This election, in particular, has special interest for me, since many believe it may be the most important one in our history.
One of the questions in my mind is the compatibility of the two primary political positions - liberal and conservative - with biblical Christianity. In other words, does a biblical worldview require or prohibit either conservatism or liberalism?
I spend a fair amount of time searching, thinking, trying to understand what is most consistent with biblical truth.
I have been especially urged to this by the many folks I know at our church, most of whom are in the "thirty-ish" demographic, and many of whom are passionately liberal. (This is admittedly something of an assumption on my part, but is based on their very vocal and enthusiastic support of Barak Obama for president.)
I will be the first to say that scripture is neither explicit nor unmistakably clear on this. In fact, the terms conservative and liberal - or progressive, as some prefer - are not in the Bible. The "What would Jesus do?" game is in fact a risky one.
So I look for principles, fundamental teachings that reveal the basic orientation of God toward issues. And here's what I think I have found. I hope you agree, and I hope there will be some dialogue that comes out of this essay. I hope, agree or not, you will recognize that I am trying to arrive at a considered, well-thought-out position, and not just accept being stuffed into someone's box.
First, a fundamental principle is that God is first of all "pro-people." His first priority is the welfare of people, over the welfare of anything else, including government. Government was established, we can see in the Old Testament, for the benefit of people and their freedom to follow God, and not for its own sake. And government in all cases is not a final authority unto itself, but is rather accountable to God from whom the authority derives.
So, I conclude that any philosophy that promotes a larger and more powerful government - a government that exists for its own benefit - is not consistent with the overall welfare of the people. Larger and more powerful governments do at least three things: They become more dangerous to individual freedoms, they draw out of the economy large amounts of money that would otherwise be available to the people, and they create over time a dependent class, as people come to see the government as the primary source of solution to social problems.
None of these three things is good.
Let me emphasize that I am not antigovernment. I am certainly not an anarchist, which I think is craziness. Neither, however, am I of the opinion that large government is the first source of solution to problems. In very few cases is that true.
A fundamental principle of Protestant Christianity is that every person stands accountable before God. Alone. That every person has the freedom to approach God without the need of some ecclesiastical hierarchy, and correspondingly, every person can be saved or not, according to his or her own choices.
Some would argue that the principle outlined above is also a controlling principle for life, and a controlling principle for the organization of society. And the practical outworking of this principle may be seen in the varied cultures around our world.
It appears, for example, that the countries enjoying the greatest stability and freedoms over an extended time - political, economic and individual freedom - share some things in common. These countries are generally found in North America and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. To an extent, South Korea qualifies, but with limitations, and Japan did for a time, but is experiencing major problems now.
What do these have in common? They all have their roots in Protestant Christianity. There is no such place in the Muslim world, nor Buddhist, nor Hindu, nor even Roman Catholic.
And what would make it so? Individual opportunity and accountability before God. Combined with the belief that all people are created in God's image and are created equal before God, if we stand accountable to God for ourselves, it's easy to translate that to individual responsibility - and opportunity - in society.
So, going back to politics, it seems to me that the political philosophy that most enhances individual accountability - and with it, opportunity - is most consistent with a biblical perspective.
Now I'm going to say it again: I believe this election is the most important in the history of our nation. The reason is that America some time ago started down a new road, a road far different than the one we traveled from the beginning. And that new road leads to a place far different from the place where I grew up and want to continue living. It leads to a radically different and changed America. But not necessarily a better one. Not one with increased individual freedom and accountability.
For the first time in many years, there is a clear difference in the vision of America put forth by the two parties. And the implications of those visions go far beyond healthcare to include the definition of marriage, even to the definition of personhood. They include ultimately the definition of life itself. And the implications include much more than there is room to list here.
But the fundamental difference is over the ultimate standard of right and wrong, and where that standard comes from. Is each person entitled to define right and wrong for him- or herself? Or is there a higher standard? Is there a God, and if there is, are we under obligation to that God?
These are supremely important questions, and they are questions that quickly become a debate over what I believe as opposed to what you believe. This debate solves nothing, and there must be some source or authority that supersedes our individual opinions.
If America has a future recognizable as the America we have known, it will depend on God's people being God's people, and acting and speaking prophetically to our society.
At the spectacular ceremony of dedication of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, God showed up, and it was a time beyond anything any movie producer has ever dreamed up. You can read about it in II Chronicles 7 and surrounding chapters.
At that time, God spoke and addressed the inevitable times of crisis, with drought, famine and worse. Times not entirely unlike what we face in America today. And here's what God told them:
"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and I will forgive their sins and heal their land" (7:14).
The solution to the problems of our nation is us. It is God's people, which now is the Church. It is God's people humbling themselves, repenting, and praying to God for forgiveness and healing. Nothing less will do.
And let's not talk only about the easy stuff, like if you are growing. Let's consider things like why so many Christians have such a poor prayer life, or why most Christians who seldom touch their Bible. Why they are not growing. "What" is easy. "Why" is not.
Even though the why is far more difficult, it's also much more important.
]]> Until we understand something of the why behind our actions and attitudes, we will continue to repeat them. We might not like them, but we are powerless to make real change.As I struggled with this in my own life - for more years than I care to think about - I became deeply frustrated and discouraged because I never seemed to get past certain points in my emotional and spiritual growth. I began wondering if I was somehow inherently substandard or just a basic loser, locked into a life of defeat and failure.
But I have concluded that am none of those, and I now know the answer to why.
Over several years, I have asked Christians, both individuals and groups, two questions: First, does God love you? And of course, nearly all Christians answer yes, even if deep inside they have some doubts. Then, does God like you? When I ask this question, I carefully watch the eyes of the other person. Very often, there is a short, thoughtful pause. Then, as the eyes become sad, the answer comes: "No, I don't think so."
Here's the logic: "God loves me because, you know, He sort of has to do that. After all, the Bible says God is love, and that He loved the world so much that He sent Jesus to bring us life. And the world includes me. And you. So....
"But like me? Does God like me? When Jesus has some free time, will he call me if he wants someone to just hang out with?
"Probably not. After all, why should he? I'm not especially likeable, and not much to hang with. Boring, actually. I know this is true because I don't much like myself, and who knows me better than I know myself?"
Sound familiar?
But here's a big problem: That answer, which comes from our own estimation of ourselves, is wrong. Totally and flat-out.
It's wrong because it's based in a lie. We really do not know ourselves better than anyone else does. We have spent so much time and effort creating a front to present to the world that we truly don't know ourselves. We know and believe only the lie we have created.
But God knows us. He is not fooled by fronts or facades. In fact, God knows us better than we could begin to imagine.
Very often, we look in the mirror and see only a 'bad boy' or a 'bad girl,' someone who does and thinks things that cause us to blush. Of course we are ashamed of ourselves. Who wouldn't be?
But God sees someone far different. It's not that we haven't done those things and thought those thoughts. We have. And it's not that God doesn't know all about them. He does. But while knowing, He looks more deeply, and there He sees someone He created in his own image, someone He loves so deeply as to be inexpressible. He sees someone He cares about enough to die for.
And there is never a moment when He is ashamed of us. Never a time when he regrets giving us life. We might grieve him. We might hurt him. But we cannot make him ashamed of us.
When we focus on ourselves, we enter a downward spiral. We never measure up to our own standard. And we believe the lies we tell ourselves about our own worthlessness. But God isn't that way.
Our shame and negative opinion of ourselves have profound implications. Most Christians report dissatisfaction with their prayer life. Most don't pray regularly or with depth. And yet praying is perhaps at the center of our relationship with God.
Why is this such a problem?
Here's an idea: If I don't like or respect myself, and I believe I know best, then, of course, I won't believe that God likes or respects me. And if you believe God doesn't like you, that when you pray He only tolerates you at best, why would you want to sit and chat with him? Nobody enjoys talking with someone who dislikes them.
So what's the solution? This shame pervades our lives, becoming a controlling factor in so many areas, from our relationship with God to our friendships with other people. It affects success in our jobs, and the growth of a healthy family. We don't need it, and we need to get rid of it. Desperately.
Here's how: Stop believing lies and start believing truth. Stop believing the lies you have been told about yourself by others - parents, teachers, 'friends' - and start believing what God says. God's word is always true and always reliable. Also - especially this - stop believing the lies you tell yourself. These are the worst.
Here's an important principle: The testimony of men and women in this regard is not reliable. It might be true or it might be false. But it's hard to sort them out and know which is which. But with God it is not so.
We learned these lies from someone. We learned all the negative things we tell ourselves from someone. Nobody is born with such a low opinion of him- or herself. And if we can learn the lies, we can also learn the truth.
God is absolutely true and absolutely trustworthy. We can teach ourselves not to believe the lies by telling ourselves instead the things God says about us. We can confront the source of the shame, and over time watch it dissolve and disappear, replaced by the truth from God.
It's a little like the old computer saying: "Garbage in; garbage out." Whatever you put into your mind will determine what comes out of it. And if you continue to feed lies in, it's no surprise that you get lies back out. But if you tell yourself the truth - God's truth as written in his word - eventually the truth will overwrite the lies, and will come to dominate our view of ourselves and our life.
This is not such an easy task, and not a quick one, necessarily. But it's worth the trouble. Don't give up.
The primary factor in coming into a rich, fulfilling knowledge of myself and my life is truth And often the primary factor in coming into the truth is simple determination. Nothing replaces determination. Never give up.
God is true, and God is on your side. And he likes you. A lot.
]]>It's one of my favorite topics, and the one thing that I pray about, thanking God, more than any other. I think God created grace because He knew I was coming along and would so desperately need it. In fact, my mom said I came close to being the boy named Grace. I think that was the same time she said I made her life pure hell.
I am enthralled by grace because I can think of no greater gift that God could have given us than that.
In it, I found the marvelous description of grace that I have copied below. I love it, and if you like it even half as much, I encourage you to get the book. You'll find it a delightful read.
"If arithmetic is numbers, and if algebra is numbers and letters, then grace is numbers, letters, sounds, and tears, feelings and dreams. Grace is smashing the calculator, and using all the broken pieces to make a mosaic.
"Grace isn't about having a second chance; grace is having so many chances that you could use them through all eternity and never come up empty. It's when you finally realize that the other shoe isn't going to drop, ever. It's the moment you feel as precious and handmade as every star, when you feel, finally, at home for the very first time.
"Grace is when you finally stop keeping score and when you realize that God never was, that his game is a different one entirely. Grace is when the silence is so complete that you can hear your own heartbeat, and right within your ribs, God's beating heart, too.
"I used to think that the ability to turn back time would be the greatest possible gift, so that I could undo all the things I wish I hadn't done. But grace is an even better gift, because it allows me to do more than just erase; it allows me to become more than I was when I did those things. It's forgiveness without forgetting, which is much sweeter than amnesia." (p. 83)
Grace to you.
Mom was deeply in love with Jesus. The real deal. Dad died when I was 10, and my stepdad was something of an enigma. He professed to be a Christian, but in his daily words and actions, it was hard to tell. Nevertheless, we were seen by those who knew us as a family of Christians.
I am the first of seven brothers, boys who grew up in the church. And as we came to adulthood and made our own choices, three of seven chose to live as followers of Jesus. The other four walked away from what they grew up in, seeing it as empty and a fraud, or at least unworthy of consideration. Three of seven is appalling, and a failing score by nearly any measure. But it could be far worse, I suppose.
The results were more than interesting. The kids who grew up in the mission organization then graduated high school and left home, came back into the mission on their own about 95% of the time. (It's important to note that they were not automatically accepted because of their family. They had to apply and then go through extensive training, in addition to raising their own financial support.) I expect the leaders of that organization were delighted at these findings.
The church organization had less cause for celebration: Their number was also about 95%, but in their case, most of the kids simply vanished. They had no known contact with the church after they left home. Once they were making their own decisions, they chose a different path.
I have thought many times about this. Why is there such a difference? Surely there is something at work here that's important to understand. Different doctrine? Different demographics? Something else entirely?
We can probably rule out the doctrine issue. Both groups are conservative and evangelical in their belief and practice. No major differences. Demographics? Both groups are predominantly Caucasian, middle class, typically with a high school education or perhaps some college. Both are predominantly from the more conservative parts of the country.
So what's the difference?
I don't know for sure. But since I'm willing to take a guess at nearly anything, there's no reason this should be an exception. My guess would be this: Kids on the mission grew up in an environment of purpose, of a sense that they were engaged in a task that was challenging, highly rewarding, and supremely important. Kids in the churches grew up where "being a Christian" and going to church was as much a cultural experience, there was little pervasive sense of mission or purpose, no sense of being about something greater than themselves, something supremely important, commissioned by God himself.
This brings us to the matter of leadership, whether church leadership, mission leadership, or parental leadership. Leaders are important because they are the ones who shape the basic environment and set the priorities of the organization or family. They in large part create a culture that encourages the nurture of kids who grow up with a sense of vision and purpose, of being part of something larger than themselves. Without this culture in a church, it becomes difficult for parents to live and convey to their children a sense of overarching purpose. And without a similar sense at home, the kids don't see their primary role models involved in something that matters.
The ones most influential in this, of course, are the parents. They are the "leaders" of their family and the primary teachers and shapers of their children. So, I think it comes down to the question of what parents are teaching their kids about the world and life in it. What's important? What's not important? Where does God fit?
Even the best parents cannot guarantee the path a child will choose through life. That knowledge gives parents ulcers and worse. The hardest time in the life of a parent is when the child makes a choice, either to make the parent's values his or her own, or whether to reject those values and go a different way through life. At a certain point, we all make our own choices, and are accountable before God for them. Nevertheless, the influence of parents is great.
In many "Christian" homes, the lesson taught is to be a nice person and not do socially unacceptable things. Or at least not too much or too publicly. And perhaps go to church now and then. God is probably real, but don't get fanatical about it. It's enough to give him the spare change of your life. Never the firstfruits. Never the best. Take God too seriously, and you become a fanatic, and we certainly don't want that.
Many churches and parents are teaching their kids that God is nothing to get excited about. Churches entertain kids, rather than challenging them to the greatest possible calling and task possible. Parents pay lip service to God, but are careful to keep their priorities straight, and God is not a priority. Rather than raising up kids who know and love God and serve him, who consider nothing so exciting or rewarding as working with God in the task of redemption, they are inoculating them against the gospel, giving just enough of it to be sure the kid will become immune to anything of God in the future.
This is tragic, and it is simply astonishing that parents and churches could be oblivious to the demands of living in such a world as ours, with such a God as ours. We live in a world of tragedy, suffering and terror. As I write, there was the recent mass killing in a theater in Aurora, Colorado. Twelve people died. A couple days later, in a park near where I live, five young people were shot, two fatally. Murders are commonplace in our city, and we are not an exception.
Nobody has a guarantee of a long life. Nobody knows how many days are left to live. And yet we play games and permit our children to play games, paying lip-service to God. We don't teach them how to live, and we certainly don't teach them how to be ready to die.
If there was ever a time in history that cried out for a dynamic, committed, people of God, this is it. God seeks those who will follow him and serve him, giving no care to their own lives. What higher calling could our children aspire to? Or, for that matter, their parents?
Some of my Air Force training had to do with planning for contingencies: If this situation occurs, what will we do in response? It's an important part of military life, but it's an interesting exercise in other situations, as well. What if...?
I know a number of questions people say they would ask, but I honestly can't think of much for me. I have many questions, of course, but everything that comes to mind in this scenario seems utterly unsuited and trite for the situation. The main thing that comes over and again is, "Why? Why did you choose me?"
But we can also look at the situation in reverse: Some day I will be the one appearing in His presence. And then He will be asking the questions. What do I think he might ask me? And what will I answer?
The thought of standing before God and being told to give an account of my life is not pleasant. I cringe at the idea. When I think of my life, I remember some few things I have done, good things, that I might mention. Or not. Because I also remember many years of waste, of broken relationships, of sin, of anger and pain, and of a life that I would like to forget about, but can't.
So, when God asks me to give an account, I have little to say. I stand mute and ashamed. My response would likely be something like this: "God, I am utterly unworthy of even a glance from you, or even the tiniest bit of grace you might send my way. I am utterly undone, a worthless servant." Then, concluding, I would say, "God, I have nothing to recommend me, and nothing good to say about my life. All I can tell you is I believed Jesus when he said if I trusted him, he would save me."
What would you ask God? And what would you tell him in response to his questions?
]]>Some years back, I noticed a pattern whenever I took a new job. As I started in the new place, I was very happy, delighted at my new opportunity. On a honeymoon, you might say. Then, usually mere weeks later, I looked around and thought, "What was I thinking? I must have been crazy!" And I was in the dumps for a time. After that I got out of the ditch and began taking ownership of the job, making it mine and putting my stamp on it. And in time I came to enjoy it.
This isn't always pleasant, and I don't enjoy it, especially the down part, but it seems pretty consistent in my experience.
Recently, in a conversation with a good friend (he has to be a good friend to engage in these sorts of conversations, which we do with some regularity), it occurred to me that this pattern of up and down might apply to more than jobs. It might also apply to moving into a new house, for example. Or, more importantly, to relationships with other people. And with God.
I don't think the pattern holds for all relationships. We're unlikely to have this sort of pattern with, say, the guy who fixes the car. Or your hair stylist. But it would be especially true for relationships where there is an expectation of some measure of intimacy. In other words, in close relationships, including but not limited to marriage, it's a real possibility. Not universal, but not unheard of.
In this situation, both people enter with expectations that are somewhat higher than where they normally live their lives. And their individual expectations are similar, but not the same, and perhaps not equally high on the curve.
Then comes the real world. Few of us live in the "real world" of relationships before marriage. We don't see the flaws and quirks of another person until we have been together in marriage for a time. But they are there. Guaranteed. And as they come into the picture, expectations will to some degree be lowered. In fact, expectations have to be lowered or there will be no peace in the relationship. At some point, the dreams of a life together imported straight from heaven diminish, and a more realistic substitute comes into play, as we begin to interact with real, fallible and quirky people.
Further, we often underestimate what's needed for success in a relationship.
Example: I once listened to a small group of Christians discussing what was necessary for a couple to have a successful marriage. "Jesus," they agreed. "If they both know Jesus, they have what it takes to succeed."
So I proposed a situation: Joe grew up in New York City, the privileged son of a wealthy family. He went to the finest schools, speaks a couple languages, plays more than one musical instrument, and is by most standards a man of taste and culture. And he loves Jesus.
And now along comes Maria. She grew up in a village of a few dozen people in the desert mountains of Mexico. She has never seen electric lights or running water. She has minimal education - is illiterate - and has never been more than 20 miles from her village. But she loves Jesus.
How likely is it, do you think, that these two would enjoy life together and have a successful marriage? There's a pretty big gap between them, right? Not insurmountable, but an extremely difficult task.
That sort of gap can be equally large even if both people have similar backgrounds, but one person has a large, expansive worldview, and the other has a small, constrained world, seen only through peep-holes in the sides of the box that contains his or her world.
The descent from euphoria to reality is not a big deal for most people, but it can be a very big deal. For example, it can be a big problem when backgrounds are radically different, as in my example. It also becomes a problem when one (or both) of the individuals involved professes love with the other person, but is in fact in love with the dream the person stands for, with what the person "does for me." When it's not, "I love you," but rather, "I love how I feel when I'm with you. You make me feel so good," there's a problem.
Nobody can always, on a long-term basis, make someone else feel good. Even the attempt is a heavy load. So as the dreams are shattered, whether gently or rudely, what happens? That's a tough question, but I have an idea.
People live with different degrees of interaction with reality. The more closely my "world" coincides with the real world, the more mentally and emotionally healthy I will be. But many of us don't accept the world as it is, instead creating our own "reality," which is not real at all.
For example, someone who lives in a world that excludes God is not living in reality, especially if that person believes in the existence of God. Someone who builds walls and excludes other people and anything that appears unpleasant or threatening is not in reality.
Perhaps everyone has some area of life where there is some denial of reality. But there are limits. Consider this:
Could the difference between sanity and insanity be marked by the extent to which one's "personal" world corresponds with reality? Put another way, the greater the extent to which we create our own reality, the less emotionally healthy we are. And the less able we are to engage in solid, healthy relationships with other people and God.
Consider our "worlds." Some of us live in large, wide-open worlds, where we are unendingly curious and in awe of God's creation. In this world, other people are welcomed. These are places where we investigate new things and grow into a deep interaction with the people and places around us. It's a rich place and produces rich lives.
Others, however, live in a small, carefully fenced, tightly secured world, in a place where we live alone and others are not welcome. We're safe behind our shields. "Safe" but unable to truly enter into the worlds of those around us, and so unable to enjoy the gifts and richness brought into our lives by others. Small worlds result in small lives.
This is because people who live in small, boxed-in worlds always avoid reality. Always. And because of that, their lives are distorted, based in an illusion.
So when one person, a "big world" person, comes together to build a life with a second person, one who is a "small world" person, there are problems. The first will struggle with the shallowness and constraints of the relationship, and the other will be afraid, feel threatened, and "circle the wagons."
A couple things might happen in this case. The big person might decide the relationship is worth the sacrifice, and attempt to squeeze into life in the small world. But it will be nearly impossible, and this person will never have peace.
Or the small person might decide to take a chance and come out of the box, considering the relationship worth more than the "security." This process would also be difficult, and would probably require assistance. It could also be richly rewarding.
For the relationship to last, something must change. Either the small world has to come up or the big world come down. At some level, the two must come together in a synthesis in which both people can be content. My suspicion is that only the first is ultimately possible: Someone must come out of the box.
Otherwise, there is no future for them together.
]]>You might know the last three better by the names given to them by the Babylonians: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. You may have heard of them and their adventure with a large fire in a furnace.
They did very well there, and were soon in positions of great responsibility and authority. Then the king had an idea. Not a good idea, but an idea, nonetheless. He was a powerful guy, but not as smart as he thought.
His idea was to build a monument to himself. He wanted people to recognize his greatness. This monument would be nine feet across at the base, 90 feet high, and covered in gold. Very impressive. And when the king wanted to show people how wonderful he was, who was going to say no? So the thing was built, and then the king decreed that when people heard his musicians play, everyone was required to bow down and worship this monument to the royal ego.
And pretty much everyone saw things the king's way and bowed. The alternative, after all, was to be burned alive, a pretty effective incentive.
But some were not impressed. The three Israelites, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, did not think the king was equal with God, and they refused to worship his monument or anyone other than the one true God. And, in a pretty brazen manner, they told the king so. Here's how the scripture has their reply to the king, who has just asked them what they were doing, and given them a last chance to comply with his edict:
Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king.
"But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." (Daniel 3:16-18 NASB)
Sort of like, King, sir, just so you know, we won't bow down. Our God is able to deliver us from your fire, and we're not afraid. But know this, King: Even if God does not rescue us, we will not bow down. You're not the hotshot you think you are.
Wow.
What motivates someone to take a stand like that one? Could we learn something from them, perhaps about discerning the truly important from the ultimately trivial?
As I think about this story, it seems to me that the supreme priority in the life of these guys was to be faithful in honoring their God, the one true and living God. Consequences did not concern them, only faithfulness. I have to admire that sort of conviction. And I have to wonder what I would have done in their place. Would I have followed their example and remained faithful?
The question for me is, what's important in my life? Is it God? Or is it some substitute little mini-god? The God of Israel, who is the God revealed to us in the Bible, is alive, is true. He loves us and talks with us. He alone is worthy of our loyalty, our worship, our lives.
Other "gods," the little toy gods, look entirely different. Sometimes, they look like more education. Or a better job. Or a bigger house or newer and nicer car. They come in many guises. But when I examine them carefully, I discover they all look very much like the one I see when I look in the mirror. Know what I mean? Perhaps you've noticed the same thing.
That's right: us. The old cartoon character Pogo had it right when he famously said, "We have sighted the enemy, and he is us."
Most of us put ourselves in the place of God. We demand to run our lives. We think we know better what makes a good life than God does. And we live our lives chasing things that we think will make us happy. But when we catch those things - if we ever do - we will sooner or later learn that it was all an illusion. I have spent a lot of my life like a dog chasing cars. Foolishness.
What's important in your life? Is it God? Is it the true and living God, or the god you see in your mirror? I long for my life to be based in truth and reality, and not something made up out of my own imagination, and for my own convenience.
I don't want to throw away my only life chasing trivialities.
Words have context, but there are other forms of context, as well: social, religious, and more. Virtually every field of study has its own context.
One area where context is often overlooked is the Bible.
I thought of this recently in a discussion of Matthew 3:2, a short verse: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Here's the context: John the Baptist is preaching to the crowds, preparing the way for the arrival of Jesus the Messiah. He is telling them to change -- to change their way of thinking and acting.
The exhortation to repent -- to change -- is equally valid for us today. And it seems we know that, because we talk about how we struggle to live the sort of life we think qualifies as "Christian." We know there is a better way, and we want it, but are not so successful in living according to that way. It's good that we want to do well, but it's not so good that we struggle endlessly with little progress.
Perhaps part of the problem is that we stack the deck against ourselves by considering the problem of repenting in isolation. After all, there is a context to the exhortation. Perhaps by considering it, we would change the problem and the chances of our succeeding against it.
Look at the verse again, and this time, let's change one word: "for." A good synonym would be "because." So the verse might read, "Repent, because the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
That changes it a little, telling us more obviously why we should repent, without changing the meaning. It tells us why we should change the way we think about something, and from that, the way we act.
Yet, there remains a concern: What's the "kingdom of heaven"?
It's the kingdom of God. Matthew wrote as a Jew to Jews. His gospel is the most Jewish of the four gospels. Someone has said if it were any more Jewish, Jesus would have a Brooklyn accent. And to Jews then and often now, the name of God was to be avoided. So, where other writers mentioned the kingdom of God, Matthew wrote of the kingdom of heaven. Same thing.
But why is it important? What difference does it or should it make in our lives that the kingdom is "at hand."
Now we're getting into meddling, right? Because the truth is, for most of us whatever we believe about the kingdom of heaven is irrelevant and doesn't make any difference in our lives today. It might be pertinent some day, perhaps when we die and "go to heaven." But not now.
And that's a big problem. That belief removes virtually all of the "context" to repentance. If the kingdom is irrelevant, then a lot of other things are also irrelevant.
Matthew said the kingdom was at hand, or very close. That was true, then. Not now. Jesus changed it all. For us, the kingdom is here, not near.
Reading the gospels, we will notice that Jesus taught a lot about the kingdom. In fact, it was a main emphasis for him. And it was not some sort of vague, meaningless concept. It was here, now, and action. Jesus not only showed us God in the form of a man, he showed us the kingdom in action.
We might say, in other words, that in Jesus, God's reality broke into our reality, his "world" into ours.
"But what about you and me, here and now? I'm not so concerned about them." Well, it's pretty much the same.
It matters to us because we want to be obedient to Jesus and live a life that honors him. To do that, we have to consider what he said, taught and did. Especially what he said about his followers, since he was leaving soon, and the ones left to pick up where he left off ... is us.
Jesus told them -- and us -- that God was their father, and that Jesus was their brother (Matthew 12:50). He told them that he was sending them, just as the father had sent him, and he breathed on them and said for them to receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-23).
Then, in Acts, he told them they would experience something described as the Holy Spirit "coming upon" them, after which they would be his witnesses (Acts 1:8). They, and by extension, us.
So, here's the bottom line: Jesus initiated the kingdom of God among us. And he chose us to continue his work after he left, to do the same things he did while he was here. He appointed us his official representatives (II Corinthians 5:17-20), and expects us to act in his name and speak on his behalf.
This is the "because" in John's call to repent that Matthew wrote about. Change our way of thinking and acting -- in that order -- because Jesus has called us to the highest imaginable privilege and responsibility: representing him before the world.
Considering that carefully has brought change in my life, and made my struggles of a different nature. I fail, and I anguish over my apparent inability to win the battles within. But it happens far more when I forget who I am, who has called me, and what he has called me to.
As I remember who and where I am and remain focused, my life is different. And so it should be.
Context.
I have puzzled over this, wondering why I find the story so compelling. I have looked for things I may have in common with the woman. It's been an interesting search, with some dead ends: I am not a woman, for example, nor am I an adulterer, at least in the sense of a physical act. If we consider the life of my mind, however....
So, the bottom line is that I am equally guilty. I have been caught in the act of sinning against God and others. Just like her. And just like her, I deserve a severe punishment: death. I deserve to die.
But then came Jesus. When all was lost, when there was no hope, there was Jesus. We could say Jesus was hope made alive in her life. We could say Jesus set her free from the outcome of her chosen acts. And equally, he sets us free from the death resulting from our chosen acts, and even more, offers us a rich, full life with him.
But how does that explain my attraction to the story of the hapless woman? Just in case some of my readers are slow to get the point.
It's because the woman was a "bad" woman, a blatant sinner with no excuse as she stood before the judge, and I am a "bad" man, a blatant sinner with no excuse as I stand before the judge.
Except, there is Jesus. And Jesus makes all the difference.
First, Jesus challenged the accusers, who had no interest in justice, only entrapment. And after they had left, he demonstrated the deepest grace and most profound love toward the woman: "Is there no one to condemn you?" "No, my lord." "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
There is Jesus.
"Now there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus."
What glorious news! What an earthshaking pronouncement! What if everyone who heard these words would truly believe them? This place would never be the same. Hallelujah!
But there are sins, I rationalize, which I have not committed. I'm not a murderer, an embezzler, or any one of many dozens of different flavor of sinner. Perhaps I'm not all that bad. But it matters not.
Someone once asked how many people must one kill to be a murderer. And the answer, of course, is, one. Only one. So then, who is most the murderer, King David, or Adolph Hitler?
In that sense, they are equal. Both have taken innocent life.
There is also an equality if we change the question to sinner, rather than murderer. Who is the greater sinner, the woman or the one presently writing about her?
We have both sinned. We have both sinned greatly. And so, as we stand before the judge, both must plead, "Guilty, your Honor." All the rest is details.
And yet, Jesus accepted her, saved her life, forgave her, and, refusing to condemn her, sent her on her way.
And so he accepts me.
And so he accepts you.
Hallelujah!
I have heard this before, and have struggled with it every time.
]]> I asked if the person really believed what I thought I had heard, and was informed that she did. She sent me the following verses as support. I have spent some time considering them, and have added my own understanding of these passages below each one. I do not believe they support the assertion, which I think is very bad theology and reflects a very different God than the one presented in the Bible.John 12:37-40 (I have included verses 36-43)
36 "While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light." These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. 37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?" 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.
This passage seems to indicate that God blinded and hardened a certain group of people, preventing them from recognizing the truth and believing. The central question, however, is two-fold. First, what is the basis for God's action toward these people? Even in this same passage, Jesus exhorted them to "believe in the light." It seems that at some point, they had a choice. In keeping with justice and with God's great love, his actions cannot be arbitrary or random, or out of spite, or any of the other motives that are so common to us.
A similar question might be asked about Pharoah, where the text says that God hardened his heart so that he would not yield.
There is no question that God chooses, and that he has the right to do so. The question is, what is the basis for God's choosing? If he chose these people for destruction on no more basis than a whim, there is a great problem with placing our trust in him. Justice is not random. Further, the fact that God hardened some means neither that they were innocent victims, nor that God created them for destruction.
God hardens hearts, I think, by removing his softening influence and letting their natural inclination take its course. In other words, rather than God actively working in a life to make the person into a rebel, he simply withdraws his hand of grace, and "lets nature take its course."
I am concerned in cases like this to not read certainty into an ambiguous passage. When we read too much, we build our theological house on sand.
I Peter 2:8 (6-10)
...CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"
8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
This passage, again, does not explicitly teach that the subjects were created for destruction. The central verse is 8, and the statement is that they "stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this (doom) they were also appointed" (italics mine).
So what were they appointed to? "This doom." And what is that? Apparently the reference is to their stumbling. So, is Peter saying that some people were appointed by God to the doom of stumbling? Doesn't make a lot of sense that way. This passage is at best ambiguous, and should be used very carefully.
I cannot find a way to legitimately read a clear statement of God's intentional creating for destruction in the passage.
Acts 2:23; 4:27-28 (21-24; 27,28)
21 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'
22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
In both passages, there is reference to events that God had predestined or predetermined to occur. Plus, in v. 23, there is reference to God's foreknowledge.
So a first question is what did God predestine - predetermine - would happen? The verse is clear, that Jesus was delivered over to godless men, who would hang him on a cross, taking his life. God both knew in advance that it would happen, and planned for it. Jesus came to die. And die he did.
Does that mean, however, that those involved in his killing had no choice in the matter? Were they somehow forced to act as they did? Or were they still able to make moral decisions, and hence remain accountable for their actions?
If God punished or even destroyed any person, anywhere in history, who had no opportunity to accept or reject God, whose path through life was predetermined, then there may be a God, but there is no God of justice.
Justice requires that a person have the chance to act rightly. Justice requires that a person have a choice in rejecting God. If the fate of any person is predetermined, there is no justice, and God is unworthy of our trust.
Romans 9
This chapter is too long to include here, but the issues are the same. Chapters 9-11 of Romans are written about Israel and Paul's belief and attitude concerning the Jews. Everything contained in the chapters must be read and understood in that context. And it requires ignoring a lot to claim that this chapter teaches that anyone was "created for destruction."
Romans 11:7-10 (1-11)
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
3 "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE."
4 But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL."
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
8 just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."
9 And David says, "LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM.
10 "LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER."
11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.
The same basic questions are here, as in every other passage purporting to support the position that God creates some for destruction. (And, for that matter, some other teachings in the same vein.)
It is clear that God knew some things - all things? - before they happened. That's easy to understand if we remember that God lives outside of time, and to him, every point in time is equally "now." So what to us would be foreknowledge is to God just another moment in the present.
Foreknowledge is not the big question. The issue is that God clearly did some choosing, and some of that choosing involved people and his acceptance or rejection of them. To that there is no argument. But there's another question, and in my experience it is seldom addressed, but is fundamental. You probably already know what it is, having read this far.
What is the basis of God's choosing?
That is, when God chooses to accept or reject someone, what does he base his choice on? God is sovereign, and it is his right to choose as he wishes. However, he is not free to act contrary to his own nature. And since God defines just behavior, he cannot act in a manner that is arbitrary or unjust.
There are many instances in scripture where God - or his representative prophet - tells people of their accountability for their actions and choices. Israel heard the warnings over and over. The Mosaic Law contained myriad instances where people had to make choices and were accountable for them. In Deuteronomy, Moses told the Israelites that God had put before them a choice, a future of blessing or of cursing. Then, he said, "Choose this day whom you will serve!" Choice. And accountability.
Accountability for choices is a fundamental principle of scripture. And they go together: If someone has no choice, how can there be accountability? Even in our own societies, it's intuitively understood that some people are not accountable for their actions. A small child might act in ways unacceptable to an adult, and there are no consequences. The child is considered unable to make the appropriate choices, and is therefore not held to the standard that will be expected as he grows and matures. That's justice.
So, to put an end to this over-long rant: God does not create people for destruction. There is no case of someone being condemned without the opportunity to accept or reject God. None.
And may it never be.
I am not 30. I am more than double that. Get the picture?
This bugs me, because I believe a church should reflect the rest of the kingdom. But where I get really impatient is with people of any age who hop from one church to another, never satisfied, always seeking a church that "meets my needs." For many Americans, the most important task of church is to meet their "needs."
But this idea is profoundly wrong. There are legitimate reasons to leave a church. However, we Americans pride ourselves on being "rugged individualists." It's almost like we are a nation of Lone Rangers. But God didn't create us to be some sort of independent unit, floating in aloneness through space. He created us needing each other. There are no Lone Rangers in the kingdom of God, and there are none among healthy, balanced people, either.
I recently saw a blurb in a magazine, about a 2004 study showing that one in four Americans had no close friends, nobody in whom they could confide on important matters.
I'm surprised. I am surprised that it's not far worse than one in four. We live in a fragmented society, one that encourages shallowness, not depth, and I would have thought many more of us would live lives of aloneness, of "quiet desperation."
I wonder if I should include myself in that number. I have only a few friends at any level, and even fewer really close ones. Certainly, I have to include myself among those whose "needs" are not met at my church, assuming I have any good idea what my needs are.
So, what should I do about that? What do I do about the twin problems of frustration and loneliness? Leave my church? Find a more "compatible" church? Clearly, I am not in a place that is in my best interest, right? Wrong.
One of the things I dislike about the way this world works is that "me" and "my needs" are not very important in any real scheme of things. I want to be important, to matter. But the world just doesn't care about me. Life is not about me. Even my life is, in the end, not about me.
That sounds cold, and it is. But it's the truth.
So what do I do? I remain in my church, staying put for one reason: I think it's where God wants me. It has nothing to do with anything like my "needs." I don't even know what my needs are. That sometimes makes others around me a little crazy, but that's the way it is. I am there in obedience to God's voice, as well as I can understand it.
I am not there for myself but to worship and serve God among his people, and to share with others whatever gifts God has given me.
So, does our church have problems? Sure does. And am I bothered by them? Don't even get me started on that! But am I there for my own happiness? Does it matter that I am bothered? No and yes.
Frustration can be a good thing, as long as we maintain perspective: I am not there for me. I am there because God put me there to be a channel of his grace and truth. I am there to "be Jesus" to some others, to know God and to teach others to know him, too.
And as I am obedient and faithful to the voice of God in whatever situation He puts me, my "needs" - my real needs - will certainly and abundantly be met. I will be blessed, I will grow in my relationship with him, and I will have a fruitful life.
But let's face it, I will still be frustrated. And that's good: People who are never frustrated are likely to be satisfied with the status quo, and never experience that inner burning for more of God working in and through us for our benefit and his glory.
And being satisfied with only a little of God is never a good thing.
Amen.
I was thinking about this again recently, and remembered an account in the New Testament that is especially interesting in this regard. It's about the woman caught in adultery, recorded in John's gospel (8:1-11).
The first was the setting. Jesus was in the Temple, and there was a crowd gathered around, listening to him teach. If you have been in countries or cultures that don't have the western idea of "personal space," you know an amazing number of people can fit in a small area.
Then, the Pharisees and scribes make their dramatic entrance, with the unfortunate woman. They had caught her in the act. They had caught her having sex with a man not her husband. Beside the shame and the terror of her imminent death by stoning, she was probably not dressed for a public appearance. It's hard to imagine a more humiliating situation.
And they had her cold. There was no escape, and according to the law, she had to die.
But did you notice something? The only men in this lynch mob were her accusers. Can someone commit adultery alone? It's one of those crimes that takes an accomplice. So where's the man?
Through scripture, perhaps the fastest way to raise God's blood pressure is to oppress the marginalized and helpless members of society. To promote injustice at the expense of someone who is without defense.
So these guys had no interest in justice or the law, but only in trapping Jesus. The woman was nothing more than a prop in their little drama.
Despite the dishonest motive, it seems like there was a real expectation that Jesus would be forced to concur in her killing. After all, the law is the law, and they caught her in the act. And that was their intent, to trap Jesus.
I read recently where this story has been told to groups of women (and men) in countries where the culture and sense of justice resembled the one in New Testament Israel, in places where to be a woman was to live a life devoid of respect or justice.
When the story teller told the audience what Jesus did, that he freed the woman and refused to condemn her, the men were not pleased.
The women laughed and cheered. They were delighted to hear, often for the first time in their lives, that someone loves women, forgives them their sins, and treats them with gentleness and respect.
I do not understand the women who attack Christianity, blaming Jesus for all the problems and mistreatment women face in many parts of the world. They clearly never read the Bible.
Jesus was a friend of women. Read Luke's gospel. Read this account in John. Jesus was a friend of women. Especially women who were sinners.
Of course, that means Jesus was the friend of all women, because like all men, all women are sinners. All men and women - all people - do bad things and fall short of the standard of goodness.
But then, when every one of us is without hope, there is grace. There is nothing we can claim in ourselves that is good. Nothing.
But when we are in a place of despair, there is Jesus. When there is nothing we can do to help or save ourselves, there is Jesus.
And when we long for forgiveness, meaning in life, and a deep inner joy, there is Jesus.
Jesus and grace. Hard to imagine a real life without them.
His statement was clearly prophetic, and yet, what was he referring to? There had been such an event over a century before. And yet, he is clearly speaking of something else, something future.
So as we look down the road from his viewpoint, the next obvious event is in AD 70, at the destruction of the Temple. That seems to fit fairly well.
But is there more? Is there an additional meaning, more pertinent to our times today? That's a more difficult question.
]]>Consider Paul's words in I Corinthians 3:16-17:
"Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are."
The occurrences of "you" in this passage, as in much of the New Testament, are plural. Paul is not talking to you and me, but to us.
So if we consider that we are the temple of God, what does that mean? The Jerusalem Temple was a place where people came to worship and meet with their God. They offered sacrifices, they prayed, and more. It was God's designated primary contact point with his people, and through them, the world.
So what about the church? What about the living, sanctified, called-out people of God?
One might argue that the church serves much the same function as the Temple, though on a larger sense.
But what about the abomination that desolates? What is that, if anything, relative to the church? What disgusting thing can leave the church desolate?
In the first occurrence, Antiochus slaughtered a pig on the altar, which had the consequence of making the Temple "desolate" -- and sparking a war. Yet the Temple was intact, with no record of any physical change. so how was it desolate?
Its desolation was that it was no longer fit for the presence or worship of God. It was no longer fit to serve its intended purpose. As such, it was useless. Desolate.
So what about us, the church?
What is there that could be brought into the church, the community of the people of God, that would make us unfit for our intended purpose? What would bring desolation upon us?
How about willful disobedience? "I'll do it my way!" Or delayed obedience, which is another word for disobedience.
Or willful ignorance? We don't consider the things of God either pertinent to our lives, or worth our time. So we don't read, either our Bible, or anything else related to it.
Or, wrapping all the issues in one giant economy size: complacency. We just don't care. We are so wrapped up in living our own lives that we haven't any time or interest in God.
Complacency is perhaps the most common problem, in the church and out of it. And at its root, the real problem is that we don't believe anything we have read or heard about God. We don't believe the Bible. We don't believe Christian teachers. And so we don't care.
One of the greatest threats to the fitness of the church is complacency. Willfully chosen lack of caring. And that comes from disbelief. And disbelief comes from shallow, superficial teaching and preaching.
The other is arrogance. "I understand both scripture and God perfectly well, and if you don't agree with me, you're a heretic!"
The evangelical church in America is in grave danger, and that danger is both from the state of our culture, and contributes to the state of our culture.
Pray that the God of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them would forgive us our many sins and restore us to a living, intimate, humble, joyous and life-transforming knowledge of him.
]]>In the conversation, many questions arose, a few of them mine. One of them, which had been gnawing at me for some time, had to do with their business name, which contained the word "Christian."
My question was, "What is it about what you do that makes it 'Christian'? How is what you do different from some 'secular' competitor down the street? Or is calling yourself Christian merely a marketing tool?"
What is it about a church that makes it different from, say, a social service agency?
Or my small group: What is it that makes it Christian, distinct from any other gathering of a dozen or so people?
And what about me? How is my life different from those around me?
If there's no difference, whether we're talking about my life, my small group, my church, or my business, then there's a serious problem.
I think these questions are profoundly important, and need to be asked and carefully considered. Assumptions are not acceptable; the stakes are too high.
For some folks, Christian means they are not Muslim, Buddhist or something else. It's the default answer, like a multiple-choice test. In many other cases, however, "Christian" means I "do things that Christians do, and avoid doing things that Christians don't do." But what are those things? When I was a boy in a fundamentalist church in Colorado, we had a saying, "I don't drink, cuss, smoke or chew, or go with girls who do."
Slightly humorous now, but no longer true of most groups of Christians, who drink, cuss, smoke and chew pretty much like the world around them. And yet, we might ask, should the life of a Christian be visibly different?
I think there's a good argument that it should. That's because genuine Christianity is about a relationship, not keeping rules. And that relationship is of such a nature that it produces changed lives. But not everyone understands that.
Some examples:
I often see Christians smoking. It is, of course, their right to do so. However, a Christian is not his own, but is rather the servant of another, representing that other - who is Jesus - to the world. Speaking for Jesus while engaged in a habit like smoking is unimaginable.
How about drinking? I belong to a small group, some members of which enjoy beer. So when we meet, there is usually beer. And I don't think there's necessarily a problem with that. But an experience I had once puts a different light on the situation, from my perspective.
I was living in Bavaria, the southern part of Germany, and went with another couple to a favorite Italian restaurant. There, while waiting for our meal to arrive, I ordered a glass of wine, and everyone else followed suit and did the same. After our meal, I had sipped half of my wine. The other couple had consumed several glasses.
I had not known that their history included serious alcohol abuse, from which they had been recently delivered. And when they saw me order wine - I was an elder in our fellowship - they assumed permission to do likewise.
After dinner, we left, going down some fairly steep, narrow stairs to the street. I had no problem. They had difficulty, and were clearly "under the influence."
Who was responsible? It was their choice, of course, and they were adults. But I was their elder, a spiritual leader, and I set the expectations by my behavior. By the rules of the world, it was their problem. By the rules of the Kingdom, I'm not so sure.
Since then, some 35 years ago, I have never ordered wine in public. As a Christian, my behavior should have been different.
The style of dress - for both sexes - is another area of consideration. Modesty is a virtue.
But these things, which are easy to talk about, and not the central problem.
The central problem is this: we don't believe the Bible or consider it important. We don't believe the things written there are really true or that they apply significantly in our lives today.
Especially, we don't believe that we need the Holy Spirit in our lives in order to live a life that is biblical and that honors God. We can do it "all by myself," and don't need anyone's help. After all, we're big boys and girls now.
But we're not. The whole idea is laughable if we consider that even Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to accomplish that for which he came.
And so, we buy into the terrible idea that to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus, is little more than being a nice person and attending church now and then. We reduce Jesus to something less than the personal Lord and Savior that he is, and we make Christianity a powerless, feel-good pablum that does no good for anyone.
Surely, this is not what God had in mind.
Christmas is depressing because, for most people, it's a tawdry orgy in honor of materialism run wild. It's an event unworthy of those bearing the image of God. For others, however, it's a time marked by hope and excitement at the dawning of a new day.
Despite this paradox, it's perhaps my favorite time, because it marks - admittedly inaccurately - what is the most astonishing event ever: God becoming a man. It marks the day when hope was born, a day when we began the journey from darkness to glorious light.
Some years back, I was in a church that didn't celebrate Christmas. The very idea was anathema. I swallowed hard one week, and spent my teaching time explaining why I thought it was simply wrong to ignore the birth of Jesus.
I appreciate that the very early church didn't consider the birthday of Jesus worth marking, and they didn't even mention the time in their earliest writings. Only the event, and even that somewhat briefly.
But that was typical of many ancient cultures, for a variety of reasons. The church was far more concerned about what happened - the results and implications of the birth of Jesus - than when it happened.
Perhaps they were wise, given the "Christmas" practices in the western world today, which demonstrate how badly our culture - and much of the church - has missed it.
I just finished reading an article suggesting that we spend so much attention and energy on the birth of Jesus some two millennia ago that we fail to see or hear what he is doing in our midst today. Everything is focused on the coming of a helpless and loveable baby, and nothing on the present work of the King of Kings among us.
That raises some questions: Just what is he doing among us? Anything? As we attend services at our churches, celebrating the event and season, can we look around and see God visibly at work among us? What about in our communities? Is God at work there? What is he doing? Or are we just going through the motions, trying to baptize the orgy of materialistic spending around us?
As I have written these thoughts - somewhat random - I wonder: How, every day of my life, does the birth of Jesus affect me? What difference does it make that he was born, lived, died, and rose again. Not generically, and not theologically, but practically: How is my life different today because of Jesus?
Have the merriest of Christmas times, celebrating the coming of the King of Kings, the birthday of Hope. Hallelujah!