Did you know that the eye is not the final determiner of what you see? As complex as the eye is, with its cornea, lens, pupil, iris, macula, retina and vitreous humor (not an exhaustive inventory), the final regulator of what you see is your brain. In fact, the left side of the brain captures your right-side field of vision and the right side of the brain captures your left-side field of vision. And yet, with all this complexity and wonder, there is yet another arbiter even more sophisticated and determined than the brain. This determining mechanism is called the will.
Let’s say you’re a 40 year old man, married to an attractive professional woman, with three children in late elementary grades. You live in a middle-class gated community in your four bedroom Dutch Colonial home on the 9th fairway from where you commute 30 minutes each way to a respectable office job, and supervise six junior executives, an office assistant, and a pretty young intern anxious to make good. The intern seems to violate your sense of personal space, brushes against you at the coffee urn, refers to your self-conscious irks about your paunch and thinning pate as “mature” attributes, and would like to devote some extracurricular time with you to cultivate a leadership style she much admires in you. Every image your eyes see, every signal your brain interprets as the neurotransmitters perform their designated chemical functions, and every message your mind receives tells you that what you’re contemplating is putting at risk your marriage, your home, your reputation, and your children’s esteem . . . yet you choose jeopardy. The eyes were functional . . . the brain did its job . . . what happened?
There was an angel. He was described by God as “the model of perfection” (Ezekiel 28:12) but somehow made a determination to commit rebellion because holding the highest post in creation was somehow insufficient. Notwithstanding his own beauty, intelligence, position and gifts (unsurpassed), he determined to strike out at his own benefactor in revolt. We know it wasn’t design or destiny, impulse or improvisation, mistake or malfunction. The record of his determined decision is recorded in Isaiah 14:13-14; “I will,” “I will,” “I will,” “I will,” “I will.” Not to be confused with “I want,” or “I wonder.” Five times he exercised dominion over his decision process, against all the data to which his surroundings testified.
Mankind, like Lucifer, is equipped with this apparatus of self-determination wherein we are capable of ignoring every signal in the flow of one direction and choose the opposite. Now, it’s not an easy path to live out Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs (Survival, Safety & Security, Belonging, Esteem, Full Potential) if one chooses rebellion as a life script. So, we (humans) have discovered that, like wearing sun glasses to mitigate the harshness of light, or like wearing corrective lenses to compensate for what we actually see (due to faulty optical parts), we can wear an adapter (called “world view”) to help us make decisions that seem to “not be so contrary.” For example, in order to justify and excuse the behavior of a chief executive who committed adultery, lied, violated his oath of office and betrayed his national constituency in an “in-your-face” fashion and without remorse, I can wear my cynical “everybody-does-it” hedonist world view prism apparatus and be very at ease with my decision. This is why those who take what’s not theirs, commit violence and murder, abuse and mistreat children, cheat on their tax responsibilities, or bear false witness without regret or shame can do so with a clear conscience. Therefore, “I will” endeavor to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33) in order to navigate through this vale of tears, and when I stumble “I will” avoid the corrective lenses designed to assuage my shame and instead seek forgiveness and accept restoration. (1 John 1:9)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Ann Coulter, How Do I Love Thee?
I’m so in love with Ann Coulter. She does her homework and makes her case without political correct caution. Her arguments are forceful and clinical and obliterate the opposition because all her foes have to hang their argument on is ad hominem attacks and volume. Her facts are indisputable, which is why her enemies continue to try to silence her. In reading her newest book, “Demonic,” I have determined that she has discovered the fundamental reason why the left is so incapable of interpreting the facts as reality. It’s not because they’re mean and despicable (they simply appear that way), it’s because they are handicapped with a Progressive Jamming Device (PJR) called ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity. The dictionary defines stupidity as “mental dullness” or “lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind.” These people are not stupid; they are simply afflicted with PJD that keeps them from integrating actual facts in a healthy, normal manner. It is self-imposed to be sure but nevertheless definite. Jesus said “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mk. 4:9) He wasn’t “implying” anything – he was saying straight out . . . it’s a choice. Weather spiritual or political it ought to be sensible to cut out all the extraneous blather (these two words together constitute a redundancy but in this case it seems to apply) and speak forthrightly. In the case of the Gospel narrative Jesus apparently determined that assuaging the hurt feelings of some who might be offended at his frankness was much less important than getting the message across. Those who are going to be offended will take offense anyway. They want to be offended. They want the facts to be as they see and hear them, not as they are. Therefore, much like an electrical short circuit that causes machinery to malfunction, PJR scrambles the data and . . . presto! . . . ignorance. Many on the left are champions of compromise, that peaceful, cooperating, lets-all-get-along-together attitude of a negotiated settlement. It sounds so right. It seems so proper. (“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Prov. 14:12) Daniel and his companions were legitimate servants to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar who had the right of conquest to do as he wished with them. When told they had to violate their laws of kosher and eat foods that would defile them, Daniel could have compromised and his decision would have been understood. Yet he insisted on faithfulness, understanding that there can be no compromise to fidelity. The champions of compromise want to muddy the water and then ask you to drink from a polluted source, trying to convince you that there’s no such thing as perfection . . . or purity. Jesus was encouraged to turn stones into bread. After all, he had fasted for 40 days, was undoubtedly very hungry, and no one would know the difference. But truth minus anything in the direction of compromise is less than truth. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Poor Old Jeremiah
Poor old Jeremiah, he just couldn’t seem to get out of the way of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. He had to call it like he saw it and that offended just about the entire country. It’s difficult to swim against the current and the consequences of his determination cost him a lot . . . he was beaten and put into stocks; he was imprisoned by the king; he was threatened with death; he was thrown into a cistern (a big vat); and he was condescendingly opposed in public by the local good-guy prophet, Hananiah. Even his own family turned on him. In the end, when it turned out that he was seeing clearly and everyone else was wrong, he received no apologies or acknowledgements. But that seems to be the way it is with the human condition. The Apostle Paul said, “. . . they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3). It’s not meanness and ugliness; it’s a sincere desire to want things to be fair and kind. But, we are poor judges of what is true. “There is a way that seems right to man but in the end it leads to death." (Prov. 14:12). Our ability to see and hear properly depends on whether we have “eyes to see” and “ears to hear.” (Mark 4:9)
The Gospel, of course, is simple. All that other theologian stuff can get fairly complicated: Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology, Eschatology, etc. Yet, if we could just stumble on the simple prospect that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) we could realize that it’s not about us but all about Him and rest in the peace that transcends all understanding (Phil. 4:7). But the world is full of other stuff too, like politics, economics, history, science, relationships and family. Even when we ask God to weigh in on these matters it seems we’ve already made up our minds about what he will say . . . or should say . . . to be fair. In his 2001 historical dissertation titled “While God is Marching On,” Steven Woodworth illustrates how both sides in the great American War Between the States were convinced that God was on their side. Yet, we have a peculiar and fervent gift for interpreting things through a prism of self-centeredness. We simply will not tolerate hearing the truth if it doesn’t pass the muster of our prideful world view. Following WWI, wherein the British lost about a million (dead) and another 1.5 million wounded out of a population of less than 30 million men, they were in no mood for another fight. By the 1930s they were already determined not to listen to even one as eloquent as Winston Churchill who warned of the need to oppose Hitler and the Nazi movement as early as October 1930. Yet he was booed and hissed in Parliament, ridiculed in the press, and suffered tepid support even in his own political party. As late as May 1940, King George VI did not want him to be his prime minister and he was dumped less than a month after VE Day.
Today, there are voices of prophecy in the political/economic arena, warning of impending disaster. Will we call on God to ratify our beliefs and strategies, or will we get serious about jettisoning all unnecessary philosophical baggage and turn to Him for our deliverance? Our first destination ought not to be the voting booth but a place where our knees can find surface. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” (2 Chr. 7:14)
The Gospel, of course, is simple. All that other theologian stuff can get fairly complicated: Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology, Eschatology, etc. Yet, if we could just stumble on the simple prospect that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) we could realize that it’s not about us but all about Him and rest in the peace that transcends all understanding (Phil. 4:7). But the world is full of other stuff too, like politics, economics, history, science, relationships and family. Even when we ask God to weigh in on these matters it seems we’ve already made up our minds about what he will say . . . or should say . . . to be fair. In his 2001 historical dissertation titled “While God is Marching On,” Steven Woodworth illustrates how both sides in the great American War Between the States were convinced that God was on their side. Yet, we have a peculiar and fervent gift for interpreting things through a prism of self-centeredness. We simply will not tolerate hearing the truth if it doesn’t pass the muster of our prideful world view. Following WWI, wherein the British lost about a million (dead) and another 1.5 million wounded out of a population of less than 30 million men, they were in no mood for another fight. By the 1930s they were already determined not to listen to even one as eloquent as Winston Churchill who warned of the need to oppose Hitler and the Nazi movement as early as October 1930. Yet he was booed and hissed in Parliament, ridiculed in the press, and suffered tepid support even in his own political party. As late as May 1940, King George VI did not want him to be his prime minister and he was dumped less than a month after VE Day.
Today, there are voices of prophecy in the political/economic arena, warning of impending disaster. Will we call on God to ratify our beliefs and strategies, or will we get serious about jettisoning all unnecessary philosophical baggage and turn to Him for our deliverance? Our first destination ought not to be the voting booth but a place where our knees can find surface. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” (2 Chr. 7:14)
Thursday, May 26, 2011
National and Individual Character
Character trumps all else, which is why there is ample reason to be pessimistic about our national survival. We have decayed to the point in our national character to reach the condition of communal hubris. The barometer of this assessment was made obvious in the recent New York special election for its 26th congressional district. The results are in and the analysis is clear . . . the Democrat won on the strength of her position on the Medicare issue . . . that it should be “left alone.” The people have spoken. The opposing position in NY’s 26th district, as it is all across the country, is that Medicare (as well as Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) must undergo radical change or collapse under its own weight anyhow . . . and soon. Yet the “Hands Off Our Medicare” signs had their effect in this special election and are likely to render the same influence on the larger stage. What it ultimately means is that we probably are so deficient in the national character it takes to care enough about our children and grandchildren to protect their future that we are ready to doom them for our own current comfort and self-aggrandizement. I suppose it’s convenient to blame the politicians who pander to our basest appetites for not having the courage to herald truth and trust in the consequences of nobility. Yet, in the end, “we the people,” are the decision makers in a democratic republic and we have a way of insisting on what we want to hear and we have demonstrated that we don’t want to hear the truth.
A recent Time Magazine front page story was the controversy regarding Pastor Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins,” which proposes the theological argument that everyone ultimately winds up in heaven --- no eternal hell for bad people. The blogs and OpEd pieces and “Letters to the Editor” since the Time Magazine story was published have been voluminous. What is interesting to note, other than the expected tit-for-tat repartee, is the profusion of those taking the side of Rob Bell and the almost singular argument for holding this view . . . “A loving God would not condemn anyone to a permanent hell.” Never is there a suggestion that “a just God would never . . .” or “an almighty God wouldn’t . . .” or “an omniscient God could not . . .” make such a decision. And mostly absent from these sentiments, so absent that it’s obvious beyond astounding, is the notion of what a “Holy God” might determine. For understandable reasons we want our God to be loving and He is. In fact, 1st John 4:8 tells us that “God is love.” Yet, our naïve miscalculation is in not realizing that that’s not “all” He is. In fact, it’s not His central attribute. As great as His love is for us, that “He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16), God’s most principal and defining characteristic is His holiness. But we would rather God be held hostage to His great love for us that He would infringe upon His holiness to make the sacrifice of His Son of no purpose or effect. Great new for us who have sought out the escape clauses in the contract. Much like our hope with Medicare, we will insist on having our cake and eating it too . . . then avoiding the consequences of our decisions. The sad truth is we somehow expect that since we sincerely believe our own preferred doctrine we shall inherit what we desire rather than what we deserve. We are sincerely wrong.
A recent Time Magazine front page story was the controversy regarding Pastor Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins,” which proposes the theological argument that everyone ultimately winds up in heaven --- no eternal hell for bad people. The blogs and OpEd pieces and “Letters to the Editor” since the Time Magazine story was published have been voluminous. What is interesting to note, other than the expected tit-for-tat repartee, is the profusion of those taking the side of Rob Bell and the almost singular argument for holding this view . . . “A loving God would not condemn anyone to a permanent hell.” Never is there a suggestion that “a just God would never . . .” or “an almighty God wouldn’t . . .” or “an omniscient God could not . . .” make such a decision. And mostly absent from these sentiments, so absent that it’s obvious beyond astounding, is the notion of what a “Holy God” might determine. For understandable reasons we want our God to be loving and He is. In fact, 1st John 4:8 tells us that “God is love.” Yet, our naïve miscalculation is in not realizing that that’s not “all” He is. In fact, it’s not His central attribute. As great as His love is for us, that “He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16), God’s most principal and defining characteristic is His holiness. But we would rather God be held hostage to His great love for us that He would infringe upon His holiness to make the sacrifice of His Son of no purpose or effect. Great new for us who have sought out the escape clauses in the contract. Much like our hope with Medicare, we will insist on having our cake and eating it too . . . then avoiding the consequences of our decisions. The sad truth is we somehow expect that since we sincerely believe our own preferred doctrine we shall inherit what we desire rather than what we deserve. We are sincerely wrong.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Archeological Evidence
The archeological record bears out the stubbornness of the children of Jacob in resisting the first of the commands given to Moses at Sinai: “I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other gods.” Whenever archeologists have excavated ancient Israeli sites that date from their earliest antiquity until the Babylonian captivity, they invariably discover small statues and carvings of a variety of household gods as well as engravings that indicate that many Israelites accepted the proposition that their chief God, Yahweh, had a consort, an Asherah . . . in Semitic mythology, a mother goddess. This finding, though astonishing to some people, actually reinforces the Biblical narrative. From Exodus onward throughout the Old Testament it is plain that God forever has to discipline His people for their spiritual infidelity. In fact, at the very beginning before Moses could make it down to the bottom of the mount with the tablets in hand, the people who had miraculously witnessed their deliverance just weeks before, had already lost confidence and began hedging their bets with the golden calf. This, of course, was what was familiar to them for 400 years until Moses showed up and introduced them to “I Am that I AM” and asked them to forsake their vacillations between monotheism and polytheism and worship Yahweh alone. Even after 40 years of miracles God knew they would have fidelity problems and warned them about the company they keep (Joshua 23:7). Consequently, every now and then, God would visit on His people, adjustment and chastisement. This was the drill for about 700 years. After the Babylonian captivity, the archeological record confirms the narrative in Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi . . . the Hebrews needed encouragement to keep their priorities in order as they suffered from a general spiritual malaise due to corruption in the priesthood and mechanical insensitivity in their worship observances. This was often the failure that Jesus would notice in them, though they had finally managed to nail down adherence to the 1st commandment, even if it was at the expense of the other nine.
It must be difficult keeping all ten of the major commandments at the same time rather than just focusing on one at a time, particularly when one gets older and multi-tasking becomes a serious undertaking. Then again, it was never a design that could be met. (Gal. 3:24) For if you insist on being a law-abider you are obligated to obey them all . . . all the time . . . at the same time . . . and it can’t be done. Besides, there are only two commandments (Luke 10:27) and even those two are impossible to manage without the in-filling of His Spirit (Acts 1:8). So, it really begs the question, “what was God up to with laying on the Israelites a burden they could not possibly carry?” Just as the cross has two beams, the vertical one to represent our relationship with Him, and the horizontal one to illustrate our relationship with one another, I believe He was teaching us two very important lessons. First, it should not have escaped our notice (Old Testament period) that there was absolutely no one who could keep the law . . . not even close, and therefore it was His initiative, not ours, that made the vertical relationship work. Second, “attitude is everything” . . . meaning, He sees and judges the heart. When He said through Samuel “. . . to obey is better than sacrifice . . .” (1 Samuel 15:22), that’s precisely what He was trying to make known to the stubborn-headed and disobedient Saul. We could use a little reminding today as we devote much of our time on vain and selfish endeavors while nailing down that 1st commandment by making certain we meet our Sunday obligation. (Luke 16:15) I wouldn’t want future generations to discover our archeological evidence of failure. Jesus said there will be those who show up for evaluation on that great day of judgment who sincerely believe they’ve made the cut only to hear these solemn words: “I never knew you.” (Matthew 7:23)
It must be difficult keeping all ten of the major commandments at the same time rather than just focusing on one at a time, particularly when one gets older and multi-tasking becomes a serious undertaking. Then again, it was never a design that could be met. (Gal. 3:24) For if you insist on being a law-abider you are obligated to obey them all . . . all the time . . . at the same time . . . and it can’t be done. Besides, there are only two commandments (Luke 10:27) and even those two are impossible to manage without the in-filling of His Spirit (Acts 1:8). So, it really begs the question, “what was God up to with laying on the Israelites a burden they could not possibly carry?” Just as the cross has two beams, the vertical one to represent our relationship with Him, and the horizontal one to illustrate our relationship with one another, I believe He was teaching us two very important lessons. First, it should not have escaped our notice (Old Testament period) that there was absolutely no one who could keep the law . . . not even close, and therefore it was His initiative, not ours, that made the vertical relationship work. Second, “attitude is everything” . . . meaning, He sees and judges the heart. When He said through Samuel “. . . to obey is better than sacrifice . . .” (1 Samuel 15:22), that’s precisely what He was trying to make known to the stubborn-headed and disobedient Saul. We could use a little reminding today as we devote much of our time on vain and selfish endeavors while nailing down that 1st commandment by making certain we meet our Sunday obligation. (Luke 16:15) I wouldn’t want future generations to discover our archeological evidence of failure. Jesus said there will be those who show up for evaluation on that great day of judgment who sincerely believe they’ve made the cut only to hear these solemn words: “I never knew you.” (Matthew 7:23)
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
It's an Axiom
The definition of “axiom” is a self-evident truth. It requires no proof because the logic is clear that the proposition needs no argument. Like Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am), there are things that shouldn’t require a PhD to fathom. We can and do certainly disagree on many things but axioms ought to invite unity of acceptance. Ought, but not necessarily do they. In the news of late are stories that highlight our national debt. Anecdotally attributed to Everett Dirksen is the phrase, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." However, weather he said it or not the topic of debt discussion today is not billions but trillions --- that’s a number with 12 zeros, a billion times 1000. There comes a time when the use of numbers loses its effective perspective. It’s like saying “the mysterious Ring Galaxy is 600 million light-years distant” from earth. Let’s see, light travels at approximately 186, 282 miles per second; 600,000 times 186,282 = . . . . good grief! It’s simply not comprehensible. I think that must be the way it is when considering our national debt. It’s simply not comprehensible. Yet, just because I cannot comprehend it doesn’t invalidate the truth of it. The Ring Galaxy is still there . . . and so is the debt. This is an axiom.
Some years ago when I was still in the Air Force I came upon what may be called “a teachable moment.” Because of some foolish spending, unforeseen financial reversals, personal setbacks and self-imposed ignorance, I found myself in serious debt. The teachable moment came when my commander called me in for counseling and made it clear that the Air Force would not tolerate personal indebtedness that interfered with my duty to meet all obligations, personal and professional. If I wanted to continue my career I would have to ensure no further letters of indebtedness made their way to my commander’s desk. So, in addition to restructuring my combined debt and organizing my payment schedule to acceptable proportions, the most important and most effective means of transforming my debt status from “high risk” to “competent and reliable” was to radically alter my spending habit – read: spend much less than my income. I had to not only cut spending so as not to incur additional debt, I was forced to cut spending radically so as to reduce the debt already incurred. I notice in the news there are those who believe we can cut spending by a couple of billion on our “trillions-of-dollars” debt. Cutting $60 billion dollars of a 14 trillion debt is a reduction of 2/5th of 1%. If that had been my decision 36 years ago, I would not only still be in debt . . . I’d be worse off by a magnitude of exponential proportions.
The question is why are people willing to visit such a burden on our children, our grandchildren and beyond? Do they not care? Can they not see? Are they not parents who love their children? For me it’s like the Ring Galaxy . . . it’s an attitude beyond my comprehension. History shows in time of severe famine people have been known to eat their young. Is this too harsh an appraisal? Are we sacrificing our children’s future out of fear of our own survival? Does this seem hyperbolic to you? Or will we wake up as a culture and see our obligation? I don’t know. A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking about self-destruction. That’s an axiom.
Some years ago when I was still in the Air Force I came upon what may be called “a teachable moment.” Because of some foolish spending, unforeseen financial reversals, personal setbacks and self-imposed ignorance, I found myself in serious debt. The teachable moment came when my commander called me in for counseling and made it clear that the Air Force would not tolerate personal indebtedness that interfered with my duty to meet all obligations, personal and professional. If I wanted to continue my career I would have to ensure no further letters of indebtedness made their way to my commander’s desk. So, in addition to restructuring my combined debt and organizing my payment schedule to acceptable proportions, the most important and most effective means of transforming my debt status from “high risk” to “competent and reliable” was to radically alter my spending habit – read: spend much less than my income. I had to not only cut spending so as not to incur additional debt, I was forced to cut spending radically so as to reduce the debt already incurred. I notice in the news there are those who believe we can cut spending by a couple of billion on our “trillions-of-dollars” debt. Cutting $60 billion dollars of a 14 trillion debt is a reduction of 2/5th of 1%. If that had been my decision 36 years ago, I would not only still be in debt . . . I’d be worse off by a magnitude of exponential proportions.
The question is why are people willing to visit such a burden on our children, our grandchildren and beyond? Do they not care? Can they not see? Are they not parents who love their children? For me it’s like the Ring Galaxy . . . it’s an attitude beyond my comprehension. History shows in time of severe famine people have been known to eat their young. Is this too harsh an appraisal? Are we sacrificing our children’s future out of fear of our own survival? Does this seem hyperbolic to you? Or will we wake up as a culture and see our obligation? I don’t know. A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking about self-destruction. That’s an axiom.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Middle East -- An Opinion
Take a look at a map of the Middle East. You will notice that Israel sits squarely in the middle of a Muslim world. Yet, sorting through the news from network television, the major print media outlets, and popular magazines you might conclude that Israel is the Goliath and her neighbors are the little David characters in this contemporary drama. My stepson has a sober way of bringing clarity to issues at times . . . he says, “. . . do the math.” So, let’s do some figuring. The number of Jews in the world comes to about 14 million, with 5.5 million residing in Israel. The world Muslim population is approximately 1.7 billion, nearly 475 million living in Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Syria Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon alone. Thus, the ratio of Muslims to Jews in the Middle East (not counting Somalia, Yemen, Oman, Libya, etc.) is 86:1 and in the world about 120:1. Nevertheless, the world press would have us believe that this little sovereign state, roughly the size of New Jersey, is perpetually poking its finger in the eye of leviathan . . . because?
The popular propaganda is that Israel is some kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to the Middle East neighborhood, invading the Muslim homeland and confiscating what did not belong to them in 1948 with the help of Christian western civilization. Nevertheless, the history of the Middle East is traceable . . . from the Babylonians to the Persians, the Romans, the Islamic Caliphate, the Turks, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the European colonials, to the present. While it’s true that Jews left their homeland in great numbers following the Roman destruction of the Herodian temple in the 1st century AD as the center of worship shifted from the temple to Rabbinic Judaism, at no time in the past 4000 years had Jews not lived in the land except for the 400 years of captivity described in Genesis. For a long time there was no Jewish nation-state. But, neither was there a Jordon or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or a Turkey. The boundaries of the modern Middle Eastern nation-states are post Ottoman Empire divisions.
Our American diplomatic objective in the Middle East is to facilitate the addition of another Middle Eastern nation-state to be carved out of the Israeli security zone --- the West Bank. To establish a “homeland” for these Palestinians in neighboring Syria or Jordon is evidently out of the question. In fact, they were expelled from Jordon in 1970 by order of King Hussein, but there are no rockets fired into Amman today as an expression of holy hostility to that country. Still, somehow, our American diplomatic philosophy rests on the belief that if we could just birth this new nation that swears eternal enmity against the Jewish people, there could be peace in the Middle East. Let me attempt to draw an analogy. The continental United States is a resident for crocodiles and alligators with the exception of the small reserve of Rhode Island which is home to the wildebeest. But now the gators and crocs think it fair to lay claim to the Providence-Pawtucket metropolitan area as well. If you think that all the reptiles really want is just 30% of the little reserve, you’re likely to find a lot of companionship in the Flat Earth Society.
The popular propaganda is that Israel is some kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to the Middle East neighborhood, invading the Muslim homeland and confiscating what did not belong to them in 1948 with the help of Christian western civilization. Nevertheless, the history of the Middle East is traceable . . . from the Babylonians to the Persians, the Romans, the Islamic Caliphate, the Turks, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the European colonials, to the present. While it’s true that Jews left their homeland in great numbers following the Roman destruction of the Herodian temple in the 1st century AD as the center of worship shifted from the temple to Rabbinic Judaism, at no time in the past 4000 years had Jews not lived in the land except for the 400 years of captivity described in Genesis. For a long time there was no Jewish nation-state. But, neither was there a Jordon or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or a Turkey. The boundaries of the modern Middle Eastern nation-states are post Ottoman Empire divisions.
Our American diplomatic objective in the Middle East is to facilitate the addition of another Middle Eastern nation-state to be carved out of the Israeli security zone --- the West Bank. To establish a “homeland” for these Palestinians in neighboring Syria or Jordon is evidently out of the question. In fact, they were expelled from Jordon in 1970 by order of King Hussein, but there are no rockets fired into Amman today as an expression of holy hostility to that country. Still, somehow, our American diplomatic philosophy rests on the belief that if we could just birth this new nation that swears eternal enmity against the Jewish people, there could be peace in the Middle East. Let me attempt to draw an analogy. The continental United States is a resident for crocodiles and alligators with the exception of the small reserve of Rhode Island which is home to the wildebeest. But now the gators and crocs think it fair to lay claim to the Providence-Pawtucket metropolitan area as well. If you think that all the reptiles really want is just 30% of the little reserve, you’re likely to find a lot of companionship in the Flat Earth Society.
Monday, March 28, 2011
God, I'm Not Certain . . .
Believe it or not there are people who don’t think about theology . . . or philosophy . . . or cosmology . . . or epistemology . . . or any other ology for that matter. But I suppose it really doesn’t make much of a difference because those that do put grey matter effort into such musings usually just manage to include themselves among a host of others doing the same. Yet for me it’s a phenomena bordering on the absurd not to give, at least moderate, consideration to the idea of eternal things. People who would not bet on the come for an inside straight in a game of poker with four cards in the poke are content to comparatively do just that, in life, with just two cards in the poke. You might think this is just a form of wishful thinking, kicking the philosophical can down the road, channeling Scarlet O’Hara . . . “I’ll think about that tomorrow!” Yet the sad reality is they have made a firm and decisive decision to allow their appetites for self-indulgence to reign supreme in their sense of reality.
Nevertheless, this fatal approach to eternal things is neither mandatory nor non-reversible. Here’s good news: the grace of God is available and abundant to anyone willing to take it for a test drive (“ . . . whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” John6:37). No one is required to formulate a finished and polished epistemological or theological position prior to giving God a chance at changing a heart. While out on the lake as the wind began to blow menacingly, Peter cried out for help and was obliged, even as he doubted (Matthew 14:30-31). God doesn’t require us to meet him halfway. All that’s necessary is that we turn in His direction. He will cross the great divide and indeed has already made that gesture through His death and resurrection. No giving up cigarettes or beer; no resolutions to attend church twice a week; no overhaul of a four-letter dialect is either necessary or profitable towards His grace. Rather, His grace is available for any and all such endeavors with these simple words accompanying the concurrent authentic sentiment: “God, I’m not certain about eternity but on the chance you’re real and you really do care about me, I’d like to surrender to you and accept your gift of eternal life. If you will change my heart, I’ll change my mind. I know for sure I’m not God and if Jesus’ death and resurrection is for real, I’d like to be cleaned of sin and made new.” You can say this in front of a congregation of believers on a Sunday morning . . . or you can say it in the privacy of your own bathroom. Either way He will honor your request and the change in your heart will astound you.
Nevertheless, this fatal approach to eternal things is neither mandatory nor non-reversible. Here’s good news: the grace of God is available and abundant to anyone willing to take it for a test drive (“ . . . whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” John6:37). No one is required to formulate a finished and polished epistemological or theological position prior to giving God a chance at changing a heart. While out on the lake as the wind began to blow menacingly, Peter cried out for help and was obliged, even as he doubted (Matthew 14:30-31). God doesn’t require us to meet him halfway. All that’s necessary is that we turn in His direction. He will cross the great divide and indeed has already made that gesture through His death and resurrection. No giving up cigarettes or beer; no resolutions to attend church twice a week; no overhaul of a four-letter dialect is either necessary or profitable towards His grace. Rather, His grace is available for any and all such endeavors with these simple words accompanying the concurrent authentic sentiment: “God, I’m not certain about eternity but on the chance you’re real and you really do care about me, I’d like to surrender to you and accept your gift of eternal life. If you will change my heart, I’ll change my mind. I know for sure I’m not God and if Jesus’ death and resurrection is for real, I’d like to be cleaned of sin and made new.” You can say this in front of a congregation of believers on a Sunday morning . . . or you can say it in the privacy of your own bathroom. Either way He will honor your request and the change in your heart will astound you.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Three "Fieds"
I believe in the three “fieds.” Of course, I believe in the Alabama Crimson Tide, the Dallas Cowboys, my sister’s shrimp gumbo, my wife’s love of gardening, and the emotional healing waters of Gulf Shores. But, it’s the belief in the fieds that separates me from some of my old buddies from my Air Force days, some of the twigs and leafs on my family tree, and many of my friends and acquaintances today. It’s also what connects me with others who don’t necessarily share my affection for some of the cultural imperatives but are kindred spirits in the belief in the three “fieds.” So, what is this “fied” thing that seems to makes such a difference in either direction?
To begin with, I believe I’m “justified.” The word in the archaic is the same root word for justice; and in the Greek it is “dikaioo” – meaning “to render innocent.” For me to say that I am innocent would be a falsehood on the order of saying “the earth is flat.” But note, I am not saying I am innocent but that I have been “rendered” thus. It is a marvelous thing to stand before the magistrate and hear the words “not guilty.” Yet, imagine hearing those words knowing full well you have not only committed the crime for which you are charged but that you are a serial criminal guilty of much more. Nevertheless, the declaration is emphatic. These two things are true and mutually assured. I am guilty yet I’ve been declared not guilty. How is this possible? I refer you to the entire Epistle to the Romans wherein Paul provides a treatise on the wonderment of it all, though Romans 3:24 captures it cleanly: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Meaning, my sin wasn’t excused, wasn’t ignored, wasn’t thought meaningless . . . rather it was considered inexcusable, horrific and payment due. What happened was Jesus took my penalty on Himself . . . paid my debt . . . secured my freedom. Then, acted as my lawyer, went before the magistrate and pled my case. Have you ever been to the local animal humane society and seen one of those pitiful, feces-covered, skin-and-bones, low-browed curs in desperate need of rescue? That was me. Wow!
There’s more. I believe I am being “sanctified.” This means He’s changing me, little-by-little, step-by-step into a likeness of Himself. A lot of people prefer to think that God’s principal characteristic is “love.” I can understand that preference. In fact, according to 1 John 4:8 God “is” love. But I believe His central attribute is “holiness” and that’s His aim for us . . . to be set apart . . . to live in His presence. . . to live for His purpose. Now, you might argue that you can’t tell the difference between the me’s of before I was justified and since, but He can -- and I can. For one thing, He’s relieved me of the “want to” sin. Oh, before the relief I confess I yearned for a burden shift or a burden lift, but I still wanted to lead the same life, I just didn’t want the consequences. Today I have a strong abhorrence to sin. My flesh still wants to, the world system still entices me, and the devil still tempts me. This unholy triple threat is a powerful foe and I still give in from time to time but my heart has a new master and a new allegiance.
Not done yet. Someday I will be “glorified.” It won’t be a puffy white cloud in the midst of harps and halos or a scene usually depicted in some medieval fresco with effeminate angels wearing high-sashed gowns and plucking on a lute. Throughout the ages artists have tried to capture with paint and poster what cannot be fathomed. But “No eye has seen, nor ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him, but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” (1 Cor. 2:9) There is something deep in the human psyche that insists on accepting only that which resonates with its central character. If I am a Democrat, I really don’t want to see the Republican side (and vice versa). If I’m a black man, the white thought process is alien to me (and vice versa). If I’m a woman, men cannot possibly comprehend (and vice versa). In the same way we humans want to construct heavenly things in our minds in such a way that we can master them. But God has said “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8) To be glorified means to be awesomely more than we can imagine but that whatever it is, it is with Him, on His throne, eternally. How’s that for someone who had to be rescued?
To begin with, I believe I’m “justified.” The word in the archaic is the same root word for justice; and in the Greek it is “dikaioo” – meaning “to render innocent.” For me to say that I am innocent would be a falsehood on the order of saying “the earth is flat.” But note, I am not saying I am innocent but that I have been “rendered” thus. It is a marvelous thing to stand before the magistrate and hear the words “not guilty.” Yet, imagine hearing those words knowing full well you have not only committed the crime for which you are charged but that you are a serial criminal guilty of much more. Nevertheless, the declaration is emphatic. These two things are true and mutually assured. I am guilty yet I’ve been declared not guilty. How is this possible? I refer you to the entire Epistle to the Romans wherein Paul provides a treatise on the wonderment of it all, though Romans 3:24 captures it cleanly: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Meaning, my sin wasn’t excused, wasn’t ignored, wasn’t thought meaningless . . . rather it was considered inexcusable, horrific and payment due. What happened was Jesus took my penalty on Himself . . . paid my debt . . . secured my freedom. Then, acted as my lawyer, went before the magistrate and pled my case. Have you ever been to the local animal humane society and seen one of those pitiful, feces-covered, skin-and-bones, low-browed curs in desperate need of rescue? That was me. Wow!
There’s more. I believe I am being “sanctified.” This means He’s changing me, little-by-little, step-by-step into a likeness of Himself. A lot of people prefer to think that God’s principal characteristic is “love.” I can understand that preference. In fact, according to 1 John 4:8 God “is” love. But I believe His central attribute is “holiness” and that’s His aim for us . . . to be set apart . . . to live in His presence. . . to live for His purpose. Now, you might argue that you can’t tell the difference between the me’s of before I was justified and since, but He can -- and I can. For one thing, He’s relieved me of the “want to” sin. Oh, before the relief I confess I yearned for a burden shift or a burden lift, but I still wanted to lead the same life, I just didn’t want the consequences. Today I have a strong abhorrence to sin. My flesh still wants to, the world system still entices me, and the devil still tempts me. This unholy triple threat is a powerful foe and I still give in from time to time but my heart has a new master and a new allegiance.
Not done yet. Someday I will be “glorified.” It won’t be a puffy white cloud in the midst of harps and halos or a scene usually depicted in some medieval fresco with effeminate angels wearing high-sashed gowns and plucking on a lute. Throughout the ages artists have tried to capture with paint and poster what cannot be fathomed. But “No eye has seen, nor ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him, but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” (1 Cor. 2:9) There is something deep in the human psyche that insists on accepting only that which resonates with its central character. If I am a Democrat, I really don’t want to see the Republican side (and vice versa). If I’m a black man, the white thought process is alien to me (and vice versa). If I’m a woman, men cannot possibly comprehend (and vice versa). In the same way we humans want to construct heavenly things in our minds in such a way that we can master them. But God has said “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8) To be glorified means to be awesomely more than we can imagine but that whatever it is, it is with Him, on His throne, eternally. How’s that for someone who had to be rescued?
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Political Opinion: Madison, Wisconsin
Do you remember when the surgeon general’s warning on cigarette packs began? “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health” premiered in 1966. Yet, I can recall long before then how we teenagers in the late 1950s and early 1960s used to refer to cigarettes as “cancer sticks” and “coffin nails.” The point is it wasn’t a secret. So, why did we insist on indulging in the practice of smoking in the face of information that illustrated the obvious dangers? Probably the same reason people indulge today even though faced with incredible, overwhelming information regarding the dangers of heart disease, cancer, addiction, cost, insurance risk, and all the ancillary consequences ad infinitum. There is an inclination for people to have a “don’t confuse me with the facts” attitude when the “facts” tend to be contradictory to the narrow point of view preferred. Consequently it is not unusual for smokers to use as arguments in a discussion with anti-smokers the same unreasonable jive they lay down on themselves about how the dangers of smoking are either overblown, invented by rabid anti-smoking zealots, or just doesn’t apply to themselves because of their special metabolism or that their uncle Willie smoked for 75 years and died at 97 years old of a car accident. Essentially, no amount of rational and logical argument will make any difference at all.
Fast forward to television news lately in Madison, Wisconsin. You can substitute any state with public sector unions but the data are clear. There is a high correlation coefficient between states with public sector unions and state debt. There is a prodigious body of data available but an article in The WashingtonExaminer.com (April 3, 2010) captures the trend with this commentary: “The states with the highest per-capita debt all have something in common: Robust public-sector unions that have, over the years, cut sweetheart deals with politicians -- usually, but not always, Democrats.” Yet, out front on the protest lines, making noise about how evil it is to deny the public sector the “right” to collective bargaining are the public school teachers. This is the same crowd that won’t live up to their contract to “teach” the children in their care to read to a standard competitive with Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, you-name-it. Nevertheless, these people believe it should be their collective right (although rights accrue to individuals, not to groups) to have seated opposite them at the bargaining table, their own advocate with the check-writer and bill-payer having none. This is akin to John McEnroe showing up for every match with no opposing player and he gets to waltz off with every trophy and every purse -- hardly sporting, but worse . . . unfair and not wise. It appears to me these folks yelling obscenities and sporting signs that compare their governor to Adolf Hitler are a lot like smokers who just cannot abide the facts because they’re simply inconvenient to self-aggrandizement. Essentially, no amount of rational and logical argument will make any difference at all.
Fast forward to television news lately in Madison, Wisconsin. You can substitute any state with public sector unions but the data are clear. There is a high correlation coefficient between states with public sector unions and state debt. There is a prodigious body of data available but an article in The WashingtonExaminer.com (April 3, 2010) captures the trend with this commentary: “The states with the highest per-capita debt all have something in common: Robust public-sector unions that have, over the years, cut sweetheart deals with politicians -- usually, but not always, Democrats.” Yet, out front on the protest lines, making noise about how evil it is to deny the public sector the “right” to collective bargaining are the public school teachers. This is the same crowd that won’t live up to their contract to “teach” the children in their care to read to a standard competitive with Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, you-name-it. Nevertheless, these people believe it should be their collective right (although rights accrue to individuals, not to groups) to have seated opposite them at the bargaining table, their own advocate with the check-writer and bill-payer having none. This is akin to John McEnroe showing up for every match with no opposing player and he gets to waltz off with every trophy and every purse -- hardly sporting, but worse . . . unfair and not wise. It appears to me these folks yelling obscenities and sporting signs that compare their governor to Adolf Hitler are a lot like smokers who just cannot abide the facts because they’re simply inconvenient to self-aggrandizement. Essentially, no amount of rational and logical argument will make any difference at all.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Beyond Denial
My stepfather was an alcoholic. Not a “problem drinker” – not a “tippler” – not a “bar fly.” He was a bona fide alcoholic and died of the disease at age 56. He was addicted to the substance of alcohol and he never mustered the motivation sufficient enough to conquer the thing that took his life --- at least 25 years ahead of time, not to mention his miserable quality of life for at least 30 years of his brief time here. Therapists and counselors of all stripes will tell you that the very first step in beating any dependence is to admit the addiction and commit to recovery. The tabloids and news channels are rife with stories of myriad celebrities who have demonstrated failure upon failure after submitting (usually directed) to rehab programs. This is precisely akin to our human addiction to sin. If we don’t recognize the prospect that we are sinners, lost without hope we will ultimately die in our sinful condition (John 8:24). No matter how much or how forcefully we reject the unpleasant truth, it cannot be avoided indefinitely (Num. 32:33).
It is a curious characteristic of the human race that we are prone to behave in such a manner that we employ an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by refusal to accept thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable. This is known as denial. The human consciousness seemingly cannot live with guilt. We will either find a way to blame someone or something else for it or we will gnaw on it until it transforms us into neurotic basket cases leading eventually to insanity or suicide or first one then the other. The cultivation of an addiction, particularly to alcohol, is one of the ways of coping with the gnawing process.
Most simply stated, we are, by our fallen nature, addicted to sin, and since we won’t deal with it we usually try to find a way to mitigate its consequences. For a while we thought we could handle it, for there is pleasure in sin for a season (Heb. 11:25), but now it is the master and we are the servant. Sin weighs us down like a millstone around the neck in deep water (Mt 18:6). But Jesus says "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." (Mt 11:28-30) Do yourself a great favor. Take a moment to conduct a brief mental inventory. Are you struggling with yourself? Are you longing to be at peace in your mind and in your heart? You can trust just one name to give you relief. Psychiatrists can attempt to help you with your mental struggles; charities of all kinds can feed, shelter and clothe you; community job training centers can help you with finding work; doctors can mend your broken bones; support groups can help you deal with losing weight, being single or discovering your musical talent. But only God can fix your sin problem and His promise, unlike all those other presenters, is a guarantee. (Rom 10:13; John 6:37). Further, once you’ve allowed Him to take care of the sin burden, you’ll be astonished how He will then help you with your other burdens. It’s true!
It is a curious characteristic of the human race that we are prone to behave in such a manner that we employ an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by refusal to accept thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable. This is known as denial. The human consciousness seemingly cannot live with guilt. We will either find a way to blame someone or something else for it or we will gnaw on it until it transforms us into neurotic basket cases leading eventually to insanity or suicide or first one then the other. The cultivation of an addiction, particularly to alcohol, is one of the ways of coping with the gnawing process.
Most simply stated, we are, by our fallen nature, addicted to sin, and since we won’t deal with it we usually try to find a way to mitigate its consequences. For a while we thought we could handle it, for there is pleasure in sin for a season (Heb. 11:25), but now it is the master and we are the servant. Sin weighs us down like a millstone around the neck in deep water (Mt 18:6). But Jesus says "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." (Mt 11:28-30) Do yourself a great favor. Take a moment to conduct a brief mental inventory. Are you struggling with yourself? Are you longing to be at peace in your mind and in your heart? You can trust just one name to give you relief. Psychiatrists can attempt to help you with your mental struggles; charities of all kinds can feed, shelter and clothe you; community job training centers can help you with finding work; doctors can mend your broken bones; support groups can help you deal with losing weight, being single or discovering your musical talent. But only God can fix your sin problem and His promise, unlike all those other presenters, is a guarantee. (Rom 10:13; John 6:37). Further, once you’ve allowed Him to take care of the sin burden, you’ll be astonished how He will then help you with your other burdens. It’s true!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Saint?
The term “saint” is used 42 times in the New Testament and each time it is employed in the exact same manner in grammatical fashion. The Greek word used is “hagios” (hag’-ee-os); meaning sacred (physically pure, morally blameless, consecrated). In Romans 15:25 Paul reports, “I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there.” In Philippians 4:22 he says, “All the saints send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar’s household.” Dictionary.com defines exegesis as: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or a portion of a text, esp. of the Bible. So, after reading through all the uses of the term “saint” in the New Testament, the application of exegesis appears to render the definition of saints as those who have been set aside (consecrated) for the work of a holy nature. In fact, every example of the name of an actual person given in the New Testament was a living person who had yet to suffer physical death: Phylologus, Julia, Nereus, Olympas, Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, Timothy, etc.
So, what is the meaning of the Roman Catholic definition of “saint” with respect to the transaction currently winnowing its way through the “Congregation for the Causes of Saints” on behalf of Karol Jozef Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Paul II? According to the New Catholic Dictionary the term saint no longer meets the New Testament standard definition. Today “it applies only to those who have distinguished themselves by heroic virtue and who, after the scrutiny of the Church, have been declared saints by a solemn judgment of the pope.” This entitles the faithful to venerate (to solicit the good will of) the person so designated, and to pray to them. Of course, in the case of John Paul II, the testimony of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre to have been cured of Parkinson’s through John Paul’s intercession is a case of his intercession prior to being authorized to intercede or Sister Marie’s request to a man that she had not yet been authorized to pray to. Nevertheless, the definition of “saint” in the Roman Catholic culture has modulated since New Testament times from simply someone devoted to Christ to someone authenticated by the Roman Catholic Church as being dead, in heaven with God, and available for intercession . . . and, oh yes, Roman Catholic. Evidently, there are no non-Roman Catholic saints.
So, what is the meaning of the Roman Catholic definition of “saint” with respect to the transaction currently winnowing its way through the “Congregation for the Causes of Saints” on behalf of Karol Jozef Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Paul II? According to the New Catholic Dictionary the term saint no longer meets the New Testament standard definition. Today “it applies only to those who have distinguished themselves by heroic virtue and who, after the scrutiny of the Church, have been declared saints by a solemn judgment of the pope.” This entitles the faithful to venerate (to solicit the good will of) the person so designated, and to pray to them. Of course, in the case of John Paul II, the testimony of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre to have been cured of Parkinson’s through John Paul’s intercession is a case of his intercession prior to being authorized to intercede or Sister Marie’s request to a man that she had not yet been authorized to pray to. Nevertheless, the definition of “saint” in the Roman Catholic culture has modulated since New Testament times from simply someone devoted to Christ to someone authenticated by the Roman Catholic Church as being dead, in heaven with God, and available for intercession . . . and, oh yes, Roman Catholic. Evidently, there are no non-Roman Catholic saints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)