Read the Book, and Do the Lab

Read the Book, and Do the Lab

Jeff may be surprised, but I have remembered something that he said when we were doing weekly Bible studies a few years ago. We covered several books of the Bible, and I can’t remember what was the context for his statement, that all of our Bible learning should be linked to “labs.” That is, what we learn in the Bible, we should practice putting into practice.

I avoided classes that had labs if I could. I couldn’t avoid biology, so we had to study organ systems, and then we had to cut up the frog on a little stainless steel tray and discover what we already knew from the book. I was a history major in college, and while labs are possible, they were not common. I was assigned to study the writings of Washington Gladden housed at the Ohio Historical Society. I read some of his sermons, which I think qualifies as a lab, and did not reach much of a conclusion because of the weakness of my effort. I learned later that he was a Social Gospel preacher who linked salvation with social action, not so much a salvation from sin against God, but salvation as human efforts to cure societal ills - clearly not the Gospel. I didn’t know this from my reading, but from others who actually read and understood. I should have failed the lab.

Jeff says that in church, there is much more Book than lab. He was not advocating ignoring the Book. But when a preacher preaches the Book, he also ought to give some assignments. I suppose those assignments could be to sit and think; to write out a confession, whether of sin or of faith; or to obey what is commanded; or to parse out what should be the attitude that accompanies a promise (if God says, “I will be with you,” a promise, then how should that affect our thoughts and our moods, especially in the midst of trial?). What if every sermon had an assignment? What if we knew when we left the room what it is that we are supposed to do with what we have just heard? Because, as the Bible says, it’s not just the hearing, but the doing.

It’s been some time since Jeff and I sat down together. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard his common-sense statement that the Book demands a lab assignment. And I have to confess, I haven’t done much with it. This is no good excuse, but I’m very comfortable being a Book guy. I can do without cutting up the frog. But none of us can do without responding to the Word.

This Sunday we will complete an exposition of Paul’s letter to Titus. The Pastoral Epistles, which includes Titus, have a high rate of imperatives (commands) in them. Do this and this and this, and don’t do this. Timothy and Titus are being given instructions on how to supervise local church ministry in their region or on their island. Paul tells Titus to be really clear about grace (Book), and to urge people to be involved in good works (Lab). He is clear that the grace precedes the good works, but that the good works are not optional. I think that might translate into something that sounds like, “Read the Book and Do the Lab.”

So as this Winter series called “Grace and Good Works,” (or, “Book and Lab”) closes this Sunday, let me give fair warning that there will be a lab assignment. Not only does the Lord want us to have our minds exercised, but He may also want us to get our hands dirty.

What is this confidence that you have? (Is 36:4)

What is this confidence that you have? (Is 36:4)

One of the great stories late in Judah’s history is that of Hezekiah and God’s deliverance from the Assyrian invasion. Sennacherib is their king, and Rabshakeh is their spokesman. Those are big and hairy names. People might take you more seriously if you had a name like Rabshakeh. I would like to analyze his speech with you which is intended to frighten Jerusalem into submission.

The first thing that Rabshakeh points to is an inconsistency in the faith of Judah (Is 36:5-6). They say that they believe in God, and yet they have made an alliance for protection with Egypt. God has repeatedly instructed them to “trust in the Lord,” and yet they feel that they must shore up their defense by depending on ungodly nations. The Church does this when we rely on the world to accomplish our ends. Inconsistencies between what we say that we believe, and what we actually do, weaken us.

The second thing which is obvious about Rabshakeh is that he largely misunderstands Judah’s God and religion (Is 36:7). He points to Hezekiah as already undermining faith in God by removing the “high places,” which are sites of worship around Judah. But he does not know that those “high places” are actually places where false gods have been worshipped, and Hezekiah removed them in order to restore a focused reliance on the one, true God. The real tragedy is that the high places were even there in the first place. The Church is terribly weakened when we tolerate a worship of multiple gods.

The next tactic that Rabshakeh uses is to point to their military weakness (36:8-9). He brazenly offers to give to Jerusalem two thousand horses, but claims (correctly, I think) that Jerusalem could not find riders for those horses with the ability to confront the abilities of the Assyrians. The Church is not preserved through the world’s skills, as in money or marketing. Our strength is in God, in obedience to His Word, and in God’s provision. It seems that if the Church is regarded as strong according to worldly metrics, then the Church has wandered off her path.

Then Rabshakeh clearly states that he himself speaks for God (36:10). This is audacious, but it is also common. The Bible calls them false prophets, and false prophets can inhabit the halls of education, finance, government, and corporations. Some of the most effective false prophets are religious leaders. It is easy to claim to speak for God. But there is an easy test. The Church must continually study to compare such statements with God’s Word. God does not contradict Himself, and if someone contradicts God’s Word, they are indeed a false prophet.

Rabshakeh then paints a stark picture of impending doom if the city does not comply (36:11-12). They face suffering, humiliation and defeat. But once again, the Church should know that we have been given the end of God’s story, and that there are two ultimate outcomes, Heaven and Hell. Whatever may happen before that time, whether it be thriving or even martyrdom, is small in relation to the eternal outcome. The Church knows that to stand faithfully with our faithful Savior is the only proper path.

Powers of Observation

Powers of Observation

When I come home from visiting, my wife will ask me questions about colors or items I noticed. I don’t notice much of anything. However, I am able to notice details in Scripture text after years of practice.

In the television show “Elementary” from about ten years ago, Sherlock has powers of observation different than the ones above. He notices small things that most people would not notice. So does God. God’s Word does not describe God’s notice as the same as mine or my wife’s, or Sherlock’s. But God’s powers of observation are noted in several places. I’ve traced some it by searching out “small things.”

God notices the smallest of details in His Word, the Scriptures. It is common today as people wanting to preach the “gist” of Scripture without attention to the specifics. I think it allows them to shave the “rough” edges from God’s Word, though I would argue that it is the “rough” edges with which we need to struggle. The”Word-as-received” addresses hidden offenses more effectively. Here is what Jesus says: Matt. 5:18 “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

God’s judgment is also impartial, so much so that, as it says in Deut. 1:17 ‘You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike.” God instructs His people to judge in this way because He judges in this way. He is not bound by our estimation of what is a “big” sin or a “significant” sin or an an especially “bad” sin. All sin is an affront to God’s holiness.

The entrance to God’s salvation is small: Matt. 7:14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” The path to God is exclusive. Jesus famously said, John 14:6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” It would be fair to translate this verse “I am the only way.” It is narrow as opposed to the broad way that accepts every notion of man’s mind that imagines what God ought to accept. But man’s open-minded opinion contradicts the statement above about the small gate and the narrow way.

But also, God accepts all kinds of people for salvation. God’s powers of observation, demonstrated by Jesus, notice the poor and the blind, the rejected and the outcasts. Remember how Jesus noticed with His divine powers of observation the woman at the well and the woman with the issue of blood. He noticed the small child and the criminal on the adjacent cross. He noticed the one man in the tree that everyone else wanted to ignore: Luke 19:3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. 5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.”

God sees things that others do not see. He sees you and the things that you wish other people would notice and the things that you wish other people wouldn’t. But He sees, and His regard for you and your concerns is not governed by the false notion of “bigger is better” that has captivated our culture. Oh, God is indeed great, but He notices that which is not.

Everyone in Distress, in Debt, or Discontented (1 Samuel 22:2)

 Everyone in Distress, in Debt, or Discontented (1 Samuel 22:2)

I may be the weird one, but this little triplet from David’s experience of fleeing Saul grabs me. The alliteration helps, but I am impressed again with how God works so much differently than does the world.

Think of an exercise in team-building. Maybe you could think of building a church staff. How are you going to go about it? You might start with a careful description of the skills needed, but then you move on to the personalities and psychological profiles are needed to fill all the seats on the bus. Yes, that is the kind of language that is used in the popular business books, and yet I am not sure at all that building a church staff or building a team has much to do with who sits where on a bus. When I ride the shuttle bus from the parking lot to the airport, I could not care less whether someone is a lion or an otter, extrovert or introvert, Type A or B or Z - everyone looks straight ahead; no one talks, and we just hope to get off the bus.

David, on the run from Saul with his life at risk, desperately needed a team. He was able to form such a group, though it seems he never consulted LinkedIn. This group which at one time numbered 600 men were drawn to him perhaps as much by their own personal distress as due to their respect and admiration for David and his reputation. They had lost everything, though we are not sure how. Perhaps the Philistines had taken their land and perhaps destroyed their families. Whatever victories Saul had been able to gain, it had not spared them their dire circumstances. And so they came to David.

But they must have known something of the one to whom they were coming. This was the man who, when a boy, had defeated Goliath. This is the one who was challenged to calm Saul’s evil spirit with music. He was the poet who sang to the sheep, and seemed to treat people as well or better than those sheep. He is the one who would be known as the Shepherd/King. Though not yet a king, these men saw something in David - that he would shepherd them, and they were willing to pledge their lives and service to him.

But there were rough, very rough. They were fashioned into mighty warriors, and probably had plenty of raw material available for that quest, but they were also prone to wanton violence and interpersonal conflict and greed and the immoralities that go along with it. David would have to patiently and carefully disciple them to be those who would reflect his own character and then help them to be conversant with God’s way rather than man’s ways. It would take time, and some would leave and die in their sins.

Corporate style teams cannot afford this much time. They need sterling resumés to start with, and each person needs to gain a following soon after. But David lovingly struggled with some of these men for the rest of their lives. I wonder what would happen if we saw “local church” more in David’s terms than that of “this present evil age (Gal 1:4)”

This Mob-ocractic Spirit

This Mob-ocractic Spirit

It is dangerous to pluck a phase from the news, but not quite so dangerous if the phrase showed up in a speech back in the earlier 1800’s by Abraham Lincoln quite a while before he became President and thus before the Civil War. He included it in a speech to a group of young men and spoke of the duty of preservation of liberty, not so much out of passion, but in rational and reasonable ways.

A preceding event prompted Lincoln’s warning and his use of the term, “mobocratic,” evidently used from time to time by others, but new to me. The tragedy was the lynching of a black man by a white mob, which, you would agree, was a terrible violation of liberty of the individual by many who were certainly not much interested in preserving liberty.

When we turn to the Bible, as we should, we find mobs at work in various settings. The mob in Jerusalem rose up against the prophet Jeremiah when he did not parrot the party line. The people had been assured of “peace and safety,” and Jeremiah was predicting imminent judgment. They threw him into a muddy pit.

The heads of the religion department in Jerusalem complained to Jesus about the praise He received from the “mob” as He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Those shouting “Hosanna!” would have seen this as participation in public worship and would have certainly rejected the term “mob.” Does it merely depend on one’s perspective? “One man’s mob is another man’s worship throng?” I don’t think so. Jesus’ worshippers were not throwing stones. They were not demanding death and destruction. They were praising Jesus, God’s Son.

But there was another mob, only days later, who would chant “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” to the Roman governor, Pilate. Yes, that would be a mob, individuals caught up into destructive activity, driven by passion, and with little reason or reasonableness. Yes, they were concerned about the preservation of their “old” religion in the face of this powerful prophet and teacher, and Jewish exiles would continue to persecute Christians throughout the Book of Acts. They were so caught up in the zeitgeist of the moment that they were unable to soberly consider what the Old Testament clearly said. They were driven to an action for which they will have to answer to God Himself one day.

But doesn’t that apply to us as well? Won’t we be judged when we fail to reflect on Scripture and to consider what is indeed Christ-like as opposed to the prevalent “spirit of the age.” It is not so much that we are to think for ourselves (I don’t know how successfully we ever do such a thing - we have very few “original” thoughts), but we should know who and what we are following. What we are committed to follow if we call ourselves Christians is the Word of God upon which we soberly reflect and learn in concert with other believers (not a mob).

I believe the devil loves to incite a mob, and he does so with a cleverness that fools us often. The phrase “everyone’s doing it” is almost a definition of mobocracy, following the crowd, lending your passions but leaving your brain at home. It has happened in Biblical times and it still happens today. Democracy is one thing. Mobocracy is something much more dangerous. And mobocracy is deadly for the testimony of Jesus Christ and of His Church.

Whiter than Snow

 Whiter than Snow

There is a beautiful verse in Isaiah 1 that uses snow’s whiteness as a word picture. I don’t know how in the world that phrase came to mind here at the halfway point of February, but let’s not talk about the weather. Let’s talk about the Gospel.

The verse goes like this: Is. 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow;”

The last two lines are actually found in poetic form in the Bible text. “White as snow” is a pretty good illustration, not of whiteness, but of purity.

The problem was that as Isaiah was writing, Israel was anything but pure. Here is his poetic description: Is. 1:4 Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity, Offspring of evildoers, Sons who act corruptly!” Come now, Isaiah, tell us what you really think. But remember, this is not Isaiah’s observation. It is God’s, which Isaiah was then led to write.

Not only were they dirty, but they were sick. “The whole head is sick, And the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, There is nothing sound in it.”

And then, there is nothing that Israel could do about it. They were not able to work or buy their way back into God’s favor. They could do all the religious rituals they could dream up, but it would be to no avail.

That’s the bad news. The bad news is needed before we are ready to hear and appreciate the good news. Without the bad new, the good news does not strike us as being all that good. The bad news states that Israel was anything but pure; disqualified from any kind of covenant relationship with the holy God.

The good news talks about these stained people becoming “white as snow,” pristine and pure and thus acceptable to God. It is a picture of purity, but it requires us to ask the question, “how?” If they can not do it themselves, then how is it to be accomplished? We will find the answer in the text that I gave above, but only in part. Here is the whole thing: Is. 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.” Not only do we have the word picture, “white as snow,” but also this simile: “like wool.” I suppose we normally think of wool as white, though I’m not sure that is its import here. Wool does not fall from heaven as does snow. It comes from a sheep, from the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

So both pictures are important. Jesus, the Son of God, came down from heaven (like snow) for the express purpose of bringing cleansing to His people, that is, those who would accept His gift. And the way that He did it is by Himself becoming the sacrificial lamb (wool) who would "bear in His own body our sins on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds we are healed” (1 Peter 2:24). That’s the good news. White as snow, and reconciled into a relationship with the God of the universe, which is why you exist.

Staph Meeting

Staph Meeting

I was sitting all alone in a coffee shop with this laptop, deep in thought about something or other. A couple of older ladies sat to my left. I’m not sure how old, maybe my age. But then I saw him, a man with a book, a discussion book. He started to pull some tables and chairs together just to my right. Oh no! He’s getting ready for a staph meeting.

It was not my intention to listen to either the left side or the right. But if I had to hire someone, I would definitely go with the two ladies on my left. They were friends and talked about this or that. One of the things the one mentioned was trying to show some younger people how to get something done, as though these ladies could actually get things done. What a concept!

The tall guy getting ready for his meeting kind of gave himself away. Not only was it the Patrick Lencioni book on organization and leadership (who also wrote the classic, “Death by Meeting,” which was about to be played out just to my right). It was his loafers with no socks. It had snowed that morning, and the compulsion to be cool totally overwhelmed any instinct for common sense. Eventually the group gathered, three women and, finally, a young man. There was some small talk, and then the real issue came to the fore.

I suspected that they were a church staff before they even began churching. There’s just something about that crowd that gives them away, similar to how old, grouchy Baptist pastors are easy to spot. The pastor, that is, the cool dude, started it off by, well, talking about himself.

And that is what the meeting was mostly about: self. They were all supposed to have a list of what makes them most happy in ministry, and the longest segment was the pastor’s talk about what he enjoyed most. They were each to contribute, and around the circle they went. Not a single one mentioned getting paid, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have been there otherwise.

Now let me step back from my negativity and cynicism for just a moment to make a point. For each of those staff members, there was nothing that they said that made me think they were not sincere. They were doing as instructed, and I think they most likely truthfully mentioned things that they enjoyed in ministry. It’s not wrong. It is just not what it is all about. I so wanted the Apostle Paul to attend that meeting and tell what he most enjoyed. What was it, Paul, the imprisonments or the stonings or the shipwreck? Oh, he wouldn’t have said that, but he would have changed the question to something like this: What is it that makes Jesus most happy related to this ministry with which you are involved? Your feelings are not to be central. Jesus is.

And so the fault wasn’t with the staff members, but with the leader, who liked to talk about leadership, but never talked about leadership the way the Bible talks about, not as leadership but as servanthood. Servants don’t talk about what they enjoy and don’t enjoy all that much. They talk about Jesus, and they talk about others. So that’s how you turn a staff meeting into a staph meeting.

Worm’s Eye View

 Worm’s Eye View

I learned in art class about perspective, and the difference between the worm’s eye view vs. the eagle’s eye view. The picture will look much different depending on the chosen perspective.

I’ve been reading a collection of sermons written by Christopher Love of England in the 1600’s. He died in his 30’s, so you can see that I am willing to take counsel from younger men, so long as they are dead. The title of the sermon series (and the book) is The Dejected Soul’s Cure. Its a real pick-me-upper.

But the book is honest and wise, and the author, like Spurgeon two hundred years later, is given to word pictures.

The question being examined is why a person who desires to live a holy life focuses more quickly on his faults than his goodnesses. He views his life more from the perspective of a worm’s eye view than that of the eagle. I would guess that a certain number of you would know what I am talking about. Sin is a constant and obvious problem to those who wish to be holy. Certainly we know that pattern of holiness displayed in descriptions of God’s character and as played out in the life of Christ. But we are also convicted about how far we fall short.

Love says that “God’s people see their sins like Mountains, and their graces like mole-hills.” That is not how God sees us, but it is how we tend to see ourselves. There is no sin so mountainous that God will not forgive, and His grace is sufficient for a complete covering. If Noah’s waters covered the mountains, God’s grace can cover our worst sins (according to our own estimation, which is faulty).

But the battle is hard. Love says “my lusts burn like a flame, but my graces like a glowing coal.” It is a view born in a moment, and we cannot see that God can quickly douse a wildfire, and that He will also nurse along a glowing coal.
There are people in the world capable of writing a great list of all their successes, and have little memory to jot down but a failure or two. Not so with many who pursue godliness. “Grace is as the gleaning of the Vintage; sin is as the full harvest.” You know the difference, don’t you? The gleanings are the few stalks left around the edges and corners of the field. The full harvest is greater by far. That is how it seems for those who live with a hunger for God, and also have a keen sensitivity with regard to sin in their own hearts.

Sunday at our Lord’s Table service we will sing the hymn “Grace Greater than our Sin.” Verse two sings “Sin and despair, like the sea waves cold, Threaten the soul with infinite loss;
Grace that is greater, yes, grace untold, Points to the refuge, the mighty cross.” While the serious but dejected soul says “my sins (seem) at full tide, but my graces (seem) at a low ebb,” the Gospel argues against the dejected soul, telling him that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." It is not that you are so much better than you thought yourself to be. No, you were probably quite right about yourself. It is rather that your Savior is so much greater than you have imagined. Verse 3 of “Grace Greater” sings “Dark is the stain that we cannot hide; What can we do to wash it away? Look! There is flowing a crimson tide, Brighter than snow you may be today.”

Great Cry and Little Wool

Great Cry and Little Wool

It won’t surprise you, if you have read recently, that I am dipping from the well once again of C.H. Spurgeon and his John Ploughman’s Pictures. The artwork at the beginning of the present chapter shows a man shearing his animal in order to collect wool. The problem is that he is shearing, not a sheep, but a pig. That explains our title, in that the pig gives “great cry” but “little wool”.

The first application is to our pursuit of pleasure. Listen to the critique: “There is noise enough - laughter and shouting and boasting; but where is the comfort which can warm the heart and give peace to the spirit? Generally there’s plenty of smoke and very little fire in what is called pleasure.” If our entertainment makes us miserable, perhaps we are seeking to gather wool from a pig.

But then one could speak of the entertainment that takes place at church. Is this also an end in itself? Of course, there are different types of churches, and thus different types of entertainment. For some, it might be the band. For others, the preacher or homily. For others, the people with whom they rub shoulders and exchange conversation. It might be the experience of the grand cathedral, or even the joy of watching the children. Each and all of these most likely have less to do with entertainment described in our chapter as “all fizz and bang and done for.” You carry the experience with you as you exit the doors and resume normal life. I pray that it is deeper, touching not only the senses but also the soul. And for the churches seeking to draw crowds as though they were a stadium or coliseum, you may just get what you deserve: great cry and little wool.

Of course, there are other applications as well. Have you ever heard a person laugh loudly, not because of happiness but because they merely wanted people to believe that they were happy? Wouldn’t it be better just to find the true source of happiness and enjoy it rather than pretending? Or perhaps worse, the person who grumbles and complains about the miseries of their life, and, lo and behold, we find their life is not all that bad. Why not focus on what is good instead of bad? Why not be thankful for the blessings? The persons who plays the martyr may soon find a response from others that secretly hopes your martyrdom finds success. Great cry and little wool. It is present in politics and marketing and the workplace and in our own souls.

The Sheep has been sheared and He has given His wool. We don’t have to shear it ourselves. What we must do is to embrace the proper Resource, not a pig, but the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and find in Him what is good and true and beautiful.

Don’t Cut Off your Nose to Spite your Face

Don’t Cut Off your Nose to Spite your Face

 
Spurgeon, in the voice of John Ploughman, says ”Anger is a short madness. The less we do when we go mad the better for everybody, and the less we go mad the better for ourselves. He is far gone who hurts himself to wreak his vengeance on others. The old saying is, ‘Don’t cut off your head because it aches,’ and other says, ‘Set not your house on fire to spite the moon.’"

This little chapter on Anger in “John Ploughman’s Pictures” says it better than I can, so here are some more quotes:

• “Do nothing when you are out of temper, and then you will have the less to undo.”
• “Let a hasty man’s passion be a warning to you; if he scalds you, take heed that you do not let your own pot boil over.”
• “He who cannot curb his temper carries gunpowder in his bosom, and he is neither safe for himself nor his neighbors.”
• “When passion comes in at the door, what little sense there is indoors flies out of the window.”
• “Anger does a man more hurt than that which made him angry. It opens his mouth, and shuts his eyes, and fires his heart, and drowns his sense, and makes his wisdom folly.”

From whence does anger come? Those who are angry are quick to blame others. “You make me so mad!” But that is not the truth, is it? Anger is our response to the situation, but anger is not a necessary response. A person could just as soon respond with patience, or a desire to see whether one’s own self has contributed to the problem, or with an attitude that you would like to help the person who is in the wrong. Anger does none of those things.

So again, from whence does anger come? Do you remember that Jesus Himself already answered that question? 

Mark 7:20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” 

You might argue that you do not see “anger” in this 13-fold list, though I might find it in the entries “evil thoughts” and “murders” (since, when one is angry, we often think that we would be better off if the other person were absent). But let’s compare this list, “which proceeds out of the man,” to the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:

 Gal. 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 Spurgeon says, “A hot-tempered man would be all the better for a new heart, and right spirit.” That fits the Matthew text well. To accord with the second text, we might say that the angry person needs the Lord. Why? Because merely trying harder not to be angry will never work. We cannot change our own hearts, and we cannot conjure up the Spirit. They are both given by Christ to those who have given up on self-salvation and come to Him for the only real help available.

The Value of a Mirror

 The Value of a Mirror

I have spoken recently of figures of speech, and the Bible is full of them. James talks about a man looking in a mirror, but as soon as he walks away, “he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was” (Jas 1:24). Spurgeon in his John Ploughman’s Pictures tells a similar story. He describes showing a mirror to a blind man so that he can see the soot on his face, which is, of course, fruitless. But he goes on to say, "the man without eyes has the advantage for he is in the dark and he knows it."

We found last Sunday that the man born blind in John 9 could actually see some things much more clearly than those who were fully sighted. He could see that there was something different about Jesus, that He was a prophet and a man come from God. He could see in Jesus an authenticity that led him to belief in Jesus as the Son of Man, something that others simply could not or were not willing to see. Spurgeon goes on to tell of other forces that lead sighted people to blindness.

One such condition is simple unreasonableness or willfulness. Some would call it being mule-headed and stubborn. There is an arrogance to it as well. Spurgeon concludes, “We pity the poor blind; we cannot do so much as that for those who shut their eyes against the light.” I have wondered about Jesus’ figure of speech in the Sermon on the Mount about not casting pearls before swine. I think it might fit here.

“Prejudice shuts up many eyes in total darkness.” Pre-judging means that a person has already made up their mind. Arguments will likely do no good. Spurgeon gives the curious illustration: “when he has said a thing he sticks to it like a cobbler’s wax.” I have to confess that I’m not sure the role of wax in shoe repair, at least back in the 1800’s. More clear is: “one man can lead a horse to the water, but a hundred cannot make him drink.” Or, “he is as stubborn as he is stupid, and to get a new thought into his head you would need to bore a hole into his skull with a centre-bit.” (You can get away saying those things when you quote someone who is dead.)

So what is my excuse of your excuse for failing to heed the mirror of the Word you have heard, the truth you have seen, and yet have not responded with appropriate action? We wouldn’t think of going about with soot on our faces, but then we may go about with soot in our hearts, knowing full well that Jesus said that out of the heart come all kinds of evil things. We wouldn’t fail to respond to warning signs from the car that we are driving, but we ignore the warning signs given by the Spirit and the lack of comfort and assurance with God that go with it. In fact, we can become almost used to it. And so, we pray for one another, as Spurgeon does, in these verses:

A dark and blinded thing is man Yet full of fancied light!
   But all his penetration can Produce no Gospel light.
Though heavenly truth may blaze abroad, He cannot see at all;
   Though Gospel leaders show the road, He still gropes for the wall.
O Lord, Thy holy power display, For Thou the help must find:
   Pour in the light of Gospel day; Illuminate the mind.
Behold! How unconcerned they dwell, Though reft of sight they be;
   They fancy they can see right well, And need no help from Thee.
Speak, and they’ll mourn their blinded eyes, And cry to Thee for light;
   O Lord, do not our prayer despise, But give these blind men light.

If your Thoughts only Flow by Drops, You Can’t Pour them out in Bucketfuls

 If your Thoughts only Flow by Drops, You Can’t Pour them out in Bucketfuls

There is a book called John Ploughman’s Pictures published back in the 1890’s, or about the time my Grandpa Swayze was born. It was written by C.H. Spurgeon and was part of Moody’s Colportage Library. Spurgeon was a great English preacher, and a fitting contributor to the library.

Most of the books in the collection were more serious, but Spurgeon contributed two books in the voice of John Ploughman who was a simple farmer who had good common sense. Spurgeon would fill these chapters with figures of speech and come to the point that he desired.

The title above is one of these little phrases in the chapter, “If the Cap Fits, Wear It.” The title in itself is a wonderful piece of wisdom, in that we tend to go around fitting caps to other people’s heads other than our own. In the story, there was a rather foolish man who thought if he overheard something, it must be about him. He wasn’t too bright, and so the phrase in our title above: If your thoughts only flow by drops, you can’t pour them out by the bucketfuls.

I remember in seminary having to write long papers for several classes. I often had the sense that I was writing more words than there was knowledge in my head. I still have that sense when someone asks for a sudden bit of advice, and I have to say something on the spot. 

Good talkers and good thinkers are two separate things. Yes, they can rarely be combined in one person, but you should not assume that it is so. The number of good talkers far outnumbers the number of good thinkers.

Have you had the experience of noticing that some of the people who speak least seem to have had the most to say? I can think of a gentleman in our church that fits the category, and one of the early board members during the time on the Lake Ann Board. They could go a whole meeting with hardly saying a word, but when they did speak, everyone listened. Why? Because they had been thinking. Their words would seem to be only drops, pregnant with meaning, but it was because of the bucketfuls in their minds.

But we have also been in the presence of the person who continually chatters and says nothing, or nothing of value, or nothing true. It is as though they just cannot handle a moment of silence, so on they go, driving those around to seek shelter by suddenly remembering they had an urgent appointment.

Just as Spurgeon could steer his character, John Ploughman, to a point worth making, let me try and do the same.

Jesus, who took on human flesh and was born as a baby has always existed as the eternal Son of God. On earth, He came to live in perfect righteousness, fulfilling the Law at every point, and thus being in a position to offer for us the perfect and blameless sacrifice for our sins. That blamelessness extended to His words, all of them.

Jesus never wasted a word. He never spoke an unthought word. He may have been misunderstood, but the failure was on the part of the listener, not the Speaker. His words were backed by bucketfuls of wisdom and knowledge, more than the hearer could ascertain. In fact, we seek to read them and hear them over and over, so that we might glean more of the intended meaning. And we never get to the bottom.

On the other hand, as I think back over my own words, so many are wasted, so many wrongheaded, so many for the wrong reason. And that’s why we need a Savior - someone to do well what we so often do so poorly. Perhaps I could say along with Spurgeon, if the cap fits, wear it.

Covenant

Covenant

It is said that we live in a transactional age. I suppose that there can be “fair” transactions, that is, deals that are struck that are good for both parties. But often, transactions are enacted with carrots and sticks. You might agree to a deal based not on what you might gain, but rather on what you hope to avoid.

Covenants are not mere transactions. They are relationships. They are a special kind of relationship, one in which both parties have an expectation of “winning” in the end. Marriage-as-covenant is an example of this, whereby we pledge ourselves to one another for the good of both, being able to enjoy more and accomplish more as a united couple than alone. Of course, love is the oil that aids this relationship.

But I want to talk about the covenantal nature of the believer’s and the church’s relationship to God. Let me give you some Biblical background.

The form of covenants in the OT can be traced to a pattern of covenant used in the greater region at the time called “suzerain/vassal treaties.” There is a great king, and there is a subdued peopole. According to the terms of this relationship, the king pledges himself to be the king of this people whom he has spared, perhaps cared for, and will offer protection even as the people agree to the stipulations of the covenant, or following the king’s rules. God is not bound by this form, but He uses it, even as He uses human language, to accomodate Himself to us and our understanding.

Unsurprisingly, God is the Great King. God entered into covenant relationship with Israel, a slave people whom God would come to regard as His own people. The blessings of fruitfulness and security would flow to them even as they pledged to "have no other gods before Me” and to “make no graven images” and refuse to “take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Included here would be the other stipulations of the old covenant found in Exodus and Leviticus (and repeated in Number and Deuteronomy).

This is good for God, not that He needs anything, being Self-sufficient, but according to His desire to form a people for Himself. This is good for the people, because as sinners, they are a mess without Him and stand under His judgment, not His favor. They now become the beneficiaries of being counted as His subjects and His children. They are grateful for His grace, and express that gratefulness through obiedience.

Except they didn’t. And so it seems to be a covenant “on hold;” an interrupted covenant. Scripture seems to indicate that God will keep His promises to this people, but based on a New Covenant and according to the terms of this New Covenant.

In the New Covenant, the Great King sends His Holy Son to be the propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. Due to this sacrifice, the covenant is “kept,” not by the people, but by the Son. God keeps His part, and then, through the Son, He keeps our part as well.

There is one act that Christ does not undertake for us. That is our acceptance of the terms of the covenant, or believing in Jesus. There is not entrance into the covenant apart from faith in Christ.

But we must be clear about what is involved in this faith or receiving. It is true faith and a full receiving. It is not a gesture, but an embrace. It is not an add-on, but a replacement. Jesus becomes to us “wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption. (1 Corinthians 1:30 NAS95)

This receiving is described in two parts: “if you 1) confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and 2) believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9 NAS95) We do not believe with our mouths, but with our hearts, from which deeds of gratefulness flow. No grateful deeds, no faith; and no faith, no entrance into the covenant, which is your only lasting and eternal good.

Information

Information

I was born quite a few years ago in the industrial age. Some say we now live in the information age. It is not that there is no industry now, or that there was no information before - but information has become our common currency. It is interesting that we don’t know quite what information is, or how it works.

When I drive to Starbucks in the morning for coffee, I at times inform my group of buddies that it’s going to a bad day based on information that I just received. If the stoplights at Main and Commerce, and then Main and Liberty, and then Main and Huron, and then General Motors and Milford Road - if they are all red and cause me stop all those times, I can deduce from that information that it is going to be a bad day.

Good information is supposed to contribute to the truth of the reality in which we live. However people may disagree with one another, - and they certainly do disagree - but, there is really only one reality.

So let me just say that my friends at Starbucks know full well that I am mocking when I say that I can tell the dispostion of the day ahead by the redness of a series of stoplights. Information it is, but not good information. It is not information that contributes to an accurate understanding of reality any more than a horoscope. I am actually making fun of such absurd “knowledge” with the hope that they might think about where to find “good” knowledge.

To find information about reality, we must consult a trusted source. I believe in the providence of God, but I am not sure that God cares much about whether I have to stop at too many stoplights in my quest for that first cup of coffee. I don’t believe those lights are synced in any intelligent way - they are not “smart” lights; they are “dumb” lights. And they are in no way a source of information that should be trusted. So where do we go to find trusted information?

If you trust the information that shows up in the first few entries on your computer screen, you are a foolish person. The algorithms are designed to feed you first what they have deemed you most want to read; that with which you are most likely to agree. If you trust a particular talking head you have never met on a news/entertainment show, you are foolish, because you have no means of detecting the character or motivation of that person who is talking other than knowing that they are being paid a boatload of money to hang on to market share. They don’t know you as George or Phyllis. They know you only as market share.

We suppose that we get our “good” information from those we trust. But whom do we trust? That is the question, and that is the problem. We know that the world is filled with liars, but we think we have the tools to tell the liars from the truth-tellers. On what basis? Because they sound confident? One might more likely find the truth in someone who is humble. But that doesn’t sell.

Many people have heard of Jesus, but few trust Him. Why? Because they already have other networks of experts they trust. When the disciples chose to trust Jesus instead of the chief priests, it is that they found Jesus to speak into their hearts with a sincerity and truth that they could not escape. This also brought the result that they found the chief priests to be disappointing, even self-serving.

If information is to help us understand what reality truly is, then Jesus is the One best able to help us in that regard. He will stand in judgment of all other competing and contrary information. He will steer us away from liars, unless it is that we, despite our professions of faith, actually trust the liars more than we trust Jesus. If that is the case, I don’t know which reality you might think you are living in, but it is not real, and you are not prepared for what comes next.

I’m writing this article while parked a red light. It just turned green, so we can go now, and it is a good day, not because the light is green, but because Jesus is alive, and He is the King of the true reality that should matter to everyone. It is called the Kingdom of God.

Football is our National Religion

Football is our National Religion

Multitudes of people will go to church this weekend. But the “church” will be a stadium. They will be involved in a worship experience, but the object of their worship will not be God, but a team of exceptional humans. Some might call this a violation of the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me.”

The likenesses (and differences) abound. Surely there will be more people observing from home than in person. This happens in churches, or, out of church buildings, as well. People say they worship from home, but while they may be interested in what happens on the screen, they are free to go grab a yogurt from the refrigerator. I’m not sure when it slips from the level of “worship” to “auditing the class,” but lack of personal presence makes a difference.

Worship attire. It used to be in Christian churches that all the men wore ties and all that goes with it. You could tell they belonged. That day has passed, but not in the stadium. You would be out of place without your team colors, and if you are for the other team, you stick out and are ridiculed. You could put choir robes on the home crowd and they would not look more like a unit than these thousands of fans.

The preachers, however, are wearing suits, mostly men, and they wear far more well-fitting clothes than most of the preachers’ suits I ever saw. They may offer a few prophetic words, but most of their comments are analysis of the present situation. That seems true in Christian churches as well. There seems to be a lot less “thus says the Lord” these days.

I’m not sure if the song team is represented by the half-time show or the cheerleaders. Both seem to be important to the production, but there is a difference, I hope. The football religion uses the sidelines and show to attract people through blunt sensuality. Worship leaders in Christian churches seek to direct attention to Christ rather than themselves, or at least that is how it is supposed to work. But there is another difference. In recent times in our churches, the song time is now called “worship,” and after the “worship” is done, then comes the preacher. I’m not sure what they call his part. In football, the central event continues to be "the game," not the halftime show.

But what is the point of the “game”? It is to win. That is, I want my team to win and the other team to lose. The home fans want to go home happy, and they want the visiting fans to go home miserable. There is an enmity that is set in motion, and it may be "only a game,” and off-the-field violence is looked down on, but the word “hatred” is not uncommon. You love your coach and the other coach is a bum, or quarterback, or whatever. In churches, we cannot tell so easily the friends from the foes, and we are to love everyone nonetheless. We should not forget, however, that it is not primarily how one is welcomed to the church building, but what is their eternal destiny that should be of primary concern. If the Gospel message offends those without Christ, then that is an offense that should be risked. But no, we do not hate unbelievers, or, the other team.

There are likenesses and differences between fandom and Christendom. The personal and emotional engagement of the people is interesting. While churches have technological means to “amp up” the experience, I have never seen the level of engagement in church that I saw in the stadium, at least when there are high hopes of winning. And yet, Christians know that they are overcomers because Christ is the Winner. And yet, Christians can sleep their way through a worship service, something that never happens at a football game, the real religion of our land.

Away from Sin; Toward Sinners

 Away from Sin; Toward Sinners

The first time the word “sinner” is used in the Bible is Genesis 13:13: “Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD.” An important part of this story is that Sodom is where Lot, the nephew of Abram, lived. He shouldn’t have been there, and it almost cost him his life. It did indeed take the life of his wife. So when should we move toward sinners, and not away from them?

Let me use my bicycle illustration. Bicycles are great for staying upright when they are moving forward. But when they stand still, they fall over. So also with Christians in relation to sinners. If Lot were in Sodom on mission with the intent purpose of converting sinners, he may have been ok, and the community may have seen benefit. But in that he appeared not to have a mind for mission, he and his family were deeply affected by the worldliness of that place, and they had little or no influence on the hearts of their neighbors.

There is no doubt that hanging out with sinners is dangerous business. But the very notion of “hanging out” argues against being on mission. I’ve heard so many youth pastors describe their ministry as “hanging out” with the kids. I have a hard time seeing how “hanging out” is a Biblical ministry strategy or part of God’s mission. Yes, sinners are dangerous. Do you remember the verse in Proverbs: 1:10 “My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent.” Be on guard. Don’t merely hang out. Be on mission, or go home.

Even in a “mission” verse, care is advised: Gal. 6:1 “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.” We are commanded to move toward sinners, in mission. The mission of Jesus would lead us to this conclusion. But, be on guard.

So let’s look at a couple of points for the Christian who would engage with sinners for the sake of pointing them to Christ. First, as the title above suggests, we need to be those who continually turn away from sin. Not toward sin, but away from it. And the wrong direction can happen in our minds and hearts before we know it. We want to be liked. We want to be popular. We want to be funny. But when we begin to become more like the sinners to whom we are (supposedly) on mission and less like Jesus, something is wrong. We have not been watching our hearts. We have not been brutally honest about temptations that are working on us and in us. We have failed at the first point: turning from sin.

Secondly, have we substituted hanging out with mission? As I have said, they are two different things. How can you tell? Let me ask this question: Have you prayed for them, one by one, by name? If you are not praying for them, then you are not on mission. You are merely hanging out, like, you know, Lot.

Mission will seek to expose the worldview of those with whom you engage. Always with love and compassion, we show contrasts between the way they view the world and the view of the redeemed. We seek to point to Scriptures as illustration or direction to support our points. Sometimes we refer to Bible stories as illustrations of Biblical truth. We seek to mention Jesus. There is no pulpit nor sermon, and our words can be dismissed or rejected. But as real friends, we want people to know that there is something more than money; something far greater than the present order.

These principles apply in every arena where you are in contact with unbelievers - you are either on mission, or in grave danger. Either you are praying for the people with whom you do business of one kind or another, or you are in danger of being preyed upon. You are either bringing Christ into focus in the lives of others, or you losing the focus on Christ that makes mission possible.

Prayer List

Prayer List

Perhaps you are a “list” person. Perhaps you are not. In any case, if you are a Christian, you are to be a “prayer” person, list or not. Let’s think about it for a few moments.

Lists are helpful so that we revisit what we once thought was a good idea. We all have many good ideas, but if we lose track of them, what good are they? Lists help to create patterns and habits. These are good things. By the way: a new church directory is coming out - an excellent list from which to pray.

But habits and patterns can become wooden. It is not that they are wrong, but they can lose heart. Have you ever memorized a passage of Scripture so that you can say it without even thinking about it? Does anyone think this is a good thing? So as we use lists, we must still engage the whole person with the task, which in this case is prayer.

But the Spirit of God who prompts and directs our prayers in ways that are beyond us is not tied to your list. He has the freeedom to move you to brand new territory, or to bring up an old subject that you had no intention of praying about. And this is most definitely a good thing. It would be excellent for any of us, whether list person or not, to daily ask the Spirit what He would have us pray about today.

But apart from one’s view of lists, there is another divide that can help us broaden our prayers: my concerns vs. God's concerns. You might think that God is interested in your concerns, and you are right, at least partly. But God may also wish that you were concerned about bigger and better things. Let’s try an easy one: Jesus is coming again.

If Jesus is coming again, and He is, so says Scripture, then it should shape our prayers. It is the next major “salvation” event that will change everything. It is bigger than wars and world leaders. It is bigger than economy or health. Jesus’ coming will move us from this age of preparation to an age of fulfillment and consummation. Little will be the same.

And so if this is true (and, if it’s not, then why even bother to pray), then what kind of prayers should we pray? The prayers will have to do with essential activities before that Coming Day comes. There will be prayers about salvation and all that leads up to it, like consistent Christian living and evangelism. There will be a deep and consistent interest in the workings of the Gospel so that we can explain and defend the Good News well. There will be prayers prayed for those for whom we are burdened, and the Spirit will cause us to be burdened for those that we do not yet know. With regard to our own selves, there will be close attention paid to holy living and, conversely, stubborn sins. There will be prayers of repentance and humility. Now, is that how our prayers typically go?

There is an old song that goes, “Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King.” If that is true, then our prayers will have an excitement about seeing Jesus, not merely by faith, but face to face. We study Him and fellowship with Him now, by faith, so that we might recognize Him when we see Him with our eyes. You might think that is silly, and that everyone would recognize Him on that day. But I would remind you they didn’t recognize Him the first time He came. Those who are excited to see Jesus may actually talk to Him more than they talk to any other Person. Would that describe your prayer life?

It seems that the Church as we know it does not take prayer all that seriously, nor do we take the Coming of Christ so seriously as it deserves. When we are more enamored by worldly issues that will matter not-at-all in eternity, then it seems we need to sit down and make a list. A prayer list.

Existential

Existential

We have heard the word “existential,” or, “existential threat” quite a bit in the news lately with regard to the upcoming election. One side believes that the election of the opposing party’s candidate would pose an “existential threat,” but it is not clear what exactly is the risk, or even the meaning of the word.

True to form, this article is not designed to favor one candidate or the other. Our purpose is to think a bit theologically about what is and what is not actually existential.

Biblically, I would point to three events that are existential. The first is the creation of the world by God, including the heavens and the earth, the waters and dry land, the plants and animals, and yes, mankind. We owe our existence to this act, and therefore it is an existential act from our point of view. God had existence apart from creation, but we did not.

The second existential event is in the future, and we can call it “Judgment Day.” It is not that some part of mankind will go out of existence based on the verdict of that day (though some would like to believe that), but the categories that are attached to the verdict are two: condemnation, or justification; continuing into eternity under the curse, or enjoy the blessing of God’s favor forever. Though existence is not in question, one’s experience of that existence is determined at that time, and without any hope of future remedy. One’s experience of existence is one of the ways that the word “existential” is used.

In between Creation and Judgment there was another event that brings focus and fulfillment to the first two events: the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus, the eternal Son of God and intimately involved in creation will also be critical at the time of judgment as well, since each human’s response to Jesus will be determinative of his/her future relation with God. Have you bowed to Jesus’ authority and believed in His work and His words? Is He your Savior and Lord? It is an existential question.

When we as Christians frame the word “existential” in this way, in my opinion, it reduces arguments about other so-called existential threats as rather silly. If Nebuchadnezzar, the most powerful man in the world in his day, could be reduced by God to a madman who ate grass like a cow, those who would have claimed him to be an existential threat would have been thoroughly wrong. When Scripture says that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39), then the outcome of human exercises and human prognostications may be interesting and important, but so long as God is on the throne and we remember the wonders of Creation and Judgment and the Cross and the Empty Tomb, we can, as Scripture says, risk losing our lives for Jesus’ sake and the Gospel’s, and save our lives (Mk 8:35). If not, we may “gain the whole world, but forfeit one’s own soul” (Mark 8:36).

It seems that other than what God has revealed as existential, we have little knowledge of the gravity of other events. Red lines are drawn for a reason, but we don’t really know what would happen when those red lines are crossed. If the world’s temperature, however it is measured, climbs above a critical point, we don’t know for sure how critical it will be. We never know how good, or how bad the new coach of our favorite team will be; or how a judge or Supreme Court justice will render decisions, or even how a President will perform under pressure. We just do not know.

But the consequence of using a serious word, like “existential,” in silly ways only serves to devalue its proper use. In any case, God is still on the throne, and it is existentially the only throne that matters.

The First Sin

The First Sin

For those who have a little Biblical background, the “first sin” is pretty famous. It is also called “Adam’s Fall,” or, the Fall of humanity into sin. Adam and Eve broke the commandment of God which said,““From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”” (Genesis 2:16–17 NAS95) 

They ate of the forbidden fruit. They broke the command of God. But was that the first sin? 

As far as the text says, the command from God was given to Adam before Eve was formed from his rib. It would have been Adam’s responsibility, then, to inform Eve, in a proper, husbandly, loving and respectful way, of this divine prohibition. It seems that he did, because when the serpent deviantly asked Eve, “Did God really say …?”, she quoted the commandment almost verbatim. Almost.

She corrected the serpent and said that they could gladly eat from every other tree, other than this particular tree - you know, the one under which she was sitting. But she didn’t say merely that they were not to eat of it. She said that they were not even to touch it. She added to the commandment. That could have been the first sin.

But maybe it wasn’t her sin. Maybe it was Adam’s. Perhaps Adam wanted to impress on this fair maiden the danger and seriousness of this command, and so he decided to enhance it. Some call this “putting a hedge around it.” Religions through the ages are famous for this, setting up hedge after hedge until you can’t even remember what the original rule was. Did Adam add to the command of God? And was that really the first sin?

You might also remember that Adam was responsible for the naming of the animals. We aren’t told what goes into these names, but names in the Bible generally speak to something of the character of the person. In this case, it would be the character of the creature. Now it says in Genesis 3:1 that “the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” Was” serpent” its name? And did the word “serpent” communicate just how creepy and crafty and twisty the serpent could be? Was Eve prepared to handle this adversary? And, where was Adam? 

There is significant interaction between the serpent and Eve in Genesis 3. But Adam doesn’t speak. What is he? The strong, silent type? That doesn't cut it when the world hangs in the balance. And where was he?
The text says that she took of the fruit and ate, and gave to her husband "with her,” and he ate. How “with her” was he?

If you are in the other room watching TV, are you “with her?”, that is, your wife. If you are sitting at a table together but you are engrossed in your phone, are you "with her?” If you just aren't paying attention, are you “with her?” The Bible says that Adam was “with her,” but I’m not sure it indicates how “with her” he was.

I think the first sin may have happened when Adam didn’t tend to the store, or to his wife; when he failed to “guard the garden” as he was charged to do.

Why is this important? Because I believe that most of our acknowledged sins are preceded by other sins that we fail to recognize. The first sin may not be succumbing to temptation. It may be playing in temptation’s nest. It may be failing to pray “deliver us from evil.” The first sin may be, perhaps like Adam, in taking a casual attitude to this feature of the Christian life called obedience.

330 Miles on a Bike, Together

330 Miles on a Bike, Together

Just a few notes from the road/trail - Last week Tuesday four of us dipped our rear wheel in the Ohio River at Cincinatti and on Friday touched the water in Lake Erie at Cleveland. According to my Cateye@, 330 miles, which is a little longer than advertised, but not if you get lost once or twice. We came from Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Illinois. We were friends a long time ago, graduating from Cedarville in 1980-81. We have crossed paths a bit, some more than others, and there has been a lot of life experience, each different than the other. 

In fact, the four of us are quite different from one another. Four different personalities handling the schedule and stress, but working quite well together. The others were prepared for this in a variety of ways more than me, so I think I benefited the most from what the others offered. I figured I was the oldest, but found out I was #2. I also found out I was second heaviest, but not second tallest. In fact, I may be the shortest. I need to work on that, and not the tall part.

This was not like a ladies’ shopping trip (though I’m no expert on ladies’ shopping trips). There was a lot of planning just to make it happen, which followed one of the guys having a deep desire to do this ride in the first place. There was the logistics of how to arrange transportation. There was the gear, and bike riders are big on gear. And then there was the training that needed to precede riding 80+ miles on average/day. I was short on the training, but on the other hand, everybody else on this trip seems to be retired. 

Our chosen task was to ride south to north through Ohio. Yes, Ohio. Now I don’t have anything against Ohio. I went to college there, and my grandkids and their parents live there. Taylor and Courtney got married there. But I wouldn’t want to live there. God has been merciful. But we did find Ohio to have at least a bit of variety. The first southern half was flat and rather colorless. Northeast of Columbus was a bit more hilly, more colorful, and in Amish country, the buggies on the road had us on the lookout for road apples.

The exercise of biking is a strange one, traveling that far on ribbons of air, though I guess wider tires are the rage now - I’m always a bit behind the curve. There’s the conversation and planning of stops along the way, but there is also the conversation in one’s own head and with one’s own body - what’s feeling tired; what hurts; how long; how far; can I keep up. There is also the impatience. Lady shoppers may leave closer to on time than this group.

But it worked. We all made it, together. We finished the course. Our bikes didn’t fail us, nor did our bodies. We didn’t give up, and we accomplished something significant, four of us at 66 and 65. And we talk about doing it again. But please, not in Ohio.

I wasn’t sure if I was up to it. After the first day, 82 miles, slight grade uphill from the Ohio River, I knew I could do it. The second day, over 100 miles, picking our way through Ohio, longer, but quite an accomplishment, and the first century ride for at least one of the guys. 

But I don’t think I could have done it alone. I’m sure I wouldn’t have done it, or even thougth of it, but I’m sure that I could not have done it alone. I would have missed some of the road signs. I wouldn’t have been able to hang on on someone’s wheel at times, or push and be pushed with the others. We all ride mostly alone, but this “together” thing is pretty valuable. It’s a good idea. Better things happen when we work together. That surely has many applications, and I believe that God thinks it’s a good idea.

Jesus was Not a Victim

Jesus was Not a Victim

Jesus left heaven’s glory to enter into the created world and live among those who were in rebellion against God. He was misunderstood, falsely accused, and wrongly sentenced to capital punishment on the cross. But, Jesus never played the victim.

On the other hand, Jesus made Himself to be vulnerable. Vulnerability and Victimhood are not the same thing. He made Himself vulnerable - He, the eternal Son of God - by being born in human nature to a human mother. A mere creature, Mary, changed the diapers of the Son of God! That’s vulnerability. He was surrounded by sinful siblings, yet He Himself was sinless, though most likely blamed when the younger ones cried. He was painted as having evil motives, even when the real reason He came to earth was to provide salvation for people like us who actually do have evil motives. He was “like one from whom men hide their face; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him” (Isaiah 53:3). Yes, Jesus made Himself to be vulnerable. But He never claimed victimhood.

There may be such a thing as victimhood, but the idea has become an art form these days. It is a pathway to power, as if you have a voice if you are victim over against those who are not or don’t claim it. These days, those in the throes of victimhood are skilled at making other people feel guilty for their plight. It’s not their own fault for whatever; it’s yours. If their behavior is bad today, it’s because of something that happened - that was done to them - yesterday. That is, every episode of sorrow and introspection and failure to do what needs to be done - it was set up by yesterday’s crime - a crime against - me. The focus is not on what I can do to improve my situation in the present, but rather on what happened in my past that crippled my ability to live life today.

Jesus never did this. You will not find it in the Biblical record. Yes, He made Himself vulnerable, but He did not play the victim. He didn’t blame God, or His disciples, or the religious leaders, or even the devil. There was and is sin in the world, but He didn’t whine and complain about it. He confronted it, but He treated it as a part of the present reality that needed to be dealt with, and He was prepared to deal with, as only He could. 

This can mean many things, but one of them is this: Jesus does not blame you for His death. He holds us accountable, but He does not leverage our guilt in order to make Him look or “feel” better. That is so far below Him. And, it is also far below His followers. We also are to be vulnerable, but we are not to play the victim. 

So what does it mean for the Christian to embrace his/her vulnerability? It means that we are but creatures, and the world does not revolve around us, but rather the Creator. It means that we realize our present reality, that we are sinners saved by grace living in a sinful world. If we experience disease of disability, it is part of the present reality that will be wonderfully transformed when Jesus comes again. If it is mistreatment by others, we take it as a badge of honor as those who follow Christ, who was even more mistreated that we are. To be vulnerable in this world as a Christian means that it is not all about me, but about the honor of His name. If I find myself offended because I am not properly appreciated or celebrated, then I know that the Holy Spirit will soon convict me, and I will be on my knees confessing my sin and, once again, sanctifying Christ as Lord in my heart - Christ as Lord, not me.

Let me end by looking back at Jesus once again. If anyone would be justified in being cruelly affronted, it would be Him. We may not deserve all of how we are treated, but surely we deserve some of it. We are sinners after all. But Jesus is not: never was; never will be. Always pure. Always glorious. And yet, He made Himself vulnerable so that we can live our lives today looking up, and live life forever, in perfect fellowship with Him, with all that He has created, and even with our own formerly twisted selves.

God Does Not Revert to the Mean

God Does Not Revert to the Mean

I marked Romans 3:3 as one of the critical questions of the Bible: “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?” Let me point out a rather obvious point in this verse: there is a difference between “faithlessness” and “faithfulness.” The old hymn does not sing “Great is thy faithlessness,” but rather, “Great is Thy faithfulness.” It is a part of God’s character, to be faithful, and He never acts out of character.

Second, let me just mention the phrase the title, reversion to the mean, or, regression to the mean. I am not an expert in statistics, but I read that outliers will normally be followed by instances which are more in line with what is “normal” or “average.” Another way of stating this phrase is that there is a “reversion to mediocrity.” We can now put the title and the verse together. 

God is always faithful. There is no “mean” toward which He could revert, because perfect faithfulness and reliability is His rule. It is more than “normal.” It is an always, never-interrupted faithfulness.

So why would anyone every question God’s faithfulness? I believe it would be because we forget that God’s faithfulness is not like our faithfulness, which is often marked by faithlessness. We “revert to the mean” over and over again, against our best intentions, and we fall away from faithfulness. Further, when we find unfaithfulness in ourselves, we expect that God might respond in kind, as if God in heaven would say, “Well then, if you are going to be like that, then I just might be like that as well. What we are supposing of God is that He will respond in kind to us. Why? Because that is what we do toward others.

But God is not like us. He is not subject to this law of statistics, the reversion to the mean, because He has no mean. He simply is, and what He is is perfect, in all things, and in faithfulness.

But what about us? What does it say about us when our faithfulness looks a lot more like faithlessness? For one thing, it says that we are sinners. Even sinners saved by grace are still sinners, and when we commit a sin, our faithfulness is necessarily marred. Perhaps our standard over time becomes compromised, so that we have a few good days of faithfulness, and then many “normal” days when, well, we revert to mediocrity when it comes to faithfulness. Is this the way it should be? No.

We are saved by grace. Therefore we should be gracious. We are saved through the instrumentality of faith. Therefore we should be faithful. We serve the God of truth. Therefore we should not lie. We trust the promises of God. Therefore, we should not worry. But we do worry and we do lie and we are less than faithful and are often not very gracious. How can this be in those who are given refashioned hearts that are being crafted into conformity with the character of Christ? How can those who have been taken hold of by Christ be so unlike Him so often? There is not really a satisfactory answer. Sin in the life of a Christian is a real problem. It reveals that the child of God has trivialized the sacrifice of Christ which bought him out from under sin’s penalty and power, as though what Jesus did for us on the cross carries little weight in our behaviors and reactions.

The “excuse” that we have is that we live distant from Christ. We are not “abiding,” to use a good Bible word. We may have one “Christ” in our life, but many lords - one Lord Jesus Christ, but many others “lords” that we follow when it comes to resentment or anger or jealousy. We profess that we have “closed with Christ,” to use an old Puritan phrase, but we still seem very open to ungodly influences. We then “revert to the mean,” just like others, many of whom don’t even claim to know Christ or to have been set free by the Gospel.

Our reversion is not to be to the mean, but to Christ. As outliers in this world, we are not to become more like “normal” humanity, but rather to become more like Jesus, perfectly faithful Jesus, who will remain faithful to us even when we are not.