shutdown

"Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin." - Deut 24:14-15

"Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty." - James 5:4
---

This isn't intended to be extremely political, despite the topic.  It's simply meant to be a doctrinal assertion.  In the moment it's going to come across as political, however.  While in any given situation this might target one party or government leader or another, there's no saying that the next situation won't involve the opposite party.

My assertion is simply that shutting down the government in the way it has been done recently very clearly violates Scripture.  There are probably extreme situations where a government shutdown is the least sinful course, but those situations are limited.  They certainly are not at play here.

I've been in an awkward place on this issue.  I think it's important to acknowledge in the church that this is a sin, while it is also important not to get overtly political in a church setting.  So, I keep to myself what I see as public sin by other believers.  I feel like there's an unspoken obligation in church to make a stand in calling certain sins sin, but also a similar obligation not to take a stance on other sins because some people in the church disagree that they are sins for one reason or another.  Clearly, if they are sins then this is a problem.

In reading the passages above, I don't know how a Christian can justify taking a public position that making government employees work without pay isn't sin.  I don't know how a Christian government leader could ignore Scripture to force people to work without timely pay.

The natural defense a person might raise is that this is a different situation because it's addressing rich land owners exploiting their workers, but that's a semantic difference more than anything.  It's looking for a loophole to lawyer out of God's instruction.  These instructions/condemnations come from the fact that certain people exploit others, and this puts them at odds with God.  Shutting down the government does the same thing, so it should follow that this puts the people who cause the shutdown at odds with God.  If Scripture is true, doesn't this mean that the cries of unpaid laborers are reaching God, and that those responsible for the shutdown are ultimately under God's judgment?

That this shutdown and previous ones have involved individuals who claim Christianity should be seen as tarnishing our faith.  To counter this more church leaders should be speaking about this situation in terms of its sinfulness.  While I understand the motivation of doing something like shutting down the government as a negotiation tactic, believers should have a high standard for people who claim to represent them as Christians in the public sphere.  For one, those representatives should abide by the Scripture they say they proclaim.

happy holidays or merry christmas?

Around the holidays the issue of people saying "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy holidays" seems to be s significant one for some folks.  It's been a cultural debate, or in some cases, and opportunity to mock those who believe that greater culture needs to align with Christian doctrine.  It seems like there would be two different perspectives that this can be viewed from.

In the one perspective, I can see how some Christians might expect other Christians to continue to say "Merry Christmas" if they believe that failing to do so is somehow denying the Incarnation of Christ.  I don't know how the act of saying, "Happy holidays," could do such a thing, but maybe there are very specific social situations where refusing to acknowledge Christmas is an act of denying Christ's humanity.  That is frankly the strongest argument I can make for getting worked up about someone not saying "Merry Christmas."

From a different perspective, does it make any sense for Christians to expect non-Christians to say, "Merry Christmas"?  Is acknowledging that there are other holidays around this season denying Christ, and even if it were would it matter if someone who doesn't put their faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins did so?

If this were part of some overarching cultural strategy to do away with Christians celebrating Christ's birth I could see this being a big deal.  However, that's a conspiracy I don't buy into.

I think this is a battle for people who want to devote their time and effort to cultural wars rather than devoting their lives to the Gospel as presented in Scripture.  When Paul wrote about the Devil's schemes, and that our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Eph 6:10-20), he was specifically arguing against earthly pursuits such as cultural warfare.  Satan's goal isn't to get people to be more politically correct.  It's to get them to spend their finite focus on the earthly things (like cultural warfare) rather than on teaching others about putting our full faith and trust in Christ's blood, and living a life that reflects that.

However, I do want to be open to arguments that I haven't articulated.  Is there something that I'm missing about what saying, "Happy holidays,"  really means?  Am I misunderstanding Paul, and cultural warfare is somehow Scripturally appropriate?

retirement

In thinking about life goals one of the obvious questions that comes to mind is when I want to retire.  I've been struggling with that thought as of late because, as far as I can tell, retirement isn't very scriptural.

The one passage that I have come back to time and again over the last few years is Luke 12:13-21.  In this passage a man asks Jesus to mediate an inheritance dispute he has with his brother.  Jesus' response is to question why he should be an arbitrator in this dispute, then to warn against greed and an abundance of possessions.  He follows it up with what seems like a damning parable.

In the parable a rich man has a bumper crop, and his response is to build grain storage.  He figures he can now live off this grain, kick back, and not worry about life any more.  The NIV records him as saying, "Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”  Jesus calls the man a fool and spells out the condemnation the man is to experience.

A typical westerner will read this passage with an almost automatic, "Of course Jesus isn't warning against savings!  He's simply preaching against greed, laziness, and lack of care for others in a general sense.  Sure, saving excessively is greed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't save for retirement."  Without fail, if I bring this issue up to others in a church or Bible study setting with a question about retirement, someone jumps to retirement's defense without really addressing the fact that Jesus told a parable where the villain's villainy was simply that they saved when they should have given away.

I'm not actually trying to make a point here.  I honestly don't know what to do with this.  I have a retirement account.  I don't contribute at the level that Fidelity says you should, but it exists for the purpose of providing an income when Golden and I are older.  Is this wrong?

I think the question of what to do with this passage invites knee-jerk responses, but it really deserves heartfelt contemplation, even if a person decides that retirement accounts are good and acceptable.  As I noted, I have a retirement account and I still contribute to it.  Part of the why is that I'm not convinced yet that it's inherently wrong.

One potentially valid argument that I have heard is that the cultural rules for caring for one's elders has changed.  Retirement accounts weren't a thing because elders in the same family unit worked together in whatever the family trade was and all raised the children together.  Retirement accounts are a natural result of a structural shift in our culture where family units are smaller, and don't include grandparents.  Whether that is good or bad can be debated, but it is possible that this cultural element to this that changes the application of this passage.

One thing I am certain Jesus was decrying is a mindset that I do see within the church today, and that I am prone to.  Jesus very clearly indicated that the person who believed they had earned the right to leisure and pleasure was to be condemned.  So, perhaps the question isn't whether retirement from a specific career is wrong, but whether the attitude surrounding that retirement is wrong.  If I have the perspective that I've earned or I deserve to spend the rest of my life devoted to "me time" because I've banked enough money to do that, I'm inviting condemnation.

It's a lot to think about when reviewing my 401(k).

song of songs

FYI, the topic below is somewhat adult in nature, but it is Biblical.

Along with teaching Sunday School, I also alternate with someone else teaching a men's class at church.  I could take the easy way out with video series, and I am leaving myself open to the possibility in the future, but I have been doing expository teaching through different books of the Bible.

What I hate teaching (or sitting through a lesson on) the most is something that everyone in the room already knows.  If I know a passage or a topic has been taught repetitively and I don't have something new to bring to the table, I really don't enjoy teaching the lesson.  Because of this, I am drawn to teaching things that others have not focused on, for one reason or another.

All of this is to say that I decided a while back to teach the Song of Songs in the men's class.  I used two books in planning my lessons (The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy by O'Donnell and Exalting Jesus in the Song of Songs by Akin and Platt). I am going to be wrapping up the series in early August, and so have pretty much gotten through the entire book.  I have included some thoughts I have about teaching the book below.

• I never appreciated the true spiritual value of the Song.  Marriage represents the Church and Christ, and so the quality of union we have with our spouse reflects how we value the relationship between Christ and the Church.  The purpose of the Song is to celebrate and promote Godly marriage that properly reflects the relationship between God and His people.
• I never appreciated the context and target audience of the Song.  This is probably a song (or series of songs) meant to be sung at a wedding celebration, and targeted to unmarried girls.  One can imagine singers taking the roles of husband and wife, and a choir of girls singing the "friends" parts.  Who the target audience is explains a lot of the content in the book, not the least of which are the three commands in the Song to not forfeit one's virginity too quickly.
• I did not appreciate that reading this song literally is a relatively recent approach.  For centuries commentators assumed that the book is a metaphor for God and the Church or God and Israel.  The Song couldn't be about intimacy between a married couple because that would degrade the Holy Scripture.  This is a perspective that seems laughable today, and it is a ridiculous position, but it was the de facto position of all of Christianity and Judaism for over a millennium.
• Some weeks were flat-out awkward because my sources assumed that if something could be describing a very intimate part of the body or intimate action that was probably the correct interpretation.
• I used to have a real problem with the Song because I believed that the man in the Song was Solomon.  One of my sources (Akin/Platt) believes that this is true, but my other source (O'Donnell) believes that Solomon is only introduces for comparison purposes.  This is appealing for a few reasons, one of which is that it solves the very difficult challenge with the book that the Song does not describe a polygamist's marriage.  This would conflict with the mutual ownership that the woman expresses throughout the Song (Song 2:16; 6:3; 7:10), as well as with the fact that polygamy was not God's perfect ideal for marriage.  I agree with O'Donnell that Song of Songs is written by Solomon to describe a different, idealized couple.
• I did not realize that the Song was written very much with the intent of praising the value of virginity.  Apart from the commands to wait for love in the Song, there are a couple of clear indications that the woman (This song is targeted to girls) saved herself for marriage.  First, in the honeymoon chapter her husband refers to her body as a locked garden and a sealed fountain, indicating that she has closed herself off from men until this time (Song 4:12).  Second, in the conclusion the woman describes herself as a wall in comparison to a door, which likely establishes her virginity because a wall is not entered but a door is (Song 8:10).

The most practical lesson I have gotten from teaching Song of Songs is that a husband has a responsibility to praise his wife's beauty to her frequently and in detail, and see her as his standard for beauty, Likewise, a wife has a responsibility to periodically make herself physically available to her husband.  Those points sum up about half of the book.

I am looking forward to being done with this series.  That is less about the awkwardness of the topic and more about the time I have to spend in preparing these lessons.  I'm ready for a less-involved series.

teaching in church

"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."- James 3:1

I have been the primary teacher in our Sunday School class for just short of four years now, along with rotating through teaching a men's class on Wednesday nights for the past couple of years.  Many of the classes I have taught have been very thin in attendance (I've taught a solitary person more than once), but many have been well-attended by very intelligent people.  That might sound like bragging, but what what has struck me over and over the past few years is how unqualified I am, and how ridiculous it is that I presume to be able to teach many of the people who regularly fill the seats.  I don't have more knowledge or experience.  All I have is that I put in time to research and prepare a lesson every week.  Just about anyone could do that.

The reason I teach is not skill or a love for teaching.  I'm not a great speaker.  What drives me is the fact that it seems like a waste of time if everyone takes the time to show up and the topic of discussion is either shallow or not well researched.  Why even show up, then?


In light of the statement above from James, it is scary what I don't know.  How can I teach when there are so many questions that I don't know let alone the answers?  There are passages of Scripture that flat-out confound, and there are realities of life I am not close to grasping.  People ask hard questions in class and pose difficult scenarios, as they should.  There is a limit to my knowledge, and the a big theme of the last five years for me has been realizing how much I still need to understand about the Bible and doctrine.  This being the case, how do I keep from leading people down wrong paths on this issue or the next?

Really, the only thing I know to keep myself in line is something I mentioned in class a few months ago.  If I get to the end of class and haven't mentioned how the passage we're looking at points to Christ, then something is wrong.  I pray that there aren't other things that I state wrongly along the way.

karma and schadenfreude

Every once in a while I will hear someone say that they believe in karma or that they get enjoyment out of karma.  In some instances I will hear of someone getting their just desserts as karma exacting revenge on that person.  This usage of "karma" is not technically accurate.

First, I should note that since I am Christian I do not believe in literal karma, no matter how it is defined.  It is important to understand what I am disagreeing with when someone declares karma, however.

The real definition of karma comes from the Hindu religion.  The idea is that good deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in good outcomes for people, and that bad deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in bad outcomes for people.  The key is that this is supposed to be experienced in a person's next life.  Someone's karmic state is intrinsically linked to his or her reincarnation, and so payback would probably be in the quality of someone's next life, which would be lived without an understanding of the evils committed in the previous life.  Based on my understanding of the concept, which is admittedly imperfect, karma would have to be experienced a long time later, and probably in a future life rather than in this one.

I believe that a better word for what people mean when they say, "karma," is, "schadenfreude."  It's also a much more fun word to pronounce!  I believe that most of my audience knows what it means, but for the uninformed the dictionary.com definition is, "satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune."  I have mostly heard it used in conjunction with enjoying someone else's misery because one believes that misery is deserved.  So, when I hear that someone believes in karma, or enjoys seeing examples of karma, I understand that they simply like seeing the suffering of those they believe to be immoral.  This is more accurately the practical definition for schadenfreude.

Christian believers are not permitted to believe in Hindu karma or partake in schadenfreude.  Real karma is in direct contradiction to Heb 9:27, which states that people are destined to die once, and then to face judgment.  Schadenfreude is founded in a desire for vengeance that violates the spirit of Rom 12:17-21, fun as it is to say.

I'll certainly grant that both concepts are interesting, and have some allure.  At the very least, they can make you sound intelligent to adeptly use them in conversation.  However, a Christian believer shouldn't revel in either.

torture is wrong

I include the video below only because I started thinking about this topic due to watching this tonight.



One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror.  In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.

I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing.  I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that.  I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.

For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances.  If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table.  This presents a few problems, though.

First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines?  What is allowed and not allowed?  How urgent is urgent enough?  Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it?  Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.

Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information.  While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize.  Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?

Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues.  The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them).  Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives.  Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.

In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago.  From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person.  It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information.  The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.

I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake.  Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives.  Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes.  I am only a sinful human.

Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11).  Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21).  There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.

Update (12/16/14):

I have two further notes I would like to make.

First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical.  Thanks for indulging me on these, though.

Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it.  Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers.  This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant.  The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.

a different means of encouragement

I am sorry that I have been away a while.  Things pile up and a lot of things do not get done.  I did have a quick thought that I wanted to share, however.

For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews.  The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.

Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution.  This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).

The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach.  While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.

Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government?  The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this.  Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18).  So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement.  The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.

Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10).  If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.

I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine.  People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real."  People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement.  Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.

forgiving the well-known

Most people like to be righteously indignant about someone else's objectively bad behavior.  I am no different.  The question I have is at what point do we need to let that indigence go and allow for someone to move on with their lives.

A few years back I posted on the requirement in the Christian faith on forgiveness.  It is expected to be unwavering and absolute, because our level of forgiveness reflects our level of acceptance of the position we have in relation to God.  This is not an expectation for non-believers, for Jesus himself stated that the one who has been forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), but there are no exceptions for Christians.  We are to forgive as we have been forgiven, and that is an astronomical standard to meet.

The first universal examples of where this becomes difficult that spring to my mind are with celebrities. Names that spring to mind of people who others seem to find difficult to forgive for their real or perceived sins are Michael Vick, Mel Gibson, Tonya Harding, and Kanye West.  For my own part, one person who always rubbed me the wrong way is the former Phillies outfielder, and later flawed investment adviser Lenny Dykstra.  This was mostly due to his reputation for brash obnoxiousness, but he also served time for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.

Celebrities are easier to forgive than the next group that springs to mind: dictators and war criminals.  Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire Kim family in North Korea, are the easiest names to generate in my mind.  These are just the well-known ones, though.  In reality, just the last hundred years has seen thousands of people who violently abused their positions of power.  None of these people ever wronged me or my family, so I am not in a position to need to forgive them, but how could a person do it?

My issue is that it is difficult for me not to think of myself as morally superior in my own self to many of the people whose names I have listed.  I don't think I am alone in that.  It seems a low bar to imagine myself as better than someone who is renown for their failings.  As long as I allow myself to dwell there, though, my pride is every bit as evil to God as the crimes of those other individuals.  That is my struggle.

contentment

Last week I completed a six month read through the Bible which ate up more of my spare time than I anticipated it would.  This has been enlightening, but it has solidified my belief in something that causes me a great deal of concern.  God promises a lot of things in the life to come, but in this life we are promised little more than fulfillment and faith.

What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13.  That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength.  Ignoring context, it sounds heroic.  In context, it is challenging.

"I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength. Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles."- Philippians 4:10-14

To summarize, Paul understood relative wealth and poverty. In all of these circumstances he had learned the secret to contentment. The implication is that this is found in the Lord. The challenge to my faith lies in the fact that we are not promised easy lives.  We are only promised that Christ's strength can give us contentment in the middle of difficult times.

I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes?  God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes.  If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?"  That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.

I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found.  I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however.  I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances.  I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations.  This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment.  Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.

Through my doubts I do still believe, however.  I do still believe.

the plans I have for you

"...For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." — Jeremiah 29:11

Something that I am not proud of is that I judge people who claim that Jeremiah 29:11 is one of their favorite verses.  In case you were not aware, this verse makes it into a lot of peoples' favorites lists.  I do make an exception for people who can provide some context for the verse, but few people who understand the context would choose this as a favorite passage.  While I know that I am right about the interpretation of the verse, I am sure I am not approaching this with the necessary love and respect, and this is what embarrasses me.

There are a few reasons that people pick favorite verses.  The reason to pick this specific verse always struck me as looking for reassurance in the Scripture rather than looking for the truth.  If I want to believe that God has plans to prosper me I'm going to be motivated to latch onto this verse, and if I am not the type to verify things I will not notice that the verse is saying almost the complete opposite of the popular interpretation for that verse.

In the previous chapter the false prophet Hananiah had predicted that the Jews would leave Babylon within two years.  After Hananiah's prophecy God informed Jeremiah that this was a false prophecy, and so Jeremiah told Hananiah that he would die for persuading the nation "to trust in lies."  True to Jeremiah's word, Hananiah died in the middle of that year.

After all of this occurred, Jeremiah wrote a letter to the exiles in Babylon, and Jeremiah 29 contains the content of that letter.  The letter opens with the command to the exiles to settle down and make the best life they can in Babylon because they will be there seventy years.  The vast majority of the people reading that letter would die in Babylon having never seen Jerusalem again.  However, to reassure the people that God's promise to Abraham would remain true, Jeremiah included some long term encouragements to the people about how God would not forget His promise for His chosen people.

A lot of people read, "I know the plans I have for you," to mean, "I have a special plan for you individually."  Then, they read the rest of the verse as an encouragement that they will prosper and not be harmed.  To read the verse in this way is to trust in lies as Hananiah had caused Israel to do in the previous chapter.  The plans that God has for "you" are the plans that He has for the nation that He chose as His people.  They are not plans for individuals receiving the letter since most or all of them would be dead before any of those plans would see fruition.

In the interest of consistency with other Scripture, can you imagine some of the people described near the end of the faith chapter (Hebrews 11) being perplexed at God while bad things were happening to them?  I certainly can.

• Verse 35: "God, I was about to be tortured and I gave in because being harmed is not part of your plan. I hope it does not impact my resurrection that I denied you."
• Verse 37: "God, it is taking some effort, but I have faith that that large saw those men are holding is not going to harm me."
• Verse 37: "God, this shabby goatskin I have is not a designer brand.  That Gucci camel fur would go a ways toward your promise to prosper me."
• Verse 38: "God, I and my family woke up in a hole in the ground today just like yesterday and the day before.  Where are those plans to prosper me you promised in Jeremiah?  How about—oh, I don't know—a small starter home in the suburbs to get things started?"

I do not want to imply that Scripture offers no encouragement to the believer.  It does offer encouragement.  It is just that most of the comforts and reassurances that we are promised are not promised for this life.  If you absolutely must have an encouraging passage whose interpretation does not violate its context and make a false promise I suppose the following passage will meet most of these requirements.  Well, it meets the requirements as long as you understand that "rest" indicates salvation rather than physical rest.

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." — Matthew 11:28-30

what i'm learning from scripture

I have to apologize for my lack of posts as of late.  This latest dry spell has been because I am doing a reasonably aggressive Bible reading plan that takes much of my spare time.  It is a six-month plan that covers all but one book of the Bible (it skips Job for whatever reason).  Whenever I end up doing a plan like this I am torn between frustration at the loss of spare time (a precious commodity for a parent with young children) and the immense value I get from the reading.

The insights I have received from reading through the Bible in past years have always been reflective of the knowledge and faith that I have at the time.  Better yet, they are reflective of the lack of knowledge and faith that I have at the time.

The last time reading through the Old Testament I greatly struggled at what--to a Western reader--feels like cultural baggage of sexism, racism, slavery, and sexual abuse.  The code word in a lot of circles for this unpalatable aspect of Scripture is, "patriarchy," and in that time three years ago I felt the full force of this in my reading.  In some cases there are still no easy answers or explanations for individual issues, but I have had three years to better understand God's priorities in Scripture.  The other theme I picked up my last time reading through the Bible was that God desires broken people who know they are broken rather than self-righteous, pious ones.  God will absolutely break people if He deems it necessary as well.

This time reading through the Bible there are two themes that have jumped out to me.  The first is due to the fact that we have been studying Deuteronomy for the last year in Sunday School.  This is that God works with His people in covenants, and so most of the commands in Scripture have to be understood through the lens of the covenant to which they are associated.  A lot of the odd commands from the Mosaic Law only make sense in the context of the nation of Israel and the fact that they were a nation redeemed from Egypt and set apart for God's glory.

The second theme I have noticed this time through is how much of the Old Testament points directly to Christ.  I am not even to the Major Prophets or Minor Prophets in my reading yet, and still so much of what I have read was fulfilled in Christ.  I read from one of these passages today in Sunday School since it is appropriate for the present holiday, and I was embarrassingly choked up in the reading.  I present it below without further comment.

Psalms 22:1-18

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises. In you our ancestors put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. To you they cried out and were saved; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.

Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me. My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.

Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

on the board

While I have been nominated for our church board a few times, this year was the first one that I both let my name run and expected there to be a chance I would get the position.  Indeed, this year I was confirmed as a board member.

I have not commented on the nomination or election on Facebook because I'm friended with half of the church, and with all of the other people who were nominated.  I am bringing up some thoughts here because this seems a more appropriate forum.  I don't have anything to say that it would be wrong for anyone specific to read, but I am more comfortable opening up on some thoughts here.

In some past years I may have had some pride issues regarding the idea that I would be nominated.  That is a dangerous place to be, both because Scripture warns against conceit in church leadership (1 Tim 3:6) and because it obscures the real responsibility of the job.  While it is dangerous to ever say that there is a sin that I don't struggle with, this year pride about being nominated or elected was not much of an issue for me.

My big issue this year has been a bit of trepidation at the responsibility.  I am very concerned with the expectations of the individuals who were strongly behind my getting elected.  If I am to fulfill the role properly I will probably do things in disagreement with their desires many times throughout my term.  I do not know if those who voted for me realize this, but I'm the risky vote.  I'm the one who will probably shake the boat if I feel something is important, and I am probably going to take the minority position in a lot of situations.  Though I am a troublemaker in this respect, I also detest having to argue, so I hope those situations are few and far between because every one of them will be an internal battle for me.

One thing that I can promise is that I will serve attentive to the guidance of Scripture at all times.  I just hope that how I see Scripture and how I understand church responsibilities is how God sees things and how the rest of the members of the church see things.

kjv: the context killer

I am not a fan of the modern use of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. A lot of people do seem to connect better with the Scripture in old English, so I do not necessarily want to knock it for those people.  I do have my reasons for preferring modern versions over the KJV, though.

To be fair, one of my reasons is more personal than rational.  I associate the Shakespearean English of the KJV with people trying to manufacture a vibe of Godliness, and so that style of speaking in a church or when reading Scripture rings fake to me on a visceral level.  That in itself does not mean the version is better or worse than other versions available today, but it influences me personally.

On a more rational note I do believe this translation of the Bible is more difficult to understand, and this has caused a lot of issues that simply do not crop up with modern English versions.  There are two reasons for this, and the second is less obvious than the first.

The first reason I believe that the KJV causes modern readers to not understand is simply that it takes a lot more conscious effort to understand this archaic version of English than what is found in a modern translation.  Words that are not even in use today are scattered throughout the text, and there are oddly-structured sentences throughout.  Until I was fourteen I only had a King James Bible and I rarely understood anything I was reading for this reason.  I didn't understand Shakespeare for the same reason, but not understanding Macbeth is not as big of an issue as not understanding Romans.

The second reason is really what I wanted to get at in this post.  This is that verses are presented as individual statements rather than portions of a more complete thought.  There are no paragraphs, and sentences that span multiple verses are not laid out as if they are a complete thought. Rather each verse is presented on a new line as if it is a completely separate statement from the verse prior.

This entered my mind because I recently realized that I had not heard a specific verse improperly quoted for a very long time.  This specific verse is one that I had heard quoted out of context throughout my life in prior years by multiple people many, many different times.  Why did I stop hearing the misusage?  Simply put, the mistake is due to how the KJV presents the verse and most people use modern translations of the Bible now.  The verse in question is 1 Thessalonians 5:22, and I present below the context from both the KJV and the NIV to illustrate my point (emphasis mine).

1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - KJV

16 Rejoice evermore.

17 Pray without ceasing.

18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

19 Quench not the Spirit.

20 Despise not prophesyings.

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - NIV

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

Notice how completely different that verse appears in these versions largely because in one case it is presented as a complete thought and in the other it is presented inline with the rest of the context.

Throughout my life I have heard the instruction that we are to abstain from the very appearance of evil, which sounds great at first but ultimately leads to subjective legalism that does not in any way resemble the Gospel.  It turns out that this popular interpretation of verse 22 only makes any sense when the verse is forced to stand alone as a statement in a vacuum without a hint of context.  Reading the complete thought establishes that this is about what to do with bad prophecies rather than not doing something because someone in the church believes it has an appearance of evil.  In the NIV this complete thought is obvious, but in the KJV noticing it takes an observant eye.

There are other reasons to prefer more modern translations over the KJV as well that largely deal with the reliability of the texts used in translating that version of the Bible.  However, the issue of simply understanding the text is significant enough to me that I question the advantages for those who continue to prefer the KJV even without considering the underlying texts.  Is there a possibility that you're missing something in the text due to the choice of version?

in a handbasket

"Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." — Ecclesiastes 7:10

One pet peeve I have is to listen to people go off about how society is going downhill, especially when it is presented in a church setting.  This is not an annoyance because I think society is in great shape, but rather because it presents an idealized view of where society has come from. A person talking like this is frequently encouraging his or her audience to adopt the social rules of a bygone era rather than encouraging the audience to truly look to Christ.  Prayer is encouraged and the speaker may state that our society's only hope is to turn to Christ, but my experience is that what the speaker interprets as turning to Christ and what the Bible indicates as becoming a slave to Christ as two different things.

I have mentioned the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) when I discussed a similar topic before, but this is a very instructive story here as well.  In that parable a person who everyone of the time would have viewed as a saint prays thanks to God that he was not put in the circumstances of the obviously sinful tax collector.  I can imagine sermons at the local synagogue rightfully decrying the sins of people who call themselves Jews who aggressively take from their own people while working in conjunction with a pagan empire.

"Our modern world is becoming more and more sinful," someone might point out, "because we cannot even trust those trained by our own rabbis in the Law of the one true God to treat their own brothers fairly.  Can you believe how horrible the world has become?  Can you believe how wretched tax collectors are who dare to number themselves among Abraham's children?"  Such a statement would be true on its face, and I can imagine the audience getting worked into a fervor.  The speech would endear the speaker to most of the audience, because it would build solidarity and would make the audience feel a bit righteous for not being one of those sinners benefiting from his selfish actions.

The key to this parable that Jesus taught, though, was that the person who focused on his own righteousness and others' sins was not justified, but the tax collector who was painfully aware of his sin and approached God with humility was justified.  The sins of Pharisee in the story were not forgiven, but the sins of the tax collector were.  Isn't focusing today on the evils of the times rather than the evils of my own nature doing the same thing that the Pharisee did in the parable?  Does not that sort of speech or sermon sound more dangerous than beneficial when viewed from this perspective?

On a related note, most of the people who talk about how bad things have gotten get their facts wrong, and that is a big part of what bothers me.  Some forms of crime have increased in recent years, but most violent crimes, property crimes, and many other various types of crime have been on a steady downswing in the United States since the early 90s.  A chart on the FBI website indicates that this trend, in violent crime at least, has continued through recent years.  All this does is validate my primary point that, while people are sinners in need of a Savior today, people have always been sinners in need of a Savior.  The times are evil, but the times have always been evil.

source of the dream

While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."
- Matthew 27:19

Since we just concluded Holy Week and have had focus on the events surrounding the Crucifixion and Resurrection, something new occurred to me.  Why did Pilate's wife have her dream?  I have always assumed that the dream came from God, but of the possible reasons that I can think of for the dream the most likely scenario in my opinion is the one in which it came from Satan.

Possibility #1: God was removing Pilate's excuse for condemning Christ

God knew that what was prophesied would come true, and that Pilate would condemn Christ to crucifixion.  It is conceivable that he was given every opportunity to not condemn Christ, even though he was always destined to make the choice that he made, so that he would have no excuse on the day of judgment.

Possibility #2: God was providing validation for Christ to those who would hear of the dream later

It could be argued that if news of the dream and Pilate's and his wife's conversation got out that it could serve as validation for Christ once news started circulating about the empty tomb.  This could be a counter-point to the assertion that the disciples knocked out trained Roman guards, rolled a boulder from away from the mouth of the tomb, stole Christ's body, and disposed of it without witnesses.

Possibility #3: Satan was using this as a last-ditch effort to stop the proceedings that would end with Christ justifying our sins.

Think about it a moment.  In the spiritual realm who really would want the Crucifixion to be stopped?  God purposefully pushed the plan forward as this was His avenue to offer salvation to an undeserving race.  God was not going to keep the Crucifixion from occurring.

Satan, however, appears in the Gospels to operate under the assumption that he can change God's plan.  He throws temptations at Christ as if that is something he has a chance of being successful at (Matthew 4:1-11).  His demons attempted to out Jesus as the Christ before the appointed time (Luke 4:41).  He is even the direct source of Peter's famous rejection of Christ (Luke 22:31-32).  Why wouldn't Satan use whatever tools were at his disposal, minimal as they may have been, in an attempt to block the events that would cause Christ to pay the price for our sin?

the one who is loved

At any given time I have a few open thoughts and questions about Scripture in my mind, and so when I read Scripture I am more attuned to those thoughts and questions than I might have been prior.  As an example, I have been more attuned as of late to passages that appear to imply that we do or do not have a choice in our justification due to the fact that it is a topic that a friend of mine has pushed to the fore lately.  If I am consistently and objectively reading Scripture and I have kept specific issues at the top of my mind my belief is that those passages that support or do not support that position should jump out at me.  However, It is not my intent to talk about resistible or irresistible grace today, but rather about love.

A few years ago I noticed that all of the passages that I could recall about love in the Bible presented it in terms of sacrifice or humility.  So, for the last few years as I have read I have paid attention to what the Bible says about love, and thus far I have only seen that perspective confirmed.  There are certainly times when sacrifice is not the obvious focus, but it's amazing how often it's an unavoidable theme.  This is true from the love Boaz shows to Ruth (Ruth 4) to the love Hosea shows to Gomer (Hosea 3) to the love I mentioned in my previous post that Christ showed to us (Romans 5).  It is even true in the love that husbands are supposed to show their wives, as Christ's sacrificial love is the example that Paul uses as a template in his instructions to husbands (Ephesians 5).

This addresses something seemingly minor issue that bugged me since I was a kid.  John was known for referring to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved.  Factual or not, I always thought this sounded prideful and not fitting for Scripture.  Now, when I view this through the perspective of sacrifice I do not see this as a prideful statement, though.

Luke 7:36-47 illuminates this a bit more for me now, though it flips who is showing love.

When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”

“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

“Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”

Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”

“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

As an aside, when I read this a few months ago in Sunday School I could not get through it without choking down some (many) tears, because this image is so beautiful.  The town prostitute who knows she is scum shows more love to God than a pious religious leader, and the reason is that she knows how wretched she is while he wrongly supposes he has little that needs forgiven.  If there is not a better illustration of who the true Gospel should and does appeal to I have not heard it.

To take this from another perspective that is on my main topic, there is much love where there is much sacrifice and where there is much forgiveness.  Where the woman above passage showed love in response and proportion to Christ's sacrificial love, the love that John received from Christ was great because it was in response to his own sinfulness.  So, saying that Christ loved him much was saying that he had a lot bad in his heart that Christ had to sacrifice to atone in him.  Christ's love is proportional to the natural darkness of our own hearts.  That being the case, I am a man who Christ loves very much as well.  I know how voluminous the darkness in my heart is that needs to be forgiven.

manure cake

This builds off my recent post about the dreadful sinful state of every member of humanity, though it is not necessarily intended to be a "part two" in a series.

I have heard an illustration about sin multiple places that bugs me.  It goes something like this.

Imagine I were to make a cake for you.  The best cake you could imagine.  It would be moist, full of chocolate, and delectable in every aspect save one.  That cake would have just a little bit of horse or cow manure in it.  Not much at all in comparison to the cake, really.  There's a good chance you'd barely even taste the manure.  Would you still want the cake?

The person presenting the illustration typically goes on to note that this is how we should view "little sins."  Justifications that they are not a big deal is similar to stating that the manure in the cake is not a big deal because it is only a little bit of manure.

My objections to this illustration are below.

We sin because we are sinners

The illustration does not typically encourage introspection as to the source of sin.  If the source of sin is not addressed, all we're really doing in a best-case scenario is window dressing.  The form this often takes is in enforcing a specific social code that is called a moral code, but that is not always strictly Biblical.

There should be more poop than cake

If the cake represents the good things a person does and the manure the bad things a person does, then the cake should be mostly manure no matter the person.  Paul compared his lifetime of law-keeping and maintaining good standing within Judaism on the same level as dung, or "rubbish" (Phil 3:8).  While we are not under the law, law itself is still the perfect measuring stick that proves our sinfulness.  If any good action should be considered delicious cake to God, wouldn't keeping His law be at the top of the list?  If Paul's good deeds should be considered feces, so should everyone else's.

This is important because the illustration betrays a misconception that the illustration teller has.  This is that the typical Christian is mostly sanctified and really just needs a few social faux pas issues addressed rather than a complete overhaul.  Most of us All of us will still need a near-complete overhaul by the time we die.

This implies that our role is to make ourselves perfect for God

I cannot emphasize enough that if I have to make myself good for God's sake I will fail.  There has only ever been one good person on this earth, and it is not me.  It is not ever going to be me in this life, either.  Not by a long shot.

If I believe that I have to make myself perfect for God but literally cannot do this, what do you suppose the end result of this path will be?  I see one of two possibilities.  Either I will become embittered and fearful as I see sin in everything while always hating myself for not sizing up, or I will adopt a permissive doctrine on sin because God wouldn't send me on an impossible task.  With the first possibility I will get burned out and possibly give up on God.  With the second possibility I will lose sight of my sin nature, which is a symptom that I lack justification.

This puts us at odds with God's intent to be the one to change us

My responsibility is to not willingly offer the parts of my body to sin (Rom 6:12-13) and to live up to the level of my sanctification (Phil 3:15-16).  The actual changing of my being into something more like God has to be performed by God.

This focuses attention on certain sins while completely ignoring others

This illustration is typically used to address quibbles about social faux pas "sins" rather than affronts to God.  As an example, this approach ultimately makes it look like God cares more about whether I use a four-letter word than if I sacrifice for a brother in need, while Scripture focuses significantly more on the latter than the former.

Clarification: Sin is bad

I do want to note that I am not belittling sin or implying that it is no big deal.  Sin is a reflection of a deeply flawed individual, and it ultimately needs to be addressed.  What I am saying is that the cow patty cake illustration does nothing to truly deal with the sin, and by implying that we are responsible for making ourselves perfect the illustration sends the audience down a path that leads to destruction rather than salvation.  Our salvation and our ultimate perfection is in Christ, and Christ offers the only path to address sin.

Addressing a potential objection

One potential response to my assertion that it is not our role to make ourselves perfect for God is Romans 12:1, presented below from the NIV and bolded to emphasize the potential objection.

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship."

Paul appears to be telling his audience that they need to make themselves perfect and present themselves to God when read without context, doesn't he?  Not only that, it looks like we cannot worship properly without doing this as well.  Context paints a slightly different picture, though.

The most obvious contextual clue about what this verse is stating is in the very next verse (emphasis mine).

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

While there is certainly action that is expected from us in this passage, it is clear in this verse where perfection comes from.  We are not presenting our bodies to God as perfect.  We are not transforming ourselves.  We are presenting our bodies to God as sacrifices to be ultimately be transformed into something perfect.  By God.  This fits into Paul's earlier statements in Romans (6:16) that we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness.  We might have some say in our path, but we can't in ourselves do anything to make ourselves less sinful (or less slaves to the sin nature).

I have a couple of other points from the context that contradict the idea that we are supposed to make ourselves perfect which I present below.

1. The sentence in Romans 12:1 begins with the word, "therefore." This implies that the verse is in response to something from the preceding verses, and Paul is clear that that something is God's mercy.  Paul has just completed talking about both the Jews' and the Gentiles' rebellion against God, and how this ultimately leads to God's mercy toward both (11:30-31).  Presenting your bodies is therefore an act of someone who has already received (or is receiving) God's mercy and, even in the most law-based of theologies, should not presently need to prove something to God.
    
2. In the "Doxology" passage that is typically seen as the conclusion of the thoughts from the first half of Romans Paul makes clear that we cannot give God anything (11:35).  This means that we cannot offer God perfection, as that would certainly qualify as a gift to Him.  The verse reads as follows and is the perfect conclusion to this piece.

"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"

Definitely not me!

source of humility

We have been going over the parables of Jesus in Sunday School for the last several months, and something struck me recently.  A large number of them turn on a specific character being unable to accept his own unworthiness.  I have mentioned this before in the parable of the unmerciful servant, but it shows up in other parables as well.  In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) the primary point is that the Pharisee is not justified because he does not see his own sin.  In the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) the older son is representative of people who wrongly believed themselves righteous.  Jesus' illustration of the plank in one's eye (Matt 7:1-6) is also a perfect illustration of the error of attempting to assist others in their errors while ignoring your own issues.

Two things spring to mind regarding this.  First, if Jesus gave so much air time to the danger of thinking ourselves more holy than we ought, this should probably be an important topic for training.

Second, I don't know that I have heard many sermons that focus strongly on the fact that we are all treacherous sinners in desperate need of salvation.  I don't mean to say that I have never heard it said that we all need Christ, because I certainly have.  It has always been as a minor supporting step leading to some other point, though.  As such, I believe that it is easy for a proclaiming Christian to dangerously underestimate the level of evil exists in his or her being that necessitates Christ's justification and sanctifying work.  Since so much important stuff relies on having a proportional understanding of our sinfulness, I think this is a dangerous position to find ourselves.

In the parable of the unmerciful servant we learn that forgiveness to others is necessary through a proper perspective of the unpayable debt we have been forgiven.  In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector we learn that the person who believes himself good in contrast to an obvious sinner is simply not justified (scary indeed!).  In the parable of the prodigal son Jesus leaves the story open at the end, but we know that most of those who the older son represented rejected Christ.  In the plank in one's eye passage we learn that we cannot help others with their issues if we are unaware of our own.

My sense is that a large percentage of the mistakes that modern Christians make, and that have resulted in non-Christians having a wrong idea about what Christianity is, springs from thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought.  We are horrific sinners saved by grace, and whose sanctification is far from complete.  If Paul was the chief of sinners I am too.  I have no room for moral superiority or boasting.

Isn't the personal humility that comes with this foundational principle of the Gospel what makes the grace offered in the Gospel such good news?  I am undeserving scum who far falls short of the mark, but God in His love and mercy offers me salvation anyway.

the basis of faith

What is the basis of your faith?  If you believe in God, why?  If you trust in God, why?  Is the reasoning you tell yourself or others the real reason?  Do you know?

I have thought long and hard about this a lot over the last few years.  I hear people talk about trusting in God because He has cared for them in difficult times.  What if God appeared to disappear and times got harder?  I have heard people point to specific scientific or philosophical rationales for God's existence or care.  What if those rationales were disproved?  I have heard people refer to past miraculous experiences as the basis for their faith, but what if those experiences were proved to be hoaxes or the product of people in suggestible conditions?

I will say that if there is a physical rationale that I personally give for my belief and trust in God it is that Scripture's description of our sinful natures explains humanity to me better than anything else, and every study that I hear on human nature reaffirms my view that we are deeply-flawed, selfish beings who have to resort to vanity and pride in order to behave well.  We are in dire need of a savior if there really are such things as holiness and judgment.  This is probably not the proper basis of my faith, though.

My earlier questions are important for a few reasons.  First, perspectives change as we age.  We see the foolishness in past opinions and approaches.  What is a basis of faith now may be a reason for abandoning the faith later in life.  Second, and much more important, is faith that is dependent on some earthly thing really the sort of faith that Scripture talks about?  I don't think it is.

Any person who has been to more than a handful of church services in his or her life will at some point have heard a sermon on the Hebrews 11 hall of faith.  Apart from Gideon, who it may be argued based his faith on water and wool, everyone else listed in the chapter believed in God and trusted Him just because.

For a long while I did not think there was such a thing as blind faith.  If God was God, I reasoned, we would not be able to look far before He was obvious.  I have somewhat flipped my thinking on that now, though.  I now believe that faith is a gift from God in that He is obvious on some level to those He gifts with faith.  He is not obvious to those who either are not looking for the real Him, or to those to whom He has not revealed Himself. I don't think that this obviousness is available in any other way than as something He bestows on us.  I think this faith from God is sturdy enough to withstand the doubts that other forms of "faith" ultimately lead to.

This all is not a philosophy that I am entirely comfortable with.  I like to be in control, and this cedes control to God.  This also opens me to the possibility of looking stupid because I am following something other than my ability to reason.  I can't generate the faith I need by rationalizing why God is real, trustworthy, or good, because my human rationalizations will eventually lead to making it appear that God is not any of those things.  But how does one go about asking for faith from another, or rather The Other?  Do I really want to go through the things that create and strengthen true faith?  How do I know the faith I have is not a delusion?