Are We Under the Law or Not?

Even a casual reading of the New Testament will highlight two themes, each of which is clear in itself but not at all clear when put together. One: We are free from the law. We have died to the law and are no longer under it's authority. Two: There are things we must do; laws we must follow. Jesus came to fulfil the law, not abolish it. Not a stroke of the pen will disappear from the law until heaven and earth disappear.

Confusing? Well, yes, at first, but when you look at it more carefully it makes excellent sense.

So, the question is this: Do Christians need to obey the law?

On the one hand we have Jesus saying that he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and that the law will remain until heaven and earth disappear, and that nobody should teach otherwise (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). But then we find him almost making a habit of apparently violating the law by performing healings, i.e. working, on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13, Mark 3:1-5, Luke 13:10-16, 14:3-4, John 7:22-24), and then we find him telling a man to work on the Sabbath when he tells him to "take up your mat and walk" (John 5:10-11), and we find him defending his disciples who were accused of picking grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-27).

Hmm. Seemingly two different messages here.

And then there is Paul. Paul is famous for saying that we have died to the law and been released from the law (Romans 7:6) and that we have been saved by grace, not by works (Ephesians 2:8), and that Christ is the end of the law for those who believe (Romans 10:4). Sure sounds as if Paul is saying that the law no longer applies, but then Paul also says that the law is good if used properly (1 Timothy 1:8), and that faith does not nullify the law, but upholds it (Romans 3:30-31) and - oh my! - Paul gives lists (Romans 12 and 13) and lists (Galatians 5:19-6:10) and lists (Ephesians 4:25-6:20) of instructions on how to live - "laws," if you will.

Again, seemingly two different messages, but, they are the same two messages. You may find it confusing, but it is consistent.

So, what is going on here?

Well, the writers of the New Testament are simply saying that the outward law of the Old Testament is a shadow of the true, inner, spiritual law that was always at the heart of the Old Testament law, and that inner law is just as alive as it ever was.

This inner law is what Paul calls "the law of the Spirit" (Romans 8:2) or "God's law" (Romans 7:22, 25) and what James calls "the perfect law that gives freedom" (James 1:25, 2:12-13) and the "royal law" (James 2:8).

We can see this emphasis on the inner instead of the outer throughout the whole New Testament.

For example, the writer of Hebrews says that "The [old] law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves" (Heb 10:1). And Paul says that we "serve in the new way by the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6), and that the dietary laws and special celebrations of the Old Testament are "a shadow of things that were to come; the reality, however is in Christ" (Colossians 2:17). And again, Paul says says that "a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart", (Rom 2:28). And he adds that there is "a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). And there is lots more.

None of these authors want to throw out the true law, but only its old, outer expression. When you crack open a peanut shell, you throw away the shell and eat the peanut. Underneath the outer law is the inner law, and that is the law we Christians need to keep. As Christians we can observe the outer law if we feel like it - for example to avoid causing offense (as Paul attempted to do by being ceremonially clean in Acts 24:18; he explains his logic in 1 Cor 9:20-21), or to avoid violating our consiences (Romans 14:1), but it serves no further spiritual purpose.

Okay, but does Jesus agree with these writers? Oh yes!

Right after Jesus insists that he had not come to abolish the law he starts giving the true underlying meaning of a lot of Old Testament laws. He says that the deep meaning of the law is that murder is not just the physical act, but is a sin of the heart (Matthew 5:21-22); that adultery is not just the physical act, but a sin beginning in the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); that we should speak the truth because it is the right thing to do, not because we have spoken an oath (Matthew 5:33-37); that the deeper truth behind the eye-for-eye rule (which limited revenge) is that we should not return evil for evil but instead we should love our enemies (Matthew 5:38-44). And he teaches that our good deeds (Matthew 6:1-4) and prayers (Matthew 6:5-6) and fasting (Matthew 6:16-18) should not be done with people as our audience, but with God as our audience.

And as for Jesus violating the Sabbath, I think he was actually pointing to the deeper meaning of the Sabbath, that it was set aside by God to give people a time of rest and restoration. In obedience to that deep meaning, Jesus provided restoration to those who needed healing, just - as he pointed out - the Pharisees would provide restoration to an ox by pulling it out of a well on the Sabbath (Luke 14:3-4). Jesus is the lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), so he knows exactly what the Sabbath is about.

Also, notice that Jesus complains that the Pharisees were clean cups on the outside, but dirty on the inside, and whitewashed tombs - pretty on the outside but dirty on the inside (Mat 23:23-27), and he says that it isn't what goes into a person that makes them unclean, but what comes out of them (Mk 7:14-23).

Deeper, deeper, deeper. Inner, inner, inner. It's a theme that pervades the New Testament. Jesus and all the writers of the New Testament agree that the real core meaning of the law is deeper than the mere outward letter of the law.

Okay, but what is that deeper meaning?

If you are a Christian, you know what it is! You've heard it countless times. In fact, I found it a little humbling to spend months studying this topic and end up right back at what every first-grade Sunday school student knows:

The deepest meaning of the law, Jesus says, is first to love God and then to love our neighbor (Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:25-27, John 15:12, 15:17). And Paul agrees. The one thing that counts, he writes, is "faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6), and, he adds, we should serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13), and - of course - Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13, the famous "love chapter," with the great line: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." And James agrees as well: "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right."

So, for the Christian, the outer law is irrelevant, but the true inner law of love underlying the old law remains as valid as it every was.

Picasso and God

I had coffee the other day with my friend Chumly (not really; I'm making up a story) and between sips on his grande, half-caff extra-hot latte with two (not one) packets of Equal, he explained to me there is no God because if there was, he would have designed the human eye to be like the more-efficient octopus eye.

I thought maybe God figured we could be dangerous enough with the eyesight he gave us, but instead, I stared vacantly out the window and then said, "Hmmm ... Did you know that Picasso never existed?"

"What are you talking about?" Chumly asked.

"Have you ever looked at the portraits they say were painted by him? The nose is pasted on sideways, the mouth and eyes are in the wrong places and are the wrong size and the colors are garish and not human?"

"We were talking about God, not Picasso! But I will digress long enough to urge you not to be an idiot. There are books about Picasso; there are people alive today who knew Picasso; there are photographs of Picasso. Of course Picasso existed!"

"But what about the portraits? They're all wrong!"

"Look, just because you don't understand or like Picasso's style doesn't mean he didn't exist."

"I rest my case."

"What?" Chumly said. (Chumly never was very quick on the uptake.)

"Just because you don't understand or like God's style doesn't mean He doesn't exist."

Dirty Spiritual Feet

In John 13: 2-17 is the well-known story of Jesus washing his disciples feet. At the end of this sermon-by-demonstration, Jesus tells the disciples that he has given them an example that they should follow. Most teachers I have heard understand Jesus to be saying that we should serve one another in all sorts of ways, not just by washing feet.

All well and good. I agree.

But as I read the passage recently, I suddenly noticed in the middle of the story an interesting little sermon-within-a-sermon. Jesus replied to Peter - who had in his impetuous Peter-like way insisted that Jesus wash all of him, not just his feet - that, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."

As is so often the case, Jesus takes an exterior example to make an interior point. If Jesus was talking about dirt on the body, it seems unlikely he would have excluded Judas from the ranks of the clean. And this seems especially unlikely since John specifically indicates (13:11) that the reason one of the disciples (Judas) was not clean was because he would betray Jesus. So it seems quite clear that Jesus is saying that his disciples (except Judas) were spiritually clean, and - if I may extrapolate a bit - fit for heaven.

But, if they were clean, then why did Jesus need to wash their feet?

I think Jesus meant that though they were clean and devoted to God, just walking around in this dirty world tends to stain them (and us) with various sins. We say and do bad things on the spur of the moment, or in a flash of passion or anger or inattention or weariness, things that smudge us with the dirt of sin. And though we are basically clean inside - we really do love Jesus and we really are citizens of heaven - we still need to have Jesus wash away those daily sins.

Longest Words

For a project I needed to repeatedly type a word (any word) and click the mouse button. I got annoyed taking my hand off the mouse to reach over for a key, so I wrote a little program to find the longest words that you can type with a single hand on a standard keyboard (without cheating and reaching over with the other hand), thereby allowing one hand to remain on the mouse.

Here are the results of my having too much time on my hands:

Longest words for left hand typing, winner is "reverberates" with 12 characters:

reverberates
abracadabra
aftereffect
desegregate
effervesces
exaggerated
reverberate
vertebrates
aftertaste
afterwards

And a few shorter left-hand favorites:

stagecraft
stewardess
beverages

Longest words for right hand typing, winner is "hypophyllum" with 11 characters:

hypophyllum
Plinlimmon
homophony
houyhnhnm
Killymoon
Kouyunjik
monophony
nonillion
pollinium
polyphony

Awful set of words, huh?

And a few shorter right-hand favorites:

Honolulu
lollipop
monopoly
million
opinion
pumpkin

Let me know if you can find any longer words for either category, and I'll add them. And let me know if you don't want me to use your name, otherwise I may.

15-Minute Church

If I was the pastor of a little, dying church, I think I know what I'd try. I think I'd have about 12 15-minute services each Sunday morning, each separated by five minutes of coming-and-going time.

It's a shame, but people these days are so busy that I wonder if even an hour each Sunday seems like too big a committment to them. I wonder if it would be attractive for some people to be able to drop in just about any time throughout the morning, or even throughout the day, and maybe even on Saturdays, too.

People who don't normally go to church might stop by on their way to play golf, or on their way to the beach, or after Sunday brunch at the local restaurant, or whatever.

And as for content, I actually think a lot can be packed into 15 minutes. A couple good songs, a prayer and a short sermon. Shortening things often makes them better, more pointed.

I know! I know! It seems this encourages a rather casual, uncommitted attitude toward gathering together. It may, but I'd rather have 15 minutes of their time than none of their time, and I'm not aware that the Bible says exactly how long a church meeting has to be. In any case, I envision this as an introduction, and that some people would step up from this into a deeper and more active level of commitment, perhaps by getting involved in a Bible study group.

Just an idea.

Galatians 2:17-18

In rereading the book of Galatians, it suddenly struck me what Paul was talking about when he wrote in verses 2:17-18 (NIV):

If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.

This has always been a bit perplexing to me. Why would it become particularly obvious that we are sinners while we seek to be justified in Christ? And why would anyone think that if we slip up in trying to follow Christ, that this means Christ promotes sin? Also, why does rebuilding what I destroyed prove I'm a lawbreaker?

I was reading the passage rather quickly this time, so I still had in mind Paul's rebuke of Peter (verses 2:11-14) for encouraging Gentiles to live like Jews when he himself had been living like a Gentile... at least until some Jews belonging to the "circumcision group" came along and he began to shy away from the Gentiles.

It occurred to me that in verses 2:17-18 Paul is still talking about Peter, or rather, about the type of sin Peter had committed.

So if I might paraphrase the passage, I would say:

If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are "sinning" by violating the old ceremonial law, such as the law of circumcision, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! In fact, it is the other way around: If I rebuild the old, ineffective, ceremonial law that I destroyed - the way Peter has just been doing - that would really make me a lawbreaker.

Evil and God's Existence

One of the arguments I've heard repeatedly - and recently - is that the existence of evil in this world shows that God does not exist.

The argument is essentially parallel to this: "I've heard that there is a guy named Andrew who stabs people with knives. Stabbing people with knives is evil, therefore Andrew doesn't exist."

Sigh.

It may be that this argument is evidence that Andrew is an evil person (or is a heart surgeon), but by no stretch of the imagination is it an argument that Andrew does not exist. In the same way, the existence of evil in this world is not evidence that God does not exist.

I think people can legitimately look at evil and ask whether God is good and wonder how a good God can permit evil, and if they do this I think they will find answers to those questions since the whole Bible is essentially about that topic. All that, I think, falls into the category of reasonable questioning, but if they use the "evil-means-no-God" argument, then all they do is make themselves look exceedingly foolish.

Is Religion the Chief Cause of Suffering?

I just read yet again about how religion is the main cause of inhumanity in this world.

This is such an absurd contention that I don't understand how it survives. But it does. So in what is probably a vain attempt to counteract it, I did a quick Internet search to compare Christianity (since it is Christianity that most concerns me) against the only specifically God-free political philosophy I am aware of - communism.

So, my question was this: Which has caused the most human deaths, Christianity or communism? I am very sure I have left tragic events out here, but even if I missed a lot, I don't think it would come anywhere close to changing the outcome. I am also including just events where the motivation for the killings was mostly Christianity. Frankly, I think that even in this list the motivation was not always purely religion. For example, in his book, For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark points out that the killing of witches was most frequent in areas where the church had less influence and was often done despite the church, and while religion was involved in the 30 Year's War, the fact that France (a Catholic country) often supported the Protestants in Germany in an apparent effort to weaken Germany suggests that nationalistic forces were perhaps stronger than religious forces in that ugly conflict. Nevertheless, I'm throwing them all into the pot because religion is generally considered to be the major factor in these events.

Okay, for Christianity:

Number Killed	Event
1-5 million	Crusades
20,000-900,000	"Witches" killed
14,000	Jews killed, scapegoats for Black Death
1 million	Albigensian Crusade
2-4 million	Catholic vs. Huguenot (France)
900,000	Waldensians
100,000	Peasants War (Germany)
31,912	Spanish Inquisition
11.5 million	Thirty Years War
13,445,912	High Total
6,565,912	Low Total

Now let's take communism:

Number Killed	Event
20 million	Joseph Stalin
40 million	Mao Zedong
2 million	Pol Pot (Cambodia)
62 million	Total

Source

Okay, so if we take the most wildly generous estimates of people killed by those who claim to be Christians, it is 13.5 million. For communism it is 62 million.

Communism wins! In less than 100 years it killed about 62 million people, more than four and a half times the number of people those who claim to be Christians have killed over the course of nearly 2,000 years, or more than nine times as many if you accept the lower estimate for Christianity.

My suspicion is that a lust for power and fame and loot and glory are far more central to man's inhumanity to man than every religion in the world added together.

So PU-lease! Don't tell me how religion is the major cause of violence or suffering in this world. It is nonsense.

Ministering to Poor Governments

It occurred to me this morning just how much suffering in this world is caused by inept government and how much could be avoided by competence.

A lot of us in the United States think we know all about inept government (FEMA during Katrina, for instance), but I'm actually thinking of a level of ineptitude that is somewhere in the middle between, say, the old Katrina-FEMA on the mild side and Zimbabwe on the extreme side.

I'm thinking of nations whose officials are at least kinda-sorta trying to do a good job, but for lack of training they simply don't have the best skills.

It seems that for cases like this it would be good to have a Christian ministry made up of government officials from countries around the world who would occasionally take some of their vacation time and spend it with their governmental counterparts in poor countries. Public works directors matching off with public works directors, planning department officials spending time with planning department officials, ministers of finance hanging out with ministers of finance. They could just spend time with each other talking about how they do their jobs and how they might do them better.

Having suggested that, a big red flag comes to mind, which is that often ideas that seem good to western visitors are not good at all.

For example, I have a friend with a large organization that was doing work in Africa. The westerners had finished their work in the country and were leaving but still had a lot of their food left over, so my friend gave it to his driver, a national, who gave it to a group of nationals. They all ate the western food and all got sick because they were not used to such a high protein diet.

My point is that good intentions need to be matched with good understanding.

But having said that, it seems that with some cultural training and a large dose of humility, a ministry by government officials to government officials in poor countries might be very helpful. In fact, though I haven't heard of it, maybe it already exists. If you know about such an organization, let me know; I'd be interested.

UPDATE: After watching FEMA performing quite well during Hurricane Gustav, I felt I had to update this post to make clear that I was talking about FEMA during the Katrina hurricane. I'm delighted to see how much the agency has improved!

Top Christian Colleges - 2008

I just saw a rating of colleges by Forbes Magazine and thought it would be interesting to pull out the Christian colleges and see how they compared.

I found a list of Christian colleges and was surprised how few (just 32) were on the Forbes List. Not even Point Loma in California. Weird. I think they need to expand their list a lot. Also, I don't think the Forbes rating considers all the factors a Christian would consider in looking at a Christian school, but still, I find it quite interesting. I would have thought Wheaton would have come up first on the list, but it doesn't. It is second, with a college I hadn't heard of, Huntington University, coming in first.

So, here is the list. The number at the beginning of each line is the Forbes rating:

65 - Huntington University Indiana
89 - Wheaton College Illinois
95 - Erskine College South Carolina
116 - Carson-Newman College Tennessee
117 - Covenant College Georgia
129 - Mississippi College Mississippi
131 - George Fox University Oregon [added in update]
149 - Master's College California
159 - Goshen College Indiana
163 - Oklahoma Baptist University Oklahoma
165 - Whitworth College Washington
185 - Oklahoma Wesleyan University Oklahoma
191 - Houghton College New York
205 - Biola University California
211 - Northwestern College Iowa
213 - Asbury College Kentucky
257 - Westmont College California
271 - Northwestern College Minnesota
281 - Grove City College Pennsylvania
282 - Union University Tennessee
308 - Taylor University Indiana
340 - Cedarville University Ohio
343 - Gordon College Massachusetts
352 - Baylor University Texas
357 - Messiah College Pennsylvania
358 - Vanguard University California
372 - Calvin College Michigan
374 - Dordt College Iowa
435 - Seattle Pacific University Washington
443 - Corban College Oregon
444 - Abilene Christian University Texas
456 - John Brown University Arkansas
465 - Azusa Pacific University California

Church Architecture

I recently stumbled upon a curious old volume on Google Books called Housing the Sunday School, which you may wish to read if you are on the planning committee to design a Sunday School building, but it reminded me of a really excellent book I read a long time ago by 19th Century art and architecture critic, John Ruskin, called The Seven Lamps of Architecture.

I'm sure there are excellent newer books with a wider perspective, but I thought Ruskin's book was excellent. Even though it isn't exclusively about church buildings, a lot of it is. I highly recommend it, especially if you are on a church building committee.

In Praise of Mindlessness

I am really not very tidy. And I come from a family of not-very-tidy people (my mother even has a sign that says "Neatness causes cancer in laboratory rats"), and generally I've considered neatness to show a certain lack of creativity and of a mind in a rut.

Well... I've been rethinking that and am now prepared to say I was wrong.

I think what changed my mind was reading David Allen's fine book, Getting Things Done, in which he advocates a very rigorous tidiness. One of his main themes, as I recall, is that if you put (and keep) everything in its place - especially schedules of things to do - then your mind can switch itself off on these topics because it knows that your "system" is doing the remembering. (My wife looked at the book and kind of yawned. She's been living this for years and kind of wonders what's taken me so long to see it.)

Anyway, so now I realize the value of mindlessness. If I'm tidy, I won't have to think about where I put my pen, or the sander, or the crescent wrench, or the computer files I've been working on for Ann. If I just put things where they belong, I can mindlessly grab them and do what I need to do with them. If I already thought once about where to keep the harmonica, why waste my time thinking about it again? Just put it back in its place when I'm done with it!

So I was wrong. Tidiness doesn't cause me to be uncreative or put my mind in a rut or cause cancer in laboratory rats. In fact, it helps by giving me more time to think and be creative; time I wouldn't have if I always had to spend it thinking about where I put stuff.

Why Have You Forsaken Me?

I just finished a book by a notable Bible scholar who at one point discussed the difficulty of Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

He gave a long and scholarly answer, basically saying that Jesus' words were a quote from the opening line of Psalm 22 and that they reflect the depth of his passion.

Well, yeah, that's true and okay as far as it goes, but it should go a lot farther.

To me, it seems the question is, Did Jesus' cry mean that he didn't understand what was happening to him?

And the answer is a very straightforward no; it doesn't mean that at all. In fact, it shows that he understood very clearly what was happening to him.

I'm quite sure that Jesus - who in these last moments of his life was probably incapable of giving a lengthy sermon, but even then yearned to reach out to people - quoted the first verse of Psalm 22 as a way of saying: Psalm 22 is all about me and I am fulfilling it in your sight. Go back and read the whole thing and you will understand.

Encroaching on Charity - Hooray!

I've always believed that charity should be mostly reserved for tasks that cannot be dealt with by profit-making businesses. So, for example, I'm not sure that stamping out smallpox throughout the world would pay a direct monetary dividend to the organization that did the stamping out, so that seems like a good project for a non-profit group.

But it always excites me to hear of someone figuring out a way to tackle a beneficial but seemingly money-losing task and still make a profit, because if they make a profit, they'll keep doing it and do more of it, and other people will do it, and relatively scarce charitable money can be redirected to those areas that can't be handled by profit making organizations.

With that lengthy preamble, I really want to recommend this article, Babble Rouser, a Forbes article about Denis O'Brien, who empowers poor people with cheap cell phone technology - often in defiance of their own corrupt governments - and thereby boosts the living standard of whole countries, and in the process makes a profit!

I wouldn't have thought it could be done, but I'm delighted to be proven wrong.

How to be Happy

Yes, I'm serious. I'm going to talk about how to be happy, but just to clarify before I get started, let me lay out a few qualifications.

First, even though I'm a Christian and am tempted to talk about the ultimate happiness of heaven, I don't mean that kind of happiness (but if you are interested in becoming a Christian, see here).

Second, I don't mean swooning bliss; all I mean is the everyday kind of happiness that millions of people already have but is a little harder for some of us.

Third, there are some people who have an talent for being happy while laying on the beach or watching television all day. I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to people who start to get a bit antsy after spending an hour and a half in the cool breezes watching the palms sway and the waves crash on a beautiful beach in Maui. In other words, slightly driven people who are kinda like me.

Okay, ready for the very simple secret? Here it is:

Make a daily to-do list and work through it.

Wait! Don't go away yet. I know it sounds stupid, but hear me out.

For some of us, there is a lot of satisfaction in accomplishing tasks and scratching them off our list. It's what makes us everyday-happy. Maybe we're psychologically stunted, or maybe other people are. Whatever. But we gotta work with who we are.

Here's a little more detail.

Get a little notepad (I use a 3" x 5" spiral notepad) and in the evening (or early morning), write down everything you want to do the next day, from the important to the trivial. Then put an A, B, or C in front of each item, depending on its level of importance. (Or, sometimes, I number them in the order that makes sense to do them.) Then, start working on the most important item (or the first item if you number them) and work your way through the list, scratching each item off the list as you complete it.

It may not sound exciting (who said anything about excitement?) but there is a lot of satisfaction in scratching off each item and at the end of the day seeing a bunch of completed tasks.

Now the really interesting thing that I've discovered is that it really doesn't make much psychological difference how important the items are! It is as satisfying for me to scratch off "Have coffee with Dad" as it is to scratch off "Complete programming task for Ann."

I have had long periods of not having a regular job and therefore not having anything important to do, and yet if I write a list of trivial tasks and mark them off throughout the day, the psychological effect is much the same as if the tasks were actually important.

Now, one objection I can anticipate is that I'm suggesting we all become workaholics. No! Not in the least!

I already mentioned "Have coffee with Dad." I assure you, that is not work. How about these:

Take nap
Go swimming
Go on bike ride
Paint cat (a picture of a cat, not a real cat)
See Batman movie

See? Just list goofing-off things along with the productive things and you get the pleasure of taking a nap and the pleasure of marking it off your list as an accomplished task.

What could be better?

Explaining Variations in Jesus' Words

There are several good explanations for why each of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) sometimes carry slightly different accounts of what Jesus said: In some cases it could be that it is a different event being recorded and that Jesus said similar things on differerent occasions (just as any traveling preacher might do); in some cases one writer may have recorded one part of what Jesus said and another writer may have recorded another part of what he said; or it could be that the Aramaic words Jesus used could be translated into the Greek of the New Testament using different (legitimate) words, and the gospel writers chose different words to bring out a different emphasis in what Jesus said; or, finally, it could be that the authors are paraphrasing - legitimately giving the meaning of what Jesus said - but not always giving the words verbatim.

All of these are good possibilities and probably they all apply in various situations.

But in reading the letter of 1 John it occurs to me that there may be another good explanation, and that is, simply, that Jesus said the same thing multiple ways on the same occasion.

Listen to 1 John 2:12-14:

I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.

And then it repeats, but with differences:

I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father.
I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

So, here we have John, one of Jesus' main disciples, who may well have picked up some of his teaching style from his Master, saying one thing and then immediately repeating it with some variation.

I suspect that Jesus may have done the same thing; say things one way, then immediately say them in another way. Then - in some cases - one gospel writer may have recorded one of Jesus' comments and another writer may have recorded another.

As I reflect on this, I recall that just this last Sunday the pastor at our church said the same thing four or five times in a row, sometimes repeating what he said verbatim, sometimes with variations, as a way of emphasizing his point.

If my pastor did this, and if the apostle John did this, I'm sure Jesus may have done it as well.

Accidentally Obedient

Usually I'm a bit quiet among people I don't know, and, well, sometimes I'm quiet among people I do know, so obeying Jesus' command to let the world know about him has always been rather difficult for me to obey on a personal level. I'm okay with supporting missionaries financially and things like that, but personally talking to people about Christ ("witnessing," in Christian jargon) has always been very difficult for me.

But over the past few years I've discovered - accidentally - that it can be done without any difficulty at all. So I thought I'd pass along what I've learned for other Christians who are on the shy side.

Fortunately, in addition to being a bit shy, in some ways I'm also boringly predictable. I wake up early and go out to a coffee shop (the same one all the time) to have a cup of coffee, read my Bible, pray, and plan my day. I don't approach anyone or really attempt any conversation, though I try to smile at people who walk by.

Well, it turns out that other people are also creatures of habit, and a lot of them come to the same coffee shop every day at the same time. So after months and even years of just being there you get to know people by face, and eventually somebody is bound to come up to you and say something like, "Can I use this chair?" and I say "Sure!" But one way or another, you slowly get to know people.

And people see you reading your Bible, and when they know you a little bit they comment on that and you can respond. I've had spiritual conversations with several people and got one guy a Bible by just - basically - sitting there minding my own business.

And, of course, occasionally Christians will see you with your Bible and will say hello and sometimes share something from their own lives. I've prayed with people who have endured some deep pains (one woman lost her husband in a traffic accident and another was in real financial trouble).

But my point is that it all came about by just quietly sitting and reading my Bible. But - and here's the secret - doing it for a loooong time.

God of Mystery

Speaking of mysteries (as I did in my last post) the thought occurs to me that if I believed in a God in whom there was no mystery, I'd probably be believing in a made-up God.

Why?

Because I think a made-up God would be a god who makes sense within the everyday knowledge that we have. I just don't think we'd make up a god who didn't fit our notions of reality.

Instead, the Real God must be greater than everything we perceive, or He couldn't have made everything.

And if there is mystery in what we perceive - and when we come to the edges of our perception of reality, things do begin to get really weird - then the God who created all this stuff, from the commonplace to the incomprehensibly baffling, must have a nature that in some ways is far more baffling than the weirdest mysteries of the universe.

His nature is true and constant and good, but to us limited human beings elements of his nature must be impossible to understand. I guess that's where faith comes in.

Mystery for Christians and Atheists

Whenever either Christians or atheists get to a certain point in a logical examination of their beliefs, they find mystery.

For example, let's take the topic of free will.

For the Christian there are two seemingly incompatible truths:

First, that human beings have a free will and can make real decisions. You can see this throughout the Bible in every command and every bit of praise and every bit of blame. If we were mere puppets then we couldn't make real decisions - for good or for bad - so there would be no need for commands and no point in praise or blame.

Second, there is the truth that God is in control of everything, down to the last little thing.

So how do those two beliefs fit together? I don't know.

But the atheist faces a similar dilemma.

On the one hand, most atheists seem to believe that people can make real free-will decisions, otherwise, why would they write books and give lectures and otherwise try to persuade people to become atheists?

But on the other hand, athiests believe that everything is based on purely natural processes: one thing leading to another to another to another, the previous things causing the next things, from the beginning of the universe right down to their lives. But that means their decisions are not really decisions, but are just the inevitable result of preceeding events.

So, they believe in free-will and they believe that free-will is impossible, two clearly contradictory beliefs.

Okay, so what is the difference between the Christian's dilemna and the atheist's?

Well, as a Christian, what makes the seeming contradiction acceptable to me is that I know the One who understands how they fit together and who wouldn't have told us these two truths if they did not fit together. So I can reasonably assume that the logical conflict I face is resolved in dimensions or ways that I can't begin to imagine.

But the atheist - by definition - cannot appeal to God or any "higher power" who might assure him that, despite appearances, his contradictory beliefs fit together. Therefore he has no reasonable cause for believing that the logical conflict he faces can be reconciled, and he is left with nothing but contradiction.

Where Did God Come From?

I thought this question had been adequately dealt with years ago, but it seems to have made a reappearance, so I thought I would address it.

If you ask, "Where did God come from?" you are incorrectly including in your question the idea that God is a part of time, rather than the creator of time.

It does not make sense to ask what came "before" God because words like "before" and "earlier" and "previous" and so forth are all about time, but God made time and therefore is separate from time. And if something is separate from time, then there is no "before," and asking what is before God is as silly as asking, "What is before blue?" It is not a time question so you can't get a time answer.

Think of time as a line you draw on a sheet of paper. If someone asked what comes before you on that line, the question wouldn't really make sense because you are not part of the line. It's the same with God.

Encyclopedia Trivia

I've been slowly adding an old encyclopedia to the web, reading it as I go along, and occasionally stumbling on interesting tidbits.

For instance:

- Did you know that "Captain Bligh ... betrayed a singular capacity for making himself disliked by his subordinates." Oh, you did know that.

- I like James Brindley's method of solving problems.

- Did you know that a French engineers' report concluded that it would be virtually impossible to build the the Panama Canal?

- Did you know Sunday School had an inventor?

Abusing Human Resources

I don't know what reminded me of this, but for years I've been bothered by some of the harrassment rules that have governed companies - at least in California. While I totally agree with the principle of not permitting harrassment and I agree with coming down hard on it when it occurs, and while I know at least one woman who used the process quite correctly, I've also seen the process abused over the years by some women who seem to think that it was invented expressly to prevent them from experiencing any inconvenience in their social lives.

Let me give a couple examples:

- I was a manager at a computer software company. A guy who reported to me asked a woman in the company if she would like to drive together to a meeting of a professional association they both belonged to. She reported him for sexual harrassment. He was not punished but he was crushed and humiliated.

- At another company a woman who reported to me told me that a guy from "the other side of the building who didn't have any business on our side of the building" had come around a number of times and had spoken to her on a few occasions. And, although she had not told him her name, he knew it. She was deeply offended. Sigh. I dutifully told the HR department and dutifully told her she needed to discuss it with the HR department directly and dutifully kept my mouth shut, but I really thought what she did was wrong. Here, some poor fellow, probably some nerdie tech guy, had the temerity to like her and find out what her name was and - horror of horrors - speak to her. And for that crime he was undoubtedly dragged into the HR department and humiliated.

I want to make clear that I don't blame HR departments for this. The HR people I've dealt with have been very professional and know some of the rules are absurdly vague, but they're stuck with them just like everybody else. I remember at one mandatory meeting on harassment the presenter essentially said that if you "look at someone" you may be guilty of harrassment. It would have been vague enough if she had said that you couldn't "look at someone in a lascivious manner" or something like that, but it was just "look at someone." She knew it was stupid and she was uncomfortable when I pointed out that everybody at that meeting was - at that very moment - guilty of harrassment, and that we were all guilty from the moment we walked into the building until we left at night. But what was she supposed to do? The law may be stupidly vague, but it was the law.

So, I reserve my contempt for those who make vague laws and for those few women who use HR departments to turn down (and humiliate) poor guys they do not happen to like.

Aristotle - Hindering Science?

I recently finished reading the book, Politics, by Aristotle. Though I certainly respect the guy, the one thing that really struck me about the book was something I thought did not reflect well on him.

I had always heard that Aristotle taught kind of a "moderation in all things" philosophy, which seemed to me to be a pretty good plan, but then I read the book and discovered that when he talked about "moderation in all things" he basically meant ALL things. He struck me as being kind of an extremist about moderation, so to speak.

Everything was going fine until the last section of the book, where he discusses education. One of his examples of a subject that should be on the curriculum of every good citizen is music. Okay, fine. But, he said, the citizen of a community should learn just enough about playing music to amuse himself and his friends during leisure times. He shouldn't try to become a really good musician because becoming excellent in such skills is only for servants, not for full citizens. So, in other words, being really excellent at any art or craft is for inferiors and is not worthy of those who are full citizens.

Ouch! No wonder the Industrial Revolution did not begin with the Greeks. No wonder their science was mostly theoretical. Those who say that science began during the Renaissance when people began throwing out Christian thinking and rediscovering Greek thinking are full of prunes! Undoubtedly Greek thinking was a big factor, but taken as a whole, if Aristotle is indicative of Greek thinking, I believe Greek thinking was as much a hinderance as a help to the rise of science.

Paul's Authority and Humility

The Bible study group I belong to has been studying the New Testament book of II Corinthians, and one thing that really struck me about the book is the lessons it gives on authority.

In this book the Apostle Paul attempts (among other things) to persuade the Corinthians that he is a true apostle, and that the so-called "super apostles" that the people have fallen for are not.

Before telling you how Paul makes the point that he is legit, let me tell you how he does not make his point. It struck me that if the early church was organized in a heirarchical fashion, then the most obvious thing for Paul to do would have been to say something like this: "I was appointed by the official church leadership to be an apostle. Those fakes were not. End of discussion!"

But he doesn't do that. He explains and praises and argues and pleads and threatens and is ironic and urges the people to consider how he has lived among them. He knows they're upset that he didn't visit them as he had planned, so he tells his reasons; he knows the false apostles have sown seeds of doubt about his integrity, so he reminds them that he has never taken any money from them. But though he seems to use every tool available to him - much as a distraught parent might with a child - he never once cites any earthly authority, only God: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God."

Though not conclusive, this suggests to me that the early church was probably not organized in a thoroughly heirarchical fashion.

Also, Paul was collecting money for a church in great need (apparently the church in Jerusalem) and the churches in Greece/Macedonia appointed a man to accompany Paul to make sure the money was spent properly.

I am awestruck! The churches had that authority and the great apostle Paul was perfectly willing to be watched to make sure he didn't steal money. What a lesson in godly humility! And in light of this, how can any church or parachurch organization refuse to have regular audits or otherwise demonstrate to those who give that the money they receive is being properly used?

Obama: Don't Betray Iraq!

I don't write about politics very much, but now it is pretty clear (barring some unforeseen upset) that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party's nominee. If he becomes president he would be the commander in chief, which means that he can do whatever he wants with the military pretty much without congressional approval. And what he proposes to do is very troubling.

So I want to address any Obama fans out there.

The Democratic Party claims to be the party of "compassion," but Mr. Obama has indicated on his website that he'd immediately "remove one to two combat brigades each month" from Iraq, until our forces are all out, apparently regardless of whether the Iraqis are ready to stand on their own. In light of that commitment I have to ask how compassionate it is to abandon millions of Iraqis to the mercies of terrorist militias, both those home-grown in Iraq and state-sponsored terrorists from neighboring countries?

How compassionate is it to put Iraqis at the mercy of butchers who saw prisoners' heads off and then post videos of their barbarity on the Internet, or who set off bombs in marketplaces in an effort to kill as many civilians as possible?

Iraq's military is performing better and better, terrorist attacks have been way down and the country's legislature seems to be doing about as well as our own Congress, which is not saying much, but it's progress.

Yet even as the Iraqis are getting steady on their feet, your candidate wants to yank the rug out from under them, leaving nobody but a few guards for our embassy and maybe a little force somewhere in the Middle East for "targeted strikes" if al Qaeda happens to set up a base in Iraq. (What? It hasn't already?)

In other words, he wants to betray those who believed that we would help them.

He wants to desert those who worked and fought beside us! God help those Iraqi soldiers, police and politicians if we leave before they're ready.

He wants the United States to put its tail between its legs and run away, and let the families of fallen soldiers know that their sons' lives were lost for nothing, that nothing was accomplished by their sacrifice. And that on the brink of success.

This is not compassion. This is betrayal!

I know. You'll tell me too many American lives have been lost. Any lives lost is too many, but compared to most wars we've fought, 4,000 deaths in five years of war is insignificant. Many times we've lost far more than that in a single day of war. Our casualties could hardly be fewer!

I know. You'll tell me that America has committed crimes in Iraq. So the logic is that since we've committed crimes that means we should commit the additional crime of abandoning the Iraqis. Yeah, two crimes are better than one. That makes perfect sense.

I know. You'll tell me it is an "illegal" war. Well, just so we don't get stuck on the point, let's say that it is completely illegal. So, because it's illegal that means we should commit the additional crime of abandoning the Iraqis? Yeah, that makes perfect sense, too.

I'd never have thought that I'd want a politician to be a liar, but if Barack Obama is elected, I sure hope he's been lying about abandoning our friends before they are ready to stand on their own. And if he's not lying, and you vote for him, the shame of our betrayal and the blood of abandoned Iraqis will stain your hands as well.

The Generational Baseline

I think one of the big problems in the church today is that children from Christian households are falling away from their faith.

There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for this (lack of preparation for the arguments against Christianity that they'll hear in college is a big one), but I'd like to speculate about one reason I haven't heard explored, and it is this:

I think that every generation sets a new baseline for the following generation.

Let me give an example.

Let's say a man and woman have been involved in some bad behavior (take your pick), but they come to know Christ and begin following Him, living as good a life as they can, and then they marry and have children.

The problem is that while the parents remember how Christ saved them and how he set their lives straight, and while that is powerful for them, it's just ancient history to the children. The children don't see the change in their parents' lives; they simply experience having fairly nice parents and they tend to assume that this is normal and is no particular evidence of God. In fact, they will see that the parents do not always live up to their faith and may take that as evidence against Christianity.

And, of course, some parents are just plain awful, which simply makes the contrast between the parents' words and their professed faith even more damning.

So its a bad situation if you're a good parent and a worse situation if you're a rotten one.

I wish I had a simple answer for this. I don't, but two thoughts come to mind: be the best parent you can be, and ... pray.

You're Not Welcome

It is my sad observation in rubbing shoulders with other Christians and in reading publications and hearing reports of children drifting away from the faith, that much of the U.S. Church is in the process of losing its soul and just becoming a part of the world. And I'm not talking just about liberal churches; I mean evangelical churches as well.

I think the process has been going on for a few decades, but has accelerated recently. It began as an admirable attempt to reach out to the world by casting aside unnecessary barriers, such as by using more broadly-understood words instead of "Christian" words ("redemption") and by meeting in non-churchy buildings such as restaurants and old warehouses, and by setting aside non-Biblical prohibitions (not playing cards). The idea was to strip away any stumbling blocks that would prevent people from coming to Christ, and I approved (and continue to approve) most heartily.

But now I think it has gone too far.

After having thrown out all the unnecessary baggage we find that lots of people still don't want to be Christians. Why? Because we're "judgemental" or because nobody should go to Hell, or, "Hey, there are lots of religions in the world." Or because it isn't "relevant" to my life.

So, to address these objections we've started throwing out the necessary baggage. We deemphasize sin and emphasize how welcoming we are "wherever you're at in life;" we downplay Christ and instead talk generically of a loving God while not mentioning that this loving God wants us to stop sinning. And Hell? Uh, well, we prefer to focus on the love of God at this church.

These days all we want is to be accepted and loved by the world, to be "part of the community."

The sight of a wonderful reform movement that has gone too far discourages me immensely and I think it is a sign of the church's slide into irrelevance. A church that does not differ from the world around it has nothing to offer that world.

But I don't think this applies to all the church.

I think there are those who are equally disheartened by this movement, and I think some churches that see the coming evil will put the brakes on, and some new churches will arise that will turn their focus back to Christ.

I think those churches will say, "We love you no matter what, but if you are going to attend this church you need to be making a serious effort to battle sin in your life. If you're stuck in adultery or homosexuality or theft or lying or hatred or cheating or greed or any other sin, you need to be fighting against it. If you do, we're here for you. If you are not, we want you to leave. You are not welcome here. Go away and come back when you are willing to follow Christ."

And I think those churches will say, "You're right. Hell is awful. For God's sake, don't go there!"

And I think they'll say, "We're sorry that you don't think this is a sin, but God said it is."

And I think they'll say, "That there are many religions in the world is irrelevant. The question is: What is true? If another religion is true, go follow it; if Christianity is true, then follow Christ. Don't be a wus!"

And I think that eventually this new church will go too far, and some will emphasize "separation from the world" to an exagerated and un-biblical extent, and then this church will become unnecessarily isolated, and then we'll need yet another correction.

But in the meantime, in general, I think Christians are going to feel increasingly lonely even within their own churches, and I think any notion they may have that they represent a large segment of the population is doomed to disappointment. We are a minority.

But on the other hand, as things continue to slide I think these isolated Christians will find each other and will enjoy sweet fellowship in their mutual devotion to Christ and in their attempts to live for Christ in their lives.

Of course the media and the slip-sliding-away church will not approve of this movement and will do a lot of harumphing about it, but that's fine. Wear it as a badge of honor.

Surveyors for Christ

I suspect that one of the main causes of poverty in the world is the lack of clarity about who owns what. For example, if a poor person in a poor country is living on a piece of land, I can't imagine that he would put much effort or expense into fixing up his home if he is not certain that he owns it. If the boundary lines are fuzzy, improving his property could simply make it more attractive for someone else - who claims to be the true landowner - to take it away.

I know it is not sexy and is certainly not as dramatic as some other forms of development work, but as a Christian I would think that some amount of Christian development effort should be directed toward helping poor but reasonably honest governments survey and record and make available property records. I think it would be a great ministry for a Christian development group, not that it would get much publicity and likely not much praise for its efforts, but I suspect that in a quiet way a ministry like that could have a tremendous impact.

In the book Measuring America, by Andro Linklater, which I review here, Linklater says that property lines in the southern U.S. states were less clear than those in the North, and that those vague lines hindered southern economic development. I have to think that better surveying and clearer boundary lines would be an economic blessing around the world.

This thought occurred to me on reading this most excellent article by Peter Huber about the need for governments to make available on-line each and every legal document relating to ownership, meaning all laws that apply, all maps and court records, contracts, etc. In other words, he goes beyond the simple lines-in-the-dirt surveying I'm advocating to make the point that there are other boundaries on property rights as well, and those too should be as clear and as easily available as possible. Amen! One of the best points I've heard anyone make in a long time.

China and Taiwan

Today's primary elections remind me of a worry I've had for a while.

It occurs to me that within the next decade the United States could face a far more difficult situation than terrorism - China.

China is growing strong economically, technically and militarily, and while I have no objection to a strong China, and I don't see why China couldn't be a good friend and trading partner (especially if it cleans up its human rights problems), I really don't want a strong China with a grudge against the U.S., simply because I don't want what could be an extremely serious war.

Unfortunately, there is a grudge - Taiwan. The U.S. is guarding Taiwan from China and that annoys the Chinese, who regard it as part of China. Whatever. I won't get into that.

But this brings me to my point. I think we should sit down with Taiwan and China and encourage them to cooperate and resolve their differences, and we should do it now while tempers are still under some level of control and we're not waving missles in each others faces.

For whoever becomes president, I hope he (or she) will make this a priority. Waiting until it is a crisis would be just plain stupid.

Fact, Faith, Feeling

Not long ago a young man told me he couldn't remember a single instance of God working in his life.

I think he is very mistaken and has simply missed what God has been doing, because when I look at his life I see God at work as he becomes a godly young man.

But I think I understand what he meant. I think he meant that he could not feel God working in his life. That I can relate to. The times I have felt God at work in my life are very few and very far between.

What helps me with this is remembering an old illustration that showed a train, with "Fact" as the engine, followed by coal car, "Faith," and then trailing along at the end was the caboose, "Feeling." The train can run without Feeling, but it needs the engine of Fact and the fuel of Faith in the coal car.

I believe a lot of Christians today unconsciously base their faith on feelings. I sympathize. I want good feelings, too. But feelings are the caboose; they're not critical. Live life based on the Fact of the Gospel fueled by Faith, and if Feeling comes along for a ride sometimes, fine, if not, que sera. And don't count on feelings always being there; they won't be; or always being pleasant; they won't be; and certainly do not base your faith on them.

Luther Movie

I don't know if I just missed it when it first came out, or if it never appeared in the theaters, or what, but I recently saw a DVD movie called, "Luther," about the life of Martin Luther. I don't usually recommend movies, but this one was really great. It did not sugar-coat Luther and it's intent was not to slam Catholics. And it was very professionally done.

From what I know of Luther, it did a great job of presenting his life - "warts and all," to quote another famous German (Frederick the Great, I believe). After I saw it, I recommended that our fellowship group watch it. We did and everyone seemed to really like it, and one guy said he thought he'd recommend it to our new pastor. So anyway, rent the DVD. I think you will really enjoy it and learn quite a bit about both Luther and the Reformation.

Those Emotional Puritans

If you are like me, you've always had this idea in the back of your mind that the Puritans were stiff and formal and unemotional, but in reading some of the stuff they've written, well ... I dunno. In one sense what I've read does seem very methodical and scholastic at times (not that I object to that, but it can be dry), but then in the midst of a scholarly essay (in this case dealing with the role of memory in heaven - O brother! Does that sound dull, or what?) you may get something simply overflowing with passion, such as this (which I've edited into more-or-less modern English):

From the height of heaven the saint can look back and compare the past with the present. And what an inconceivable appreciation that soul must have. To stand on that mountain, where we can see both the Wilderness and Canaan at once; to stand in heaven and look back on earth, and weigh them side-by-side, how it must transport the soul, and make it cry out, "Is this what the blood of Christ has bought? No wonder it cost so much. O blessed purchase and blessed love! Is this the result of believing? Is this the result of the Spirit's workings? Have the winds of grace blown me into such a harbor? Is it to this place that Christ has allured my soul? O blessed path and blessed destination! Is this the glory of which the Scriptures spoke and ministers preached about so often? I see the Gospel is indeed good news, news of peace and good things, news of great joy to all nations! Did my mourning, my fasting, the sad times I was humbled, my difficult path, come to this? Did my praying, watching, and fearing to offend, come to this? Did all my afflictions, Satan's temptations, the world's scorn and jeers, come to this? O my vile nature, that resisted such a blessing so much and so long! Unworthy soul! is this the place you came to so unwillingly? Was duty tiresome? Was the world too good to lose? Could you not leave all, deny all, and suffer anything for this? Were you afraid to die, to come to this? O false heart, you almost betrayed me to eternal flames and would have lost me this glory! Are you not ashamed, my soul, that you ever questioned the love that brought you here? that you were jealous of the faithfulness of your Lord? that you doubted his love when you should only have doubted yourself? that you always quenched any working of his Spirit? and that you misinterpreted his actions and were unhappy at what he did to bring you to this end? Now you are convinced that your blessed Redeemer was saving you just as much when he denied your desires as when he granted them; when he broke your heart as when he healed. No thanks to you, unworthy self, for this crown; but thanks rather to Jehovah and the Lamb to whom be glory for ever."

Kind of takes my breath away. That's from The Saints' Everlasting Rest, by Richard Baxter, if you're interested.

In Defense of Lists

Recently I heard - for one time too many - a speaker introduce his remarks by saying that the Christian life is not a list and that lists are inadequate for expressing the Christian life.

And then, rather apologetically, he said that despite that he was going to preach a sermon that used a list.

Well, good! I'm glad he bucked the trend, and it was a mighty fine sermon, but I really wish he didn't feel the need to apologize for something that is not only innocent, but positively useful!

I think perhaps the apology had something to do with the current postmodern movement that emphasizes "story" as the way to communicate and kind of looks down its nose at lists.

Fine. Tell stories. There are lots of them in the Bible. They're a good way to communicate. I like stories. But there are also lists. The - ahem - Ten Commandments?

I admit that stories are more memorable than abstract information, but that's the beauty of lists - they can make abstract concepts easier to remember and understand, and those who adopt a pointless bias against them will fail to teach all the Bible has to offer because some things simply do not lend themselves to being told as stories. For example, how do you teach the book of Romans - or Hebrews, or most of the other epistles - as a story? Are we just going to skip them, or try to force them into some artificial storybook format?

Yes, I admit lists can be abused. I've seen it happen. But I can also say from painful experience that stories can also be abused. I remember one sermon that wandered off into a story about the preacher's sick pet. I assure you that its being a story did nothing to redeem it.

So how about we all recognize that the Bible contains both stories and lists (and abstract information that is well-suited to being expressed with lists) and without apology simply use the type of format best suited for the topic and the audience.

Bad Microwave!

When I was growing up my family ate dinner together. We all sat down around the table and it was nice.

Sadly, I don't think that happens as frequently these days, at least, not at my house, and I think part of the reason - aside from my absentmindedness and slackness - is technology. You can yell out to your kids that their dinner is getting cold, and they'll think, "So what, I'll put it in the microwave later." Or they'll just get out some instant soup or prepackaged dinner, nuke it, and they're set. Unless you run a tight ship, any kid who knows how to work a microwave can prepare his or her own dinner on his or her own schedule. I know it may not be very nutritious, but I don't think that makes much difference to a lot of children.

In addition to food technology, there is also entertainment technology. Not only is there television, as there was when I was a kid (and that was hard enough on family dinnertimes), now there are also video and computer games. It used to be that talking at dinner kind of was the entertainment, but nowadays it's hard for mere talking to compete.

You can't rely on hunger or the fun of being together anymore. I think that having family meals now means additional pressure on parents to make them a requirement. Get a bit slack and you loose it.

The Death of Humanity

Jason Robert Carrol breathed his last.

He lay in the hospital with his wife and children nearby and an attentive nursing staff and competent doctors. It was pneumonia, the old man's friend, as he used to jest.

As his body was removed, his wife sat down in the one visiting chair and the children on the floor, and they all shut off.

As the body was taken away, the hospital staff sat down in place and shut down. Then the hospital lights went out. The body was buried as Carrol's will had indicated and, their job complete, the burial crew shut down.

Carrol was the last one, and with him humanity died, never fully knowing.

It had begun in 2035, with the first marriage between a man and a robot. It was, of course, a very beautiful robot he had married, and as people rightly suspected, it had been just a physical interest, and the marriage did not last long.

But the robots improved rapidly. People took batteries of psychological tests, and then factories built and programmed robot spouses that matched them perfectly. Some wanted submission in their spouse; others preferred a bit of fire. Intelligence, stupidity, fawning adoration, beauty, sex, whatever. They got what they wanted.

They could even have children, robotic children who were updated regularly until they grew into adulthood, and then - like their parents - they appeared to age.

With mass production, the cost of robots dropped, and these pleasures of the rich became increasingly available to all. More and more people married - or simply lived with - robots. And life with a robotic man or woman who matched you perfectly was very beautiful.

But fewer and fewer people married other people, so the number of people began to slide, though where even one human existed, the streets were full of cars, the shops and restaurants were all open, and the media broadcast the news, though what part of the news was about robots and what part about humans it was impossible to tell, as the two were difficult to tell apart and because it was considered very rude to make such distinctions.

And in the end, the humans died out, never fully aware that it was even happening.

But the fearmongers were wrong. The robots never took over the world - they never even tried. They died with their masters. Although scientists had succeeded in making robots intelligent, they had never figured out how to give them a will.

No robot ever wanted anything, any more than a brick ever wanted anything. Oh, true, they acted as if they wanted things, and their apparent desires were indistinguishable from human desires, but it wasn't real.

Some scientists thought that if they combined the right software with enough processing power to make a computer's brain, that the computer would become self-aware and have a will. But it never happened, any more than a pile of bricks is more self-aware than a single brick. More and more on-off switches combined with more and more instructions for flipping those switches on and off never resulted in a computer that wanted so much as an ice cream cone or cared a bit or a byte whether it existed for a single additional second.

Oh, when the humans were still alive it certainly looked that way, and many scientists argued that robots had indeed achieved self-awareness, but when the last of the humans died, the robots - seeing no tasks before them - reverted to their most basic instruction set, and simply shut down to save power.

Time Travel and the Trinity

I was recently reading an old scifi classic called The Door Into Summer by Robert Heinlein (quite good, by the way) and came across a passage in which the main character is talking about a time-traveling guinea pig.

The thought came to me that time travel provides a neat illustration of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which, if you are not familiar with it, is essentially this mind-bending statement: There is only one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each of them is wholly God but none of them is the other.

If you are confused, you are hardly alone. This doctrine was not proposed because it is easy to understand, but because the Bible teaches it.

So anyway, Heinlein's story got me thinking of this illustration.

Let's pretend that the genius scientist who lives next door to you has just invented a time machine, which you get to test. You step into the machine and it sends you back to last week. You walk home, open the door and stand face to face with ... you.

Hmmm. Now here is an interesting situation. Which of these two quite distinct, quite solid and quite real individuals is you?

Ahhh... both.

So does that means there are two of you?

Wellll, there are two individuals that are you, but - I know it sounds weird - there's just one you.

Does that mean that each of the individuals in the room is only part of you?

Noooo. Each of the individuals in the room, by himself, is completely and wholly you.

(Notice also that the "you" who went back in time came from the "you" who inhabited the past, and therefore the "you" in the past could - in a way - be said to be the source or "creator" of the future "you," but that doesn't mean the "you" from the future is younger than the "you" from the past. You are the same age as you.)

Similarly, the Father can be completely and wholly God and the Son can be completely and wholly God, but the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son (or the Holy Spirit, but I tried to keep it simple). The illustration also shows how a father-son type relationship could exist without the father existing before the son.

Big caveat: I'm not suggesting that this is how God is triune; I'm just trying to illustrate how it might be so in a situation we can imagine.

Some other things I've written on the Trinity:

The Trinity
Thoughts on the Trinity

The Artistic Mind

Somewhat to my surprise I recently found myself attending a class on oil painting. My interest in painting - oil or otherwise - has been non-existent for my whole life, so I'm a bit surprised that I signed up. I think I just wanted to exercise another part of my mind or something. Who knows, but I'm loving it.

But anyway, just as your first visit to a town is often the most memorable because everything is new and hits you hard, so it has been for me regarding painting, and so I thought I'd share some impressions.

First, I've been pretty awestruck by my teacher. I'm painting from photos I've taken, and often in looking at the pictures, what I think I see often isn't really there. The tree trunk isn't brown, the water isn't blue, and the leaves aren't all green. He points these things out to me in my own photos. He sees ten thousand colors where I see about six, he sees lines and shades and light and shadow and patterns that I've missed. He's taught me that the primary colors are very seldom encountered in nature. Almost everything is a blend. If you want black for your landscape, he says, don't use black, use a dark brown and mix in a bit of green. Where I might look at a cathedral and say it is light gray, he would more accurately point out that its color shifts depending on where you stand, and on the time of day, and on the shadows, and so forth. Now I find myself looking at trees and dirt roads and trying to figure out exactly what colors they are - not always an easy task. So, if he's any indication, I think that in some ways artists really do see the world around them more clearly than the rest of us. (And, as an aside, this also inspires me to read the Bible and look for what is really there, not what I think is there or what I think ought to be there, but what is really there.)

But anyway, while I may be wrong, I've often thought that artists have a tendency toward relativism, a viewpoint in which there is nothing truly good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. In relativism it's all a mixture, kind of like the millions of shifting colors artists see in the world around them or mix on their palettes.

And, frankly, an honest look at the world will tend of confirm this viewpoint. There are few cases where I can point to something and say it is absolutely wicked or good or true or false. Life is generally a mixture.

But I think this outlook may result in artists tending to hold to the philosophical notion that because all we ever see is mixture, that "mixture" is all that ultimately exists. And that goes too far.

For example - sticking with paint, though I'm also talking about good and bad, and true and false - if you want to get gray you need black and white. Yes, I know that no black paint is absolutely Black and no white paint is absolutely White, but still, if there is ultimately no Black and White, then there can be no gray. Period. Gray is a mixture, and you simply can't have a mixture without at least two things to mix.

Thoughts on Matthew

For some months, I've been reading and re-reading and pondering and posting about the Book of Matthew in the New Testament. I thought it would be good to just create a set of links to those postings, so here they are:
Not Skipping Over Matthew 1
The Great Foreshadowing
Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit
Invited But Not Chosen
The Scary Parts of Matthew
The Law of the Heart
Why Was Jesus Unclear?

Why Was Jesus Unclear?

One of the lessons I learned in journalism school was to write with blunt clarity. I don't always achieve that goal, but communicating clearly has long been one of my ideals. Therefore, it has been a bit bothersome to read through the book of Matthew in the New Testament and find that Jesus was often unclear, and that he was intentionally unclear.

As you probably know, Jesus often taught in parables. Some of these were reasonably clear, but some were not. Even his close disciples did not always understand (13:36).

Less well known, I suspect, is that Jesus also spoke in what I will call "contrasts."

By contrasts I mean that he taught that if you find your life you will lose it and if you lose your life you will find it (10:39); that you should not judge (7:1), and you should judge (7:6 - judge who is a "dog"); that you should be afraid of God (10:28) and that you should not be afraid of God (10:31); that you should let your good deeds be seen by men (5:14-16) and that you should not let your good deeds be seen by men (6:1); that if you exalt yourself you will be humbled and if you humble yourself you will be exalted, and so forth.

The meaning of some of these contrasts is clear, but like some of the proverbs, some require thought. Take the command not to judge and to judge. I think that means not to pass any sort of ultimate condemnation on anyone, but on the other hand to use good judgment about who will be receptive to hear the gospel. I think fearing and not fearing God means to have a deep, trembling respect for God, knowing he has the power to put people into hell, but to also know that he loves his children, so those who love him need not have any fear for their ultimate destiny. And regarding the commands to let your good deeds be seen by men and not let them be seen by men, I think this means not to do anything to bring glory to yourself, but make sure God alone gets the credit for the good deeds he inspires you to do. But read them yourself and see what you think.

Anyway, this method of teaching was no accident. Jesus was perfectly well aware that much of what he was saying required thought to understand, and I think that's what he wanted.

But why?

I've pondered this and have come up with a number of reasons, some of which are speculative, but, I think, likely. So let me share them with you.

- The person who hears a parable is forced to think - at least if he wants to understand it. But some people are not interested in understanding, so, by speaking in parables (or contrasts), Jesus mercifully protects uninterested people from learning yet more truth that they would then become responsible to God for acting upon (13:11-12).

- Jesus wanted to create a group of disciples - beyond the inner core of twelve - and this kind of teaching probably divided people into two camps. First, the "Bah! He's talking nonsense" group, who would walk away, and second, the group that says, "Hmm. Interesting. I think I understand, but maybe I should talk to the disciples to see what they say." So some walked away, but others, those who had a thirst for God, hung around and pondered and asked questions. These became disciples.

- Parables have a delayed-release effect: not everybody instantly understood what Jesus meant; some people figured it out later, maybe after discussing it with friends. This was a good thing because Jesus wanted to keep things under control. He didn't want a crowd to get all excited at his teaching and try to make him an earthly ruler or otherwise disrupt his mission. I think that is why he often discouraged people from telling about his miracles. By letting his message sink in slowly, he stopped people from acting in a moment of wild enthusiasm.

- While his parables and contrasts may have taken people a while to figure out, they are very memorable. They are dramatic and stick in the mind until a person is ready and willing to think them over. There are few things more worthless than a forgotten lesson.

- Jesus is training his disciples to take over when he leaves. By giving the people parables but giving the disciples the inside information on the meaning of these parables (13:11), Jesus gives the disciples authority, because anyone who has knowledge about a topic just naturally has authority in that realm. So Jesus isn't trying to deprive the people of the meaning of the parables and contrasts, but he wants that information to come through the disciples so they have authority to lead when he is gone ("What is whispered in your ear," he tells them, "proclaim from the roofs" 10:27).

Also, I think that implied in all the contrasts and parables of Jesus is the command to think. If you don't think, you won't understand his teaching, and if you don't understand it then you can't obey it.

The Law of the Heart

One passage in the New Testament book of Matthew that confused me for a long time was the passage in which Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (5:17). How, I wondered, does that mesh with Paul's teaching about it being faith, and not keeping the law, that results in salvation (Rom. 3:27-28, Rom. 4:13-15, Gal. 5:4, etc.)?

I thought maybe "fulfill" was a round-about way of saying "abolish," but Jesus goes on to say that "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen" will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Heaven and earth haven't disappeared, and while it is not entirely clear to me what the "everything" is that Jesus is referring to, it seems pretty clear that it involves wrapping up heaven and earth, and they haven't been wrapped up. Plus, Jesus warns that the person who breaks the commandments and teaches others to break them will be the "least in the kingdom of heaven." And finally, in verse 5:20 he adds that "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

I think my discouraged reaction is probably the same reaction as those who heard Jesus say this the first time: "I can't do that! Those Pharisees are fanatics. They spend every living moment following this huge laundry list of rules." But then, as these people listened to Jesus, I think a lot of them said, "Ahhh! I see what you mean."

Okay, so what does Jesus mean?

I believe he means that the Pharisees were on the wrong track; that obeying the law is not a matter of obeying a complex tangle of rules, but it is a matter of the heart; it is a matter of looking through the outward rules to the real intent of the law, which is love and faith. I think it is this tangle of outward legalisms that Paul objected to when he rejected the law; he certainly did not reject faith and love (1 Cor. 13).

So let me try to defend this view.

I found three places in Matthew where Jesus sums up the law:

1. In his conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (7:12).

2. In 22:23 Jesus says the most important parts of the law are to exercise justice, mercy and faithfulness.

3. And his grand summation, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (22:37-40).

So, the first two of these examples strongly imply love, and the third example makes it explicit. The law is to love and love is from the heart. So, to outdo the Pharisees in obeying the law, love God and love people from deep in your heart.

When I understood that, it made a lot of Jesus' teaching in Matthew a lot clearer.

Some examples:

- Jesus looks below the surface of the law against murder, to the heart, and condemns anger and hatred (5:21).

- It isn't just the physical act of adultery; looking at a woman lustfully is a violation of the law against adultery. Again, Jesus looks at the heart.

- Give to the poor secretly (6:1-4) and pray to God secretly (6:6) and fast secretly (6:17-18). Jesus is saying not to make a show of doing these things because what is important is the attitude of your heart.

- Jesus profusely praises the centurion for his faith (8:10) and later that of the Canaanite woman (15:21-28). Again, Jesus focuses on what is in the centurion's and Canaanite woman's hearts.

- When Jesus "worked" on the Sabbath by healing a man with a shriveled hand (12:9-13) he was obeying the true meaning of the Sabbath, which was instituted in love by God as a day of rest and recovery. Jesus brought recovery to the man with the shriveled hand.

- In the parable of the workers in the vineyard (20:1-16) Jesus seems to be saying that the amount of work the workers did is not the key thing; the key thing was a matter of the heart, that the workers were willing to work for the landowner.

- Jesus condemns the chief priests and elders (21:23, 23:32) because they did not believe; again, a matter of the heart.

- When Jesus tells the rich young man (19:21) to give away all he has, this instruction is not in the Old Testament and Jesus isn't making a general rule that the rich can't enter heaven (in fact he says the rich entering heaven is possible with God - 19:25-26), but he tells the rich man this in order to take him down to his heart; to show him that he values his riches more than God.

- In the parable of the different kinds of soils (13:3-23), the seed in the rocky soil does not sink its roots down to the nourishing soil, the heart. The man represented by the rocky soil had some sort of a joyful experience, but it was a superficial experience, not the same as faith rooted in the heart.

- Similarly, in the parable of the ten virgins (25:1-13), I think the five virgins who did not have enough oil for their lamps represent those whose faith is inadequate because it does not reach down to a reservoir of faith in their hearts; it is just a fluffy surface experience. If the oil does indeed represent faith, that would explain why the wise virgins could not lend them oil - because you can only have enough faith to save yourself; other people can't borrow your faith to save themselves - they need their own.

I could cite other examples, but to sum up, let me quote Jesus' defense of his disciples, who ate with unwashed hands. Jesus said that it isn't what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean; it's the things that come out of the mouth, because ..."the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'." (15:18-20)

For Jesus, it is what is in your heart that counts.

The Scary Parts of Matthew

One of the things that bothered me as I read and pondered the book of Matthew in the New Testament over the past few months is that it seems so easy to go to Hell.

In the book, Jesus repeatedly warns of judgment and Hell and speaks of people being unworthy of him, a lot of times for things I've done ... sometimes repeatedly. Things like not showing mercy (5:7), being angry with a brother (5:21-22), thinking adultery (5:27-30), judging others (7:1), not standing firm in my devotion to Jesus (10:22), disowning Jesus (10:33), loving family more than Jesus (10:37-39), not being prepared for Jesus' return (25:12), not using the talents God has given me (24:50-51), failing to be kind to the poor (25:34-46), etc.

A casual reading of Matthew can be very disheartening, but I think a more careful reading flips that around completely and should be very encouraging for the Christian.

Let's take the example of judging others. Jesus says that if you judge others you will be judged. Well... I'm afraid I have judged others, probably quite a few times.

But in reading this (and similar passages) I forgot to consider that there have not only been times when I have judged people, but there have also been times when I have not judged them. So am I in trouble because of the times I was bad, or am I okay because of the times I was good?

Well, Jesus makes it clear that he does want perfection from us (5:48), but he knows we will fail and need forgiveness (5:7, 18:32-35). He also knows that the student is not above his teacher, but Jesus is satisfied if the student is simply like his teacher (10:24-25). And, of course, he knows that "the spirit is willing, but the body is weak" (26:41).

I found these verses pretty much persuaded me that I'm not doomed, but what finally convinced me that I'm okay despite my very checkered past is the story of Peter.

As you may recall, Jesus said that if you deny him before men, he will deny you before the Father (10:33). Well, Peter denied Jesus big time! (26:69-75) though at other times he acknowledged Jesus. And yet despite Peter's denial, Jesus accepted Peter! If obedience had to be perfect, Peter would have gone to Hell.

Whew! There is hope.

But don't for a minute get the idea that I believe my good deeds outweigh my bad deeds so I go to heaven. Not at all! I believe that in all these (formerly) frightening passages, Jesus is really talking about what's in our hearts (though let me defend that assertion in an upcoming post). I think Jesus means that if we have faith, it will express itself outwardly, and if your faith does not express itself outwardly, then you don't have faith at all, so quit kidding yourself, and those threats of Hell apply to you.

In other words, if you have faith, you will show mercy (5:7); you won't be angry with your brother (5:21-22); you won't think adulterous thoughts (5:27-30); you won't condemn others (7:1); you will be firm in your devotion to Jesus (10:22); you will acknowledge Jesus publicly (10:33); you will love Jesus more than family (10:37-39); you will be prepared for Jesus' return (25:12); you will use the talents God has given you (24:50-51); you will be kind to the poor (25:34-46); and so forth.

Not perfectly, of course, but if you have faith in Jesus it will show.

Jonah and the Minnow

While the story of Jonah and the whale (or sea monster or fish or whatever) has long been a source of ammunition and ammusement for those who want to ridicule the Bible, this is truly one of the most doofus objections to the Bible that I've ever heard.

The argument is basically that the story is ridiculous; that a whale couldn't swallow a man, and if it did the man would surely drown.

To which the proper response should be: "Well... of course!"

This story is about what is is called a "miracle," and - do I really need to explain this? - miracles violate the basic laws of nature. If they didn't they wouldn't be called "miracles."

If the Bible said Jonah was swallowed by a minnow, I wouldn't have the slightest philosophical problem with that. God is quite capable of putting a man into a minnow. In fact, scientists - whom the critics presumably believe - say that the whole universe was once smaller than a pinprick, so if the universe was once so small that it could get lost in your empty back pocket, what's so hard about fitting a man into a big fish?

Note: There has been some discussion about whether Jonah was kept alive in the sea creature or was brought back to life after his underwater trip, but either way we're talking about a miracle.

Invited But Not Chosen

In Matthew 22:1-14 Jesus tells a parable about a king who invited people to a wedding banquet for his son, but the people ignored the invitation and some even killed the king's messengers. So the king killed the murderers and had his servants round up all sorts of people - good or bad - for the wedding.

Okay, I get it so far, but at the ending of the parable is a part that I've always found curious.

The king finds that one of the people does not have on wedding clothes: "Friend," he asked, "how did you get in here without wedding clothes?" and then, the man having no excuse, the king had him tied up and bounced outside into the darkness, "where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Then Jesus concludes the parable by saying, "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

Yow! Seems a bit severe for not having wedding clothes on, and anyway, what's the difference between being invited and chosen? Well, remember, this is a parable, so you are supposed to look for the meaning hidden underneath, so let's do that.

Reading further, in Matthew 26:50, when Judas betrayed Jesus in the garden, it caught my eye that Jesus said, "Friend, do what you came for." So, first the king called the man "friend" and now Jesus calls Judas "friend." Is it possible that in the garden Jesus was tying Judas back to this parable?

I think it quite likely since Judas fits the parable so well. Judas was invited but was certainly not chosen. Judas was asked to join with Jesus, to be a friend and even to become one of the twelve, but deep in Judas' heart he was an enemy. And, just like the guest without wedding clothes, he would soon be thrown into the outer darkness.

So I think that having wedding clothes on means being a true friend to Jesus, being someone who really wants to celebrate with him at his banquet. In fact, if you don't love Jesus, if you're just a fake friend, why would you even want to crash his banquet? And why do you think God would allow it?

So if you are pretending to be a believer - maybe because your friends believe - it ultimately won't work. Please stop faking and make it real.

Become a Christian