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.

Crisis and Process

Crisis and Process

Different churches have different approaches to the working out of Christianity. Faith in Christ is essential for all, if indeed they are Christian at all. But some churches tend more toward “crisis.” Others tend more toward “process.” As in most cases, it is not an either/or situation. It is rather both/and. But which is more important?

You know what a crisis is. It is when the bill is due and you don’t have the money. It is when someone knocks on the door with painful information. It is a life-changing moment, and often times, it seems to be negative. But “crisis” is not always negative. It is that point of time when a decision is due. It might be the best decision that you every made in your life. Or not. But the perfect dive begins with the crisis of actually jumping from the platform. It is the “critical” inflection point. I am not sure if we can connect “crisis” and “critical” etymologically, but I’m sure we can logically. That moment when you say “I do;” when you sign your name on the document; when you accept the job offer, or say “I quit.” We may have many crisis points in life, but in between, there is a lot of process.

Process rarely gets the headlines that crisis does. When the lights go out in Georgia, or Texas, it is a crisis. But there was process, evidently faulty, that led to the crisis. That brings us to a wonderful verse in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, that city in northern Greece (or, Macedonia) that was named for Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great’s father. Paul wrote this verse to say something about crisis (implied) and process (overt):
    •    “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1:6 NAS95)

When you and I begin a good work, it may well indeed be a crisis, a decisive inflection point. But God has no crises. I’m not sure He has processes either. He’s different from us. But in order to bring about that “perfection” in us, He uses processes, accommodated to our human situation. We can call it different things, like discipleship or spiritual formation. What we should understand is that a man-made discipleship program is artificial compared to the long-term practical education that God brings about in His children through blessings and trials; through rejoicing and suffering. But God uses processes. How did it begin? I’ll bet you can guess.

When you had your first birthday, there was a party of which you were mostly unaware. But there was a point to it, because your parents looked back a year before to the crisis that happened when you emerged from the womb and became a crying and often stinky person. That crisis then gradually evolved into a process. There was cooing and feeding, and there was gradual (very gradual at first) growth and development. Birth is the crisis. Growth is the process. No birth; no growth. No crisis; no process.

I believe that this illustration helps to understand something of the Christian life. It begins with being “born again,” a critical inflection point in you life where a decision is made to trust in Christ for the salvation of your soul, recognizing that nothing else or no one else can. It is a crisis, whether it be emotional or not. And then comes the process, that sudden or slow growth and development that fills the rest of our earthly life.

So it is both crisis and process. Some emphasize the crisis, without which there is no process. Some emphasize the process. But both are necessary.

And one more point: unlike physical birth followed by growth and then, if we live long enough, we experience decline and then death, life in Christ begins with the new birth, but then leads to growth, and when Jesus comes again, perfection, followed by life, and more life, called eternal life. If you are not involved in the process, then please go directly to the crisis. Go directly to the cross.

What is a “Good” Christian?

What is a “Good” Christian?

Recent news accounts quoted a person describing a particular Jewish man in less than favorable terms. It was explained, at least in part, why this person deserved this description, and I wondered how it would go if a Christian were described in the same way, a *** Christian. It would be difficult for me to write about this in particular, since it would require me to use a word that my grandkids are not allowed to say, and it seems the prohibition applies to grandpa as well.

So how do I write about this? I began thinking about what it meant to be a “good” Jew. I suppose that, since the definition of “Jew” is broad, there would be differing opinions about what “good.” But that would apply to “Christian” as well - what is a “good” Christian?” since the definition of Christian has been used by different groups with different ideas: conservative vs. liberal; Biblical vs. cultural; devout vs. casual. Is it possible that some of these people who use the word “Christian” are not “good enough” to be Christian at all?

So what is a “good” Christian? In some churches, faithful attendance would be a marker. In other churches, hefty giving counts for goodness. It can span from strong leadership to humble service. “Good” is a very flexible word. 

In all of these measures (and more), we could always be better. “Better” is a comparative form of “good,” and my good and yours could always be better. So one of our problems in defining a “good” Christian is realizing that we could always do better, which means what we are doing now is less than better, or not so good.

Let’s get to the punch line: the question, “what is a ‘good’ Christian,” is the wrong question, because the way we have framed it answers with regard to self. How can I be good? How can I be good enough? And the Gospel answer is, “You can’t.” The issue is not, “are you a good Christian,” but this: “Do you have a good Christ?” This is because our salvation is not rooted in ourselves or our best efforts, but in what Jesus did for us. Let me say it more forcefully. If one calls himself a Christian, a “good” Christian, but does not hold to a good Christ, then he defies what it means to be a
Christian.

Now, what is a “good” Christ? These terms are more easily defined. There is only one Christ, and it is the One who has been anointed and appointed by God to be the Savior of the world, Jesus. Since He is one of a kind and defines His own category, He cannot be compared, that is, He is incomparable. He is “good” in that He is perfectly holy, just like the heavenly Father. They agree completely in word and deed. There is no separation between them, and there are no failures.

Jesus is also “good” in that He qualified Himself to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins through His perfect obedience throughout His life. In spite of the fact that He grew up in a home with sinners - think of that - sinful brothers, He Himself never sinned. Further, He willingly gave Himself up to be crucified for us, that He might, though not a sinner, be put to death for our sins. As vindication of His suffering and sacrifice, He was raised from the dead, and now gives eternal life to those who believe in Him, that is, those who find Him to be supremely good. These people are called “Christians,” and they need no adjectives before their names.

Do You Presume on the Riches of God’s Kindness?

Do You Presume on the Riches of God’s Kindness?

We don’t like to be presumed upon. That is, we don’t appreciate when people place expectations upon us for a certain response or favor without first being consulted. But do we do the same thing to God? Our verse, Romans 2:4, was included in last week’s post, but I think we may have a little more room to run:

Rom. 2:4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

There are several reasons why we might presume upon an expectation of God’s kindness. A very likely reason would be that you have experienced many, many kindness which you attribute to God, whether directly or indirectly, and, believing in the consistency of His nature, you expect that these kindness will continue, perhaps
forever. That seems reasonable, but also naive. Do you remember the warnings about financial investments, that past results do not guarantee future performance? That may apply to God as well, not because His character changes, but because the timing of His plans and purposes changes, and that now is the time for repentance, and later will be a time for judgment. In the time of judgment, those who have not repented will no longer receive the accustomed kindnesses.

Another common but crazy reason one might presume upon God’s kindness is that you think you deserve it. You think God owes you. “What’s he there for, anyway, but to serve my needs and guarantee my happiness?” This kind of an attitude actually dethrones God from being God, and makes you the center of your universe. No,
sophisticated gentleman or madame, God is not your personal assistant to shower you with kindnesses. 

As you note in the verse above, there is reference not only to God’s kindness, but also to His forbearance and patience, two similar words (as though we should think about them). God’s patience actually can mislead us into thinking that everything is alright, and that God’s kindness will continue on and on. I suppose that if God interrupted His kindness with flashes of cruelty, we would not be so tempted to presume. And those flashes may indeed be justified. In fact, I think that they are. The fact that He withholds them is an exercise of His mercy, a great kindness. Why does He withhold?

God wants to draw you toward repentance. What is repentance? It is a humbling of oneself before God, admitting to God what has dawned upon you about the holiness and righteousness of God, and that you fall far short of any kind of divine standard that would be in keeping with God showing kindness. We turn from our sins, and we turn to God, and wonder why this God should have wasted so many kindness upon us for so long. But now, humbled before God and accepting of His Son, you receive this kindness, not with presumption, but with a response of worship and gratefulness, and a desire to reflect that kindness toward others. You will have a re-created hope in line with God’s purpose, that all, like you, would come to a repentance that leads to
salvation.

Freedom vs. Independence

 Freedom vs. Independence

I know why we call July 4 Independence Day, and it is accurate. We are no longer under the thumb of a foreign power. But in our present cultural moment, we must see “freedom” and “independence” as opposed to one another.

I am basing my thoughts on a favorite verse from 1 Peter: “Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:16–17 ESV)

There is a phrase being used to describe the current mood among those who are asserting their freedoms: expressive individualism. That is, a person should be “free” to live as they see fit, so long as they do not harm others. But this freedom is a freedom for the individual. Think about this. Every team is now more a collection of individuals that it is a team. Each individual on the team must be free to individually express themselves, so long as other individuals are not harmed. But the good of the team is subordinated to the “good” of the individual. This same principle then applies to communities and churches and the voluntary organizations and even the nation. It’s really all about “me.”

Contrast this with our verse above. The great value of our freedom is not for ourselves, but for how we can serve others. Certainly this can and does apply to team and community, but in the Christian community, it places loving God and serving others above expressing one’s own wants and urges. If you are on a team, then put the team first. If you are part of a community, put the community first. If you are part of a church, put the church first. And if you are part of God’s kingdom, put the glory of God above the glory of self.

Expressive individualism should be called what it is: selfishness. It puts my self and my fame and my image or imagination above everything else. If it conflicts with a centuries-old definition of marriage, then trash the old and bring in the new. And, by the way, if anyone else wants to hold on to the “old” definitions, let the government regulate them. Those who are “out of step" must not be “free” to “express” those “individual” beliefs.

There are two strange things in this individual turn. Both have to do with “expressive individualism” not being so “individual” after all. First, it used to be that if an individual chose to express himself contrary to norms, he would accept the consequences of that viewpoint. John Bunyan in England in the 17th century preached without a license. He was jailed for it, and accepted the consequencebecause of his freely chosen conviction. Today, such consequences are unacceptable to individuals choosing their own course.

Second, the other way in which these “individualists” are not so solitary is that they are desiring to be different just like everybody else. They are following a cultural mood, and in many cases are not so sincere as they are coopted by agendas that use them for malign purposes without concern for their good or their futures - in Peter’s words above, “a cover-up for evil.”

Finally, this turn toward the self is not good for the nation. It is not good for the community. It is not good for the church. It is not good for the self. This freedom that we hold as dear is a freedom to put others first. Not ourselves.

Only Jesus Does All Things Well

Only Jesus Does All Things Well

Let’s clear away the silly argument first, before we get to something more practical. In the Middle Ages, theological nerds argued whether God could create a rock to heavy for Himself to pick up. So if you want to argue whether, since Jesus does all things well, He can also sins well, go someplace else.

Jesus’ relationship with the Father was and is without the slightest friction. Can you imagine being married for even one year without an argument; without hurt feelings; without misunderstanding and incidents of selfishness. Throughout eternity, the Father and the Son are always on the same page, singing the same note in perfect pitch.

Jesus saves well. His forgiveness covers all our sins, not just some. His atonement provides forgiveness for the sins we know about, and the ones we don’t. I suspect there are even more sins of the latter kind than the former. He saves so that we don’t wander in and out of salvation. His promises stand.

But my point with the title above, “Only Jesus does all things well,” is that only Jesus does, and we don’t. None of us does all things well. You may do some things extremely well, but not all things. We find ourselves regularly disappointed in ourselves. We may feel like failures. We may consider giving up. Why? Because we have not agreed with the fact that only Jesus does all things well. Nobody else, including you, comes close.

We are imperfect people doing imperfect things, and though aided by the gifts of God and the help of the Spirit (the first provided by God widely, and the second given from Christ to those who are “in Christ”), we still fall short. How are we to respond?

First, we should look up, not down. We should look to our Father in heaven, and to our wonderful, merciful Savior. We learned as children, “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” He loves us, knowing full well that we indeed do not do all things well. But He loves us anyway. We should be assured that our Father does not love us more on our best days than He does on our worst. This is where we start.

But also, we should not turn on ourselves and castigate ourselves. We are but humans, finite and frail. And worse, we are sinful humans who have a bent toward self and sin. The wonder of the Gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners, and God justifies the ungodly. We fit the bill, and we are saved and justified by faith in Him. So don’t go trashing what God has saved and justified.

But we must be truthful in examining ourselves. Did we fail because we are human, or because we were lazy, or selfish, or spiteful? Did we prepare properly, or did we skip the preparation and then perform poorly? Did we choose the nice and comfortable path rather than doing the right thing, or the hard thing, or the most important thing? In all these questions and more, we should be willing to be brutally honest with ourselves or with the critiques from others. We can always improve and do better.

Over time, we learn about our strengths and weaknesses. We all have them, both strengths and weaknesses. We seek to maximize our strengths, without pride (and that is more difficult than it sounds). And, we seek to manage our weaknesses, by learning and practicing skills that help us compensate, or leaning hard on others who can help in those areas.

But more important: we pray. We pray about the use of our strengths, and about the help we need for our weaknesses. We pray intently and regularly. We pray to the only Person who does all things well. And one of the things He does well is to help persons just like me, and just like you.

Jesus Strong and Kind

Jesus Strong and Kind

Everybody has heard of Jesus. Not everyone is taken with Him. I remember counseling a young couple who were caught in a pattern of being mean to one another, really mean. The young woman, who I barely knew, said of the young man, with whom I had some familiarity: “No offense, pastor, but he doesn’t need Jesus. What he needs is a pill.” I would still maintain that, while people may at times need pills, what we all really need most is Jesus.

In the title above, the song speaks of Jesus who has contrasting qualities which are not in conflict with one another, and yet He is able to demonstrate both fully. Jesus, as we know Him from the Gospels, stands firm; teaches unflinchingly; endures criticism and false accusation; perseveres with grace under the pressure of the crowds, and puts His relationship with the Father over things like sleep and food. He is strong.

Jesus is also kind and tender with those who are weak and afflicted. He sympathizes. He helps and He heals. While Jesus is strong, He is also kind.

Imagine with me for a moment if Jesus had been the opposite: not strong and kind, but weak and cruel. We know people like that. We call them bullies. They use bluster and threats to hide their own weaknesses. And if Jesus had been like that, He would not have been worthy of following. But there is so much more.

Jesus is always on time with a word, a question, a rebuke, a story or illustration. He knows men and women so well, better than they know themselves, that He can put His finger on the issue immediately. If someone asks me a tough question, I usually say, “Let me think about it.” Or we review a conversation in our heads, and think, “I wish I would have said this,” or worse, “I shouldn’t have said that.” Jesus is able to answer on time, and perfectly, because He already understands us completely.

Jesus is good with both individuals and crowds. With individuals, he focuses attention and probes and leads them along in their thinking without making a decision for them. He allowed the rich, young ruler to walk away, and also Nicodemus. At least one of them returned. And then with the crowds, Jesus speaks to the masses so that they all understand. He gives clear instructions and makes sharp distinctions. He illustrates from nature and makes comparisons that even children can follow. 

One thought that I appreciate most is that, whether with individuals or crowds, it never becomes just about Himself. As with the blind man or Zacchaeus, no one is too unimportant or unpopular for His attention. He is truly interested in the lowliest of people. And with the crowds, His ego never gets in the way. He doesn’t appear to be impressed with Himself. He doesn’t brag about the numbers or market His miracles. 

He is just Jesus, the Son of Man who lived the life here that we were all meant to live until sin entered the world and entered me and you and made us bent and crooked. But Jesus is just; He is truth; He is kind; He is the most interesting Person who ever walked this planet, and worthy of our attention and worship. 

So let’s start paying more attention to Jesus than to presidential candidates and basketball players.

Abundance vs. Scarcity

Abundance vs. Scarcity

Which is better? Abundance or scarcity? We know which one we prefer. We would prefer to have enough with some left over. How much left over? Just a little bit more.

I’ve been exploring this theme in a couple different ways in my own study. One way was to read a book on “abundance” and another book on “scarcity” as it applies to one’s view of the future. The “abundance” author admits great challenges that lie ahead, but banks on the advances of technology to deal with those dangers. The “scarcity” author sees that every advance in technology brings with it not only opportunities for good, but also opportunities for evil, and thus sees the dangers exploding in the days ahead. These authors did not share their views from a faith perspective, and Christians, whether we tend to be “abundance” people or “scarcity” people, must remember that God is on the throne and that He has firm control of the outworking of history.

Another track I am studying is the language of abundance in the Bible. The abundance of God abounds, even in the Genesis 1, what with all the “teeming” and “swarming” and then the fulfillment of “be fruitful and multiply.” This planet and it’s people absolutely bloomed and blossomed. But there is also the abundance of the wicked. They are genius in concocting schemes for more and more evil. God, if not now, will in the end bring the abundance of the wicked to nothing, but also will bring even the poverty of the righteous to a state of blessing or abundance.

But my further question is how people behave under the contrasting states of abundance and scarcity. Many, perhaps most of us, have experienced some measure of both in our lives. This can be material abundance, or physical as it relates to health, and certainly spiritual. We find that, when experiencing abundance, it is easy to take things for granted, and to assume that because things are good now, they will be forever. When people face scarcity, they tend to learn to live with what they have, and they may in fact find more satisfaction in simple things, simple fixes, that give them greater pleasure because they had to figure it out for themselves. In his book, “Scarcity Brain,” Michael Easter says, “In the modern world, if we push back against our tendency to add—forcing ourselves to solve a problem with what we have—we’ll likely solve it better, more creatively and efficiently. Creativity and efficiency bloom under scarcity.”

But aside from creativity and efficiency, Easter also alludes to the other problem that we have in our prosperous society. When we facea problem, those accustomed to abundance simply add more. We add and we add and we add until we cannot fit the car in the garage and we are compelled to build more and bigger barns.

The accumulation of more does not lead to greater satisfaction, and is a perversion of the true meaning of abundance. It takes our eyes off God, the Giver of the best gifts, and seduces us to focus on stuff, junk. In a strange way, those with the most stuff may in fact have the least abundance.

Radical vs. Ordinary

Radical vs. Ordinary

A Baptist pastor went on a mission trip about fifteen years ago to Africa. What he experienced there led him to the conclusion that American Christianity as represented in his own church had drifted toward self-service and self-satisfaction. It led him to write the best-selling book, “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream.” It is a Biblical book, emphasizing such things as “take up your cross and follow me,” and the themes of service and sacrifice.

Four years later, a seminary professor, Presbyterian read this book and noticed the “radical” stream of preaching and writing, and wrote his own book, called “Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World.” His emphasis is also Biblical, looking more at the disciplines of the Christian life that build faithfulness and endurance.

These two men are not enemies. I don’t know if they are friends, but they have certainly met and heard one another preach. This is not a “winner” and “loser” game. This is two servants of Christ seeking to serve the Body of Christ with truths that compete, though not contradictory.

Baptists may, in fact, be more geared to the “radical” approach with an emphasis on repentance and conversion and revival. These are all Biblical ideas. Presbyterians may find themselves more in sync with a view of the long term. Covenant theologians have typically focused more on building institutions, while Baptists and their dispensationalism think more of the impending coming of Christ and the end of the present world order. Again, both are found in Scripture.

The Baptist pastor preached and wrote to a congregation that he feared was falling asleep under the spell of a prosperous comfort-culture. The Presbyterian professor was writing out of concern for a generation of Christians whose fever pitch for doing radical and unusual things would likely lead to burnout and eventual drifting away from the faith. Both concerns are legitimate.

Certainly God calls individuals to particular callings. Joseph in Genesis lived a radical life, not at his own choosing, so that he might save his family, the fledgling people of God. Moses’ life in Exodus was disrupted radically from the beginning and continued until he died at one hundred twenty. David lived a radical life in the Old Testament, and Paul and all the apostles in the New.

And yet, Paul, writing to the churches that he planted stretching from Asia Minor to the Greek peninsula and on to Italy, all at tremendous danger to himself - he did not write to these new believers to live “radical” lives in the sense of going to far off places and doing dangerous things. He did not tell them to give up their jobs and move away from their neighbors. He told them to live ordinary Christian lives in the midst of those neighbors. Yes, there would be a change in their lives, what with the worship of the one true God instead of a panoply of false gods, and the fellowship of the believers who were committed to purity and piety. They would suffer for those differences, but they were to serve in the midst of it, resisting the pull of the worldly culture by personal devotion and living according to the teaching that they received.

Today also, some are called to more unusual callings which could be regarded as radical, but many and most are called to live as Christians, as those who have been captivated by Christ, and still living in the same family relationships, the same neighborhood, working at the same job, and answering the question, “How is it that your life has changed?”