more and more of a foothold each year.

A current example of that is the uproar created by Fox News' Brit Hume, who "dared" to suggest that Tiger Woods should seek "forgiveness and redemption" which only the Christian religion offers. An editorial in today's Omaha paper points out the ire that's been aroused among liberal critics by such advice. Mr. Hume, say his critics, has crossed the line from a free exercise of religion to an unwelcome proselytizing that makes him, as one columnist said, a "sanctimonious busybody"; and so his conduct to another critic is "truly embarrassing."

At this point, Brit Hume is merely being scorned and ridiculed by his peers and others who reject any religious persuasion, and it seems Christian persuasion is especially rejected by a culture that insists that "all paths lead to God", and it's fine if my path leads nowhere at all. But how far will we need to proceed on this circle of intolerance toward evangelism before Christians are more than scorned and ridiculed by columnists, comedians and others who purport to speak for the majority culture?

We may or may not get to the point where our government explicitly forbids Christians to speak in the name of Jesus, as is already true in some places. But the tide of cultural disapproval of exclusive religion, insisting on "One Way" and "One Book", is continuing to rise around us. And those who challenge the standing policy of their culture will have to decide if they want to stand with Peter and John, who responded to the Council's prohibition by saying, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard. "(Acts 4:19-20)

Real men...

2010-01-12T15:28:00.002-06:00

Every weekend of the Fall season, football fans get to watch their favorite gridiron gladiators battle for pigskin supremacy; or at least "show up" and do their very best against the opponent. Win or lose, every fan expects an all-out effort, to “leave it all on the field.” And even beyond the sports venue, this kind of effort and willingness to face up to any opponent, challenge or adversary is a key part of what most regard as “manliness”.

What it comes down to in practical terms is the "warrior" attitude that seeks to exert power, win the day, to remain un-bowed before whoever or whatever is confronting us in our quest for high-value objectives. There's a place for bravery and steadfast courage, but it gets easily confused in the human mind with raw power, especially the kind that's used for personal benefit.

So, when Paul tells the Church to “Stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13), it might be natural for modern minds to think of this in similar terms to what we expect in sports, business or war. The modern stereotype of a man includes things like aggression, bravery and a willingness to stand up to any opponent. Most boys play some form of “King of the hill,” and take this assertive, power-play mentality into their grown-up life. Those who can’t or won’t are often branded with some kind of negative label, like “wimp”, “cupcake” or “momma’s boy”.

This might explain a lot of unnecessary conflicts that spoil relationships in the home, the church and the workplace. When maturity is confused with power and conquest, people see competition instead of partnership, and humility is labeled as weakness.

But such images and expectations come into direct conflict with the example of Jesus Christ, who openly and unapologetically declared, “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29). I don’t think anyone who knew Jesus of Nazareth would have thought of Him as a “wimp”, or one who would back down from a confrontation with evil. The difference is that He stood up for God’s rights, not for His own. He bravely faced the cross without a hint of self-pity or reluctance, but stood silent before the accusations of Jerusalem’s leaders.

The “power-play” kind of manliness accounts for a great many church splits, many broken homes and other impaired relationships, and stands in stark contrast to the Bible’s image of “acting like men” (or mature women for that matter). Paul puts the whole matter of real maturity and strength into perspective, as he concludes his short exhortation in saying, “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14). Real men know how to live with real love, just like the greatest Man who loved the world in the greatest way, when He went boldly and powerfully to the cross for sinful mankind.

Why Christmas?

2009-12-23T14:36:00.003-06:00

With things that are familiar and such a part of our lives that we do them on autopilot, it's a good mental exercise to take a minute and remind ourselves what it's all about, or else we get to taking it for granted. We just had our annual reminder of the things we have to be thankful for, and now it's almost the climax of the Christmas season; a much bigger deal in terms of the hoopla most Americans devote to various events of partying, shopping, eating and gifting. All the more reason we have to be careful not to forget why this holiday came about to begin with.

Jesus came into our world in exactly the way God knew He needed to come, to fit the need of a problem between God and the human race. And only the right solution would address the particular problem that, according to the Bible, separates mankind from the relationship with God He created them for.

If the problem was man’s ignorance of God, then we would have needed a Teacher. But people fail in many things they know they should do/shouldn’t do. Knowing may be important, but it doesn't trump unwillingness.

If the problem was man’s own inability to please God, then we would have needed a Helper. But people often fail to please others, but not because they can’t; more like because they would rather please themselves.

If the problem was man’s errors in offending God, then we would have needed an Expert. But the greatest expert can't make people learn from mistakes, and even promises and vows won't guarantee a person won't repeat the same mistake.

If the problem was man’s stubborn attitude toward God, then we would have needed a Counselor. But people can be told again and again about their misdeeds, and, despite insights and lightbulbs in the mind, many don't change.

If the problem was man’s rebellious nature toward God, then we would have needed a Ruler. But people disobey their human rulers all the time, and even crucified the King of heaven when He came.

The real problem is man’s sin against God’s Person, a simple choice to do what we want to do, rather than what He wants us to do. And we do it, not because we don't know better, not because we just can't seem to get it right, nor because we're weak and incompetent. We disobey God, in spite of what we put into our memory cells and recite when prompted. We choose to prefer our own way because of what's in our hearts, not because of the content of our minds or the culture of our society or the training of our families. Simply put, we do it because we think it will benefit us in some way, and that's more important to us than anything someone else, including God, tells us is good for us.

The problem is sin, and so we needed a Savior, One who is a great Teacher, our Helper in trouble, an Expert in righteousness, a Wonderful Counselor, and the Ruler of all. But unless He came to save us from the penalty and power and corruption of our sinful hearts, all the rest would have been insufficient to solve the real problem. So the angels said to the shepherds, "Today is born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord!" I hope He's your Savior at this Christmas season!

The "apple" bites back

2009-12-10T13:54:00.002-06:00

Many people, including some who take the Bible seriously as the Word of God, regard the story of Adam and Eve's encounter with the Tree of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden to be a piece of allegory or mythology. Those who prefer the theory of evolution over the stories of Genesis put the whole Eden scenario into the same category as the Greek gods. Others who accept some of the Bible's history have a hard time seeing the incident at the tree, complete with a talking snake, as anything other than a figurative tale to explain how mankind got into the mess of this world, with death, disease and innumerable sorrows.

But, there are a number of reasons to consider the story of Eden as being exactly as presented by Moses, not the least of which is that Jesus and various inspired authors of Scripture regarded the events of Adam and Eve's fall into sin and death to be just as described in the Bible's opening chapters. That would seem reason enough for anyone who thinks of the Bible as more than a collection of religious tales and moral lessons, with no more claim to divine inspiration that the fables of Aesop. If the Bible is truly a cohesive Book, "God-breathed" and useful for equipping servants of the truth (2 Timothy 3:16), then we have to take seriously the unified voice of its many authors, who attest to the actual events of the Fall of Man.

But in addition to this, perhaps the most compelling reason, in view of what we know of our world and its persistent troubles, is that we would have no way to account for the universal presence of certain harmful, malevolent and destructive traits of the human personality, such as are found in humans of every nation, culture, language and stage of sophistication. From the most isolated tribe in the jungle to the denizens of urban concrete jungles, there has always been in human behavior a capacity for cruelty, violence and disregard for the welfare of others. Adam and Even went for the satisfaction of their desires with that "apple", but the apple bit back in a big way!

The fact that we often describe behavior that is particularly violent with the adjective "inhuman", is evidence that we also find in ourselves a nobler motive, a desire to lift ourselves above the merely animal behaviors of the wild creatures. But this too would be impossible to explain apart from the revelation that humans are not, as evolutionary doctrine would make us, a product of nothing more than "natural selection" and the genetic mutations of whatever happened to arise from the ooze of naturally occurring chemicals.

True, it is not every person on earth that acts out such natural passions that lead to violence and inhuman treatment of their fellows. And many act, for the most part, in ways that are gracious and generous to the well being of others. But that doesn't negate the fact that the tendency to act in gross selfishness is present, in those of great education and refinement as well as in those of humble and simple means and lives. When we see habits and lives marked by kindness and "good will to men," it is nonetheless in great distinction to the kind of "inhuman" deeds that our news channels report to us daily, and with increasing frequency.

What makes the difference then, if the capacity for cruelty and selfishness is indeed universal? Generically speaking, the belief that there is something greater than ourselves, a goal greater than our own well being, a reason for living that is larger than our small ambitions for self-improvement, each of these is capable of lifting men to a greater level of moral behavior in regard to their fellow men. So the committed Buddhist or the faithful Jew or the "peace-loving" Muslim may find reason in their philosophies for loving at least some of their neighbors.

But, for my money, all of these lack the power to overcome the universal nature of man's heart toward selfishness. When we choose actions that gratify our selfish nature, we put aside the noble convictions of mind in favor of the more pressing desires of the heart. And this is what separates the religions of Man from the redemption of Christ. Only He can change the heart and give men daily strength to walk by His Spirit, so as to put aside the desires of human nature. When that happens, humans are able to live up to the nobler aspirations of their hearts, which are there only because Man is created in the image of a noble, good and gracious God.

And that's what Christmas is about. God came personally into our sad world, with the intention of offering in the death of His Son a way out of the death and sorrow of Eden. Evolution has no credible explanation in its godless and random science for both aspects of man's nature, the dark and the light, the violent and the kind, the "inhuman" and the noble. Only the Bible yields that explanation, as well as the solution in God's own way of redemption, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Merry Christmas!

What kind of stimulation is needed?

2009-11-19T13:46:00.002-06:00

One can get different views of the effects of the government's "stimulus " initiatives, depending on which party is spinning the evidence. Whether any new jobs have really been created, or existing jobs saved due wholly or in part to the infusion of cash into the economy is uncertain. The "cash for clunkers" program seemed to have some immediate effect among auto dealers, but it's not clear this effect will be broad-based throughout the marketplace.

But, at the very least, you could give our government some credit for trying to do something to "kick start" an economic recovery. Not all such ideas are effective, but sometimes a poor idea is better than none, since, at least, a poor idea can be tweaked; which is more than you can do with the absence of ideas.

But, as we see illustrated often in the Bible, an economic stimulus often works against the long-term and greater interests of humankind. The love of money, says Paul, is "a root of all kinds of evil." There are worse things that happen to people than a lack of money. A lack of love, a lack of compassion, a lack of sensitivity to the voice of God, all these are far worse than a cash shortfall. And, when God works to stimulate the heart toward greater spiritual and moral vigor, He seems to do so more often through a lack of certain things, than through a sudden abundance of the same.

More people, for example, have searched for spiritual harmony with God because of a lack of peace or joy, than because they have all the peace and joy their heart desires. Many have sought the Lord when their lives "hit bottom" in some respect, rather than when they felt they were "on top", enjoying the view. More have been open to the Gospel of Christ by feeling a hunger for meaning and satisfaction in life, than those who feel already full and in need of nothing (such as the Laodicean church of Revelation ch. 3).

The saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" pretty much applies to people's motivation for spiritual renewal. But God's stimulus package for a broken heart, a crushed spirit, an empty and unfulfilling life, is not to give things that would make most humans feel less need of Him. This is, I believe, the meaning behind Jesus's pithy statements like, "Blessed are the poor", "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst," and "Blessed are you when men persecute you." We are more likely to seek the Lord when we feel something missing from our lives, than when we add up our abundance and say, "Soul, you are well off."

Eternal health insurance

2009-11-10T15:17:00.002-06:00

Who would have thought 20 years ago that the subject of health insurance could get such widespread national attention? Town hall meetings, TEA parties, Congressional debates, endless arguments on cable TV, just to name a few of the forums for airing our opinions on the questions of how best to insure everyone's health needs. It's amazing how many people can take such disparate views on a subject, each one being convinced he/she has taken the correct position.

Sounds a lot like the age-old debate over religious truth doesn't it? Some say there is no absolute truth (and they're absolutely certain of that), while some say all truths are equal and lead to the same place, while others claim only their truth is the right one.

Of course, in the area of "eternal health insurance", I don't think anyone would want their government to be making the key decisions, not even those who favor the "public option" in health insurance. And certainly we wouldn't want to leave to our legislators the responsibility of deciding which eternal plan fits best.

Fortunately, the Author of life has already passed a Law of eternal welfare, though in a most un-democratic way. God is the ultimate Autocrat (the power resides solely in Himself) when it comes to declaring how spiritually sick mankind may be healed. No debate, no pundits' opinions, no stumping to get everyone on board, just a simple declaration: All have sinned, all may be saved through faith in the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Not Blue Cross, but Calvary's Cross is what we need.

Anyone interested in their eternal health needs to think very seriously before they take any other "policy", or before they decide "I'm fine, I'm sure I won't need coverage." Whatever are the implications for the current health care debate, the implications for eternal health are far greater, and worthy of at least as much interest as people are giving to what's going on in Washington.

Maybe it's safer to be a dog.

2009-09-23T12:54:00.005-05:00

We get used to hearing stories these days about the animal rights crowd at PETA, the "People for Ethical Treatment of Animals", as they go to great lengths to protect animals of all sorts against "unethical" treatment. But normally we think of the Humane Society as more within bounds that the rest of us non-PETA types can agree with.

That opinion may change for some, after reading in today's Omaha news about a man being ticketed for animal cruelty, after the Humane Society followed up on a veternarian's concerns about the man taking his sick dog home, rather than paying for the animal to be treated or turning it over to the HS folks, who would have euthanized the dog.

According to the World-Herald reporter, "The Humane Society and Omaha police, acting on the veterinarian's concerns that Palmer might kill his own dog, went to his home Sept. 8 with a warrant, used a battering ram on the door and dug up the dog's body in the backyard." After determining through testing that the animal was not killed, but rather died of its "treatable" disease, the owner was issued the citation.

One wonders what the HS would do about farmers and other rural people, who in times past (maybe not really past) used their own form of "euthanizing" on a terminally sick or otherwise unwanted animal, in the form of a bullet that sent Rover packing to doggie heaven. To be clear, I have been grieved as any dog lover would be, to have taken two of them at different times to a vet or the Humane Society for their departure from this world. And now I see that it was a good thing for me that I didn't leave them at home on "dog hospice", thus running the risk of an unwelcome visit from the authorities.

I sympathize with those who would want us to have laws to protect dogs from cruelty, but why does it seem that many of the same folks who stick up for the "rights" of animals are also in the same political vein with those who deny such rights to an unborn child. I don't see anyone following a pregnant woman home to make sure she doesn't abort her child. No, that's her choice, says the group of people eager to defend a woman's right to choose.

It looks like it's safer to be a dog than a fetus. At least then you have people in governmental authority ready to fight for your well-being. This dog owner didn't have a "choice" over his own animal, while a woman can legally do whatever she wants with a human being inside her womb. What a world we live in!

What would you do if you were God?

2009-09-03T15:07:00.003-05:00

Obviously, asking people to pretend they're God, and then imagine what they might do with the various problems of this world and its people, is a nonsensical proposition, because no one really knows the mind of God enough to make an intelligent answer. But some might venture to say what they would like to do if they were the One to call the shots

For example, someone might say, "I'd get rid of all the bad people"; which, according to the Bible, would have totally cleaned out the place by now (including the speaker), since we read "there are none good, not even one." Or another might suggest, "I'd get rid of all sickness and war and poverty." But that too would be problematic, since all those bad things and more are the result of mankind's sinful condition, which, as already stated, includes us all.

So, what's a God to do? If He just took us all back to Eden where everything was perfect, besides hearing a lot of complaining because there's not a McDonald's in sight or a mall or cars and all the rest, He would have to do something with the human race, since we're at heart just like the ones who got expelled the first time around.

If He permanently altered our nature to make it impossible to disobey Him, we'd end up like the rest of the animal world, with no independent will and mind to do our own thing. We maybe wouldn't know the difference once the change was made, but He would know, and the whole purpose for making mankind in His image, to have a true relationship on the spiritual level, would be lost.

But if He just made us promise to be good this time, and then we showed we couldn't do any better than Adam and Eve, we would either be right back where we are now, or God would have to suspend the whole rules thing, and just let us be. And that would be far worse, if you can imagine a world where there are no laws, and hence no justice to enforce those laws, no barriers on human behavior to hold back unchecked human nature... well, that sounds a lot more like Hell than Heaven to me.

We may not be able to fully understand why God chose to let His image-bearing creations disobey Him and totally mess up a world He pronounced as "good", but, as any all-powerful and all-knowing Creator might do, He has a plan and a purpose in all of it. And, if He has allowed this world to go on its pathetic condition this long, it must be because He has a really great plan and purpose, especially for those who accept His mercy and forgiveness made available through His Son, Jesus Christ (which was part of the plan even before He made mankind). So I'm really glad He's God, and not me. I'd have made it even worse by now - how about you?

Who's calling please?

2009-08-22T07:27:00.002-05:00

The concept of a "call" to ministry, or any other action taken in the name of Christ, is a somewhat slippery one. After all, if God is still "calling" men and women to a specific task of service, it's a pretty subjective experience for the one called. The apostle Paul had a very definite experience on which to base his claim that he was "called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (1 Corinthians 1:1). But normally, when the New Testament speaks of God "calling" believers, the word is used in the sense of the call to salvation by the Holy Spirit.

We often hear of someone speak of a call to the professional ministry, meaning a sense of conviction and certainty concerning the will of God for that individual. But I've never heard of someone claiming to have had a "Damascus Road" experience, upon which to base their claim to be so called. Instead, it's the more ordinary sense of inner leading that is, for practical purposes, indistinguishable from, say, a doctor's sense of vocational calling, or what my wife experienced when, even as a young girl, she sensed she should train to be a nurse (and she did, and her career has supported that perception).

But, does that subjective conviction or sense amount to a divine calling? That's where the slippery part is. To automatically ascribe such a conviction to God gives room for all kinds of people to attribute their actions to God with justification, including those who commit acts of violence "in the name of God", or because "God told me to." Surely, there ought to be some way to connect such perceptions to the Bible, in order to separate an actual "calling" from an ordinary, and very human sense of psychological attraction to an idea or practice. Otherwise, how do we know who's really "calling"? It could be just the echo of our own mind, as is surely the case with those who feel they've been called to do things clearly outside the bounds of biblical truth.

And, case in point, today's news from the recent meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest and most liberal-leaning Lutheran denomination) tells how the vote of those gathered went in favor of allowing ELCA churches to be pastored by someone who is both homosexual and sexually active in a "committed" relationship. They aren't the first to take this step, just the latest. The justification for this action was expressed by one delegate as being consistent with God's leading in his own life, as he said, "The same-gender couples I know live in love and faithfulness and are called to proclaim the word of God as are all of us." (My emphasis)

So, which is it? Are they indeed "called" by God, or are they just "led" (by whatever influence or perception that might be)? If the Bible is a unified book of God's inspired writings, then there is no way to justify such a calling with the clear statements of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality; at least not for those who take the Bible's words at face value, and don't try to bend them to fit modern sensibilities on this subject. Such "same-gender couples" may "live in love and faithfulness". But that doesn't mean they are biblically in the same category as a heterosexual person in respect to the calling of God to do His work (not that all heterosexuals are cleared for takeoff in the ministry either).

So, who's calling? If God has called these individuals to proclaim His gospel in a professional sense, then those who interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle are mistaken (as the gay-friendly churches are indeed saying). But if that's the case, then I've wasted 35 years of Bible study on a book that can't be trusted to say what it means. Either that, or God has changed His mind of this subject and I just didn't get the memo.

The more things change...

2009-08-18T09:28:00.004-05:00

The pace of change in modern life is sometimes hard to keep up with, especially in the area of technologies in business, medicine and everyday living. But like the old saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Despite all the I-phones, CAT scans, video conferencing, microwaves and the like, the basic stuff of life isn't really different from the days when the Bible was written.

Reading through the first chapter of Romans this morning, it was clear once again that the things that most trouble our lives from day to day are pretty much the same as what troubled society in Paul's day. And the root of it all, placed in the human heart and mind, is still to be observed in the daily news and the daily grind we're all facing.

If anything, the many changes of how we go about our lives have only served to magnify the fact that Paul identifies as the key to understanding the human condition. And that fact is this: Though men have the witness of God in their hearts, the evidence of His creative power and nature as seen in the physical universe, they nonetheless "do not honor Him or give thanks."

Does that describe every human being? No, there are many who "fear God and keep His commandments," but only because God has, by His grace, revealed His word to men in the Bible and most especially in His Son, Jesus Christ. But He doesn't compel anyone to believe, and the decline in general moral and social behavior that is the stuff of our daily news reports comes exactly in correspondence to a steep decline in Christ-centered, Biblical spirituality in American public life.

We have expelled God from our schools, even punishing those who pray to Him at a recent school meeting. We have seen skeptics openly ridiculing the Church and her Savior in movies, books and other venues. We have seen legal groups defending a "do-your-own-thing" philosophy in the name of First Amendment rights, while attempting to restrict the rights of a Christian to wear a cross in the office. We have seen marriage reduced to a user-defined term for any two individuals in a long-term relationship to each other. We have defended the speech that was formerly considered vulgar and improper for public audiences, while insulting some who insist on praying in the name of Jesus.

We have seen, in one generation, the moral tone of society reversed, so that behaviors that were disapproved in the 50's are now on open display, while those who still publicly disapprove are called names, instead of those who do such things. And this is exactly how Paul concludes the first chapter of Romans, where he says that, in spite of the fact that the Bible predicts a destiny of eternal and spiritual death for pursuing behaviors forbidden by God, "they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

I-phones and microwaves notwithstanding, nothing's really changed here.

The confusion of certainty

2009-08-17T08:36:00.002-05:00

The expression, "What was ___ thinking?", whether applied to ourselves or to another person, is an acknowledgment of how easy it is to become confused by one's own sense of certainty about an idea, a conviction or desire. It's a common enough thing for us all, to get attached to an idea that "sounds right" or maybe one which seems to go along with other ideas, and then we stop reasoning about the idea, to the point that we swallow it "hook, line and sinker."

Much of the time such confusion is harmless enough, and produces embarrassment but not much else. But often such disjuncture between conviction and reality can be tragic. In one of history's most horrific examples, the Nazi party managed to sway much of the German population into believing the idea of Jewish inferiority, to the point that genocide was thought to be normal. But no less horrific is the assumption, so firmly lodged in millions of minds, that a pregnant woman's right to choice in her own medical affairs should extend to the fetus growing within her, to the point that she may be exempted from the normal laws protecting the life of another person.

In today's local news, two stories stand side-by-side to illustrate this confusion of certainty. In one report, a Nebraska woman is charged with manslaughter for stabbing a pregnant teenager, killing the fetus in her womb. The teenager is expected to recover from her wounds, while the manslaughter charge is applied to the unborn child. Now, if the teenager had done the same with a tool of some kind or an abortive drug, she would be exercising her "choice", and subject to no consequences other than some people's disapproval. For another person to do that without the teen's "permission" is considered manslaughter.

The whole thing screams, "What's wrong with this picture?" We don't charge people with manslaughter for killing "tissue", or whatever the pro-choice people call the fetus to justify murdering it by abortion. But somehow the same legal system that doggedly protects a woman's choice also applies personhood to that same unborn child, in a case when its death is at the hands of someone else who makes such a choice.

And then, a second article concerns Dr. Leroy Carhart, whose abortion clinic in Bellevue, NE has already received a lot of negative publicity for years. Now, in the wake of the killing of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Dr. Carhart is aiming to raise the fallen banner of Dr. Tiller, known nationwide for his many late-term abortions. Dr. Carhart's mission is motivated by his conviction that, "We have to keep abortion available for the women of this country."

Compare that sentiment to our current legal situation in regard to assisted suicide. Obviously you wouldn't take a person to court who had just committed suicide, but neither are there indications in the legal code that it's unlawful to take your own life if you're suffering a terminal illness. But to assist someone in doing that, even with their permission, is still subject to prosecution. No one with any legal or social standing is saying, "We have to keep patient-assisted suicide available for the people of this country." And one who tried to make such a stand, Jack Kevorkian, went to jail for his convictions.

What can explain such a schizophrenic confusion among so many otherwise intelligent people? Perhaps the idea that a fetus is either a person or it's not, take your pick but don't try to have it both ways, is a bit too subtle a distinction in logic for those whose aim is to give a woman the unfettered freedom to end her pregnancy for her own reasons.

Let there be no confusion on this point: I'm all for supporting a woman's choice to become pregnant. And if she wants to make that choice, then let her be careful to avoid all situations where a pregnancy may happen. But once an egg and sperm combine to begin the God-ordained process of birth of a separate person, then the choice to end that life is not hers to make; anymore than it would be her choice to kill a terminally ill person, even with his permission. To say anything different seems to me, in Spock's words, "illogical."

Happiness vs. joy

2009-08-06T06:33:00.002-05:00

In this morning's "Faith & Reason" column, a regular feature of the USA Today online edition, a book review is featured, written by Lindsey Norman, who confesses that "I love Christ with all my heart, but wrestle with God's goodness at times." A common problem for many, who have a hard time reconciling their human interpretations of "goodness" with the sovereign goodness of God.

It's an age-old problem, going back to Job and his friends, who believed, as many still do, that "bad things" in one's life are a sure sign that God is displeased, and is therefore punishing the one who has incurred His wrath. The difference between Job and his would-be counselors was that they assumed he had messed up royally due to the awful mess he was in, while Job insisted something terrible had happened in God's bookkeeping, since he could think of nothing he had done sufficient to earn the whipping he and all his family had received.

With this "wrestling" in the background, Ms. Norman goes on to comment on a recent book, "The Geography of Bliss", in which the author tries to determine what nation on earth may have the happiest people, and who the least so. After reading the book, Ms Norman acknowledges, like many before her, that "Happiness is difficult to come by and, ultimately, a challenging pursuit."

Then Ms. Norman follows up with her life-lesson gathered from this insight: "I concluded that there is a distinct difference between joy and happiness. Joy is an overall state of mind, a deliberate decision. We choose whether or not to have a positive attitude and outlook on life. Happiness on the other hand is connected to external circumstances."

Again, this is a conclusion that many before her have reached, and, while I can be "happy" for her discovery, it could have come sooner for her or anyone else by learning from the experiences of the apostle Paul, especially as recorded in the letter we know as Philippians. Paul's "happiness" factor was severely strained by an ongoing list of troubles (recorded in 2 Corinthians, chap. 11), and, in the case of the Phillippian letter, by being a captive of the Romans, not for criminal activity but for Christ.

Philippians, rather than being the report of an unhappy prisoner, is so full of joy that many Bible students have considered joy to be the central theme of the letter. Personally, I think "attitude" or "life view" is more the theme, with joy as one of the results of an attitude like Paul's. He rejoiced so persistently because his life view", stated in chap. 1 as "For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain," was the deciding factor in how he felt about his circumstances.

So, even an imprisonment that kept him from his preaching travels was seen as a blessing, as he now had a "captive audience" in the guards assigned to watch him. (Chap. 1) And, though some people took advantage of his incarceration to preach the gospel of Christ "out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment." In spite of this, he said firmly, "I will rejoice!"(Chap 1) He found joy, not in his situation, but in the spiritual condition of the church, especially when they were "of one mind" in Christ (Chap. 2). He knew joy because he had "learned to be content" in his circumstances, discovering through all his trials that "I. can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Chap. 4)

Anyone who would be "happy" should spend a generous amount of time in Philippians, with the outcome of choosing to adopt the life-view of the great apostle of joy. Paul knew, as expressed in many other of his letters, that God's goodness is not limited, in this sin-corrupted world, to what we call the "good times", or to anything else defined by this world's circumstances. Rather, God simply is good, and therefore saves sinners and leads them to experience His goodness through His sovereign ability to "work all things together for good to those who love Him." (Romans 8:28). To live in the outworking of that goodness is truly joyful.

One size God for all?

2009-07-12T19:15:00.002-05:00

For some time, many students of the Bible's teaching about the end times have considered that one ingredient in the end scenario would be a one-world religion; a blending of the world's various faiths and spiritual philosophies into a common denomination of religion for everyone. The synthesis of all faiths would become the preferred religion, a standard for all to follow; and Christians would thus become the enemies of the world-religion and its all-inclusive dogmas.

Given the world's religious makeup, however, it seems unlikely that Christians would be the only ones alienated by a "one size fits all" religion. Indeed, the current religious climate shows that Muslims are every bit as devoted to their own doctrines as any Christian fundamentalist or orthodox Jew. And that's why some people are coming to view fundamentalism of any type, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, as dangerous to world peace and harmony. And there's truth to that feeling. If there was a one-world religion that tried to merge all faiths into one unrecognizable blob, Christians wouldn't be the only ones objecting.

Nor is it likely, for pretty much the same reason, that John Lennon's vision of world peace could ever be fulfilled, in which he asked us all to imagine a world with "no religion", thus removing the source of much of the world's conflicts and enmity between peoples. There's just too many who would never be willing to give up their cherished beliefs for the sake of world harmony.

That's why I don't think a one-world religion or no religion is as likely to happen as a "unified-world" religion; a "big tent" view of religions, with room for all faiths and non-faiths under the same umbrella of acceptability. The only religions left out would be those that still insist on their exclusive right to be the "true faith"; which is exactly what Christians must hold to if they are to be true to the exclusive claims of Christ as the "way, truth and life."

No better picture of this unified world religion could be seen than, of all places, at Michael Jackson's funeral. Jackson was a co-author of the song "We Are the World", originally performed in 1985 for a benefit concert on behalf of African nations. The song was performed at Jackson's funeral, with a visual background composed of various religious symbols arranged together in an way as to emphasize that all faiths are valid. The clear message of the whole scene was "All faiths are of equal value, and deserve equal respect." It's the religious version of Rodney King's "Let's all just get along."

Even some sincere Christians like George W. Bush want to gloss over religious conflicts by supposing that Christians and Muslims "believe in the same God." That would be like saying we all believe in the same George W. Bush, except that some say he has two daughters, while others insist he has two sons and a wife named Diane. At some point we have to decide if world harmony may just not be worth the price of discarding the truth.

If such a unified world religion ever takes hold of enough people (as it has already become the preferred view of many), then Christians will be given a line in the sand that they cannot cross without denying the exclusive claims of their Savior, Jesus Christ, who insisted that "no man comes to the Father except through Me." In the end, the religion that will be persecuted by the world will not be those who cling to their religious truths, but those who are willing to die for the fact that there can be only one Truth, and His name is Jesus.

What kind of body is the Church?

2009-06-23T09:31:00.002-05:00

The apostle Paul used the analogy of the human body a lot to describe the Church, and it's a fitting comparison, at least in theory. Like the human body, the Church is a diverse collection of parts, personalities, gifts and backgrounds, with many different roles and jobs for its members to do. And all of it is meant to be united under one Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:22-23) And, if one might wonder why the unity of heart and effort that is supposed to characterize the Church is not more evident in real life, the most obvious place to look for an answer would be in the Church's relationship to her Head.

When a human body is sick, it may be due to one of many different diseases that afflict its various parts. But when a person's entire body is devastated by a system-wide disease that affects the movements and functions of the whole body, it's usually a problem somewhere in the brain, or an interruption in the nervous system that gets its signals from the brain. Parkinson's, Cerebral Palsy, paralysis, strokes and other brain injuries, and many other dysfunctions can totally disable an otherwise healthy body.

Unlike the human body, the Body of Christ has a Head that always does His job. But the Church Body, and its individual members, have a will of their own that may prevent the Head from giving the right directions. So with the Church, there may be different members who are suffering the effects of spiritual sicknesses, like undisciplined desires, lust, pride or ambition; but when the whole body of a local church or a church denomination is reeling from the effects of sinful practices, fleshly politics and worldly ambitions, you can bet there's a significant loss of communication with the Head.

If the Church was always following her Head, there would be no fractious splits, no heresies, no drifting into worldliness, no rivalries and disputes and other things that Paul attributes to the "deeds of the flesh." There would be no "arms" of the church going off in a direction totally contrary to His Word. If Christ was truly directing His Body, there would be harmony of heart and effort in carrying out His mission of making disciples; there would be unity of faith in His Word, instead of myriad theologies and sects competing with each other.

Instead, the Church is seen by an increasingly skeptical world as "spastic", given to "convulsions" and widely divergent signals in communication that totally distort the unity of message and mind that Paul sought for the Body of Christ when he urged Christians to "make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose." (Philippians 2:2) How different would be the history and present life of the Church, if the apostle's words had been lived out on a world-wide scale. Though we can't reverse history, we could at least commit ourselves in our own local churches to making sure our Head is in charge of His Church, rather than just being attached to a dysfunctional Body.

What is the Church, really?

2009-06-18T21:26:00.002-05:00

It would be an understatement to say that the Church, in her almost 2000 years of existence, has presented a varied and often contradictory picture to the rest of the world. At times full of compassion and service, at times more of a spiritual police force; an organization at most times more than an organism.

There may be many reasons to account for this, but a point of analysis occurred to me recently, while preparing a message on the Church; and that point has to do with what the Church is, which should be driving what the Church does. The difference between the Church and Israel is much more than a comparison of the Law of Moses vs. the Age of Grace, or one nation vs. all nations.

Fundamentally, Israel was related by birth as the seed of Abraham, called to please God by living out their faith in Him through obedience to statutes, doctrines and practices. The Church, on the other hand, is related by second birth as the spiritual seed of Abraham, called to relate to God through faith in the Savior, whose obedience to the will of God led Him to the cross, where He fulfilled the sacrifices of Moses' law for all who trust in His death on their behalf.

The bottom line of this contrast is that Israel was a people united by their common ancestry and by a relationship to God as a nation. They were charged with not only obeying the Law, but with enforcing obedience on the rest of the nation, so as to remain a holy people. The nation's holiness was a direct result of scrupulous observance of the Law, though mere legalism was never meant to substitute for the faith modeled by father Abraham.

The Church, meanwhile, is a people united by a common Spirit, and by a personal relationship to God as born-again individuals. The Church, unlike Israel, is not charged with enforcing the holiness of her members, because each one is already holy (thus addressed as "saints"). Church discipline was practiced, not to mandate holiness, but to prevent the fleshly behavior of some "so-called brethren" from diluting the testimony of the Church, which is supposed to be "lights in a crooked and perverse" world.

The Church has too often in her history acted as if Christians were just "Israel 2.0", an updated version of the nation of the Ten Commandments and laws of the Old Testament. Many subgroups of the Church have used updated versions of priests (ignoring the fact that all of us are priests under one Great High Priest). Many use rules of conduct patterned after the Ten Commandments, while some try to use those commands as the basis of a moral society by placing them in front of the courthouse; ignoring the fact that the Law can't change anyone since it can only convict, not change the heart.

The Church has engaged in countless wars over doctrine and practice, as if trying to "purge the camp of sin", like Israel in the wilderness, attempting to enforce standards and rules as each one sees them. Of course, the many and varied interpretations of those standards is why there's so many different kinds of churches, and so many different schools of thought about how the Church is supposed to be changing the world. Indeed, doctrine and practice are important, but not as the basis for our holiness.

The Church is a holy people by virtue of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit; and, when we walk with Christ in a common love for Him and for one another, we allow Christ to express His power and grace through us. When we demonstrate the light of Christ in us to a lost world, we exert more power than any crusade or inquisition could do by brute force. And that's something that good old Moses, on his best day, couldn't do.

Bibles? How Dare They!

2009-05-20T10:22:00.002-05:00

Some of the parents of kids attending the high school in Frisco, TX (a small town north of Dallas), were expressing outrage in a Fox News report today. One mother was quoted as saying, "I was never notified by the schools that they were going to allow this. I was a little shocked." Some parents "even contacted the police about their children's safety."

What nefarious deeds could be causing such a ruckus? Subversive, anti-government materials? Free drugs? Pedophiles? No, it's the Gideons, handing out Bibles in the school, or on the sidewalk outside. How dare they!

School officials insist they were in compliance with the law by allowing the Gideons to come into the school to set up a display, with the provision that no direct conversations take place to urge students to take a Bible or listen to any Bible-friendly exhortations. And, the school's PTA president "didn't feel like [the Bible] was being pushed upon" students at the school. But no matter, for some parents concerned for their children's welfare, bringing Bibles anywhere near the school may as well have been setting up a marijuana kiosk in the cafeteria.

Meanwhile, schools in other cities have been allowing Muslim speakers to come and make presentations on Islamic beliefs, for the sake of "awareness", including a school last year in Houston, where students were taught "the Five Pillars of Islam and how to pray five times a day and wear Islamic religious garb." A similar "presentation" on Christianity would have doubtless started a riot among parents in Frisco.

This kind of selective secularization of our society is not new, and not likely to be diminished by the passing years, as long as the "correct" thing in our culture is to keep religion (specifically the Christian version) as far away from public life as possible. It makes you wonder if some people are going to try to take Jesus to court when He returns. Actually, they will be in court, and He's the Judge.

Peace or appeasement?

2009-05-15T09:01:00.002-05:00

I'm sure there were many admirable qualities about Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who served England as the Second World War was taking shape in Europe. But today, he's best known for assuring the world that there was "peace in our time," based on nothing more than an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler. The difficulty of balancing peace with appeasement has been ever since perfectly illustrated by Chamberlain's eagerness to win peace, to the point that he could not discern how great a price should be paid for it.

This remains a thorny question among politicians of this vastly diverse world scene, and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are but one example of this. It's a difficult issue to work through, not the least of reasons being the religious differences between all parties involved. So it has been common for some who make their living as "ambassadors for peace" to try their hand at creating the right atmosphere for a lasting end to conflict.

So comes the current Catholic pope, Benedict, to make his appeal to the warring nations, and, of course, he bases his exhortations on the theology of peace as he understands it. He is reported in today's headlines saying, "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new, that history need not be repeated, that memories can be healed, that the bitter fruits of recrimination and hostility can be overcome, and that a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman, for the whole human family, and in a special way for the people who dwell in this land so dear to the heart of the Savior."

Now, the religious and the secular viewpoints have a common interest in peaceful relations among mankind, but they employ very different methods, especially if you take seriously the words of Jesus on the subject. Jesus said very bluntly, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) Of course, Jesus is also called "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), so we can't call Him a warmonger for such language. But we must understand that true peace in the Bible's view begins with peace between men and God, and the Gospel is God's "peace mission", whereby, according to Paul, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19)

The Bible states that, apart from the "justification of faith", there can be no "peace with God" (Romans 5:1). Without that, there is no real chance of lasting peace among men. The things that divide mankind are just too deep, too strongly felt, too tied to culture and tradition, and mostly too blocked by the core human motives of self-preservation to permit any worldly or political solution to human conflict, at least without significant alteration of the basic operations of the brain; which has been contemplated by many like Huxley (Brave New World), or Orwell (1984).

Meanwhile, it is a worthy objective to work toward a cessation of open warfare among nations, and most would grant that Benedict has nothing but the sincerest motives for doing his part. But to call men to have hope in "a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman" is a long shot at best, given the depth of differences that divide the people responsible for actually enforcing such a peace. And, to imply that "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new" in the context of worldly peace among nations that do not agree on the more fundamental issue of gaining peace with God, is an attempt to short-cut the Gospel message into a "let's just all get along" sermon. That not only misleads any who would still hope for world peace, it seriously distorts the message of the Gospel, and turns biblical peace into worldly appeasement.

A Day of Prayer?

2009-05-08T10:24:00.002-05:00

When the apostle Paul told us, by way of the Thessalonian letter, to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), the idea of a "day of prayer" seems to maybe send the wrong message to some of our citizens. Sure, it's a fine reason to draw the Church together to pray with one voice, as happened at a "prayer concert" last night at a large Omaha church. But do we need a day on the calendar, and one set by Harry Truman at that (a fine gentleman, but not well known for his evangelical convictions), to bring the Church together for prayer?

And, with the religious climate in our nation today, can we really hope to have a "national" prayer day that will in any way be satisfying to all, even among those who accept the name "Christian", and even less those who call themselves some other name or no-name. James Dobson is miffed at the president for not sending a cabinet member to the event at the Capitol, and now a "source" claims that conditions were set on who could come from the White House, i.e., they had to be "pro-life." An understandable qualification from Dobson's view of an event built on prayer to the God of life, but further limiting the scope of a day intended to bring the nation to prayer.

Meanwhile, others want to open up the appeal for prayer to all comers, regardless of the content of their faith statements. Now, as I understand the Bible, God Himself puts limits on the kind of prayer He responds to, i.e., that which comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is to say, "in Jesus' name." God may "hear" other prayers, and in His sovereign will may allow a person to follow that route to eventually find the truth that is through the One Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ. But that's not to say He regards all prayers as equal, just being happy that at least folks are praying, not cursing.

Maybe it's just impossible these days to get everyone to agree on the meaning of a "day of prayer", so it might be better to just call the Church of Jesus together (and maybe a lot more often than yearly would be a good idea), and make it clear that only those who pray in the Spirit of God (Ephesians 6:18) are expected to join in. At least then we won't get people confused by thinking at "all prayers are equal."

Two kinds of design

2009-04-22T14:10:00.003-05:00

Spring is, if not everyone's favorite time of year (some, like my wife and I, like Fall even more), is at least a popular one with, I'm guessing, almost every person. The whole "winter's over" mood is a great thing in itself; to say nothing of flowers and other flowering plants. The magnolia trees, lilac bushes and other blossoming things around Omaha and other cities can only be enjoyed in the Spring.

And seeing all this as one drives through the city makes an interesting contrast between two kinds of creation by design. You have all the varying expressions of God's design on one hand; His use of color and structure, animated and still life, and all of it continually reproducing or, in the case of non-living things, to preserve itself according to the power He gave each living thing to do so.

On the other hand, you have man's handiwork of design, instantly recognizable in its contrasting style. Whereas God constructs His creation by means of life processes and other means that produce the "natural" look, humans can only make use of things God made. This makes for a great difference; one which we should marvel at, even as Paul said, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." (Romans 1:20). And, as God's nature is meant to be "clearly seen" through His creation, men are pronounced by Paul as being "without excuse" when they fail to recognize and honor God for His creative work.

So you have two kinds of design: one dynamic, always moving and changing, the other static, able only to decline and deteriorate, never grow from within. You have one that follows the principles of life, and so grows in sometimes unpredictable ways, like the evergreen tree above, growing around the rock it took root by. You have another design, man's, that must follow rules of "what works" in fashioning the finished product. And when some of men's designs follow a more dynamic principle, such as using heat or pressure to modify the shape of something, they are using a force available to them in what was already created by God.

No wonder a poet once spoke of being unable to see a "thing as lovely as a tree." The trees of Spring, and every other season, give evidence of a grander scheme of design than anything mankind can duplicate, because man can only make use of living things, not create or sustain them. How is it then, that some can look at human design and praise its creators, while they look at God's far greater design and call it "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"? If they cannot see the hand of God in His designs, it's no wonder then that they can't see the wisdom and glory of God in His Word. Maybe they need to spend more time looking at trees.

How do we now vote?

2009-04-17T08:08:00.003-05:00

Conservative evangelicals have self-identified with the Republican party for a few decades, mostly over issues like abortion and gay rights. That coalition of interests has caused a number of debates, depending on who the Republican standard-bearer has been. John McCain alienated a number of Christian voters with a more moderate stance on some issues like immigration, and was dissed by others on his pro-fetal tissue votes.

But the political world and the spiritual world are always two different spheres of ambition and thinking, and Christians may have a lot more to worry about than McCain and embryonic testing. As reported by CNN, "Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one. Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned."

The Republicans are first interested in sitting in the White House, not standing before the White Throne of Revelation 20. Political expediency always trumps religion with the average politician, and compromise, not religious conviction, is the path to success for most with the voters.

There are many who think the Republican party has been too cozy with the "religious right", as they call evangelical voters and those who speak for them. And I have often been concerned that the lines have been drawn too straight to divide between one party and another, as they relate to the issues a biblically-based citizen would call important. Democrats of today are in some ways a lot like Republicans of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt's day, at least on social issues like civil rights and equal justice.

Too bad for Christians there isn't a political party that sets its platform by the Bible, instead of by a national committee. But then, such a party would not likely succeed in getting a major candidate elected or even nominated. And, just so we recall, we're not citizens of this world anyway, and shouldn't expect to have our interests fairly represented in our government, any more than they were in Paul's day.

Our job is to testify to the resurrection and gospel of Jesus Christ, the real King. Give to Caesar what is his, OK, but don't expect him to "earn your vote." And if you vote for him, don't expect him to feel the same way about all your issues. But maybe he's still a better earthly ruler than the other guy (or girl). In the end, it's still the Lord who oversees them all, for His own "platform".

More about expectations

2009-03-30T08:05:00.004-05:00

A few more reflections about what we may expect from the world we live in, at least in respect to the bad things that happen to us and others.

Making news this morning is another story of murder, or perhaps murder/suicide. Very sad either way, but the part that makes this story stand out from other sad accounts of killings around the Omaha area, at least for some citizens, is the part of town it took place in: the Dundee neighborhood. Not the north side, synonymous in some minds with random violence and gang shootings, but a mid-town area known for its shady streets and old, large homes and, presumably, peaceful atmosphere.

Now, if trouble in this world is an irregularity from the goodness we might expect, then it would make sense that troubles like crime and murder will occur only where "bad" people congregate, like gangs, criminals and ne'er-do-wells. Under that theory, "good" people in "good" neighborhoods should be immune from the disease of violence. If violence invades such sanctuaries of peace as the Dundee neighborhood, it's a strange and tragic event. But if violence and other social troubles are evidence of a deeper disruption in the soul of all men, of which violence is only one manifestation, then no neighborhood can put up walls to keep out a problem that actually comes from within.

It may be true that violence occurs more often in some parts of our cities than others. But does that mean that only "good" people live in the less afflicted areas? It seems obvious beyond dispute that some parts of town have a greater share of critical factors, like poverty, social desperation and other elements like drug trafficking that often follow in the wake of hopelessness and human struggle. Add these to a human mind separated from the goodness of God, and you have a recipe for violence that is going to happen more often than in areas where those "extra" elements are less prevalent.

But, even in the more violent-prone areas of our city, the violence is still a relatively small percentage of the total population, and is resented deeply by the majority of people who will never take a gun with them to their car, so they can shoot recklessly at whoever is in their sights. And in the other areas, there are still troubled people, feeling just as desperate and equally without answers for their burdens. If they also are separated in their souls from the God who loves them and wants to give them a real hope in Jesus Christ, then violence may break out in "good" neighborhoods as well. It's just what we should expect.

What would we expect?

2009-03-29T19:23:00.003-05:00

A lot of people get fixated on the conditions of this world of ours, as if there's something wrong with the fact that there's a lot wrong with the world. Yes, there's a lot of troubles and disasters, sickness and wars, misfortunes and Murphy's Law, tragedies and heartaches. But, really, what would we expect?

Is there any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that would support the assumption that this world should be better than it is? Does an observation of other worlds lead to the conclusion that something is dreadfully out of sync about our world, that it is not as good, benevolent, predictable or supportive to our desires and plans as it ought to be? In fact, some people reason from the brokenness of this world to the faulty conclusion that there is no God. Atheist author Richard Dawkins wrote, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, as bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." He wrongly assumes that this problematic condition of the universe is the way it always has been, rather than something it has become.

But, if you assume that this world's problems and ills, in all their varied forms and descriptions, are a result of the brokenness of this world, as opposed to some kind of contradiction of its goodness, much less a proof of the godless emptiness of the world, then all the mishaps, woes, burdens and griefs appear as what would be expected, rather than something out of place. After all, if you broke your arm in a fall, you wouldn't expect it to feel the same as the unbroken one, would you?

And broken, corrupted, damaged and downfallen is exactly what this world is, according to the Bible. Because of mankind's fall into sin, death and disease, trouble and travails have come upon the whole world and all who live in it. But Paul revealed that this corruption is not without purpose, when he said, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:20-21)

Man's spiritual rebellion from His Creator has had consequences for the whole world, and even the universe. God allowed the creation to be corrupted by man's sin, rather than leave sinful mankind in a perfect environment where they would forget about God even more than they do in this broken world. Mankind is the centerpiece of God's spiritual creation, so it is to be expected that a separation of man from the blessings of God would be felt in the physical creation as well.

But there is good news amid the trouble. The restoration of the world will follow the same schedule as the spiritual restoration of mankind, which will come only when God is once again ruling over the whole world, and every knee bows before King Jesus! Until that day, God is using the corruption of this world to highlight and even support the restoration of man's heart through the salvation of His Son, Jesus. We may expect trouble in this world, but God has promised to use "all things", even trouble, to accomplish His will and righteousness. We may also expect that as well!

More spiritual - less religious

2009-03-15T07:40:00.005-05:00

A recent survey showed that Americans are "less religious" than 10 years ago, with atheists growing as much or more than any other category. That shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with the spiritual landscape of the 90's and early 2000's. There have been many signs that point to Americans' loss of enthusiasm for exclusive religions, that is, those that insist on a "one-way" view of God and how to find eternal peace with Him.

Yet, the survey shows a growth in the Evangelical segment, which may also show the degree to which many are searching for answers in a society that increasingly tells them there are no certain answers. The great divide between those who take seriously the claims of Jesus Christ to be "the Way, the Truth, the Life" on one hand, and those on the other hand who ridicule such exclusive truth-claims appears to be growing into a "Grand Canyon" of cultural division.

Who would have suspected in the 80's an atheist, and a militant, angry atheist at that, could pack out a concert venue in conservative Omaha, Nebraska, to give people an earful of anti-religious rhetoric. Yet author and lecturer Richard Dawkins was invited to do that recently, because there are more and more people who are tired of the divisions of religious camps fighting it out over whose truth is best. They're ready to pitch the whole lot, and declare all religions as "hazardous to health."

Yet, people everywhere are seeking spirituality of some kind, from Buddhism to various forms of New Age pantheism. The human spirit's yearning for knowledge of what is beyond us is hardier than the efforts of atheists and neo-pagans. But spirituality isn't the same as religion, and it can come in any number of flavors not specific to any religious dogma. So an abundance of spiritual activity can easily co-exist with a decline in religious life.

All this fits well with the Bible's warnings that the latter days will be marked by a "falling away" from the truth, and an increase in "lawlessness", which is people acting contrary to God's law, if not also opposite to man's law; and we are seeing a lot of both. Challenging times for presenting a one-way claim for truth, as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but no more so than Jesus Himself faced against a hostile world.

The ultimate bail-out

2009-02-24T09:53:00.002-06:00

Just a quick thought, as our new president is putting the finishing touches on his first address to Congress tonight. Whether this "stimulus plan", on top of other bail-out programs, is going to be effective against a raging recession and losses of homes, jobs and pension values - that's all quite uncertain, even to him.

But just think by way of contrast of the "ultimate bail-out" God provided by the gift of His Son for the unpayable debt of sin that mankind incurred against the righteousness and holiness of our Creator. One price - the death of a perfect sacrifice, paid once for all on the cross, and, as a result, every single person who "files for assistance," through a surrendered heart of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, has experienced complete and eternal deliverance from spiritual bankruptcy and eternal loss of a heavenly home.

The outcome of the congressional bail-out may or not be efficient for the need of the economy. But perhaps a far greater outcome of the recession will be that many people stop trusting in material things for the well-being of their souls, and turn in faith and obedience to the God who made them to know eternal well-being through His Son. As for our nation's economy, maybe it will turn out to the best for people who realize that earthly riches are indeed a "sandy" foundation to built their lives on, compared to the Rock of Ages!

Got bread?

2009-02-10T09:16:00.002-06:00

In many places of the world, bread is still referred to as "the staff of life." It's so basic, not to mention affordable in areas where pizza and burgers are not (even if they get delivery). No wonder Jesus chose bread as a symbol for the offering of His body on the cross for life of the world.

Jesus made the unequivocal promise, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:35) Though He was speaking to people in a largely subsistence economy, where poverty and physical hunger was common, Jesus promised an end to hunger of the soul; an end to thirst for true life of the inner man. Hunger of an empty stomach is still a common problem in our world, but soul-hunger is far more common, and far worse in its consequences.

If one can make "food" comparisons, you could say that many try to survive on other things than the "true bread" of Christ for their souls. And it's not a new phenomenon, as God said through Isaiah the prophet, "Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance." (Isaiah 55:2)

Instead of real bread, many try to get by on "junk food" for their souls, just as many do for their physical nutrition. No matter how many nutritionists warn about the dangers of overdoing it on cheeseburgers and fries, the drive-through line continues to back up at most fast food places. And no matter how many people experience the soul-starving effects of living as though the human soul could survive on fun, entertainment, money and pleasure, the only thing slowing the consumption of such things has been a slumping economy, rather than a response to God's invitation to "eat what is good."

Without the Bread of life, people are starving their souls, both in the sense of dying in spiritual isolation from the true Life that is Jesus Christ, and in the sense of many people who, while being born-again believers, are nonetheless getting by on a meager diet of the living Word of life, rather than being hungry for "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." No wonder the Church is so close to the rest of society in the statistics of personal problems, addictions, family disruptions, etc. You can't build a strong soul on a diet that consists mostly of spiritual junk food anymore than a strong, healthy body is built on a steady diet of Pizza Hut.

The Bread of life is freely available to all who will "delight themselves in abundance." Bon appetit!

The storm that keeps on storming

2009-01-29T09:15:00.006-06:00

An article on CNN's web site this morning features the view of an economist from the University of Virginia, who sees the current financial mess as a "perfect storm" of money woes, created over the past decade and more by folks eager to make money by nothing more than making money. According to Peter Rodriguez, people investing in the housing market at its peak found new ways to increase their profits, while also increasing the chances of a meltdown.

Rodriguez reviews the run-up to the crisis, coming by a wild increase in housing prices and a decline in interest rates. As he puts it, "This encourages all sorts of risky behavior by individuals looking to buy homes, and it encourages banks to lend because, in an environment where prices rise, they're making lots of money." The whole house of cards finally collapsed when enough risky loans had been made to people unable to keep up the payments, and banks had more money out in bad loans than they could support in cash.

Now the storm keeps on stormin', and millions of ordinary people who would never think about risky investments are having their own bank accounts wiped out. It certainly brings to mind the Bible's warning about the "love of money", which is "a root of all kinds of evil", and sets men up for "foolish and harmful desires" (1 Timothy 6:9-10) Too bad more investors didn't read that first. But then, greed and love of money, like all sins of the heart, can blind a person to the consequences of his actions, so that such drastic outcomes are seen as something that only happens to "other people", or "careless people" or something.

Where this will all lead, with various bail-out measures and stimulus plans, etc., is hard to say, even for the experts. But no one seems to be talking about changing, not just the way banks are regulated, but the way the human mind should be regulated by the Word of God. Until a person experiences a true inner renewal, not of religion, but in the core of his heart and desires, the lure of easy money and the "American dream" will continue to deceive some people into taking their chances with a fast buck. Too bad it isn't just their luck that went bad, instead of bringing a whole bunch of bad luck to the rest of us.

A new day in America?

2009-01-20T15:18:00.005-06:00

Many are hopeful, even in a euphoric way, that today is the beginning of a new day in American politics and national well-being. A new president has taken the reins of government, full of promises to bring a change in the business of the country, and has committed himself to serving all Americans.

These are fairly standard phrases for a man who's just taken over what is perhaps the biggest job in the world; one who knows that people are longing for good news and hopeful words. And it may well be that Mr. Obama has the support of Congress, and of enough of the American people, to make good on his campaign vows to effect the kinds of change a majority of citizens want to see.

Whether the changes will be beneficial ones, whether the massive problems awaiting him will yield to his wisdom, whether the country will be better off in four years, all remains to be seen. And whether the effects of all this will make America a more godly nation is a question that seems more in doubt than whether the economy will rebound under Mr. Obama's leadership; given the tone of his pledges to overturn certain policies of the previous administration that were widely supported by evangelicals.

Either way, churches of all theologies and philosophies have a common command: to pray for our new president, as for his entire government, that God may give the wisdom that doesn't come by way of political experience or sub-committee meetings. If God required the early church to obey the Roman authorities, as powers ordained by God to keep order in the world (Romans 13), and if God commanded Christians to "honor the king" that was in power at that time (1 Peter 2), then He certainly would have us lift up our current leaders in prayer.

And beyond praying for divine guidance for these men and women, let us rejoice that our King is still on the throne, and has promised to bring His administration of grace and righteousness to this world, in His time and in His way. And that's not just election talk!

The cost of not spending

2009-01-10T08:19:00.003-06:00

Some years ago I first made an observation about the nature of our economy, an obviously consumer-driven system that thrives on businesses and industries catering to the buying public. Our prosperity is dependent on things that are made to be sold, and on people who buy those things, and on people whose jobs exist because stuff is made and bought. But making what people need is one thing; doing business in goods and services that are, to say the least, non-essential, is another.

This morning's news included a story on the economic conditions in Las Vegas, a mecca of non-essentiality if there ever was one. Of course, there's lots of regular folks there, such as some of my wife's relatives, who say they rarely go to the more well-known part of the city. Yet, they and other citizens are affected by the fact that Las Vegas has seen a large decline in gambling traffic to its many casinos.

That in turn has hit hundreds of casino employees who have been laid off, and the construction workers whose projects have been cancelled, and the transit workers who have less customers to carry, and the grocery stores who have less people buying anything but the essentials, and on and on.

What began as a credit and payment problem in the mortgage industry, leaving many people in foreclosure and many banks in bankruptcy, has become a general economic problem to companies like automakers that have nothing to do with mortgages and risky lending practices. Just the fact that people are spending less on non-essentials is having a rippling effect that might make the depression of the 30's look like a temporary downturn.

And this affects even those whose religious outlook leads them to a relatively contented lifestyle; people who make do with something old rather than replacing it with something new just because it's new. Even people who would never go near a casino will be affected by the closure of gambling businesses, because they employ people who won't have money to buy the products of companies who will go out of business and make more employees unable to buy more companies' products.

The Bible warned us long ago that greed, lust, materialism and love of money have a dangerous price tag, and lead people into "foolish and harmful desires." Prosperity seems, for most people, too much like a good thing to become a bad thing. But that which is currently ruining our nation's economy seems like a by-product of too much prosperity, too fast; enticing too many people with too many promises and too little reality. Too few people with real wisdom and godly contentment.

It was probably just a matter of time that this house of cards would collapse. The only good news in this has nothing to do with bail-out plans or tax cuts, but with the fact that God never goes out of business as the One who can make good come to those who love Him, using "all things", including the most economically bad news our country has seen for a very long time.

Back to real life?

2009-01-04T15:21:00.002-06:00

Another holiday season has come to an abrupt end, leaving us back where we began, and maybe worse. At least before the annual rush to prepare for extra meals, extra guests, extra parties, we were enjoying decent weather. Now it's the gray, cold days of winter. Bummer!

Well, if that's a bit of your feelings, you're apparently in a large group, and there are many web sites and experts waiting to tell you how to deal with "post-holiday blues." And some of it will affect people just because of the physical and psychological effects of going quickly from a period of celebrations and festive atmosphere to the normal, stripped down world of everyday business and household chores. That alone is enough to bring down our emotions.

But there's a lot more to the holidays than festivities. The expectation of pleasant times with friends and loved ones raises the emotions of most people who associate these days with the kind of happiness that isn't consistently available from the day-to-day routine of life. After a higher-than-normal diet of such gaiety, the relative drabness of January stands in stark contrast.

While this yearly adjustment is to some extent necessary for us all, how fortunate are those whose joy is a result of the presence of God within, rather than the excitement of external events and special days. Those who know the Savior as a daily Friend and Master are not dependent on extraordinary things for the uplift of their souls and emotions. Those who obey the Bible's instruction to "rejoice always" are able to live on a steady plane of personal peace and contentment, regardless of what page their calendar is turned to.

The start of a new year is, for many people, the end of happiness until the next holiday, though the stores are already full of suggestions for Valentines Day, to tide us over until mid-February. Instead, those who walk with the Lord of time and eternity can make every day a celebration of His grace and goodness, His gift of life, and that more abundantly.

Silent Night: A meditation

2008-12-05T15:46:00.002-06:00

“Silent night, holy night; all is calm, all is bright.”

The tranquil setting of the First Christmas was heavenly in its peacefulness, but it was destined to be short-lived. That first night was free from the noise of sinful society and undisturbed by the chaos of sin that would before long surround Jesus. That silent night was a little microcosm of heaven, having only the presence of God and of those who love Him. It would be quite understandable that everyone would have longed to keep things just like that peaceful scene.

But Jesus came into a world of conflict, to a battle between light and darkness. And He did so, not to immediately claim victory over a dark world, but that by dying in seeming defeat He might share heavenly peace with those who believe. But, there can be no peace on earth, nor good will among men unless the Prince of Peace grants it to us through receiving it from His good will. So, Jesus willingly came into this world; not to an idyllic slice of heaven, but to a war zone and an enemy desperate to prevent his own defeat by the rightful King.

“Shepherds quake at the sight.”

The intrusion of Heaven's chorus was both strange and triumphant. Unfamiliar with that ultimate reality which lies just beyond our mortal eyes, the shepherds were full of fear at the angels' entrance into man's world. We don’t naturally grasp an appreciation of the difference between the earthly and the heavenly, so an encounter with even a little bit of the eternal is unnerving to ordinary folk.

But God is not out to scare anyone, not even those who could use a good wake-up call from Heaven. His purpose is to get our attention, and by that means to get an appropriate response to His holiness. Salvation is not possible without the heavenly breaking into the earthly, for it could not be the reverse. Salvation must always be at heaven's initiative, for none could even "meet God halfway." And if not for the repeated announcement of the gospel message, the world would let His coming go unnoticed.

“Son of God, love’s pure light.”

The birth of Christ was not the beginning of salvation's work, for God had already been busy on the ultimate restoration of the world for millennia. The birth of the Light of the world was, however, the dawn of true redemption, not just the symbolic atonement of the Old Testament Law. And this birth was assurance that the final day of God's righteousness would surely follow. That “silent night” is the greatest testimony to God's mercy and grace, that the coming of His Son was not first an act of the righteous Judge, but was instead the advent of a humble Savior. The long night of expectation by the prophets was now realized through this quiet entrance.

“Radiant beams from Thy holy face, with the dawn of redeeming grace.”

The light of the manger scene was symbolic of the beginning of God's complete work of salvation, entering a dark world and growing to a conclusion, like the child would grow into the Lamb of God. The baby of the manger would not immediately take His place as the Lamb, but His presence meant that the Light had come.

The coming of the Savior was not an instant effusion of light upon a dark world, but a portent of the light that would dawn upon all who believe. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that the unbelieving mind considers as "enlightenment" a secular perspective which disregards the true light of God's truth. But for the believer, the dawn unto fullness of day will not be complete until the day when we know as we are "fully known."

And redemption is assured by the fact of Christ's Lordship. Christ's work of salvation was not accomplished like some earthly warrior, coming to engage an enemy in an uncertain conflict. He came into the world already the Victor, having only to work out the inevitable defeat of evil. For Christ, Lordship was already an eternal fact, and the triumph over death, the devil, and sin had only to be played out on the field, with a certain outcome. Grace has dawned, and the day of our redemption draws nigh.

From whence shall my help come?

2008-12-04T18:22:00.002-06:00

"I shall lift my eyes to the mountains, from whence shall my help come?" Thus begins the 121st Psalm, posing the question that probably comes to every person's mind when help is most urgently needed. The answer is stated in the following verse, "My help comes from the Lord, Who made heaven and earth." And if I should wonder at a persistent "downturn" in my fortunes, as if this suggested my help is late in coming, the psalm's author urges me to consider in the next verse, "He will not allow your foot to slip; He who keeps you will not slumber."

If Americans are wondering about the source of their help in dire times, they should resist the urge to lift their eyes to the Capitol, hoping for a bailout. Nor should they lift their eyes to a new president, so full of hope and promises for all the right changes. And looking to God to somehow open an economic path through the sea of red ink might not be the best use of faith in the Bible, given that God has often permitted His people to suffer misfortune along with the rest of humanity in this fallen world.

Sincere believers in many nations today would like to have our "recession" level of prosperity, as it would still be way ahead of their subsistence standard of living. And for that matter, the wealth of the Saudis and other oil-rich nations isn't an indication that God is helping them, especially as they have rejected His Son in favor of their "prophet."

Ah, but is my help delayed or absent? Far from it, for as the 121st draws to its conclusion, it promises that my God will "protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul." In a world still burdened by the corruption of sin in all its forms, including materialism, greed and excessive use of credit economics, God gives no promises of a safe and secure bubble in which His people may happily pass the years awaiting Christ's return.

God has committed Himself to protecting the most valuable asset a man has: his soul. And from the day I committed my soul to Jesus Christ, I've been ready for whatever this world may bring me. I know my Helper, and He's not asleep at the switch.

The Future of Marriage

2008-11-13T19:53:00.003-06:00

Like Amos in the Bible, I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. But I don't think special predictive gifts are needed to see where the institution of marriage, at least as traditionally defined, is going. Conservatives are losing one state after another on the issue of gay marriage, and even the seeming triumphs like the California Proposition 8 are, I think, just a temporary hold on the inevitable.

Why inevitable? Because our governing bodies have left behind the concept that our historic Judeo/Christian principles should have a preference in matters of the law. It's nothing new, being written into the wording of the U.S. Consitution, and legal advocates for liberalization of social standards have been busy for many years, chipping away at the old order of things like prayers in schools, protection of the unborn and Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn.

Under our current definitions of legal rights and privileges, it seems evident to me that the gay community has as much reason to demand access to the rights of marriage as blacks have gained in the rights of citizenship, and women have gained in the rights of employment.

Without an argument from biblical values, principles and prohibitions, the only thing standing in the way of gay marriage rights in every state is the willingness of the majority to change their traditions to accomodate a new view. To the modern mind, it seems one kind of civil rights is the same as another, without regard to any religious standards. Indeed, the imposition of religious standards on legal decisions has become so offensive to the courts that decisions have been thrown out because a judge admitted "praying" about his ruling.

As with other revisions of the social code, like dress codes in public, sexual relations before marriage or vulgar language in movies, the majority has shifted in their attitudes toward gays from the time when our nation was ruled by heterosexual, Protestant, white men.

And it's not that those men were not always truly biblical in their outlook, or they would have sought civil rights for blacks sooner, like William Wilberforce did in England. Instead, the powers-that-used-to-be followed their own interpretations of morality, biblical or otherwise. And with only a traditional sense of biblical morality, as opposed to an identification of law with biblical morality, as in the days of the "established church", the concept of legal "rights" will continue to trump traditional values.

The gays are as patient as other groups have been before them, and they know that many heterosexual people, whose parents would have recoiled at the thought of gay marriage, have already decided that "love is love, no matter who you are." It's just a matter of time before the crumbling wall of resistance comes down entirely.

In that day, those committed to the authority of the Bible will look as hopelessly outdated as the Amish and their buggies. Churches are now being attacked by opponents of the California vote to turn back gay marriage rights. What will happen when the whole country finally "drinks the Kool-Aid" on this issue? I don't know, but I'm not thinking the gay community will just "agree to disagree."

Do bullies have more fun?

2008-11-07T10:41:00.003-06:00

"Bullies may get a kick out of seeing others in pain." So says a story in today's news, about a new study by researchers at the University of Chicago, who are basing their finding on brain scans of teens with a history of abusive behavior, recorded as these "bullies" watched videos of people being mistreated.

As a one-time target of bullies in my neighborhood, I could have saved the U. of Chicago some research dollars if they had asked me about such things. I didn't need a brain scan of my tormentors to know they were enjoying their pranks and assaults, as there was evidence enough on their faces and in their voices. And it's nothing new, as Solomon attested to such wicked pleasures when he referred to people, "Who delight in doing evil, and rejoice in the perversity of evil." (Proverbs 2:14)

The researchers said they were "surprised" by these findings, as they had assumed that bullying was a cold, unemotional pathology, not one likely to light up the brain on a scan. But that's what they get for confusing enjoyment with outward displays of emotion. I also could have helped them on that point as well, as I remember my own days of spiritual darkness (too well at times) when I practiced my personal sins with a delight that didn't always find expression in outward displays of feeling.

But there's still the chicken-and-egg question: Does bad behavior follow the tendencies of the brain or does the brain change to reflect bad behavior and the attitude behind it? Again, the Bible could help the researchers find that answer, by such statements on human actions as, "As a man thinks within himself, so he is." Proverbs 23:7

As unsettling as the truth may be to human pride and self-esteem, the Bible indicates in many ways that mankind, apart from the renewing influences of God's truth, has a capacity for evil that can't be blamed on the physical structures of the brain, nor on the environmental structures of human society. The sinful nature, so universal that Paul could rightly say, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23), is all the explanation we need to shed light on the behavior of bullies and every other kind of bad behavior.

What's to be done? The only change for a bully, and for every sinner, is a change of heart, a new man of the spirit made possible by a rebirth in the Spirit of Jesus. Again Paul puts it so well, when he said, "Thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (Romans 6:17)

A real change, or a different kind of same?

2008-11-05T15:25:00.003-06:00

The new president, Barack Obama, was swept into power, some say, on little more than a promise to make changes in the status quo of government and society. Whether he can actually govern in a way to bring such change is now the challenge he must face and demonstrate to both his followers and his critics. Either way, his supporters will likely feel it's better than where we've been. His critics, meanwhile, will watch to see if his promises were more than political passion and eloquence.

But just how much real change can there be in a governmental system like ours? Some have been tossing out the "S" word (Socialism) to describe how they see the proposed changes in the tax code, as if to say that would be too much change for their tastes. And a new movement of civil benefits legislation wouldn't exactly be a change from previous administrations dating back to Roosevelt and several others. President Obama would have a hard time keeping up with the flurry of welfare bills sped through Congress by LBJ, at least until Vietnam consumed his attention.

Whether Democrat or Republican, the stated purposes of elected officials has been to bring benefit to the American people, to improve their daily lives and spread the rights of our Constitution to as many as possible. As to how that may best be done, there's the difference between them. And it always seems that each side accuses the other of being wrong-headed in their respective methods. But is either method a real change, or just a different kind of same?

A real change would be to alter the landscape of human endeavor altogether, to one centered on God's plan for humanity, instead of one focused on material and social goals entirely of this world's making. As long as mankind's objectives are aimed at a more satisfying life for men, there will be endless arguments about just what that means and how to get there. But if we were to take our cue from our Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ, we would realize there's a lot more to life than living.

There will be a new man in the White House come next January 20th, but, I'm grateful to remember, there will be still be the same God on the throne of the universe. And someday, when God has decided to bring that "new heaven and new earth" He's promised to those who trust and obey Him, now that will be a change we can believe in!

How would Jesus spend?

2008-10-24T09:30:00.003-05:00

I've seen a lot of home remodeling and add-on projects over the years, especially in established neighborhoods. I guess the thinking there is: better to add a room than start over again with even more expense in a whole new house. But our economy would be in even worse shape today if everybody did it that way. Most of our current crisis seems to be connected, at least in the beginning, to the housing market. People aren't buying new homes fast enough; people wanted more of a new house than they could afford, and have now defaulted on the loan. People's home values have slumped to the point that they owe more than they could sell it for and buy a new one.

But our economy is more than housing, and yet the same principle applies: if enough people keep what they have and don't keep buying new things, there's going to be a slowdown in businesses that survive on new products, not fixing old ones. Sure, there's a portion of the economy that survives on the fix-it projects, but in a slowing economy there's a lot less money to spend on fixing and enlarging and remodeling.

And all this is part of a larger principle of our economy: growth doesn't happen by keeping what we have. If we aren't spending, we're ultimately losing. The holiday season will be upon us again, and, as usual, many people's livlihood will depend on consumers doing what they do best: consuming! There just aren't enough companies that depend on people saving their money or living the "simple life" to keep the ship afloat. And if John Q. Public isn't borrowing money to keep up his lifestyle, many financial businesses that survive on a credit economy will close their doors.

If the question might be posed, "What is an ideal economic principle for living?", you'd have to include the words of the apostle Paul to Timothy. His general principle was, "If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. (1 Timothy 6:8) He knew that some were better off than others, but he warned in the next verse about the hazards of an uncontrolled profit motive, with his famous words, "Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." (1 Timothy 6:9) Riches aren't the problem, but rather the "want to" motive that makes us discontent with staying the same.

A nation's economy must continually grow, if only because there must be new jobs to those new to the job market. New homes must be built to accomodate those new to adulthood and home ownership. But we didn't get into this current crisis by companies and people content to grow "a little at at time." Whole industries have come into existence that urge us to continually upgrade and expand and thrust the profit line quickly and continually upward. Contentment, whether with houses or general lifestyles, seems to be, in economic terms, "bad business." Maybe that's why we're seeing a lot of "ruin and destruction" that spreads even to those more content.

But HOW did it happen?

2008-10-17T13:30:00.003-05:00

Atheistic evolutionists seem to me like someone who finds an old Model T buried in the ground, and then proclaims, "Aha, now we know that modern Fords have evolved from this ancient fossil!" Of course, that's not only ridiculous, it's something no evolutionist would say, because we have enough historical documentation, not to mention understanding of the science of automaking, to know that someone made that Model T and every other car since then.

Yet evolutionists point to all kinds of other fossils buried in rocks and other previously hidden places, and say "See, there's a primitive form of a whatchamacallit that proves life has evolved from simple life forms to the present world. And it just happened by chance and time!"

OK, so they found a buried fossil; but HOW did a fossil bacteria become a fossil dinosaur or a fossil fern? And how did the amino acids, famously touted by evolutionists as a building block of life, turn slowly but surely into complex cells, full of DNA and lots of other very complicated things that all must work perfectly for life to function?

So they found a fossil skull that looks sort of human and sort of not. But HOW did that ancient man-like creature become a rational, analytical and skeptical scientist, who thinks himself able to challenge centuries of faith in the revelation of our Creator God; while some other distant "cousin" became an exhibit in the zoo? Since they don't really know HOW it happened, no one should rule out the possibility that, like the Ford, Someone made it that way.

God will never make a good science experiment, because He won't submit to the scientists' words and methods. He won't prove Himself to the skeptic or leave detailed notes on His creative process. He did, however, leave sufficient notes by His revelation to certain men and women who were ready to submit to His Word and ways. And someday all men, even the skeptics, will stand and be questioned. And He even left the Textbook to study for the big test.

Some thoughts about changing for good

2008-10-15T14:49:00.002-05:00

Change can mean a lot of different things to different people. For some, it’s resisted as an unwelcome threat to the status quo. To others, it’s a breath of fresh air in a boring, outdated world. For still others, it’s a new start, a break from the past and a promise of a better tomorrow.

The difference in perspective on change is largely a matter of attitude toward our present situation. If I’m comfortable, or at least content with my life as is, change is less desirable than if I’m miserable. If I agree that a certain change (like physical fitness) would be ideal, but requires more effort and revamping of my life than I really want to take on, then my motivation to change is diminished.

For people with troublesome habits, whether behavioral, mental or relational, change is something that first must be seen as not only necessary but urgent, because any habit has a built-in inertia factor that makes it much easier to stay the same than to become something new. And that’s all them more true if that habit is still believed to be personally advantageous or useful.

In fact, any behavior that becomes habitual, customary, traditional, standard operating procedure, modus operandi or whatever is something that once upon a time was new, and was practiced with regularity because it was an action that was believed to be in some way beneficial. People may stumble over a shoe in the dark, but they don’t normally arrange their shoes in such a way as to create a hazard zone in a dark room.

As bizarre as it may seem to the objective viewer (and we can all be more objective about other people’s behavior than about our own), even self-destructive habits like chemical addictions, rage-aholism, pornographic obsessions or chronic irresponsibility are actions that began as a choice to do something that seemed necessary, useful, positive or just plain “makes-me-feel-good”.

A person who finds himself time and again in the grip of a troublesome habit may feel frustrated, unable to explain why he can’t seem to break free and make the needed changes. He may beat himself up and try to “repent” of his foolishness, only to fail again. But he should assume one fact about himself: There is a motivation within to do this thing (and perhaps very deeply and unconsciously within), not because it’s truly useful (as good health practices or being kind to others) but because there is still a place in his beliefs, attitudes or feelings where this action is believed to be emotionally necessary; a refuge of sorts from a world that is unsafe, unwelcoming, unkind or unpleasant.

Finding that hidden place, stripping away its defenses and denial, and dealing with it by God’s Word of truth, grace, love and power, is the only way I know to “change for good.” We may be able to “rearrange” the Titanic’s deck chairs, as many addicts switch from one “behavior of choice” to another to satisfy the same inner longings, but troublesome habits are still going to take us down or keep us down. Change of anything troublesome is never easy, but, with God’s power and wisdom, it’s at least possible.

Faith in faith?

2008-09-25T19:40:00.006-05:00

Imagine riding with a friend in his fully-loaded eighteen-wheeler truck as he approaches a bridge with a clearly marked sign bearing the warning, "Bridge weight limit: 3000 pounds". Seeing this, he says to you, "No problem, I have faith in this bridge." It would be sensible for you at that point to say, quickly and emphatically, "Fine for you, but stop right now and let me out!

Or, to put it another way, imagine another friend (the other one is still recovering from his injuries in the truck crash) who arrives safely at your house after driving his four-wheel drive SUV through a snowstorm, and states with obvious relief, "My faith got me through that one."

These may be silly examples, but the attitude that many people have expressed toward the concept of faith is not a light-hearted matter; at least it shouldn't be to anyone who understands what the Bible is saying about faith. To sum up the problem: Treating faith as a substitute for the object of that faith is to confuse the subjective experience of confidence with the objective evidence for putting confidence in an object of faith.

What does it matter if I have complete and unquestioning faith in an object (a person, a thing, and idea, etc.), if this object is insufficient to "hold me up", i.e., actually deliver on the promised outcome (especially if the "promise" is little more than an expression of my own wishes)? I can have a fanatic's faith in Santa Clause, but I'll still be losing a lot of sleep watching over my empty chimney.

Likewise, how much good will it do me to "trust" a real person for an outcome he never promised or committed his word to? My faith will simply set me up for disappointment and resentment when the hoped-for result doesn't happen. Many people have faith in God to do things the Bible doesn't promise, such as healing a loved one each and every time they pray, or getting just the job they felt they were perfect for.

And when I get through a crisis "by my faith", am I attributing my emotional survival to the feeling of peace I got by "just believing", or am I giving praise to God who delivered me? It should be obvious in today's world that many people other than devout Christians have great faith in the teachings and promises of their respective religions. And many seem to believe that God will one day respect all these various "faiths", granting admission to the afterlife on the basis of their sincerity.

Faith is simply my way of reaching out an empty hand to receive what God has, in His grace, promised to give those who come to Him in simple and surrendered faith. My faith is nothing more than an act of obedient acceptance of the promises of God, as prompted by the evidence of His trustworthiness and love for those to whom He has made such great promises.

When my children were very young, I would let them stand on something like a bed, a dresser or maybe the edge of a pool, and then say to them, "Jump to me". Their faith was active the instant their feet left the place they were standing; but it wasn't their faith that caught them and held them up, it was the one they had put their faith in. The evidence for their faith was what they knew about their father, his strength and ability to catch them, and, most of all, his love for them that would guarantee a safe landing.

Faith that is not confidence in the objective, Christ-centerd promises of a powerful and good Savior-God isn't really faith at all. It's just whistling in the dark. My faith is only as valid as the reason I have for trusting in the Object of my faith. And considering all the promises I read in the Bible, and all the evidence I have for trusting that Bible's promises, faith is truly, "The substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

The question of "evil"

2008-09-22T18:56:00.001-05:00

During the Saddleback Presidential Candidates' Forum, host Rick Warren put a question to the two contenders on the subject of evil. He asked them to affirm there is such a thing as evil, and to declare what an appropriate response would be. In both cases, the candidates described evil in terms of an undesireable effect on people's well-being.

Barack Obama steered the question of evil toward the social ills of our nation, in particular the injustices suffered by the many people for whom he seems to be aiming most of his speeches. And truly, the mistreatment of our citizens, especially the poor and disadvantaged, is a mirror of God's rebukes of ancient Israel's sins against the poor of the land, including widows, orphans and other dis-empowered individuals.

John McCain took the discussion, also true to his campaign strategy, toward the international front of the war against terror. And, also truly, there is much to be abhorred in the acts of cruelty and violence wrought by self-identified terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and his cronies.

As for a definition of the idea of evil, however, both candidates isolated the concept of evil to a specific example of evil behavior, rather than giving a comprehensive description of the nature of evil that would answer the question, "Is there evil in the world?" Granted, both men are politically motivated in perhaps everything they do and say. They may consult the polls before deciding where to stop for lunch for all I know. (Just kidding fellas.)

If there really is such a thing as evil, I think it would have to be seen from one of two views. For the evolutionist, evil would be something destructive, contrary to progression and stability and, since it is being defined by human beings, not cats and dogs, something contrary to human welfare and happiness (except maybe for PETA, who would include the animals in the discussion).

But if the Bible is true, then evil takes on a different meaning than the man-centered one espoused by politicians and judges. And that's not only my belief but the more reasonable idea, in view of the absurdity of creatures evolving by some mindless system of "natural selection" into, not only thinking, dreaming, artistic, philosophizing anthropoids, but into rational beings who universally judge the merits of each other's behavior by an idea that there is such a thing as "evil" behavior and motives.

Indeed, the real nature of evil is seen in the Bible as that which is contrary to the character, will, heart and nature of Almighty God, the One true and perfect Good, by whose standard all reality is judged. And, not only is evil opposite to His character, it is an offense to His perfect justice. So, evil includes far more than what individual humans call "evil." Sin is evil, regardless of how the majority may feel about it. There is great evil in people chasing madly after things to their destruction, like a horde of lemmings over the crest of a hill called "self-indulgence".

And the "evil-est" of all is simply trying to run our own lives, ignoring or resisting the authority of God, and rejecting the price of eternal life offered by the death of His only Son, Jesus. Sadly, in this world you won't be likely to get elected campaigning against sin. The average voter may think that evil is "what feels evil to me." The good news is that God is still willing to forgive attitudes like that, like He did for me. I'm sure glad He doesn't need to run for re-election.

Does God read the polls?

2008-09-19T08:09:00.002-05:00

Though the concept of "heaven" isn't one that comes in only one flavor, divided as it is among believers of world religions to include a warrior's reward, a melding into the Ground of all being, a playground with happy virgins and a reunion with all our friends and loved ones, it does seem that some kind of blessed afterlife is a nearly universal idea; with the not-blessed "bad place" getting somewhat less agreement.

But if we can just limit the conversation to "heaven" as the word is used in Christian doctrine, there is still a variety of opinions about the rules for admission. In a recent poll taken by Baylor University, it was found that "...54% of respondents said at least half of average Americans will make it through the Pearly Gates." And that "half" includes people of religions other than Christianity, to say nothing of different divisions of theology within the Christian religion. Percentage of agreement was highest on the more fortunate half of Christians (72%), but many others were also said to be eligible for heaven's blessings, including Jews (46 percent), Buddhists (37 percent) and Muslims (34 percent).

Does God read these polls? And is He, like our politicians, influenced by them? Or, to infer meaning from these optimistic poll numbers, is heaven a place for "good people", of whatever religious belief they happen to be? You couldn't get such responses based solely on doctrine, unless you're only talking to Universalists. Or maybe Mormons, who see different levels of heaven; the best for the "Saints" and coach accomodations for the rest.

It really comes again to our human ideas of "good enough" to be rewarded in eternity. And humans, as we know by talking to the average person, have their own standards for "good enough." The idea that God would define "good" on His own terms, aside from human effort or self-esteem, has never been popular among the masses who answer poll questions. But if there is truly a heaven, we would only know it through the revealed Word of God, who alone rules heaven, and He alone declares the price of admission, i.e., the blood of Christ.

It all comes again to the Bible: Is it, or is it not the revealed Word of God? It can't be both, and still be taken for what it says of itself. The evidence is steeped in real history for its veracity, unlike other holy books that have only tradition or the word of one prophet or such. Doctrinal wars and disagreements aside, the Bible presents a clear and unequivocal statement of eternal blessedness. "No man comes to the Father but through Me," remains the definitive terms of admission to heaven, regardless of the polls and those who answer them.

Wilt thou A take B?

2008-09-12T09:29:00.002-05:00

I suppose it was inevitable, given the progress of our society's redefining of all things traditional, especially those with any kind of gender or identity issue. According to worldnetdaily.com, the rules have changed in marriage licenses in California. The story reads as follows:

"In California, "brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry -- they have been replaced by "Party As" and "Party Bs." A marriage license for a man and woman was denied last week after they wrote "groom" and "bride" next to "Party A" and "Party B" -- the couple simply wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife. The State Office of Vital Records said the handwritten words were an "unacceptable alteration."

Even if we grant an elected government the right to phrase their documents as they choose, the decision to redefine the concept of "marriage" is, as Barack Obama put it, "above their pay grade." And yet many of our elected or appointed officials have been so influenced by the arguments of the proponents of a "new" sexual identity; to the point that a married couple is now "A & B."

Traditions come and go as a natural part of social development, and not many of us would want to live entirely under the sway of our grandparents' traditions. But once a society removes the authority of a particular moral and social standard, as has been done with biblical teachings on marriage, sexuality, public morality and many other subjects, the only parameters for establishing and evaluating traditions are legal logic and the will of the majority.

How long it will take for this moral "new-speak" to reach every state and city is hard to tell, but there's nothing to stop it in the legal realm except the people who stubbornly cling to the religion, if not their guns. I just hope I don't have to be part of such a wedding, where I have to introduce the couple as "A and B".

What "pay grade" for life?

2008-08-21T19:40:00.003-05:00

In last week's Saddleback Church forum between the two presidential candidates, each man was asked to state his opinion about that point in life at which an unborn child becomes a person with legal rights. John McCain answered immediately, "At conception." In sharp contrast, Barack Obama fumbled around for his words, and finally declared that such a determination was above his "pay grade."

For argument's sake, let's allow him to use such an expression to mean he's unwilling to give an opinion on a question about which scientists and religious experts are undecided. That may sound humble to some, but it's a misplaced humility in someone who's trying to become the chief policy-maker of the land. Meanwhile, thousands of women, not to mention Planned Parenthood and a great many physicians, have decided they have enough "pay grade" to answer that question; enough to justify aborting their unborn child.

If Mr. Obama is really uncertain about the beginning point of a truly human life, as opposed to a mere lump of tissue, then he could at least state such uncertainty with some sense of conviction. It could then be assumed that such a position is in line with other characteristics of a liberal Christian background in the United Church of Christ, a denomination well-known for its left-leaning theology. But Mr. Obama has been making an aggressive outreach to the conservative Christian base that has heretofore supported the Republican candidates, and it is reasonable to suppose he would prefer to avoid offending such an important voting bloc.

But Mr. Obama's response, or rather dodging the question, seems more clumsy than artful, and adds to the reputation he has earned with many conservatives as one who will say anything to please the greatest number of people. And millions, including many with no particular commitment to biblical truth, are so hungry for something different than the present government that they are swept away by his eloquence.

If Mr. Obama doesn't think a politician should be making a ruling on the beginning point for human life, how does he think a group of judges could do any better? And if this question is too high up the pay scale for any but the most educated and scholarly among us, how did it happen that ordinary citizens have been granted the freedom to make that decision for themselves?

And who decided that the scholars are far up enough to make the call? God, who made all living things, has already declared the answer once-and-for-all. As He said to one of the prophets, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) Mr. Obama may think he's too far down the pay ladder to decide, but that's why we have a revealed, authoritative, trustworthy Word from the Creator of life. And you can put real money on that one.

All things to all men?

2008-08-15T20:26:00.002-05:00

The debate about making the Gospel relevant or just givin' 'em the "old-time religion" seems destined to go on until Jesus comes. It seems one can always find extremes in any issue of importance, and it also seems to me that it's always easier to move toward one extreme or the other than to follow a balanced course that keeps a proper tension between extremes.

In terms of relevance vs. traditions, there are some who will try so hard to bring the Good News down to the understanding and tastes of any particular generation that they run the risk, at least in the opinion of some, of making the Bible a consumer philosophy. A recent, and unusual, example is a group of Italian priests who are taking inflatable "sanctuaries" to the beach to bring religion to the sun bathers. So much for the awe and wonder of the ancient cathedrals.

But to resist the suspected catering of the Gospel to modern "itching ears", others insist that the Bible be taught in exactly the same way as was used in the early to mid-20th century. An obvious problem with such thinking is that such traditions as our grandparents observed were all innovative at one time. If a church really wants to be "traditional" they should forget formal church buildings all together and and meet in homes, catacombs, or whatever location works; which is just what some in the "emerging church" movement are recommending.

So, does it really matter how the Gospel of Christ is brought to men, so long as it's brought? You might get that from Paul's words to the Philippian church, where he found reason to rejoice even in the preaching of some men who did so with less-than-pure motives, because he was glad that at least "Christ is preached." But the cause for his joy was that "Christ" was being proclaimed. And that, I think, is the "crux" of the matter (crux as in cross, the heart of the Gospel).

If the message of the cross, which will always be foolishness to the unbelieving mind, is clearly presented, with the equally clear insistence that salvation is a result of placing obedient faith in Christ's death on that cross, then that message may be, and should be, put into whatever terms and methods that will convey the truth of Christ to the heart of the hearer.

But if the message is other than the fully biblical truth of Christ (as in "God loves everyone too much to punish sin," or "Jesus is one of many ways to salvation"), then it doesn't matter what style or language or method is employed. Lies are lies, no matter how they're said. And the best lie is the one that makes the most sense to the person willing to believe it.

Water, water everywhere.

2008-07-31T19:13:00.003-05:00

Many scientists are rejoicing today, after hearing news that the Phoenix spacecraft has succesfully located water on Mars. According to the report, "...the robot confirmed the presence of frozen water lurking below the Martian permafrost." The existence of H2O on another planet has for a long time been thought of as a key ingredient in locating the "organic-based compounds essential for simple life forms to emerge."

Aside from the question of significance regarding water being present outside our own planet, the key assertion here is that enough the presence of the right "compounds" could cause life to "emerge". The background for this is, of course, the evolutionist's assumption that living things, with all their incredible complexity from the cellular level to all the functions of vitality and reproduction, have simply "emerged" from the presence of "compounds".

I wonder if I might one day go out to my kitchen and find that various "compounds" like flour, sugar, milk, baking powder, sugar and eggs have somehow caused a cake to "emerge". Maybe after several billion years? Whew! I wouldn't want to taste it, since I've seen what happens to milk after just a few weeks. I know such an analogy is ridiculous, and confuses one process (evolutionary theory) with another (food preparation), but the absurdity of emerging cake batter is a small matter compared to the absurdity of imagining the processes of life as the end result of "emergence".

I know scientists take their method of hypothesizing answers to a given question very seriously. But what trial and experimentation has successfully demonstrated that throwing enough "compounds" into a bowl could cause life to "emerge" from the mix? Chemical reactions are not life. And theorizing it might happen if left alone for a billion years or so doesn't establish anything credible, since this can't be observed by either past or present analysis.

The real question, I believe, is: Why are evolutionary scientists so eager to prove the "emergence" of life, even with so many difficulties in proving such a theory, but so reluctant to accept the "creation" of life, for which there is not only a well-supported body of divine revelation on the subject but also an abundance of supporting evidence in the complexity of life?

Could it be that they don't really want to believe in a Creator? If they are willing to believe in God (and indeed, some scientists do believe God is responsible for the machinery of evolution), then why the talk of "emerging" life? But to refuse to attribute a world like ours, one that shows so much evidence of order and design, to a Great Designer, is certainly, as Paul put it, to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18)

The meaning of "hate"

2008-07-18T09:50:00.004-05:00

There are many ways in which negative words are used as a put-down by substituting them for a more neutral word, like when a person with firm convictions is described negatively as "stubborn", or a passionate advocate for a cause is termed "obsessed."

In this way, the word "hate" has come to be used to describe the attitudes and speech of people who have strong moral convictions about certain lifestyles and behaviors. It began with the designation of abusive language spoken toward racial minorities as "hate speech", which was spoken by people like the neo-nazis. It moved from there to describing any kind of negative speech aimed at a class or group as "hate speech". And soon any criminal act against a member of a minority, in particular a racial or sexual minority, was called a "hate crime", regardless of whether that was the actual motive of the act.

I remember the first time I noticed the attempt to link this concept of hate to Christian conservatives. A bumper sticker, which played on the idea of "family values" as debated in the political realm, proclaimed "Hate is not a family value". There was a well-known connection between "family values", as promoted primarily by conservative religious groups, and a moral/spiritual opinion toward certain sexual or personal lifestyles and choices. In the view of more liberal-minded folks, this amounted to a hateful attitude, regardless of whether the disapproval was aimed at a racial group like Blacks or Hispanics or a sexual group like gays and lesbians.

Now the connection seems firmly in place, to the point that people outside the usual left-wing, anti-Christian groups are using it. Recently the McDonald's corporation made a deal with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to essentially buy a seat on the group's board of directors in return for a large cash donation. Because of that, a conservative Christian group called for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants. In response to this reaction, a McDonald's spokesman issued a statement, saying, "...hatred has no place in our culture. That includes McDonalds, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment."

I don't believe for a minute that the Bible condones hateful speech, as in abusive, mean-spirited or threatening. Yet it must be acknowledged that some zealous advocates of biblical values have at times expressed their views in a very abusive manner, most notably the people of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. But hateful speech is not by any means confined to the conservative religious community. I've read plenty of abusive and insulting words aimed at conservative Christians by some atheists or liberals.

But now, even the calm and dispassionate expression of disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle, or the resistance of the advancement of the political agenda of some homosexual groups, is being lumped into a general category of hateful activity. In the Canadian courts, public criticism of homosexuals can be prosecuted as a legal offense, just as one might be charged with actually doing bodily injury.

What's next? Will the advocates of this all-inclusive "love" decide that our culture has no room for criticism of any kind of lifestyle, or even unbelief? Will evangelism someday be regarded as hate speech because it implies that some people just aren't "good enough" for heaven? Hard to say yet, but churches may want to check for "bugs" in their buildings, and take care around visitors they don't recognize, in case the "hate-watchers" are among them.

Is the Bible unconstitutional?

2008-07-11T20:17:00.003-05:00

Last Fall, famed legislative firebrand Ernie Chambers launched a lawsuit against God, for causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like." Ernie claimed that he undertook to haul the Lord into court to make a point about frivolous lawsuits, though his sympathies for the Christian religion are known to be less than enthusiastic.

A similar toned lawsuit was filed this week, except this time the litigant is, I assume, completely serious. A Michigan man, according to press reports "is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability." The man is representing himself in this suit, since he has been refused public counsel. "The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.

This lawsuit may seem to most like some delusional daydream, the product of a mind so hostile to the Bible that he could imagine outlawing the Scriptures for offending his lifestyle. And, we may be thankful, better legal minds recognize, at least for now, there is no basis in existing law and interpretations of the consitituion to support such a suit. But could that change in the future?

Our constitution allowed for the enslavement of black Americans for nearly eighty years before the 13th Amendment officially put an end to that practice. Women had to wait until 1920 to have the constitutional right to vote. How long will it be until gays and lesbians, transexual and transgender individuals and other variations are constitutionally protected against "emotional pain" caused by a widely published and oft-quoted religious book?

The right of homosexual couples to marry seems destined to become a national right, not just in a few states. The hate crime of speaking publicly against them, as it is already so in Canada, seems likely to be written into American law some day. And if the gay-rights people get their way with the Bible, how long will it be until the denunciation of moral "sin" is not simply "old-fashioned", as it seems to be in many places, but "unconstitutional"?

The 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech is already limited by words regarded as "dangerous" (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater), or "slanderous" (like publicly telling lies about a person). Is it really that far from where we are now to deciding that anti-gay speech, even if it's in the Bible, is just too slanderous to be legal?

How do you spell "heaven"?

2008-06-26T09:29:00.004-05:00

America, with her heritage of individual freedoms and, for the most part, tolerance of differing viewpoints, is by-and-large a nation where "live and let live" is a value accepted by the great majority of people. It is no surprise, then, that a recent poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reveals that 70% of those surveyed agree with the statement, "Many religions can lead to eternal life."

Now, there are some among those polled, Protestants mostly I suppose, who may use the term religion" to mean "denominations" as well as totally unique faith groups like Islam and Hinduism. But even so, that's a high degree of tolerance, especially when the actual doctrines taught by most of those "religions" teach a more exclusive view. There are some world religions, like Buddhism, that don't teach a doctrine as much as a way of life, and so make room for many different kinds of people in whatever they call "heaven." But many others, Islam, Judaism and Christians, have in their doctrinal traditions more of an "our way or the wrong way" outlook on the afterlife.

Perhaps most surprising, at least for those in the Christian sector of world religions, is that 79% of those identifying themselves as Catholic agreed with the statement. This from people who are taught that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic church, which is more restrictive than most Protestants believe about their own denominations. And amazing for Christians of all varieties to be so inclusive when they claim to believe in a Savior who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me."

So was Jesus being overly strict in His teaching, just to keep the folks in line, but intending one day to throw the pearly gates wide open to those who wish to come with a different belief? Or, and this should be the more likely explanation to anyone who takes the Lord Jesus seriously, does this survey show that the American people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in tolerance and a "who am I to judge?" mentality that they are loathe to rule any "sincere" person out of bounds for heavenly reward?

Muslims and Hindus and Zoroastrians and many others can believe whatever they want to believe. They are free to do that. But surely there's a difference between what one is free to do and what is right to do. I am free as an American citizen to have an affair with my neighbor's wife. I am pretty much free to lie about my neighbor, though I may get sued if I do in print. And I can covet all day long my neighbor's property. But God regards those behaviors as wrong, and hence there will be consequences, regardless of what I say to the contrary. For that matter, I am free to leap from tall buildings in a single bound, but I'm still not Superman.

One thing is sure, if the Bible is truly God's Word (and most of those surveyed say it is): God isn't going to take polls into account when He gathers His own into the heavenly realms. He has already declared the parameters of acceptable belief, regardless of whether or not Americans include them in political correctness. The good news is: there's room for everyone in heaven - everyone who comes in Jesus' name. By God's grace, no one will be excluded except one who refuses to acknowledge God's absolute right to set the standard for eternal life - believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved!

If God is really there...

2008-06-20T10:58:00.003-05:00

The debate between the proponents of a purely natural approach to science and the advocates of a super-natural approach to faith continues in our day, and is taking on a new form of aggressiveness by secular atheists, who insist that religion of all kinds is an ancient delusion of superstitious minds, now rendered obsolete by the increasing scope of scientific knowledge.

Many in the scientific community have concluded that mankind's advancements in knowledge of the intricacies of the universe, from the galactic level down to the sub-atomic level, have made a religious explanation of reality unnecessary and antiquated. Religious answers, they contend, were for unenlightened days when men needed a way to explain the mysteries of their world; why the wind blows, the sun rises and falls, the seasons come and go. As if some caveman once uttered around a prehistoric campfire, "Maybe there's a great Power making this fire happen!" And it just went from there.

This whole view of the origins of religious belief appears to rest on the assumption that "God" is a product of the human mind's desire to understand our world; fine for a time, but now we know better. But what if God is really there, and not just a figment of our collective imaginations? What if the reason our universe is so orderly and predictable that we can study it is that God made it that way, rather than because it evolved by mere chance and time? And how would such a thought of God happen in the mind of a creature that by the dumbest of luck evolved from the ooze? We have no evidence that such "delusions" are taking place in any other life forms on our planet, do we?

If God is there, would we expect to know about Him without His first making Himself known to His creatures? And, if He was to do that, there would have to be at least one type of creature capable of receiving His communication; creatures with a real mind, not just instinct and the capacity to remember stimuli. And as for interpreting the evidence of non-verbal clues to His existence, the Bible tells us that we have the ability to deduce God's existence from the universe He made. And, with such ability to interpret the creation, men are said to be "without excuse" for their failure to interpret the evidence rightly.

So, if ancient men realized a creation must have a Creator, it's what would be expected. After all, physicists have never seen subatomic particles, and yet they deduce their presence from experimental observations of that invisible world. It is therefore not wrong to think that we are able to deduce God's "invisible attributes" from His creation. Certainly we cannot take God into a laboratory, nor should we expect to be able to observe Him by natural senses, but if God is really there, why would anyone expect His presence to be susceptible to discovery by merely natural methods? Would He not have to take the first step toward us?

A man skeptical of the claims of religion vs. scientific discovery ended an article in which he attempted to defend his proposition that science has made God obsolete. Yet he did so in a way that, contrary to his intentions, actually supports the point I am making, i.e., that we should not expect to think up the idea of God unless He actually is there and has first communicated to us. Says Michael Shermer, "Science traffics in the natural, not the supernatural. The only God that science could discover would be a natural being, an entity that exists in space and time and is constrained by the laws of nature. A supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no science could know Him." No science, that is, except the divinely enabled knowledge that comes by faith in what God, who is indeed there, has revealed.

The Victorious Life

2008-06-11T15:41:00.010-05:00

Paul made a bold statement to the Roman church, to describe the triumphant quality of the everyday Christian life. He said, in connection to the suffering we all go through in this world - a world that is deeply opposed to the true Word of God, "But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us." (Romans 8:37) The nature of "all these things" he likened in the previous verse to being "considered as sheep to be slaughtered." And all that "for God's sake".

The idea of suffering as normative for the Christian life has a very old and very Biblical history, yet it remains one that the average believer is troubled by. And all the more so, in a culture like ours that becomes accustomed to "the good life." Believers, for the most part, have been more likely to respond to their suffering with a cry of "Why, Lord?", as opposed to "Praise the Lord!"

In other words, the concept of a "victorious life" for the Christian is something that happens in their suffering, rather than instead of their suffering. Where would the victory be if there was no enemy, and a very clever, determined and powerful one at that? Victory is the power of the Holy Spirit giving us the peace "that passes understanding" in the midst of troublesome and confusing times. Victory is the power of God to "Take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm." (Ephesians 6:13) To be victorious in the Christian life is to not be defeated; downcast, discouraged, disheartened to the point of giving up and caving in to the desires of the flesh.

How different this is from some preaching that suggests that the victorious life is riding the crest of our personal happiness wave. And worse, one very popular preacher teaches that the secret is to tap into the inner resources of our souls, drawing out the innate power of our confidence and personal strength. Says Joel Osteen, "Remember, God has put in you everything you need to live a victorious life. Now, it's up to you to draw it out." (As quoted on whitehorseinn.org) Where does "when I am weak, then I am strong" fit into that scheme?

It might be more appealing to the masses to proclaim a Christian version of the "American Dream," but it doesn't stack up to the Biblical evidence. Our victory takes place "in the presence of my enemies," not in their absence. Our victory is being "...afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed." (2 Corinthians 4:9)

Our unchurched neighbors don't really need another testimony of how to succeed in prosperous America. Many of them are managing just fine to do that without ever setting foot inside a church. What they need is to see someone going through the kind of experience that can leave some people bitter and angry with God and life itself, and still be, not only holding their faith intact, but also displaying the fruit of the Spirit, instead of the gut reactions of the human mind. Now that's victory!

Is there really a "God particle"?

2008-06-09T07:57:00.003-05:00

For those, like me, who are confused by the language of scientists who spend their time figuring out the invisible world of the atom, their occasional news reports of quarks and neutrinos, weak forces and other phenomena may seem like more science fiction than science. But it's all very real and it gives the rest of us a rough idea of how complicated are the most basic elements of the world that God made.

Now, that phrase, "God made", is as much a source of controversy as the nature of sub-atomic particles and their interaction with each other. The idea that we should assume a Creator from the complexities of the creation is thought by many to be "unscientific", belonging instead in the realm of faith. Presumably faith, for many critics of Intelligent Design, is thought to be something we "just believe" without much in the way of objective evidence.

So scientists of the atom, and of the physical forces that make our universe work, continue to explore answers to what holds all this together and what makes the cosmos what it is. A recent study was hoping to uncover what some called the "God particle", so-called because this particular bit of matter is thought to hold the secret of how everything else "holds together" and makes the universe work as it does.

I realize that the scientists could explain that last part a lot better than I just did, but that seems to be the gist of it, from what I read in the news reports. Well, good luck to them, but it might be a lot simpler for the rest of us to take the Bible at its word that God did indeed make this world as He says He did. As for the "glue" that keeps things together, Paul gave us a wonderfully profound statement when he said that Christ, the incarnate Word of God, is the full expression of God's wisdom and power, in Whom "all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).

I wish he had said just a little more about that, but for now such knowledge belongs in the realim of the unrevealed information that God has not chosen to make known. ("The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29)

God has revealed all we need to believe and obey Him. Other things we try to figure out by the "scientific method". But even then, we've learned about things like "photosynthesis" and "DNA". But who really knows exactly how such things work and why they do? And yet so many have come to accept that mankind understands enough about the universe that we don't really need belief in God to explain it all. Good thing for them that God is, at least for now, holding them together along with everything else.

Are we there yet?

2008-05-29T09:11:00.002-05:00

For many years, even centuries, some sincere students of the Bible have been eager for the return of Christ, and willing to lay down odds on the timing of that event. In some cases, denominations have been started by the followers of those who attempted to predict Christ's coming. Though the predictions have fallen flat time and again, there are still some who are willing to take up the challenge to "do the math" on biblical timing; balancing out the dates of Daniel with the images of Revelation and so forth.

I came to know Jesus Christ in the early '70's, a time of great prophetic enthusiasm, filled with words of Hal Lindsey and images of "Thief in the Night". The eighties seemed to many a time ripe with end-time implications. Indeed, one student of the subject published a book entitled, "88 reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988." Full of dates, numbers and other evidence, it was, if nothing else, an interesting study in date-setting. And it turned out to be, indeed, nothing else. The author attempted to tweak his numbers the next year with a sequel that promised "89 Reasons" for the same prediction. When that failed, he faded back into obscurity.

The whole subject then quieted down for the most part, aside from a few folks waiting to be taken up in a spaceship or that sort of thing. Even the "Left Behind" series, while selling a lot of books, didn't attempt to sell a date for its predictions. But now, with the whole Middle East scene and the militant Islamic threats and the European Union, etc., not to mention our nation's apparent descent into moral relativism and post-modern rejection of absolute truth, there's more than a little temptation to speculate about emerging Anti-Christs and approaching tribulation for the world.

Many, many efforts to "read the signs" and add up the numbers have failed, enough to discourage all but the hardiest of date-setters. I'm not denying that are some very "interesting" things happening, events and trends and movements that could well be the run-up to a scenario of the end. But "times and epochs" are still not in our job description while awaiting Christ's return. We have a commission which is far from completed. We have a calling, with still more than enough to keep us busy as we wait.

It's understandable that those who love the Lord Jesus would be glad to be rid of this sin-sick world and settle into the heavenly mansions as promised. And I fully appreciate the longing of Paul "to depart and be with Christ", for that is very much better. But, to paraphrase a comment I once read from an African church, "We'll have eternity to rest; now it's time to work!"

Who's really "calling"?

2008-05-12T09:29:00.004-05:00

One of the most controversial subjects among those who in any way regard the Bible as the revealed Word of God is the very personal matter of discerning the valid voice of God. So many people have, in some way or another, said, "God told me...", in connection with some decision or action they felt "moved" to do.

Some of those who claimed to have heard that divine Voice went on to do good deeds, such as acts of charity or social improvements. Others proceeded to commit acts of violence against some perceived "enemy", or even against their own children, supposing they were "saving" such little ones from an even worse fate.

And then there's some who feel "called" of God to choices and lifestyles that are clearly prohibited in Scripture. Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robinson spoke last week with a TV host, and very confidently declared, "If something were to happen to me, I would know that I am doing what I discern God is calling me to do.”

Now, the Bishop was not speaking of taking the Gospel to hostile nations, or taking a vocal stand against an immoral and vicious government. He was talking about a proposed civil union ceremony he is planning with his same-sex partner. And Robinson feels postitively apostolic in his campaign to open the church's doors even wider than they already are to those who claim to be both Christian and homosexual. He stated, “I’ve come to understand that this is a particular historic role that God is calling me to play at this moment."

Such statements, made with all the confidence and certainty of an old-time evangelist, sound strange to those who believe very opposed to Robinson's convictions on the subject of homosexuality. Some would wonder, "Is he reading the same Bible as I am?" The problem of discerning the Voice of God from reading the Bible is, however, not as simple as reading from the same translation.

It is clear enough what the Bible is actually saying. Any careful reader can understand most of what this Book says by the use of its language. But, from there it gets very fuzzy, at least in terms of arriving at a consensus on the meaning and application of what is said. Many people, unacquainted with the Bible's teachings, may despair of ever truly understanding the Holy Book, because there are, in many cases, so many different interpretations offered for the same text. And some who are outright opposed to the Bible point to this fact as if to say, "See, we knew it was just a human book!"

At the very least, in view of how common it is for people to read the same Bible and come away with so many different meanings, we should, all of us, be more humble than to confidently declare, "God called me to do this or that," until we have first arrived at a reliable method of interpretation and application. "This is how it seems to me," is not good science, whether interpreting the Bible or the laws of nature. And, if we are claiming to have "heard the voice of God" while reading the Bible, we'd better be sure that voice is at least consistent in tone and spirit with the one heard by the majority of others who have also studied that same text with equal diligence and objectivity.

Bishop Robinson is quite sure he is hearing the "call" of God in regard to his lifestyle and personal philosophy. So sure, in fact, that he gladly rejects the opinions of sincere and godly students of the Bible who have gone before him, even in his own denomination. It seems more likely that Robinson is hearing, not the voice of Almighty God, Who never changes, but the echo of his own voice on a "dead" line.

Legislating change?

2008-05-05T19:24:00.003-05:00

Barack Obama has made a living talking about "Change we can believe in." And, he's probably right in thinking that some things need to be changed about the way we do business in our government, our health care, our business ethics and all kinds of other things. But, aside from the greater difficulty in doing such change than in talking about it, there's another implication of his convictions that disturbs me.

Mr. Obama stated in a recent speech that the way to change America was to change Washington. In other words, if I understand him rightly, we will be able to make the needed changes in Amercian society and life if we can just change the way our government functions to administer the public business of just laws and programs.

The Democratic party has a long history of supporting governmental programs designed to balance out the distribution of blessings of our nation's prosperity and freedoms. And, it has sometimes in history required the strong hand of a president like Franklin Roosevelt to bring needed corrections to the tendency of our capitalistic economy to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to just get whatever they get. And even a Republican president like Franklin's cousin Teddy Roosevelt could swing a "big stick" against the monopolization of wealth by a few.

But has all this legislation, including that of later presidents like Kennedy or Johnson or Reagan, brought a truly "great society" to a nation that still tends to spread the blessings quite unevenly across the whole? And that's just the economic picture, not to mention the unhappiness that many citizens endure of a moral or physical or social nature. Now, if we make sufficient "changes" in the way Washington politicians do their work, will we at last usher in that American utopia our candidates have long promised? I wouldn't bet on it.

No doubt, just laws and just administration of those laws will make a more just society than one rampant with corruption and favoritism toward the wealthy and powerful. No question, politicians devoted to the welfare of every citizen will make a better life on the whole for all of us. But, is the "good life" really something that can be required by law, or regulated by an act of Congress? And, for that matter, what's a "good life", if not a life lived in the will of our good and gracious God?

As long as men are in charge of government, they will have laws and programs subject to the weaknesses of men as well as the ideals and altruistic values of men. And even fair and just laws, at least as just as men can make them, will be subject to the hearts of the men who are required to follow them. And ultimately, as we have learned with the most perfect laws ever given, those of our God Himself, the Law can advise men of their duty and convict men of their unlawfulness, but it cannot change the heart of men toward true obedience. Only Christ living in our hearts can do that, and only when we surrender daily to His will and the authority of His Word.

So, let's try to improve the way we do government. But let's not get any dreamy ideas about finding the legislative key to a better society until we've solved the real problem: Not better laws, but better hearts.

Verbalizing morality

2008-04-21T19:42:00.007-05:00

It's not news to anyone that modern culture has undergone a dramatic shift in the area of sexual morals; not just in behavior but more fundamentally in the philosophy of how we determine what is or is not immoral in the expression of sexual desires. It appears to me that this shift has been most pronounced wherever cultures have been influenced by democratic politics and, ironically, Protestant Christianity. The combination of these philosophies of polity in government and religion has produced a culture of morality where the decisions of individual choice are assumed as a "God-given" right. To suggest otherwise is to sound like a jihadist or fanatical fundamentalist.

When I was in high school, girls who "slept around" might have been preferred by some young men for a secret adventure, but they were still subject to the general disapproval of the public. Such a girl would have been treated to glances and whispers in the school halls. Now, if not yet in the majority everywhere, she would at least be accepted as "typical". Unmarried couples who were living together were excluded from full public acceptance and, in some cases, from their own families. Now, unmarried celebrity couples have their children together and most don't even think twice about it.

And how did this happen so quickly? You could blame Hugh Hefner and his envelope-pushing magazine. Or you put it all on the "Sexual Revolution" of the 60's, which spread its own version of "love" to millions previously under the sway of the older model of morality. But one of the most effective means of re-inventing the terms of sexual behavior was simply to verbalize a new way of looking at sexual relations outside of marriage. The whole subject of sex has been re-cast in language that throws the balance in favor of acceptance of things that were once regarded as immoral.

Those who were formerly "promiscuous" are now merely "sexually active." Couples who were "shacking up" are just "co-habiting". We may still hear of some teens or college kids engaging in "risky behavior", but that's just in terms of the risks of acquiring a disease of some kind, not in regard to any kind of moral risk. Anyone who would stand up and call unmarried sexual relations a "sin" would be immediately branded as a "prude" or "judgmental".

The suggestion that abstinence might be the best ways to prevent teen pregnancies is called "unrealistic" because no one thinks it can actually work. There are some in the Christian community who have more recently taken a stand on abstinence before marriage, but it appears to me that those voices are generally regarded by the larger society like people regard the Amish - quaint and out of step with the times.

Is all this just a cultural shift, like those in the world of clothing or language that make human society in a free nation a very fluid thing? Or is there something deeper going on in the spiritual realm. The Bible warns of times when people won't tolerate the speaking of truth any longer, when people will be "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." There's nothing especially new about such shifts in morality, except perhaps to the degree that we have seen it become not merely permitted by society, but now almost totally approved by those with the power to move our society in new directions.

Faithful or rigid?

2008-04-15T19:39:00.005-05:00

It was in a logic class in college that I first learned about an everyday fact of language which I had until then overlooked. There are words that describe a personal quality which are always positive in meaning, like courageous or decisive. There are other words that describe pretty much the same kind of quality, but always from a negative view; words like foolhardy or hasty.

And, indeed, most qualities of the mind or behavior can have more than one dimension. But the interesting thing is that people will tend to use only the positive orientation in regard to themselves, while employing the negative connotation of a very similar attribute in respect to others. A couple of examples: "I have convictions, you're a fanatic!"; "I speak my mind, you're harsh and judgmental!"; "I'm an individual, you're wierd."

In the religious realm, this same contrast is often used by those who want to criticize a person of a different philosophy or position; and it comes from all over the spectrum of beliefs. Conservatives may deride those of a more liberal orientation, calling them things like "heretic", "modernist" or "worldly". Liberals, meanwhile, might put down conservatives as "doctrinaire", "rigid" or "dogmatic". No one ever tries to slam his theological adversary by calling him "faithful" or "thoughtful". Instead, a critic would use terms like "reactionary" or "wishy-washy" to put the intended spin in the desired direction.

All this makes it very difficult to carry on any kind of reasoned discussion of ideas where there is more than one perspective to take, or where different but complementary ideas need to be held in proper balance. The question of traditional vs. contemporary in worship is one such area, and how to relate the unchanging truth of the Gospel to a constantly changing culture is another. Demonizing the opposite viewpoint is not helpful in resolving differences, nor is describing someone who disagrees as an "obstructionist" useful in loving one's neighbor.

But the most common kind of semantic juggling, as it affects evangelical believers these days, is the casting of those who believe in the authority of God's Word in negative terms like "exclusive", "intolerant" (which is almost like calling someone "un-American"), or even "hateful" because they dare call some lifestyles morally unacceptable. Those who still regard the Bible as fully authoritative and inerrant are derided with the kind of language one would use for the Flat-earth Society.

Yes, there are such things as "legalism", "Phariseeism", or "fanaticism". But that kind of thing only happens when human emotion or tradition replace a balanced and careful exposition of the Bible. If we let the Bible speak its own message to our hearts, we see that love is not unrestricted permissiveness, and righteousness is not unfeeling criticism and judgmentalism.

To adhere to "Thus says the Lord" instead of following the latest poll numbers or trendy cultural turn is not just a matter of doctrinal convictions; it's just common sense to stick with something so well attested by time and millions of changed lives. If that's being "stuck in the past", O.K, but at least I'm "prepared for the future".

The problem of an earthly economy

2008-04-09T21:06:00.002-05:00

One of the biggest stories to occupy the news media in the past 12 months has been the U.S. economy. Slumping housing markets, foreclosures, rising unemployment and much more continues to make people nervous about the impact of a possible recession in the near future. And now today’s news brings the report that “Growing numbers of middle-class Americans say they are not better off than they were five years ago.”

In other words, an economy that throws people’s lives into chaos, like the mortgage mess is doing, doesn’t have to be one that’s slumping into another “Great Depression”; though a recession could conceivably be around the corner. Rather, a sufficient cause for economic trouble seems to be that our personal financial growth chart isn’t advancing ever upward. Just the failure of enough people to make economic progress is enough to put a wrench into the works of our capitalistic system.

We have a consumer-driven society, one that needs a continually expanding supply of jobs for the ever-growing work force, providing an increasing amount of capital for investment and purchasing power, that keeps a steady demand for products that keep people working and earning more money to spend on more products – Whew! It’s not enough to just “maintain”, and keep a “steady as you go” pace. In this system, failing to grow is the same as shrinking.

And, unfortunately for the moral and spiritual health of our nation, much of the consumer growth rate is dependent on goods and services that are far beyond the ordinary and wholesome things we all need for a healthy life. Much of our economy is built on a segment of the market that deals in extravagant luxury, which, from a biblical viewpoint, looks a lot like greed and avarice. And another large portion is devoted to pleasures and sensual experiences that, sooner or later, bring corruption to the soul and much harm to the innocent people caught up in the effects of destructive and addictive behaviors.

I’ve often wondered what would happen if an instantaneous spiritual revival swept over our country. Suppose every American went to bed tonight and woke up tomorrow a devoted, “pure-in-heart” Christian. Immediately, large sections of our consumer economy would be shut down as there would be no market for goods and services of questionable moral value. Millions of people would be out of work, rather than participate in immoral businesses. Thousands of stores would soon close or lay off workers because they couldn’t sell even everyday products to people who couldn’t afford them. It would make the Great Depression look like a mild downturn in holiday shopping.

Everyone would heed the Scriptural instruction to “be content with food and covering.” No one would be buying new products just to “upgrade” if their present model was “good enough.” No one would worry about impressing their neighbors, keeping up with the Joneses, or trying to attract the opposite sex by having just the right “whatever.” We’d have to totally reinvent the economic structure of the nation, building one on goodness, justice and virtue, instead of consumerism and materialism.

In the world as it is, even sincere Christians need discipline and restraint to resist being swept up in the consumer momentum. It’s hard enough being content, with our human nature wired to an attraction toward whatever is new and different. Much more so when the advertisers are constantly telling you you’re falling way behind if you haven’t “updated” your lifestyle in a few years. It’s enough to make you feel guilty and even a bit unpatriotic about putting your tax rebate into savings instead of spending it. (Just kidding)

Economic stagnation may be a problem for the material well-being of the nation as a whole, but spiritual stagnation is a far worse problem for the well-being of the soul. And, according to Jesus, we can't serve God and money at the same time. For those who allow themselves to be drawn into the lure of materialistic pursuit, the warning of Paul is still accurate, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Thank God for the reality that Christians can truly be growing in the ways that count, even if our material and physical reality is not. Heavenly treasure won’t help me in respect to the Joneses, but it pays eternal dividends way better than Berkshire Hathaway!

Is religion dangerous?

2008-04-02T19:06:00.005-05:00

The question posed by today's title would have been thought very odd not so long ago, before aggressive atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens decided it wasn't enough to just bash religion to their fellow unbelievers. Now, Hitchens, author of God is not great: How religion poisons everything, along with several other authors, is serious about trying to convince Americans that religion isn't just unnecessary (as atheists have been saying for a long time), but is actually hazardous to society.

And, after more than 30 years of involvement in Christian ministry, I can agree with Hitchens to a certain point. I discovered many years ago that "there's no fight like a church fight." The reason is simple: People tend to disagree with each other in church just like anywhere else. But among religious people, and especially those who take their religion very seriously, there is a tendency to not only disagree, but to think God is on your side of the disagreement. Which means that the other guys are not only wrong (which is what we often call those who disagree with us), but they're out of step with the Lord as well.

Of course, God is not nearly so interested in "who's right" as in "what's right", but that's a lesson that takes most of us awhile to learn. In the meantime, it takes a lot of "loving your neighbor as yourself", which is what is supposed to separate real Christianity from mere religion. The Bible teaches us that real blessing can come to those who are "peacemakers" and "merciful." That doesn't mean Christians can't ever disagree, but we have to remember that real love, the love that wants always to do what is best and good for all, is much more important than settling a disagreement in my favor.

And that's why religion can indeed be a dangerous thing, when it's human religion, pursued with zeal and self-righteousness by those who don't have a clue about balancing their disagreements with godly love and mercy. As anyone familiar with history knows, and as atheists like Hitchens are only too eager to remind us, a great many wars have been fought over primarily religious interests. And yes, there were a lot of wars in the Bible, where God's people were commanded to not only defeat the enemies of God, but to utterly wipe them off the map. And for those who don't know the difference between Biblical religion and any other variety, all religious wars look the same.

But the critics of God's aggression against the Caananites totally miss the purpose of cleansing this one specific area of the earth, where the holy people of Israel were supposed to set up a society designed to be a light of godliness to the world. They were never commanded to take their mission of cleansing to the rest of the heathen world. Their war in Caanan was a specific instrument of God's justice and judgment, which will one day visit the rest of the world of sinful men who rebel against God's word.

And that's why man-made religions can become dangerous. Their wars and aggression are not commanded by God. They go way beyond the example of holiness of a particular people and a particular time. They go beyond the mercy of God to enforce the ambitions and agendas of men. For those who don't understand that "real religion" is about loving the Lord with all our hearts, and caring for others, especially the needy, the motives of religious zeal fit all too well with other ambitions of human pride, power and ego, which can be a very dangerous mixture. If only Hitchens and his cronies could tell the difference, they could make better criticism of the right problem: not God's religion but men's hearts.

Why not me?

2008-03-27T18:16:00.001-05:00

There’s a question that so many people have asked, always at a time of great stress, tragedy or some other kind of negative experience, but it’s a question with no certain answer for the earth-bound human mind. It’s the “Why me?” reaction that countless individuals have heard echoing in their thoughts when something happens to them that contradicts and rebukes their assumptions about life; and especially theiimplications of how life is “supposed” to be.

Have you noticed, you never see someone puzzled and troubled for a long period of time over the same question in regard to their blessings, their good fortune, or the incredibly lucky turn of events that brought them prosperity or enormous well-being? Sure, some may briefly ponder the “Why?” question after something really good happens, as if to wonder “What did I possibly do to deserve such good things?” But then they move quickly on to acceptance, by-passing entirely other steps so common to grieving, such as anger or bargaining.

I believe the same question, or rather belief, is behind both negative and positive scenarios. The concept of what a person “deserves” is a simple assumption about how life works, one that has been around since biblical times, and was fully acted out for us in the Book of Job.

After initially reacting to his misfortunes with a statement of faith, “God gives, God takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord,” Job begins to be troubled by the apparent disconnect between his fall from prosperity and his own self-image; fueled in particular by his view of his own personal righteousness and what he “ought” to get from God in return for it.

Meanwhile, as Job protests his rough treatment at the hands of the Almighty, the three men who came initially to give comfort turned soon to giving counsel to Job for his “bad attitude”. They figured Job had gotten exactly what he had coming, as they had always assumed that sinners “reap what they sow.” Job apparently believed that also, but didn’t feel his misfortunes matched his excellent track record, which accounts for his desire to take up the matter with God, who, in his mind at least, had some ‘splainin’ to do.

After a great deal of back-and-forth between Job and his three friends, and finally a defense of God’s viewpoint from a fifth man, Elihu, God speaks for Himself. And without giving any real answer to account for Job’s troubles, the Lord more or less tells Job, “I didn’t need your advice creating the world, and I don’t need your permission to run it.”

Surely that answer won’t satisfy many modern minds, accustomed to debate and democratic processes, nor will it pass unopposed among those who prefer answers that “make sense” to the rational human mind. But, unless we could comprehend things exactly as God does, how could we expect to fully see His purposes in what He chooses to permit or plan in His world. We’re pretty smart, but not like that.

In a recent news story, a wise father responded to his loved one, who asked the “Why me?” question, by asking back to her, “Why not you?” Simply put, the things that trouble us are part of life in this broken world; a world that we broke, not God. Troubles are an “equal opportunity” experience, and they happen to all of us. We don’t need to complicate the question further by injecting the idea of who “deserves” this or that and who doesn’t. That’s the simplest and most sensible explanation we have, short of looking over God’s shoulder as He administers the affairs of a world that only He could create, and only He can run.

WWWJF (What war would Jesus fight?)

2008-03-20T14:50:00.002-05:00

The recent five-year anniversary of the beginning of hostilities in Iraq served not only to recall the onset of fighting against an arguably terrorist regime, but also as a reminder that our nation has become enmeshed in a conflict that, soon after the launch of that mission, became much more than anyone had anticipated.

The degree to which this war has divided one American from another is also a reminder of another highly controversial war that formed the social and political background of my coming-of-age years, Vietnam. About the only thing that’s changed since the country was torn apart by often violent emotions concerning that war is that Americans of all opinions are much more supportive of our troops now than before, when soldiers were called “baby-killers” when they were over there, and largely ignored when they returned home.

Not that wars have ever been a widely popular event with Americans. World War 2 was a tough sell to the then-isolationist nation, up until Pearl Harbor was nearly wiped off the map. Even then, only Hitler’s declaration of war against us, following our declaration against the Japanese, assured that we would at last join the British in their struggle against Germany’s power. But many years later, Saddam Hussein is a much less agreed-upon opponent than the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

But apart from the political or social implications of going to war, I find very interesting the way different people try to relate their religious feelings to the general subject of warfare, and especially the kind of war that engenders such wide disagreement about the necessity of fighting against an enemy that may or may not, according to your perspective, be a threat to our national and personal security.

Ever since Vietnam rocked the political conscience of college students across America, there have been many people who don’t profess any particular religious convictions, who are convinced of the need to avoid any and all wars, seeking instead to “give peace a chance.” But whenever Jesus is referenced as an “informed Source” of wisdom on the subject of war, it seems that the “Peaceful Jesus” is the one most often preferred. I’ve never heard anyone try to argue from Jesus, the Cleanser of the temple, to an image of “Rambo Jesus.” Instead, “Peace on earth, good will to men” has been invoked as a general principle, aside from its Christmas context, to imply that Jesus would never approve of hostile actions against anyone, individual or nation. But, as contemporary English versions make clear, the angels’ announcement is better translated as a promise “…on earth, peace among men with whom He is pleased." (Luke 2:14)

In summary, two main points could be made about Jesus and peace.
(1) Jesus never promised “peace on earth” in general. If anything, he said to those who were looking for Him to restore the Kingdom of Israel in their time, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Wherever that Gospel has gone, there has been conflict between light and darkness.
(2) Jesus is the One who will one day launch the greatest “offensive” the world has ever seen, when He returns to conquer His enemies in the “Day of the Lord.” In that day, “While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)! Talk about “Shock and Awe!”

But for now, does Jesus want His individual children to be “peacemakers?” Definitely! Is it appropriate on the individual level to “turn to other cheek?” Likewise! But just as the nation of Israel had a place for armed conflict against the enemies of peace and righteousness, I believe it’s appropriate for our nation to prosecute a war, at the least, for defending itself against imminent threats from nations radically opposed to a biblical peace, or to defeat an aggressor determined to take away our peace by armed aggression.

The tricky part seems to be defining a “threat.” If there is general agreement on that, and that’s something very much absent in relation to Iraq as it was with Vietnam, then such necessary conflicts, while still fitting Sherman’s eloquent description, “War is Hell”, are nonetheless to be preferred to allowing other nations, who don’t share our love of “peace on earth” to have their way with us. The good news is that, even in times of war, there can be peace, “not as the world gives”, but the peace of God that “passes understanding.” And that’s a peace we don’t have to fight for – just surrender to King Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

It's enough to drive a man to drink!

2008-03-14T20:25:00.005-05:00

Probably no one knows when alcoholic beverages were first used for euphoric effects, though it might be assumed that the intoxicating properties of certain plants were discovered before that. In any case, mankind has apparently been making use of mood-altering substances for a very long time. For example, Noah was hardly off the ark when he also fell off the wagon, got tipsy on some wine, which turned into a bad time for one of his sons.

The problems associated with excessive use of alcohol are well documented, as is the tendency for those who are given to abusing it to do so, especially if they are presented with some occasion, like a party or a holiday, that invites them to "drink up!" And soon we'll see millions celebrating an annual occasion that seems for many to be little more than a good excuse to consume way more beer than is healthy; to say nothing of the kind of behavior that generally accompanies drunken parties.

Now, of course, my musings on this subject will have no more effect on the revellers than the average Sunday School teacher scolding the naughty boys on the sidewalk outside the church (not that such a thing is likely to happen these days.) Indeed, my own high school Sunday School teacher would not have had much effect on us who were in her class, mainly because none of us, as far as I recollect, had any inkling of what true Christianity was all about.

And that, simply put, is the point of today's reflection. It's one thing for citizens of a free society to decide that they have the right to celebrate a holiday with drunken parties. But, would it be possible, in the interest of common respect, to change the name to, maybe, "Irish Day," or "Green Day?" The Irish are pretty well known for loving a good glass of brew, so it would seem a more appropriate name for such a day, rather than celebrating the memory of a Christian missionary like Patrick by doing things quite contrary to anything Patrick would likely have approved of.

While there is still a lot of difference of opinion about the history of the real Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, it is agreed that he was a Christian, and devoted much of his life to either bringing Christianity to the pagan Celts, or at the very least helping the budding church in Ireland to take hold among the majority Celts. Either way, it's more than a little ironic that a day has gotten set aside to remember him, a day which is now better known by the average American for intoxicating spirits than for works of the Holy Spirit.

In a way, it's not much different from what has become of many "Christmas parties" in businesses across the country. And perhaps it simply shows how eager many of our citizens are for any reason to break from the humdrum of their everyday lives. If only more people could know the truly "intoxicating" joy of Jesus in their hearts; and that's a "high" that works equally well in every season of life and never leaves an unpleasant hangover.

Make your choice

2008-03-02T17:14:00.000-06:00

A recent survey has been in all the news services. We are told, according to the headline, that “Americans freely change, or drop, their religions.” In an increasingly “fluid” religious environment, nearly half (44%) of Americans say “they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.” And in a new evidence of the diminished importance of religion in U.S. society, 12.1% of the respondents said their religious identity is "nothing in particular." In some areas, such as Oregon, this unaffiliated status is greater than 25%.

All of this should not surprise anyone familiar with the direction American culture has taken over the past 40 years or so. We live in an age where values like tolerance and choice have taken on a status formerly given to qualities of truth like integrity and moral virtue. Not that people can’t have both integrity and tolerance, or virtue and a respect for the choices of others. But if there is still any consensus on the nature of truth (and that’s questionable in today’s philosophical climate), it should be clear that adherence to principles of truth demand that some ideas can be tolerated in the name of religious freedoms, but that doesn’t make all ideas equally true and equally virtuous.

In purely logical terms (and not all will agree on the philosophy of such logic), if such a thing as truth exists, it is true without regard to how many people believe it, much less what percentage of people in a poll agree with it. And if such a thing as truth exists, it will be just as true now as it was two thousand years ago, without regard to the shifting opinions of societies and cultures. Otherwise, truth is simply another term for whatever I believe, at whatever time I happen to believe it.

I believe the Bible for many good reasons, not simply because it’s the book I was brought up to regard as God’s Word. In fact, I rejected the Bible’s claims to authority and truth for many years as I entertained the ever-popular idea that there are “many ways to find God.” Fortunately for my soul, I found truth in a place I had been trying to avoid, in the words of Jesus, who dared to say, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6) And while I have given time to investigate other claims to truth, I believe they all lack the authenticity of an empty tomb, a Risen Savior, and millions of lives, like my own, that have been changed by the power of His truth; truth that He promised “will set you free.” (John 8:32)

So, if people changing their “faiths” means changing denominations, I’m fine with that. I was raised by a Methodist family, learned Bible stories at a Presbyterian church, and now pastor a Baptist church. And Jesus is worshipped as Lord and Savior at all of them and many others as well. So choice and tolerance for such choices works fine if it remains within a context of truth. But if one chooses to regard an idea as truth that contradicts the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God’s only Son and Redeemer, then I can tolerate that choice in an open society, but I can’t accept it in the same way as a choice to worship God “in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)

Indeed, God gives human beings the freedom to make their own choices, to worship or not worship, to worship Him through Jesus or to seek Him in an endless variety of ways, including some that utterly contradict each other. But a day will come when the time to make choices or to change one choice for another will be finished. In that day when Jesus becomes, not the Savior, but the Judge, then He will decide whether or not our choices are valid. And He won’t need a poll to help Him.

Good News or Good Deal?

2008-02-22T09:03:00.004-06:00

It appears to me that the Church has been influenced in the last 40 years by the methods of marketing that are promoted in the business world to build a customer base. Not that anyone thinks of potential converts as customers, but it appears many believe that packaging the message and appealing to the interest level of the target audience are keys to reaching people for the Gospel of Christ. The problem with attempting to achieve relevance with modern minds is that we may give up more than we gain, i.e., we may see more lost in truth than is gained in numbers. It may be said that many modern methods of marketing the Gospel present the "Good News" of Jesus Christ as a “Good Deal” for men.

The emphasis of the Good Deal is focused more on what we stand to receive through Christ (everlasting life and this-world blessing), than on what we have obligation to give to God, (willing submission to His authority and will). The "hook" of the Good Deal is what God will do for those who accept Christ as their Savior, rather than on what God has already done in sending His only Son to save repentant sinners. The promise of the Good Deal looks at what a person, hurting and in need, can get from God (solutions to life’s problems, personal well-being), while the biblical Good News is mostly concerned with what a person, lost and dead in sin, can be with God (free from the power of sin, and knowing Him who is Way, Truth, and Life).

There is no question that the promises of blessings and abundant life are real, scriptural promises. The problem of the Good Deal is that such benefits are presented as the substance of the Gospel, rather than, as they are, the outcomes or results that come our way by virtue of being reconciled to a gracious and forgiving God. Thus, the Good Deal makes eternal life in Christ a product, obtained by "whosoever will believe" from a kindly Deity , rather than a by‑product of the restoration from death to life, made possible by the grace of a righteous God, and imparted to undeserving and rebellious creatures. People may be thus encouraged by this Deal to be consumers of a benefit, rather than becoming contrite and repentant sinners, seeking the mercies and forgiveness of the Maker and Redeemer of mankind.

The problem in this manner of Gospel presentation is not in the lack of truthfulness of the images of God as presented, nor in the reality of the blessings alluded to, nor in any of the facts as presented. The problem, rather, is in the objective of such a presentation, and therefore in the way facts and images are selected and employed. The objective of such a Gospel appeal seems to be to secure a commitment of the mind, rather than loyalty of the heart; an agreement of the mind as opposed to a change of mind. The outcome appears more like signing up followers than reconciling rebels. No wonder some have referred to such evangelism as “easy-believism.”

For such who seek benefit from the Gospel, many discover that, not only are the blessings largely confined to internal things like the fruit of the Spirit, but there are these hidden surprises, euphemistically called "trials", awaiting them at every turn. Rather than experiencing an abundant life of continual joy and peace, many find their problems multiplied, their conflicts even greater. True, there is joy and peace to be found; but it comes by a price of surrender and humility. Such prices are hidden in the "fine print" of the Good Deal, generally omitted in the presentation aimed at persuading men to a decision for Christ. Little wonder so many are soon looking to exchange their faith for something more rewarding.

With such emphasis on what the sinner will receive for his expression of faith, there may be little attention given to the weighty issues of sin and guilt that demand a genuine change of heart. The result may be a "seed sown on the rocks or thorns", that will almost surely fail to take deeper root. When Roy Edgemon, Director of Discipleship Training for the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, responded to the question of why “...so many of our converts show no sign of spiritual life?”, He gave two primary reasons. First, he says: too much of our evangelism is "manipulative," "shallow," "abortive," "evangelism without integrity." Second: too many of our churches are concerned with "decisions rather than disciples."

If the intended objective of Kingdom work is to accumulate a numerical following, then the Good Deal is a good marketing strategy. But if the goal is to truly make sincere followers, then we must be truthful about the facts of what God is offering in the cross of His Son, i.e., a no‑turning‑back, take‑up‑your‑cross approach to life, leaving behind the considerations of self and "what my God will do for me" in favor of "what ought I do for my God?"

Being blue brings out the green

2008-02-09T19:57:00.000-06:00

A recent headline from the Associated Press reads: "Sad, self-absorbed shoppers spend more." The report goes on to describe a study that shows "people’s spending judgment goes out the window when they’re down, especially if they’re a bit self-absorbed." That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone familiar with life in the adult world, and especially with the things people tend to do when they're "blue." Spending, or rather, I believe, the anticipation and acquistion of something new, is just one of a variety of experiences like eating, partying, daydreaming, drinking, and many others that are "self-medications."

But is there any credible study that demonstrates people actually improving their moods or emotional life, long-term, by such activities? If anything has been proven again and again, the opposite is true. Momentary relief from sadness or stress by self-indulgent means is always a path to greater problems. Why then do intelligent people, who presumably know this when it comes to other people's lives, plunge ahead into poor choices when dealing with their own problems?

Again, the answer should be obvious to anyone with understanding of the human experience. By nature, I can be coldly objective about other people's feelings, and dispense wise counsel about the choices they should or should not make. But my own feelings are things I feel, things I am hit in the gut with. If relief or avoidance of discomfort in the realm of emotions is comparable to relief of physical pain, I'm going to tend toward a preference of a quick solution. I don't try to just "tough it out" with a throbbing headache, and various negative emotions feel just as painful; and an immediate "pain-killer" can look very attractive if it is believed to offer a positive emotional uplift, if even just for awhile.

Human beings don't "do suffering" easily. And the history of such suffering suggests that the burdens of the soul are far greater than afflictions of the body. We can go through a lot of deprivation and loss, and still live a more-or-less "normal" human life, if we at the same time have a resource for the soul that gives hope, comfort and some assurance that all this fits into some larger scheme of things. And this is what faith is all about, at least in the subjective experience of faith as a strength for the inner man.

And this again points out the weakness of self-medicating methods that primarily soothe the body, not the soul. They're all very short-term, and tend to be addictive, delivering less results with repeated use. By contrast, faith's strength and comfort for the soul is a "long-lasting" pain reliever that no drug can equal.

If there's a problem here, it's the fact that "just believing" has a kind of placebo effect in giving relief to the soul, even if such belief is not wholly based on truth. So people may think they find comfort in the promise of their chosen faith, when in fact they may be trusting in something contrary to the only authoritative source of truth we have: the unchanging Word of God. Only God's promises give real hope, though false hopes may feel just as real for those who hold them.

Trusting in God's promises in Christ doesn't remove all the various stressors of modern life, much less all the hazards of living in a fallen world. But faith in the God Who is, the God who has spoken, the God who acts in human history to save, not only comforts the troubled soul, but delivers the soul from much greater harm that befalls so many who seek a false comfort, finding instead only further pain.

Are we having fun yet?

2008-02-05T18:42:00.000-06:00

If there's anything that keeps the American economy going, aside from the basic industries to fuel our daily needs, it's the human desire to have "fun." And the more our modern lifestyle stresses us with constant busyness and demands of work, raising children, improving the quality of our lives, etc., the more we seem to hunger for some kind of release and amusement.

As a result, the "fun" industry keeps growing. Movies, games, amusement parks, party providers and much, much more; an ever-growing sector of the economy is being built on things of little more consequence than to divert our minds from the daily grind. The recent Super Bowl extravaganza, a spectacle of far more impact than just another football game, was produced with the fun and enjoyment of the viewing public as an objective at least as important as deciding the recipient of the Lombardi trophy.

Even some of the "necessities" are manufactured and marketed in a way to put some zip or bling on what would be ordinarily rather mundane. A recent automobile ad tries to convince us that our car should "turn us on," as other car makers seek to ramp up the excitement of an otherwise routine commute.

Now, I like fun, and can truly appreciate the value of laughter and mental diversions from the burdens of work and other responsibilities. As Solomon well observed, "A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones. (Proverbs 17:22) God must have a sense of humor, many have assumed, for that natural quality of the human mind transcends genetic differences among human beings, and seems an integral part of humanity as made in God's image. Fun is more than mere recreation. It is the relief valve for a weary heart.

But as with all things in life, merriment has many sides. Indeed, many who appear to be having fun are simply covering or attempting to numb the pain of their normal lives. This fact was also observed by Solomon, as he noted, "Even in laughter the heart may be in pain, and the end of joy may be grief. (Proverbs 14:13) When fun is pursued as a pain-killer or as a rescuer from boredom, the quest for fun takes on a life of its own. And then the desire for fun becomes an insatiable appetite for pleasure that leaves ordinary life as something to be endured rather than lived to the fullest. It is the same thing that happens when the desire for wealth replaces the mere usefulness of wealth, leaving people with the "love of money" that Scripture describes as a "root of all kinds of evil."

In other words, if the desire for fun becomes more valuable to us than the desire for real life, as when people dread Mondays and live all week in anticipation of Friday night, then the fun will end up being something wholly other than fun. How many people have plunged themselves into unexpected sorrow as a result of something that "seemed like fun at the moment?"

I thank God for real fun. But it's only real fun if it doesn't turn into something that I end up regretting. And it's only fun if it doesn't reduce my ability to live a real life to the fullest of God's will for me. But I thank God even more for real life, sorrow and joy alike, for only real life can build character, teach lessons and strengthen intimate relationships. By contrast, the only I ever learned from fun times was that I liked it. Sadly, for many who have yet to discover the "life more abundant" that Jesus promised, such an outcome of fun is enough.

To be a person or not to be - that is the question.

2008-01-22T07:07:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow will again mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 court decision that invented and legalized a woman's "right to privacy", including the decision to abort her unborn child. Thirty-five years and untold thousands of aborted babies later, the battle of "choice" or "life" has taken a new turn.

Today's news includes a story from the Washington Post, with the following statement: "The French abortion pill RU-486, on the market since 2000, has become an increasingly common alternative, making abortion less clinical and more private." Now, for about the same expense of an average clinical abortion, a woman can commit infanticide in the privacy of her home. One woman interviewed for the story said, "I chose it because it seemed like a more natural way."

Is there a "natural way" to murder a human being? Apparently so, in the thinking of many who have come to view the unborn child as mere "tissue" in a woman's body. Her body, her choice. So goes the mantra of those who believe this decision to terminate a pregnancy is a "private" choice of the pregnant person. The unborn person, the one that makes the difference between pregnant and not-pregnant, is not part of the decision for the pro-choice position.

And this is so even for many who would not personally want an abortion for themselves or for a loved one. Senator John Kerry, recent presidential contender, expresses this dichotomy of the pro-choice position, saying, "I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor."

I doubt Kerry would leave the choice of a burglar, standing outside the senator's house, to whatever goes on between the thief and God. I think I know how the senator would interpret the law on that point; and, for His part, God has spoken pretty clearly on the subject of theft, and as well for the personhood of the unborn.

Speaking of Samson, God said, "For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb" (Judges 13:5) Of the prophet Jeremiah, God said, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) No legal wrangling or judicial decision can negate the clear authority of God's Word on the subject of who is a person and who is not.

And that's just where the question must hang - on the "personhood", or not, of the unborn child. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, comments on the question of the humanity of the fetus as it relates to the 14th Amendment's right to due process. He states well, "If this suggestion of personhood [of the fetus] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." But then Justice Blackmun goes on to state the majority opinion, based partly on their reading of the U.S. Constitution and partly on the legal precedents concerning abortion, that "...the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." The justices preferred to interpret meanings of human law rather than attempt to unravel controversies of religion and culture.

But even with this legal decision, binding as it has been on all subsequent law, the ambiguity of fetal identity remains unresolved in the courts and halls of government. A law passed in 2004 states the legal personhood of the fetus in unmistakeable language. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence." (Wikipedia.com) Yet, despite the obvious identification of humanity, necessary to be called a "legal victim," the law then goes on to speak of the fetus from the other side of its legal mouth, saying, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution...of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained."

What??? So, it's O.K. for a woman to deliberately terminate her "child in utero", maybe for as little reason as because she simply doesn't want to have a baby, but it's a crime for someone to accidentally take the fetus' life if it's during the act of a "crime of violence." (Like abortion is not an "act of violence", huh?) Even the pro-choice Senator Kerry smelled something rotten in this ruling, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and [at the same time] protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."

Our government cannot seem to resist putting human authority, however arrived at in the verbose rulings of judges (and Roe v. Wade is nothing if not verbose!), ahead of the concise and clearly worded statements of God Almighty. The only consolation in this is that all those little persons who were never permitted to exercise their own choice will, I believe, be waiting for us in heaven, already enjoying the presence of a loving God who knew them in the womb.

That raises a lot of questions, I know, such as the age-old conundrums about heaven and about God's sovereign permission of heinous acts of evil in this present world. But we should perhaps first try to solve the question of human legal permission for those who would rob an unborn person of that most human of qualities - making an individual and personal choice to live.

What place for religion in public life?

2008-01-16T15:40:00.000-06:00

“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

Maybe in the same way we used to want the “big kid” on our team when choosing up sides at the park, there is a division of opinion among religious people and some non-religious ones as to the real nature of George Washington’s religion. Was he an evangelical believer in the sense we use the term these days, was he simply a “believer”, without further parsing of denomination, or was he perhaps a deist, believing vaguely in God, but without specific devotion to Christianity at all.

You can get many opinions from historians and religious people, but you must come away from his Farewell Address with the impression that Washington placed a high value on the place of religion in public life and government in particular. It is said by many students of our first president that he was not in the habit of divulging his personal feelings about specific Christian convictions; it is claimed that he did not refer to the Deity in any way beyond the name of the Bible’s God. But of that much he seems sure, to the point of thinking it impossible to maintain “national morality” and government without a religion founded upon the God of the Bible.

His language may give room for many denominations to claim a place on the stage of public affairs. Indeed, the Muslim may feel that “Allah” and the “Koran” could be substituted for the Christian appellatives without doing violence to Washington’s premise about the necessity of general religion in government. And many commentators on Washington’s religion would seem to suggest that he believed that, not the subjective faith of the believer, but the moral and ethical foundation of religion, biblical or otherwise, is the indispensable component of proper government.

With this conviction of the Father of our country we could add the similar views of many other founders and leaders since their time. And, given that these men are the authors of our national documents, the Constitution and others, which are appealed to by modern architects and reformers of society, it seems incomprehensible that there is so much momentum in the movement to expunge or totally neutralize all references to religion in our nation’s official life. While not yet attempting the removal of religious freedom altogether, so many voices are raised to object to the perceived intrusion of religious convictions and statements into the realm of government.

As a Christian, I cannot apologize for the belief that the country would be far better off if every man, woman and child could come under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, submitting to His authority and knowing His grace and forgiveness of sin. But, though that ideal may not happen, could we at least keep the primacy of religion’s role in government that our nation’s founders so well defended? If the foundation of religion in our public life is abandoned in the name of secular neutrality, is it not just another small step to the public’s belief that religion is quite expendable in our personal lives as well?

You might think that the evident decline in general public morality that we have witnessed over the last 40 years (and please recall it is the same period as prayer has been banished from the schools) would attest to the importance of keeping Washington’s advice. Maybe more must happen in the wrong direction before we will, as a nation, conclude that “morality cannot prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Losing can be winning.

2008-01-11T15:03:00.000-06:00

Football legend Vince Lombardi is quoted as saying, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." And there’s something to that. It's hard enough for most of us remembering past winners of Super Bowls, World Series, etc., without trying to recall the other team. For many, “second-place” is just another word for “loser.”

We know that many people can get carried away with the desire to win, maybe to the point of cheating, maybe being overly competitive in everyday life, seeing contests for supremacy where none exist. And even without such excess, losing is never something that people celebrate or look forward to.

So it’s hard for most to think of “losing” as possibly a good thing, to say nothing of being something we can all learn a great deal from. But according to the Bible, certain kinds of “loss” can be quite profitable, even desirable. Let me offer a few biblical advantages of what most of us work hard to avoid.

First, losing can be winning when you accept loss of personal ambitions to share in God's will for your life. Jesus said, "Whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

Holding on forever to personal agendas, ambitions and dreams can lead to frustration, and may also bring disappointment, even when such dreams are realized. That’s because God has a plan and purpose for every person in the world, but it’s not a plan for personal fulfillment or success. His plan is centered on knowing Jesus Christ as the “Way, the Truth, and the Life.” His plan is aimed at the ultimate redemption of fallen human beings and the glorification of His grace in doing so.

Letting go of personal ambitions can feel very unsettling, but is most often a necessary step toward experiencing God’s purpose for our lives. We don’t by nature yield our plans or life goals to anyone, not even God. And we are much more likely to ask to support “my will be done,” rather than confidently surrendering to “Thy will be done.” But when we choose the life God has planned for us, we truly find life as it was meant to be.

Second, losing can be winning when you accept loss of personal well-being to share in God’s power. After a prolonged struggle with an affliction he called simply, “a thorn in the flesh,” Paul finally heard God’s response to his prayers for its removal. “He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." (2 Corinthians 12:9-10) So convincing was this divine answer that Paul found an insight that escapes most people, saying, “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am
strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:10)

Holding on to the desire for personal well-being can lead to selfishness and lust, as human beings tend to have an insatiable appetite for profit and power, no matter how much or how little they may have. It seems nigh unto impossible, even for someone like the apostle Paul, to peacefully accept personal weakness and poverty.

Letting go of personal welfare can feel very uncomfortable, but is often a necessary step toward experiencing God’s strength for our lives. God has an experience of true spiritual strength that includes victory over temptation and the ability to manifest consistent character qualities like love, joy, peace and other spiritual fruit, and to do so under conditions that most people would it impossible to do so. When we choose God’s power, even in the midst of great personal weakness, we find power to be fully human as God intended us to be.

Finally, losing can be winning when you are able to accept loss of personal happiness to share in God's blessing. Jesus defined true blessing when He said, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.” (Luke 6:20-21)

Holding on to the desire for personal happiness can lead to much disappointment, as well as strife, envy and resentment, especially if it seems that someone else is better off, and isn’t as “deserving” of happiness as ourselves. Doing without isn’t something that most feel comfortable with, unless maybe they’re deliberately sacrificing things for the sake of spiritual, moral or ethical principles. But martyrs aren’t always the happiest people; some are just principled.

Letting go of personal happiness and prosperity can feel very helpless, but is generally a necessary step toward experiencing God’s blessing for our lives. If Jesus was right (and that’s a safe bet!), then real blessing of the soul comes to those who are content to have whatever this world brings them, even if that’s poverty, hunger and weeping, because they trust in God’s care and provision for them. When we allow God to make us rich in spirit, satisfied in soul and rejoicing in heart, we learn the real meaning of blessing.

In the end, the only “losers” in life will be those who miss out on the chance to experience real life, real strength and real blessing in the center of God’s will for them through Jesus Christ. Compared to that, a million Super Bowl rings would be “chump change.”

How then shall we vote?

2008-01-04T09:06:00.000-06:00

To the surprise of many, the delight of some, the dismay of others, last night's first indication of voter preferences revealed that, at least for the people of Iowa, the choice of the people doesn't always swing toward the most experienced, nor to the biggest spenders, nor in favor of the most established in the political game. Two relative newcomers to the national scene came away with clear victories, at least in terms of percentages against a wide field of would-be presidents.

Some are this morning ready to predict, just on the basis of one contest, that the Democratic leader in Iowa's caucuses is the "man to beat", and could well wrap it all up by early February. Things appear less decided among the Republicans, at least for now. But this isn't by any means a political blog, so I won't attempt to comment about trends and messages and momentum and all the stuff of which elections are made. I'll stick to trying to be an interested and hopefully objective observer of this fascinating and sometimes gory process we call Democracy.

Specifically, my interest is in being a Christian, living faithfully under God's benevolent theocracy of the Spirit, while at the same time living properly under the human government of whatever nation or state a Christian happens to call "home." The Bible is clear about this: "Be in subjection to the governing authorities." (Romans 13:1) And again, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." (1 Peter 2:13-14)

And this applies equally to the American Christian as to the Russian, the Vietnamese, the Iraqi, the Kenyan and all the other believers in this multi-cultural, multi-political world. We happen to have the tradition and privilege in America to choose our leaders in a democratic fashion. And even that is a modification of the method by which our nation's first several presidents were chosen, when members of the Electoral College had the biggest say about who sat in the Oval Office. So, any way you get there, the path to national leadership is something decidedly human in method and philosophy, and yet God has given His people instructions to "submit yourselves."

I think we must understand that leaders are chosen for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the current political and social climate of the nation, and specifically how people feel about the leadership of whoever happens to be the current president. So it is not surprising that people are often attracted to a candidate who promises little more than "change." What kind of specific change, and how that shall, if at all, come about is not as important to many as simply that it is heralded as the way to go from here. No doubt, each candidate has some specific notions of what needs to be changed, and perhaps some very good ideas, though history shows that there's a lot more to getting a president's ambitions into reality than just "good ideas."

All this being the case (at least in my thinking), for a Christian in America, the chances of getting a competent and effective person into the White House, not to mention one who will be sympathetic to Christian concerns, are much better than in many countries of the world. But it's no guarantee of such an outcome, partly because of the wide spectrum of political philosophies in our nation and also because of the very limited number of people likely to become candidates at any particular time. In any event, Christian voters can do only so much to put someone into leadership who will advocate for policies that promote biblical values and outcomes.

I believe the Bible gives the responsibility to the Christian citizen like any other person to choose carefully among the available candidates for public office. We aren't called to isolate ourselves into some religious compound in the woods, nor to refuse to participate in a clearly human endeavor to select our political leaders, as if that's all too worldly for us. But it is, after all, a human political matter. We're electing a president, not a Savior; a leader, not a Lord.

We should therefore recall, and be thankful that our true Leader, the Lord Jesus Christ, is going to work His sovereign purposes through whatever government we happen to live under, and we will benefit from His leadership regardless of the political climate at the time. At the end of the electoral day, it's still God on the throne, and He isn't subject to term limits.

New year, same life?

2008-01-03T11:04:00.000-06:00

"Hope springs eternal," said the ancient poet. "This is the first day of the rest of your life," says the modern hopeful one. And nothing spurs most of us to renewed hope more than starting the calendar over again, bidding perhaps a fond "adieu" or maybe a "good riddance" to the previous twelve months.

The practice of making resolutions to launch our efforts for a better year is a very old one, going all the way back, according to some historians, to the ancient Babylonians. A survey of popular resolutions reveals that people are ever hopeful of improving the quality of their lives, physically, financially, relationally and mentally. But what becomes of such good intentions? If resolutions could actually improve our lives, we'd do well to enforce the making of such goals among the general public, for there are many lives that need improvement, including my own!

Not that anything's wrong with aspiring to improve onesself and the world around me. But most of us have figured out by now that intentions, no matter how sincere or well expressed, are quite ineffective in making substantive change; and especially so in matters that are the product of some deep, and perhaps stubborn, inner motive or desire. As the apostle Paul long ago stated, "The wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not." (Romans 7:18)

So should we just give up on resolutions and other expressions of our desire to make this year better than the last? Certainly not! But maybe we should approach such improvements as we might any other task. In other words, as the saying goes, "Work smarter, not harder." No problem can be solved or reduced without understanding the problem's cause, and therefore directing our efforts to resolving or removing that cause; or at least managing it more effectively.

To truly improve our lives should always lead us to look first into the realm of the heart, and only the Word of God really provides us with an unbiased and objective view of that territory. No life can be improved to any great degree unless it is first properly centered on God Himself, as the Chief Architect of life and the main Source of power to live it.

Perhaps our first and most formative resolution, therefore, should be to seek the Lord with all our hearts, and then do our utmost, as He gives strength by His Spirit, to to act upon His will. That done, I can predict, if not always a "Happy New Year", at least an improving and more satisfying one.

Keeping Christ after Christmas

2007-12-26T09:46:00.000-06:00

We don’t celebrate a baby’s birth, only to then leave him at the hospital. Nor do we take him home, only to then put him in a closet or on a shelf like some new accessory. We bring him home and build our lives around him. Our lives are never again what they were before his birth. Everything is now marked by his presence, because he is now part of who we are. We were individuals; now we are parents.

Christmas is a wonderful time to celebrate the birth of the world’s only Savior, King Jesus; the child “given to us” according to God’s promise, and according to God’s purpose to send His own Redeemer to deliver men from their sins. But we aren’t supposed to leave the Baby in the manger, or put away the nativity set for another year, returning meanwhile to life “as usual.” He didn’t come to be put on display as an artifact of our religious culture, much less a name that some repeat when distressed. He didn’t make the trip from heaven to Bethlehem to be merely remembered, but to be revered and honored and obeyed for who He really is, the Lord of heaven and earth.

To remember His birth without including Him in every aspect of our lives, making His presence and His desires for us a factor in everyday life, is really no different from what we do with some other notable figures of history. We still remember the birth of some American presidents, even making the date as a holiday for office workers and mailmen, among others. Would Washington and Lincoln have been pleased, if they had known their birthdays would someday give many of their countrymen a reason to stay home from work and busy themselves with more enjoyable duties? Perhaps. And, in a similar way, the birth of Christ has been a boon to the economy , as countless merchants depend on seasonal spending to keep themselves in business.

Now, the annual holiday period surrounding Christmas is, in many ways, a wonderful montage of traditions for family and friends. But, for most of America, is it really about Christ? After the trees, lawn decorations and nativities are put back into the garage or under the stairs, and after the gifts are put away (or exchanged and/or re-gifted), what then? Is there a noticeable difference in our day-to-day existence that gives evidence of a new Life in our midst, a new Spirit in our hearts?

If Christ’s birth leaves a permanent and life-changing impression on our lives, then we can truly celebrate the King’s nativity, for we are remembering His miraculous entry to our world, His humble condescension to assume a Servant’s form, and His gracious mission to take our place on the cross. But if the Son of God’s birthday doesn’t leave our hearts any more changed than the birthday of a president, then, aside from the extra parties and food, it’s pretty much just another day without mail.

God is always right on time!

2007-12-20T14:13:00.000-06:00

Galatians 4:4 When the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.

At the time of the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary, over 400 years had passed since the last prophecy of Messiah was given to the nation of Israel. That's like how long it's been since the Mayflower landed on the shores of Massachusetts. For many in Israel, it may have seemed that the promise was just a relic of the distant past, like the Pilgrims are for most of us.

Even the most elderly among the people could not recall hearing the prophets’ message. What had become of the word of the Lord to His people? It would have been natural for people to feel forgotten, perhaps to wonder if the prophecies were just a story passed from one generation to another, the way fables and legends are kept in popular use. Was it all just a moral lesson, repeated to keep faithful minds in step? Perhaps some just went on with life and effectively "forgot" the ancient pronouncements.

But in reality, nothing had been forgotten in the mind of God, and nothing had changed of His plan, first stated to Adam and Eve, to deliver His people through the seed of the woman. But, in God's wisdom and sovereign plan, much had to be in place on the world’s stage before the Son could make His timely entrance. His coming was not like a package delivery, to arrive “as soon as possible.” Rather, the Son of God, Immanuel, was to arrive at the pinnacle of history, when time was at its “fullness.”

Speaking of the promise of Christ's return visit to our world, Peter advises, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness. (2 Peter 3:9) God could have chosen to resolve the corruption and injustice of this world in a more expeditious manner; and in fact the most appropriate way, from a strictly legal point of view, might have been to simply wipe the planet clean of the offending humans and start creation over again with more compliant creatures. But ease and efficiency, as we conceive them, was apparently not in God's manual of redemption.

Christmas reminds us that God always acts faithfully, and in “the fullness of time.” His sense of time and schedule is nothing like our own. He has no clock to watch but that of His own wise purposes; and He’s never late. We may wait anxiously for His promises to be fulfilled, especially when the clock of our own understanding is quickly approaching the "zero hour" of disaster or frustration. But, despite the appearance of this world's events, it’s always best to let God complete His plans when the time is “just right.”

A Garden View of Bethlehem

2007-12-17T11:07:00.000-06:00

The world of man's serenity had just fallen apart. The perfect world God had created and given to Adam and Eve was now a broken world. The garden God gave to Adam to tend and manage was soon to be only a memory. All that God had pronounced as “good” was now under the corrupting influence of sin.

But in that moment, as God spoke heavy and ominous words of punishment to a disobedient man and woman, the black clouds of judgment were parted just enough to give a glimpse of hope. Indeed, before God passed sentence upon the offending humans, He first predicted an ultimate sentence of death for the serpent who had deceived the pair.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel. "

Not that day, as Adam and Eve were expelled from their first home, nor in the near future, as they and all their children tasted the bitter fruit of their rebellion, but someday and most certainly, God promised to stage history’s greatest and most decisive battle, pitting the serpent against one of the woman’s human descendants. The man would suffer a wound “on the heel”; serious but not beyond healing. The serpent would suffer a wound “on the head”; fatal and permanent.

It would take thousands of years for the battle scene to take shape, but for all those who waited for that day, the promise had been given, and would be kept. A man would be born of a woman, a man who would enter the world as the Baby of Bethlehem, the subject of the angels’ song; and He would be the One to slay the serpent of sin and death.

Every person born since that day in the Garden begins life under the weight of that burden laid upon Adam and Eve; a burden that remains despite every effort men might make to undo it by their works of religion or altruism. But hope was given from that day unto our own. Christ came, and lived, and died, and rose, and defeated Satan's power of death. And hope remains for all who will receive, in sincere and surrendered faith, the King of kings and Lord of lords, born to a woman, that night in Bethlehem.

What's this world coming to, and why?

2007-12-13T14:34:00.000-06:00

It's been just over a week since Omaha was jolted out of its "That kind of thing can't happen here" comfort, by an act of violence that still seems unthinkable and unexplainable. In just a few minutes, eight lives were abruptly ended by a very sad, sick-minded young man, bent on being "famous" at the expense of innocent and unsuspecting people.

My wife and I were among several hundred people at the Westroads shopping center that day, enjoying a bit of holiday atmosphere and shopping. In fact, my wife left the Von Maur store at the exact time Robert Hawkins was entering to "check out" the scene, before leaving and returning with his rifle six minutes later. I heard the shots from just outside the store's interior mall entrance, and saw one of the victims lying motionless on the first floor. It was too much for the mind to absorb all at once. It's still like a bad dream, and that's not to equal the outright nightmare it's been for the victims' families, friends and co-workers.

It would be tragedy enough if this sudden loss of life was, say, an accident or freak of nature that swept those eight people away without so much as a farewell. But to have it come by a senseless act, the twisted reasoning of a mind entirely detached from the feelings and hopes and desires of other human beings who contributed nothing to their killer's misery, this just seems to defy any rational explanation.

It seems to me that people favor and seek for explanations, however, and it's tempting to rush to any number of convenient places to put the blame. Too many guns, too little attention paid to our children by overly busy parents, too much violence in our culture, too little security and law enforcement to keep the innocent safe. Perhaps any or all of these might be implicated in the overall theory that makes such events possible; but none satisfy my mind as a comprehensive theory which, if it could somehow be resolved, would leave us, at last, free from the threat of history repeating itself.

But, we should at least give some thought to the possibility that something in the social and cultural climate of America, not to mention other nations, has given rise to an alarming and increasing number of seemingly random incidents of violence in the past 40 or so years. I say "random" because they do not immediately suggest a more obvious explanation such as gang rivalries, organized crime, terrorism or other causes that do sometimes result in horrific acts of violence. But the lack of a clear and consensus-building reason doesn't mean there is no reason.

One thing seems evident. As you survey a history of such multiple murders of people unknown to their killers, a profile stands out of people who are angry, detached, depressed, and therefore quite disinterested in the harm and life-changing injury they are about to set loose upon their victims and all related to them as they prepare to carry out their execution-style murders.

Sure, there's a lot of other angry, detached, depressed individuals who don't take assault rifles to the mall. So maybe we should just take comfort in the rarity of these events and figure we can't do much but shake our heads and try to carry on. But that won't solve anything, if indeed this can be solved by anything short of a total renovation of human society and culture; a renewal that would, once and for all, deal with the things that leave so many of our people, and especially our young people, with unmanageable levels of anger, hopelessness and self-loathing.

I won't claim that religion alone would make such a renovation, for we all know that religion can be distorted by human minds just like anything else, and sometimes more so. But I have no doubt whatever that the presence and power of Jesus Christ in a human heart can perform such a renewal. And I don't mean getting into a church, but inviting Christ into my daily thoughts, motives and attitudes to the point that I have an answer for the things that make me feel angry or bitter or hopeless. Knowing Christ in such a personal and powerful way doesn't remove all the sources of anger or unhappiness, but it sure changes how I deal with them.

It's too bad, to say the least, that Robert Hawkins could not have found this life-changing power for himself, before he took his rage and hatred of an unsuspecting world around him to such an extreme. Let's pray some other "killers-in-the-making" will find a new heart and hope, before it's too late for them, and for some of us.

A new definition of "double standard."

2007-11-30T11:30:00.000-06:00

This story caught my eye on the web this morning:

APPLETON, Wis. - Authorities charged a married man Thursday with slipping his girlfriend an abortion drug that caused her to miscarry twice. Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree murder of an unborn child, stalking, burglary and two counts of violating a restraining order. (emphasis added)

The drug Mr. Patel gave his girlfriend was "mifespristone, the abortion pill also known as RU-486." Currently, any woman can take that drug on her own, according to our present "pro-choice" abortion laws. But for Mr. Patel to "slip" it to her on the sly is considered "attempted first-degree murder of an unborn child." So, for the girlfriend to take the drug, that's a "choice." For someone else to make such a choice for her is not simply "coercion" or "extortion" or even "assault" in respect to the woman and her choices; it's "attempted murder of an unborn child."

How does a fetus remain mere "tissue" or "potential life" when under the control of the mother, but it becomes an "unborn child" if someone other than the mother makes the choice? Is there not some kind of illogical double standard at work here? Or is it something like, "If I take my life, it's suicide; if you do it, it's murder." That would be valid if it's my life you're talking about. But the "unborn child" is a third entity (dare we say "person"?).

Isn't this simply another instance of the double-talk of the judicial advocates of the "pro-choice" position , who are so eager to protect the prerogatives of an individual woman that they will abide such obvious flaws in their arguments? Either the fetus is a "child" or it's simply a "potential child." It can't be both, depending on who does the killing. It doesn't become less of a child when it's aborted by a mother than if it was unintentionally miscarried. If it's a "mass" subject to the mother's choice, then a miscarriage, even if caused by someone other than the mother, is perhaps some kind of crime against that mother, but not a "murder" of a person. You don't "murder" a non-person.

Maybe it's time to stop the double-talk and take God's word for it: Every "unborn child", at whatever stage of development, is still precious in God's sight, for each one is "fearfully and wonderfully made," and known already by the same God who knows the rest of us who were not aborted.

Thanksgiving: More than a holiday?

2007-11-23T15:14:00.000-06:00

Psalm 92:1 It is good to give thanks to the Lord, and to sing praises to Your name, O Most High.

No doubt about it. It's good to celebrate Thanksgiving - making memories with families and friends, serving others with acts of charity to the less fortunate, to say nothing of a ready-made excuse to eat more delicious food than, most would agree, is healthy for everyday practice.

But, while it's good to have an annual place on the calendar to refresh the mind's sense of generic gratitude, you have to wonder how much of this thankful spirit is left among the general populace by the first week of December. It's a similar question to that of wondering what happens to all the "good will to men" talk when everyone returns to work after the Christmas holiday.

Indeed, if Thanksgiving is just a holiday, it's a worthwhile one, if only for the occasional nudge to our collective conscience in the direction of acknowledging the source of our blessings; or at the very least to see that we have been well blessed. But, according to the inspired witness of the Psalms, there is much good in the simple and most appropriate act of giving thanks.

Think of thanksgiving, not as an obligation of courtesy, (and so we train our children to say it), but as a means of keeping the soul centered on the most fundamental fact of our existence: We owe nothing of our lives or possessions or accomplishments exlcusively to our own actions or merits. Even our simplest acts or thoughts are made possible in part by the contributions or gifts or assistance of someone other than ourselves; and ultimately to Someone who gave us even the capacity to think thoughts that are contrary to His will.

Giving thanks keeps our perspective in proper alignment. Humility is a natural result of acknowledging our indebtedness, first to God, and second to others. Foolish pride and arrogance are simply incompatible with gratitude as a consistent theme of our hearts and practice. So, as the psalmist said, "It's good to give thanks." Yes, it's the right thing to do, and therefore it's wrong not to give thanks. But, like all things God calls "right", thanksgiving is also "works for me."

It is not simplistic to say: A grateful heart cannot wander far from the truth of God; and the heart that wanders into darkness, far from God's truth, is an ungrateful heart. As Paul summarized the errors of a lost humanity, he said, "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21)

Gratitude - God says it's right for you!

Now landing in the blogoshere!

2007-11-16T19:06:00.000-06:00

I've decided it's time for me to get into the "aughts" (or whatever you want to call this first decade of the 2000's). So, as Pastor of a small Baptist church in Omaha, NE, I'm going to try to add something meaningful and Christ-centered to this expanding universe of blog-ness.

As the title of this blog implies, my view of life is "Christ-centered." I want to live in a way to follow after Paul's pursuit of a life that is all about "laying hold of that for which He laid hold of me."

More than that, life just is "Christ-centered", simply because He is the Architect and the ultimate Object of life, the "Alpha and Omega." Whether you choose to believe in and follow Him, that's your decision; your reaction to the truth of His Word. But nothing any man can do or say changes the fact of His Lordship; any more than a skeptic might object to, and thereby overthrow the Laws of Nature.

These are crucial days. Hardly an original statement, but nonetheless true. The idea of truth as an absolute value is quickly becoming for many an anachronism of a distant and unwanted past. But that has in no way altered the fact of truth. What scientists, skeptics, celebrities, talk-show hosts and many others believe about reality does not establish reality.

But, that claim aside, God presents His truth with compassion and an eternal love for all He has created - and that's all of us. So in the days to come, I'll hope to add some thoughtful comments to the web-discussion. But the only thing I can possibly contribute is what is Christ-centered, for that's the only truth I know.

For now, grace and peace, from Christ our Savior and Lord, is yours for the asking.

Larry