I have heard this before, and have struggled with it every time.

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 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.

I love these people, and enjoy them a great deal. However, I have struggled with their Christianity, which too often seemed to me a name only. A "Christian" was a nice person, someone who God would see as a "good boy" or a "good girl."

I decided to do a little informal research, so I asked a friend what I thought was an easy question, at least for a professing Christian.

"Who goes to heaven?"

This is profoundly sad and it ruined my day and a lot more. So later, I asked yet another person, also a professing Christian, the same questions. Same answers.

And I am learning that that answer is held by nearly every person I know in that community.

That made me wonder about Americans who call themselves Christians. What would they answer? I expect there would be little difference. Most Americans tell researchers they believe there is a good place called heaven, and they expect to go there after death. And they expect bad people will not be there.

But I suspect that most people, even in evangelical churches, have no idea what the Bible says about the matter, because most people don't read the Bible. And this represents a tragic failure of the leadership of the churches: People can and do sit in church for years and never hear the truth, the Good News that Jesus lived and died and lives again for us, and that life is not about some phony standard of "being good," but about knowing and following Him.

The idea of going to heaven if we are good is utter nonsense and leads to either a life of denial or complete but honest hopelessness. What we might call "good" is not the standard.

The standard is nothing less than perfection.

In fact, when we try to define who is good, somehow we usually include ourselves in the group. And whatever identifies those who are not good - the bad guys who will certainly not be in heaven - seldom includes us.

Here's a news flash: Nobody, not one person of us, is good. None. I am not, and you are not. Only God is good (Mark 10:17-18). And the goodness of God far surpasses anything we might apply to ourselves or anyone like us: God is perfect. He is morally and in every other way without flaw or blemish. He has never told a lie. He has never stolen, even a candy bar. Nothing.

No human being who has ever lived has measured up or could. We have all lied, all stolen. We have all let our minds wander to places that we don't want to talk about.

So then, if only those who are perfect go to heaven, who has any hope? Not me. And not you, either.

Heaven is where God lives. It's a holy place. It's the most holy place. And nothing that would defile it is permitted to enter. That includes me. And you, too.

Of course, God knew all this from the beginning, and He did not leave us in this hopeless condition. He had a plan, and He put that plan in action. The plan has a name.

Jesus.

That's it. The beginning, the middle and the end are wrapped up in that one name: Jesus.

God well knew that, left to our own resources and inclinations, the task is impossible and we are without hope. And so He did the logical yet unthinkable thing, He took on flesh, became the man Jesus, and lived with us, without sin and without fault. And He both died and rose again to life, so that we might through faith in Him have life. So that we might through faith in Him have hope.

And where does that leave us? The Bible clearly teaches that our salvation and our hope come from one place only: through faith in Jesus, accepting the grace that God offers through him.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes on him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

"...'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved....'" (Acts 16:31).

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

It's clear. It's not about good people and it's not about bad people. It's about Jesus.

Only Jesus.

I have struggled for years with this statement of Paul's. If the kingdom of God is power, where is the manifestation of that power among us? It's hard to find. Are we not in the kingdom? I read credible reports from other parts of the world that sound like the next chapter of the book of Acts. But here....

Reading the gospels, I am struck by the actions of Jesus, as he healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, raised the dead, set free those oppressed by demons, and more. Demonstrations of power. And, significantly, he said these things were signs of the arrival of the kingdom. People knew he was legitimate and that the kingdom had come by the acts of power they saw through Jesus.

That's a common response and a reasonable one. "Of course Jesus did miracles! He was Jesus, after all!" But here's the thing: Jesus said that he was sending his followers the same way the Father sent him (John 20:21). And if we are expected to do the things he did - and we are - how can we do them without something like the power that he had?

Was Jesus unique in that respect? Did he have some inherent power that we lack?

No.

Two thoughts: First, Bible scholars generally agree that Jesus left his inherent power, prerogatives and privilege as God when he took on flesh. See Philippians 2:5-8, called the kenosis, or emptying, passage.

And second, if we are sent by God to do a job on his behalf, and we cannot do it - as opposed to will not do it - has God set us up? What sort of loving God would tell us to do something that he knew well we were incapable of doing? I don't think God does things that way.

Now, this is mind boggling for many people, and it probably should be for the rest. It's a huge responsibility and, speaking for myself, I am incapable even of accurately understanding it, much less doing it. Those who say it's too much are correct. Sort of.

So what's happening? Was Jesus just joking? Was his statement accompanied by a smile and a wink, and John overlooked it? Unlikely. We have to take John's words seriously and as an accurate account of the intent of Jesus.

So where does that leave us? Are we doomed to disobedience when we cannot obey?

No again.

After Jesus said he was sending them - and us - he did something else that we often overlook. He "breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" (John 20:22).

And the implications of this action are made clear when he continued in the next verse: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

Wow! This is the mind-blowing part for me. If we forgive sins...? Isn't that what got Jesus in trouble? He forgave sins. And those who saw understood that forgiving sins was the exclusive prerogative of God. Only God could do what Jesus did. And now, Jesus says we will do the same things, the things that only God has the authority to do.

How do we do it? How do we not be overwhelmed to the point of inaction, or not get a head so large we are insufferably obnoxious?

The Holy Spirit. It's by the power of the forgotten member of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit. The answer to the question of how Jesus did all that he did is the same as the answer to how we are equipped to do all that we are expected to do: The power of the Holy Spirit. That was the source for Jesus, and that's the source for us.

Yet, I have noticed that most Christians have no interest in this. They aren't concerned about Jesus sending us, no matter what that entails, and they certainly don't want anything to do with that Holy Spirit stuff. No speaking in tongues and rolling on the floor for me, thank you!

I think the problem is a both matter of misconception and of control. First, many of us haven't a clue what it looks like when the Spirit of God is present and at work in and through us. But we should have: We have only to look at Jesus. And second, we like to think we are in control of our lives. (A pleasant little delusion, perhaps, but deadly to faith.) And so we don't want to yield to what we think is foolishness and craziness.

So, that's it. Without the power of the Holy Spirit at work in and through us, all we have to offer the world is words. Insipid, powerless words. Who wants that?

If you have easy, immediate answers, you probably need to think longer and more carefully. This is a very important question, because the answers we give affect many other parts of our lives.

And if you support virtually unlimited abortion on demand, how do you justify taking the life of a baby who is weeks (or less) from birth, and doing so for the convenience of the mother? Can you really argue that it's not taking the life of a human being?

Easy answers?

I have discussed the question a number of times with women who favor abortion. A couple stand out in my mind. The first was a young woman who argued against taking any form of life. It was morally wrong, she said, to take any life: to kill a cockroach, or even a mosquito. All life was of equal value. A horse equals an ant equals a fish equals a baby girl.

At the end of this hour-long conversation, I said, "If all life is equal, and it is never justifiable to take a life, I conclude, then, that you oppose abortion. Right?" Wrong. End of discussion.

Part of my problem with these conversations is that they are so often dominated by contradictions, stereotyping and refusal to consider evidence that doesn't support one's preconceived ideas, on either side. If someone argues for abortion, that person is automatically deemed by the opponent as a radical left-wing, liberal humanist. But if someone takes a position against abortion, he or she is instantly labeled a Bible-thumping, fundamentalist bigot.

Neither is fair or conducive to civil discussion, even if the characterization may be true.

The other woman I remember was a student in a class I taught. She was writing a research paper defending abortion on demand. As she presented her research before the class, to my surprise, she said the process of research had forced her to change her mind about abortion. She no longer supported it except in rare circumstances. So now she had to change the entire premise of her paper.

So now, let it be known that I oppose abortion, with rare exceptions. Here are some reasons, none of which are from the Bible:

First, there is the matter of justice.

In America, every person is entitled by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution to due process. That means nobody can legally inflict arbitrary penalty or punishment on another person, without going through the courts. And, by any reasonable definition I have seen, a baby - even before birth - is a human being, and hence a person. What else could it be?

In any other circumstance, Americans are disgusted and dismayed by the killing of an innocent human being. A sense of justice runs deep in our culture. But not in the case of an inconvenient pregnancy. So, on that basis, I am against nearly all abortions. Killing someone without some establishment of guilt is simply wrong.

Second, there is radical individualism and its cancerous fruit.

America is plagued by radical individualism, the idea that me, my wants, my needs, are of prime importance. There is little sense of commitment to community or responsibility for the welfare of others, even at the cost of the life of another. An entire generation has never learned about social responsibility, deferred gratification, or putting something off for the sake of something better. We are becoming in large measure a nation of children. And the end of it is devastating.

Research shows that most abortions are not done for medical reasons, nor are they truly to "protect the life of the mother." Under current law, just about any inconvenience is considered a threat to the life of the mother. Most abortions are done for convenience. And though the mother is nearly always blamed, a great many abortions are done after the mother is pressured by the father or others, and yields to those important to her.

A third reason is the slippery slope.

Like the newest model of small, economical auto, rationalized justifications for behavior tend to expand. After a few years, an econobox car will have a larger engine, a larger body, and more luxury. And with that, of course, a higher price. So it is with rationalized behavior.

If one justifies killing a baby before birth, it's a small step to say it's also acceptable after birth. After all, it's the same baby, and the difference is little. And in fact, we are seeing that in American society now. We don't have to look far to find news accounts of babies and young children horribly abused and even killed.

These rising numbers of child abuse, of children killed, and of other indications show that a significant segment of our culture takes human life as something of little importance. I live in an area where that happens often, and is in the news several times a week. There is, indeed, such a thing as a slippery slope.

So, what would I say to the mother of the anencephalic baby? Speaking as one who has never experienced that appallingly painful situation, I would say abortion is not the preferred solution. However, after reading accounts from medical doctors of the great suffering involved, I would reluctantly agree to ending the pregnancy by abortion.

Then what about the girl who was raped? This, to my thinking, is much different. The first priority is to remove her from the environment where it happened, and take strong legal action against the man. This girl needs to be in a loving, supportive environment. Then, given that environment, I think she should carry the baby to term, and offer it for adoption. She has a heavy load to carry in dealing with the emotional effects of rape. It will not help to add to that the effect of killing her baby.

I am certain not all who read this will agree, and that's okay with me. My intent here is not to persuade readers, but to provoke thought, both about abortion, the immediate topic, and about our attitudes, the underlying problem.

Did you know there's another kind of innie and outie? Unlike belly buttons, this one is important. It's about how you read the Bible, whether you try to draw truth out of the text (outie) or read your own attitudes and beliefs into the text (innie).

Which are you? Outie is better, but innie is more common by far.

Here's the situation: We read the Bible and interpret what we read - and we all interpret, even the guys who insist "I just believe what the Bible says." But we very often don't read with an open and teachable mind, letting the Holy Spirit and the text speak to us. We don't seek truth no matter where it may lead.

Rather we come as readers who "understand" the text only as it fits into our preconceived ideas and wishes. Quality, honest reading requires that we be outies: we let the text speak to us, no matter what it says. If we hope to know God and his word, we cannot come as innies, putting our ideas into the text.

Examples? There are many. We can look at the two common ones that most of us take for granted, and are totally unaware of our bias. First, salvation. Then, the "rapture."

Salvation.

What does "saved" mean to you? If you are like a great many folks, being "saved" means "on your way to heaven." Overwhelmingly, the focus is on what happens after death. It's about some distant day, probably too far away to worry about now. This salvation has little to do with real life, lived here today.

Have you noticed that Jesus never taught much about that? Strange oversight, I think. One would think, considering the importance of it all, that God would have made abundantly certain that message was loud and clear.

But he didn't.

So, will Christians "go to heaven"? Is that what's salvation is about? Will other folks?

As I read scripture, it appears that at least some have and more will "go to heaven." Revelation 4 talks about people present with God in heaven, in the dwelling place of God. But is that the permanent destination for believers, or is it a temporary stop-off? Can we expect to spend forever sitting around, singing to Jesus and playing harps? When we think of heaven, are we even thinking of the same thing the writers of scripture had in mind?

For a number of reasons, I think heaven is not and never will be our "home." I think our permanent destination is a renewed, glorified earth, a global "Garden of Eden." But that requires more space than I have here.

The point is that Jesus taught little about anything resembling what we call "salvation." He taught mostly about the kingdom of God. His emphasis was that the kingdom is here, it is now, and we are in it. No white robes and harps some day in the sweet bye and bye. Biblical salvation is about here and now, not only some future time. There's work to be done in the name of Jesus. Now. And it's our place to do it.

This is important because our concept of salvation colors everything else we read in the New Testament, indeed, every aspect of our life. And the result of this belief is a distortion that all but guarantees we will miss God's intent.

Rapture.

And then there's the rapture. According to this teaching, that's the time when Christians are taken out of this world, up to heaven. Libraries of books have been written about this future event There has been much debate - some intense - about whether the rapture will take us out of this nasty world before, during or after the really hard times.

But what if...? What if we're not going anywhere? Or what if any "departure" in our future is for a visit, not a change of address? What if the verses used to support the rapture (and there aren't many of them) are in fact about Jesus coming to this world, not about us leaving it?

First, when reading scripture, it's hard to find anything supporting the idea that God takes his people out of dangerous or difficult situations. The pattern is that he promises to never leave them or forsake them, as they go through hard times. Christians over much of the world know too well what this means.

What if that's what's coming? Hard times, I mean. It's curious that when Americans talk about a coming tribulation when things will be worse than difficult for followers of Jesus, Christians in much of the rest of the world are puzzled. "You mean it gets harder yet?" They are beaten, imprisoned, killed, raped, robbed and more, for the name of Jesus. Now. And it gets worse? Is that possible?

So what's this rapture thing? And who is going to be taken up to avoid what? The fact that there are so many arguments about it indicates that scripture is not clear. But here's a thought:

In his excellent book, Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright addresses this question, this idea of our going "up" and meeting Jesus in the air, to be taken to wherever it is we go. Here's what he says about it:

The custom at the time Paul wrote to the Galatian church was for the people of a city to leave the city and head down the road in a great celebration to meet a coming important visitor, such as the governor or even the emperor. And when they met him, they would come together, celebrating his arrival and escorting him back into the city.

Never did they go out, meet the guy, and then turn and go back to wherever the VIP came from. He was coming to them, not vice versa.

How would that historical pattern fit with the second coming of Jesus? What if he's coming here, to live among us, not to take us out of the nasty old world. What if the world we so easily write off, is the same world he plans to restore and glorify? You know, the world God pronounced "very good." And he never seems to have changed his mind.

So, the point of this all is that it's important for us to understand the context of scripture, the historical background, and be open for the Word to speak to us, rather than conforming to our own opinions.

Be an outie. Life is way better that way.

Have you ever been in a situation where you felt miserable? Of course. Everyone has. But did you know not all misery is created equal? Some misery is temporary and moves us toward a goal. That's good. But other misery goes nowhere. It just sits there letting us hurt. Sometimes in this misery, we get into this kind of swamp where we only hurt, and worse, we don't do anything about it. We sit there, suffering, and becoming convinced there's nothing we can do about it. We learn to be helpless.

Not good.

Did you ever hear the principle that whatever we choose as the focus of a situation or relationship will come to dominate? If we have a relationship that is 95% wonderful and 5% problematic, we're actually pretty well off by most standards. But if we focus on the 5%, it will gradually expand in influence until it becomes the dominant factor in the relationship. It will change the entire balance.

The same is true in most of life: If everything's going great except for some small corner, and we begin to focus on that corner, it will grow and come to dominate all the otherwise good things in our life.

So here's the question: Where is our focus? Is it on the many things we cannot control? Or is it on the things, even if few, that we can control?

If we choose - that word again - to focus on what we cannot control, we set ourselves up for discouragement and disappointment, and ultimately, a life of passive despair. We come to see the pain as normal, and we begin to see ourselves as helpless victims. And we are on a short, fast road to a very unhappy life.

But I am a Christian, writing to Christians, so it's appropriate to ask what the Bible says about these things.

Paul had this to say in Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

As we choose to "dwell on these things," we cannot long remain in a pit of discouragement. And as we focus on the presence of God with us, the limits on our power are irrelevant.

Moses asked God, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?"

Notice now God's response: He doesn't really explain or address Moses' question: "Who am I?"

Read on, to God's reply: "Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain" (Exodus 3:11-12).

Notice that God's response to Moses' doubt about his own competence was simply to say, "I will be with you." Simple. God's presence changes everything.

So when we get into that fine and pleasant misery, the swamp of despair, we should not buy the lie that there's nothing we can do. For us to live as a normal state in that place is not God's intent for us. And there certainly are things in our control, and we need to both focus and act on those things.

We can pray. We can draw close to the One who loves us and never leaves us. We can change thought patterns. We can begin to believe God, rather than the liar who tells us what a loser we are.

We can do a lot. And God honors that and fills the need where we can do isn't enough.

Hallelujah!