David and Goliath

I have touched on this before, but it occurs to me to weigh in on one of the most well-known stories in the Bible: David and Goliath. It is interesting to me that out of all of the army of Israel, there was not one man that had faith enough to stand against the giant. Of course, part of that was because it was God's plan. He wanted to show Israel that He intended to use David, but still... Also, part of it was that David had faith as a little child. None of the men in the army had that. The Bible tells us that David's father, Jesse, had eight sons, and the three eldest were in the army, but David was the youngest. It was understood, in those times, that if you were old enough to serve, then you did. Now, if David was the youngest, and only the three eldest were old enough to serve (which was thirteen, by the way), then how old was David? And how desperate was King Saul to let this youngster fight the giant?

We don't have to look too deep into this story to see that God intended for this to be an unconventional battle. First of all, David didn't carry a sword or a spear: he took a sling and five stones. Why five? I don't know; if the first one had missed, he probably wasn't going to get a chance to sling a second one. Some have suggested that it's because there are five letters in the name, "Jesus," but that wouldn't be true in Hebrew. David also refused armor; to be honest, though, the armor would have been ridiculous: I don't think that they made armor in David's size. King Saul tried to give David his own armor, which was just that much worse: Saul stood taller than the rest of Israel, David would have had a hard time just walking in Saul's armor.

It has been suggested that Goliath was probably a victim of gigantism, a disorder of the pituitary gland that, in addition to causing abnormal growth, also frequently causes the bones of the skull to come together--usually leaving a "soft spot" in the front of the head. This would certainly explain how one stone from David was able to sink into the giant's head and kill him. Some would have you to believe that somehow makes David killing Goliath less than miraculous. I would have to disagree. If Goliath had such a soft spot (and I will admit that it seems likely that he did) such a thing must not have been common knowledge: Surely Goliath could have had a helmet crafted that would have protected his vulnerability. Further, I suspect that David was really just aiming for Goliath, not some alleged soft spot, and trusting that God would guide the stone. David didn't know about the soft spot, wouldn't have known where it was if he had known about it, and probably couldn't have hit it on purpose if he had known where it was. Tell me that's not a miracle.

The lesson, of course, is that sometimes things loom large in our lives, but God has a simple solution. Sometimes His solution makes about as much sense as sending a boy into battle against a giant, armed with a toy (let's face it, a sling was not considered a weapon--ever know anybody else in the Bible to carry a sling into battle?--no, it was a kid's toy). Is God telling you to do something that just doesn't make sense? Do you trust God? Don't misunderstand me--make sure it's God, but be ready to step out in faith.

Just Some Stuff

I almost thought I wasn't going to be able to post today, because I am visiting my parents, and their DSL went out. It just recently came back on. Unfortunately, having had all this time to think about what I would like to blog about today, I have no idea. What a conundrum.

One thing that I should point out: I am aware that sometimes when I post I use the first person plural ("we" or "us"), and sometimes the second person plural ("you"--which, unfortunately, is pretty indistinguishable from the second person singular). I hope I'm not fooling anyone. I learn a lot from these blogs--some of them seem to me to be directed right at me. If there are other people out there who benefit from my ramblings, I am glad of it. I'm certainly not going to tell you to butt out just because these entries are for me. I really do hope that these help other people, too.

By the way, some time ago, I mentioned in one of my blog postings that I had gotten frustrated with the situation regarding Christian radio stations in my area: Yesterday someone was kind enough to respond to that post with URL's for online Christian radio stations. I appreciate that, even though my point was really more about the way people responded to the radio stations that we did have. It is nice to have alternatives, though.

I lifted the above illustration from gravestmor.com. Specifically, from here.

Nathan and Mary

There are some common names in the Bible (at least, names that were common then), and sometimes it gets confusing trying to keep all of the people straight.

For example, there are at least two Nathans in the Old Testament (I think there are three): There was a prophet named Nathan, and then David had a son named Nathan. Some people think (and, I must admit, I believed for a long time myself) that Nathan the prophet was David's son. They are not. Adding to the confusion is perhaps the fact that David's son Nathan is mentioned first, and then the prophet later, and then the son later still. But the lineage of the prophet lists his father as Attai, and the lineage of Nathen, the son of David, lists his mother as Bathsheba (well, technically, it says Bathshua, but it also lists Solomon as the son of Bathshua, and we know that Solomon's mother was Bathsheba, so, apparently Bathshua is an alternate spelling--this also makes it difficult to keep people straight), whom David didn't marry until after Nathan had started advising him; apparently David named one of his sons after the prophet.

Now, in the New Testament, there is quite an assortment of Marys, and a lot of people try to simplify those: I suspect that a lot of people know about the mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene, but don't know about the others, like Lazarus's sister Mary, of Mary the mother of James and Joses (although, it is possible that Jesus had brothers named James and Joses, but it seems unlikely that the Bible would refer to Jesus' mother as 'the mother of James and Joses' even if that were the case). There is also a reference to Mary the wife of Cleophas, but that is probably the same Mary that is the mother of James and Joses. Also, Mark's mother's name was Mary (but she may be Mary Magdalene or Lazarus' sister or the wife of Cleophas; we really don't know).

Part of the reason that there were so many Marys in the New Testament is that Mary is actually derived from Miriam (in Hebrew it is the same name--only when translated from Greek does it become Mary), so these Marys were probably named after Moses' sister Miriam. In any case, the gospel writers did try to make it clear which Mary they were talking about, each time they used the name. Occasionally, one of the gospels will begin talking about Mary, the sister of Lazarus, but you have to read for several verses before it mentions Lazarus. Still, with a little bit of research, you can generally tell the main Marys apart. Now, as far as Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, or Mark's mother Mary, I don't really think it's important to know whether that is three different women, two different women, or all the same woman (if it was, it would be clear which one was which). I do think that it's important to keep Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Lazarus' sister Mary separate.

Repentance

I think that I have posted on this subject before, but I was just thinking about somebody I heard on the radio awhile back: He described a hypothetical situation (one that actually could happen) where a family is driving to a camp site, and the husband/father drives past a turn-off that the wife/mother thinks is the right road. He insists that it is not, and continues driving. 45 minutes later, without seeing another road even remotely resembling the road that they need to take, he admits his mistake, and turns the car around. The radio announcer pointed out that they still weren't on the right road, but at least they weren't going the wrong direction anymore.
Sometimes in life, we have to make a change. Sometimes we come to the realization that we have been headed the wrong way for quite some time, and didn't even know. Sometimes it's a humbling experience. Nobody wants to be wrong, but sometimes we resist the idea that we are wrong so much that we end up staying wrong. God doesn't want us to be wrong; He gave His only begotten Son so that we could be right. We still make mistakes, no matter how committed to the Lord we are. That's where grace comes in.

Of course, we shouldn't live the way we want to, and expect grace to pick up our slack. The Bible also tells us that the righteous scarcely be saved. I don't know about you, but I don't want to just barely make it in--although I think that's exactly what's going to happen. When we make mistakes, we have to repent, ask forgiveness, do our best to make things right, and then move on. Try to learn from your mistakes, don't beat yourself up over them, or wallow in them.

It occurs to me that in the parable of the prodigal son, the son wasn't forgiven when he 'came to himself' in the pig sty in that far country, not until he returned home. But the Father had been watching for him to return, and was anxious to forgive him, because He loved him so. Something else I heard on the radio once (I'm not sure if it's true, but it sure is a good illustration): There was a Brazilian farm boy who decided that he had had enough of farm life, and he took off to seek his fortune in Rio de Janeiro. He left home breathing his desire to become rich and successful in the big city. After several years of not hearing anything from him, the parents became worried, and hoped that he would be willing to return to the farm. So, father packed up an overnight bag, and took all the money he could, and went to the city. He checked into a hotel, and took out an ad in the newspaper: "José, all is forgiven. Please come home." and included the hotel and the room number (and check out time). More than a hundred José's showed up--none of them his son. He tried to spend time with each of these young men, talking to them as a father, how much he knew that their fathers would want them to return home. Each of the young men insisted that he didn't understand, and wouldn't even consider it. But, you see, God wants us to come home, and He has a much better plan for us.

The Name of God

God actually has many names. In the Old Testament, the Israelites refused to call God by name at all, for fear of being found guilty of taking the LORD's name in vain. The name that they knew God by, even though they refused to speak it, is usually translated as Jehovah. That's not really a correct translation: The Hebrew word has only four letters, and is referred to as the Tetragrammaton. Properly translated, the Tetragrammaton means, "I Exist" or "I Am", in reference to what God told Moses, when Moses asked, "Who shall I tell Pharaoh hath sent me?"

In the New Testament, however, Jesus tells us that He came in His Father's name. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus ever use the name, "Jehovah." Further, Paul writes in Ephesians 3:15 that the whole family in Heaven and earth is named for Jesus (or, maybe, he's saying the whole family is named for the Father of Jesus, which would include Jesus as being named for the Father, which would make the Father's name Jesus, also. Sorry about that. I promise not to write anything else that confusing in this post). In Acts 4:10-12, Apostle Peter refers to the name of Jesus, saying that there is none other name under Heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved. That makes that name pretty important. In Colossians 3:17, Paul writes that we should do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Interestingly enough, when the angel appeared, he told Jesus' parents to name the child Jesus. Two verses later, it says that the child's name shall be called Emmanuel, meaning God with us. Some have criticised, saying that this is a contradiction. It's not. The angel said to name the child Jesus, but people who later came to know who Jesus actually was called Him Emmanuel (God with us).

The point is, that the family of God has one name, and that name is Jesus. We are called Christians because we follow Jesus, and we try to live the way He did, or at least, the way He would if He were walking around as a flesh-and blood being today. In doing so, we lift Him up, and by lifting Him up, we draw men (and women) unto Him.

The Temple of the Holy Ghost

In First Corinthians 6:19, Paul makes an interesting statement: He tells us that our bodies are each, individually, temples of the Holy Ghost. When I was young in the faith, I had someone try to misread this scripture to me. He was trying to make the point that our souls are spiritual bodies. Not bodies in the sense of flesh and blood, but bodies in the sense that they are self-contained, distinct entities. I couldn't grasp that concept at the time, and some of the things that people said to try to explain it to me really didn't help. Anyway, he said that Paul wasn't talking about our physical bodies, he was talking about our spiritual bodies; he said you could tell, because it says, "...your body, which is in you..." except it doesn't. It says, "..the Holy Ghost, which is in you..." So, even though his point was correct, and my thinking was wrong, the fact that he misused that scripture just further convinced me that I was right, and deepened my confusion.

There are other, similar references: First Corinthians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 6:16... Peter refers to the body as a tabernacle in First Peter chapter 1. Personally, I find it interesting that in First Corinthians, Paul tells us in chapter 3 that our bodies are the temples of God, but in chapter 6, the temples of the Holy Ghost. Jesus also prophesied His resurrection, referring to His own body as a temple in John 2:21. I think that it's important to note that we, as fleshly beings, have a hard time (at best) discerning spiritual things. So the people that walked with Jesus saw His physical body (His temple), but couldn't perceive His Spirit. In John 10:38, Jesus said that the Father was in Him. In Colossians 2:9, we are told that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily. Jesus knew our limitations, and understood, that we, as humans, saw Him as human, with a flesh and blood body much as our own, but we should not worship that flesh, in any form (not the babe in the manger at Christmas, or the thirty-three year old man on the cross at Easter...); we should worship the Spirit of God.

By the way, a little side note, here, I know that a lot of people have taken John 2:21 as a prophesy that must be fulfilled before the Lord returns. Books have been written about how Solomon's temple must be rebuilt before the rapture of the church. Read John chapter 2. It specifically says that it isn't talking about Solomon's temple, it's talking about Jesus' resurrection. "Oh, but I think there are some Old Testament prophesies about the temple being rebuilt, too." Yes, there are, but where was Jesus when He was talking about His temple being rebuilt? Look back up to verse 14: He was in the temple. Actually, the temple has been rebuilt, more than once. Look, I'm not saying that the temple won't be rebuilt (again) before Jesus comes again; what I'm saying is that if you get caught up looking for signs, you may find out that the things that you were looking for have already happened and you haven't noticed them (possibly before you were born, and the people that should have noticed them then, were asleep at the switch). Even if they haven't happened yet, who's to say that you will live until Jesus comes again, anyway? You have no promise of tomorrow, so do your best to be ready today.

Maternal Instinct

We are taught, generally from a fairly young age, that mothers have a natural instinct to take care of their children. Of course, there are ways to suppress it; in today's society the obvious way would be with drugs: A strung out mother will sell her baby to get money to buy drugs. In this time of year, when we always think of Mary and the Baby, I thought I would share a little bit about what the Bible says.

In First Samuel chapter 1, we are told about a woman named Hannah, who very much wanted children, but couldn't have any. She went to temple and prayed, and ended up later giving birth to Samuel, the prophet for whom the book is named. In Genesis 30, Rachel became distraught that she didn't have children. Now, in both of these cases, the woman in question was one of two wives, who had no children, while the other wife bare children. Interestingly enough, in both cases, the barren wife was actually the favored of her husband; I'm not sure if there's any significance to that.

In Judges 11, Jephthah's daughter bewailed her virginity. Of course, I should point out that she was in trouble for celebrating her father's return from a victorious war (it's complicated); but, if she had not been a virgin, she would not have been celebrating her father's return, she would have been celebrating her husband's return, and would not have gotten into trouble. The end of this story has been interpreted many different ways, but, my reading is that she died, still a virgin.

I think that we are all familiar with King Solomon's famous exercise in wisdom in First Kings 3: He had to rule in a case where two mothers both claimed the same child, and he depended on the the maternal instinct to determine which woman was the child's mother (the other woman was willing to let the king kill the child).

In Second Kings chapter 6, there is a rather gruesome story that shows that it doesn't take drugs to override maternal instinct, just a very desperate situation. It's hard for me to imagine such a situation, but that may just be because I'm spoiled.

Security of the Believer

A lot of people think that once you have made a profession of faith, that you can never fall from grace. Still others seem to think that the 'old man' waits around every corner. Let's spend a little time examining these two philosophies.

One passage that is commonly referred to in support of the idea that God will never allow one to fall from grace is Romans 8:35-39. This is an impressive list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God: tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth, nor any other creature... Let's contrast this list, though, with a statement that God made in Isaiah 59:2: "...your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you..." The difference is that in Romans Paul lists things that could happen to us, while in Isaiah, it talks about things that we have done. Now, I realize that some would say that the bigger difference is that we are under a new covenant, God doesn't deal with us the way He dealt with Israel in Isaiah's time. That's true, but it's also true that God doesn't change.

Let's consider some other scriptures: Paul said, in Hebrews Chapter 6, that if one falls away, there is no way to renew them again unto repentance. Now, some have said that the word 'if' there denotes a hypothetical situation; it could never really happen. Seems like Paul spent an awful lot of time preaching about something that could never really happen, if that's the case. Wouldn't he have been more concerned about teaching us what we need to know? In Romans 3:3, Paul asks the question, "...what if some did not believe?" Does the word 'if' denote a hypothetical situation there, too; is it impossible for some people to not believe the gospel message? In Romans 4:24, Paul uses that word again, saying "...if we believe on him..." so, apparently we can't believe, either. In Hebrews 10:26, Paul uses that word again, but this time in very much the same meaning as in Hebrews 6. Was this a waste of ink?

Apostle Peter tells us in 2 Peter 2 that it is better to have never known 'the way of righteousness' than to know it and then turn from it. That would be pretty meaningless if one couldn't fall from grace, wouldn't it? He is clearly referring to the parable that Jesus taught in Luke chapter 11. So, did Peter misunderstand Jesus? I don't think so. Let's look at what else Jesus had to say:

In Luke 8, in explanation of the parable of the sower, Jesus compares different types of people to different types of ground, and he says the the rock represents people that, in time of temptation, fall away. In Matthew 24:13, and Mark 13:13, Jesus said that one must endure to the end to be saved. That doesn't sound like something someone would say if they believed it was impossible to fall away. In Matthew 25, Jesus taught a parable about ten women that had kept themselves pure, and yet, when the bridegroom came, five of them needed oil, because their lamps had gone out. It doesn't say that their lamps were never lit, it says that their lamps had gone out. If He wasn't talking about falling from grace, then what do you suppose that was about? I know already that there will be some people that read this and say, but those were just parables, it's not like those things actually happened. Keep in mind that Jesus told those stories to help us to understand how God's judgment works. He got to choose the details in order to make His point. Don't sell parables short.

We Want What We Want

I've done a lot of things in my life. Most of the things I haven't done, you don't talk about in polite company (some of the things I have done, for that matter). One of the things that I have done is work with vending machines. I had a soda machine (or pop machine, depending on what part of the country you are from) for a while that had one double-capacity lane. Five lanes held 24 sodas, one lane held 48. Now I'm independent, I don't work for Coke, Pepsi, RC, 7-Up/Dr. Pepper, or Cadbury/Schweppes, so I can load anything I want in my machines. It didn't take long to determine that Coke sold the fastest out of any of the different sodas (sorry, Pepsi fans), so Coke always went in the double-capacity lane. You would be surprised how many people that found out I was doing that, tried to talk me out of it. I even had one young man, who had worked in the business before, try to tell me that Pepsi sells twice as much as Coke; therefore, I should put Pepsi in the 'big' lane. "Why," I asked him, "so that I can load up Pepsi every other week and Coke twice a week?" He just could not comprehend that I loaded 48 Cokes in that machine every week, and usually 19 or 20 Pepsi's.

But. a lot of times, we as individuals, fall into the trap of thinking that we are average. We tend to think that other people think the way that we do, and that they have similar tastes. Sometimes even when people start to get the idea that they are surrounded by stupid people, that most of them still think "pretty much like me."

I'm not sure that there are any 'average' people. God didn't create us as individuals to just be part of the crowd. Apostle Paul wrote at some length in 1 Corinthians 12 about the make up of the body of Christ. He talked about how some people in the church want to be something that they are not, and misunderstand their own importance in the church. If God didn't call you to preach, then you shouldn't preach (and if He called you to preach, then He also gave you the gift of preaching, and without that gift, you're not going to preach well, anyway). I am sometimes surprised at how many people think that they are called to sing in the choir, but they definitely don't have the gifts for it. The point is, though, God has an important job for you. It may not be the job that you think you want to do, but if you'll give it a chance, you may just find that you really enjoy the task, and find great fulfilment in it.

I have mentioned before that I teach electronics. Some years ago, I was working under contract through a college to teach electronics to young sailors (which was appropriate, since I learned electronics in the Navy), and I had a student that just wasn't getting it. It clearly was not for lack or trying: He paid attention in class, he asked good questions, he seemed to be spending a disproportionate amount of his life in extra study, and he just couldn't grasp it. I put in a recommendation that the Navy find another job for him; I just couldn't see the point of letting him beat his head against the wall with no success. Much to my surprise, it went all the way up the chain of command, and everybody agreed with my assessment. He went from being an electronics technician trainee to being a gunner's mate trainee; in most people's eyes, a considerably less glamorous position, but an important one, nevertheless (what would the Navy be without people to operate and maintain the ship's guns?). When he found out that he was becoming a gunner's mate on my recommendation, he wanted to talk to me about it. He wasn't happy, and I felt for him. He had enough wisdom that he didn't make any threats against me, but I felt an undercurrent in his words and body language that indicated that he would like to. Three weeks later, he came back to talk to me again. They checked him for weapons before letting him close to me, but all he wanted was to shake my hand. It seems that, much to his surprise, gun school came to him much easier that electronics school did. For the first time in a long time, he felt that he was gaining valuable knowledge. Several weeks later, I saw his picture in the base paper; he was being honored for graduating gun school with the highest average in his class. Imagine if we had given him chance after chance to be an electronics technician, and he had finally graduated at the bottom of his class, and gone out to the fleet doing a job that he no longer loved... Instead, he found that he had a real talent for working with guns, and that's an important talent in a military organization. What a waste that could have been.

I am reminded of the story of Uzzah in the Bible. Uzzah wanted to be one of the men who carried the ark of the covenant; but he wasn't. At one point in his life, he was part of an escort for the ark; probably the first time in his life he'd ever been that close to the ark. He was close enough to touch it, but he wasn't allowed to. That must have been driving him crazy, but then, the oxen shook the ark. Part in fear that the ark might come crashing to the ground, but, almost certainly, part of him thought that, finally, even God couldn't blame me for touching the ark now. So he reached out and steadied the ark, even though that wasn't his place, and God did blame him. There were a lot of other people besides Uzzah that did wrong that day; possibly some of the others were more wrong than he was, but Uzzah paid with his life. All because he wanted to something that God hadn't called him to do.

We should be about our Father's business, and we should seek His will for our lives. Don't ask God to let you do what you want, ask God to help you want to do what He wants you to do.

What Is Christmas?

Christmas is a holiday that has been observed for many years on December 25th. The prevailing reason being to celebrate the birth of Christ. Lately there has been some discussion along the lines of, "taking Christ out of Christmas."

I don't think too many people actually want to do that, although sometimes, we, as Christians, worry that we may offend someone else of another religion, or even an atheist. Certainly, we don't want to offend, but I think most people are harder to offend than that. I think that there is a difference between, say, putting up a Nativity scene, and shoving Christianity down people's throats. Please understand, I am not in favor of forcing Christianity on people.

I feel I should point out, also, that the selection of December 25th as the day of observance of Christ's birth has very little to do with historical fact. We really don't know when Jesus was born. We do know that the night He was born, the shepherds were out in the fields with their flocks. That's something that only happens on warm nights, like in June or July. In December, it's not that cold in Israel during the day, but at night, with no humidity to hold the warmth, once the sun goes down, the temperature drops rapidly. Generally, in the winter months, sheep spent the night in an enclosed area called a sheepfold, to keep them warm. So, unless December 25th was unseasonably warm that year, that's really not the right date.

Still, if we're going to celebrate the birth of Christ, we don't really know what the date was; so December 25th is as good a date as any. The point of Christmas is not so much when He was born, as why He was born; to save us from our sins. That's a good reason to celebrate.

Betrothed

One of the questions that I drove people nuts with as a kid was, "Why did Mary tell the angel that she didn't know a man, when she knew Joseph?" Of course, nobody wanted to explain to me that when they say 'know' in the Bible, they aren't talking about what I thought they were talking about.

Of course, as an adult, then I had people tell me, "Oh, well you have to understand what the word 'betrothed' means." I know what the word betrothed means, but the Bible doesn't say that Joseph and Mary were betrothed, it says that they were espoused. Espoused means exactly what it sounds like: They were spouses; husband and wife.

But that pretty much brings us back to the original question: Why did Mary tell the angel that she knew not a man? Why was she so sure that she was not going to bear her husband's child? My father actually put me on the right track for that one, a couple of Christmas's ago; he made the comment that marriage traditions must have been very different back then.

They were. Boys and girls, and even young men and young women, lived with their parents until they were married. Even then, once the ceremony had taken place, it was the man's responsibility to get a job, if he didn't already have one, and find a piece of land, buy it, build on it, and, when he had their home ready, then he would come back to his wife (who was still living with her parents) and take her to their home. In other words, he would go away, and prepare a place for her. This had the added benefit of additional proof, even if only to the young couple, that they actually married for love, and not for sex. So, even though Mary and Joseph were married when the angel came, he was away building a house. She didn't expect him back for many months, certainly not within the time frame that the angel indicated. How can this be? What will my husband say when he comes back and finds me pregnant (or perhaps a mother)? All legitimate concerns, but God had the answer. So, when Joseph came back, and found his wife pregnant, and knowing it wasn't his, he was nice enough that he was going to divorce Mary quietly, without making any accusations, but the angel appeared to him, and talked him out of it. So their neighbors just assumes that Joseph took his honeymoon a little early. At least they didn't think that Mary and Joseph had sinned, by getting together before their marriage, just that they had taken some liberties with tradition.

What Is a Miracle?

Yesterday a posted about people trying to read into the story of Jonah a miracle that simply isn't there; today I want to get into just exactly what a miracle is.

When I was younger, I was taught that a miracle is something that only God or Jesus could do. That may not be an entirely accurate definition, but I think it's probably good enough. Someone told me recently that part of what qualifies something to be a miracle is that it must be something that has never been done before. I'm not sure where they got that, but perhaps that is why Jesus never did anything the same way twice.

Dictionary.com cites the Random House Dictionary as defining miracle as: "1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God. " American Heritage dictionary as: "1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: "Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves" (Katherine Anne Porter). 2. One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder. 3. A miracle play."

There are several other definitions from other sources on that website, but, the point is, none of them say anything about a miracle being something that was never done before. In that vein, though, I would like to point out something that was recently pointed out to me (and not by the person that claims miracles have to be something that never happened before): In Matthew 9:29, Jesus healed two blind men by simply touching their eyes. In Mark 8:23, Jesus healed a blind man by spitting on his eyes. In Mark 10:52, Jesus healed a blind man named Bartimaeus simply by telling him he was healed. In John 9:6, Jesus spit on the ground and made a clay from the dirt and spit, and anointed a blind man's eyes with it to restore his sight. Now, to be honest, I don't know why Jesus didn't heal each of the blind men the same way. It doesn't make sense to me: if He could heal one man by telling him to be healed, couldn't He have healed all of them the same way? I know that if I were blind, I would rather be the guy that Jesus just told to be healed. On the other hand, if I were blind, and he wanted to spit in my eyes and then tell me to go wash in some pool somewhere, I would make sure I went to the right pool. Why take a chance? Eyesight is too important. Granted, it would be easier to make excuses, or just sit and complain (that other blind guy didn't have to go through all of this to get his sight back, why do I?), but that wouldn't get my eyesight back.

I think so many times, though, we as individuals get caught up in things that shouldn't really matter. God treats each of us as individuals, and sometimes it seems as though He requires more of one individual than another (sometimes He does require more of one individual than another, but that's His prerogative). We have an individual relationship with God, and it does not serve us well to be trying to figure out why I have to go through this, but he only has to... Let's just do the best we can to do what's required of us, and try not to come up any shorter than we absolutely have to.

Making a Miracle out of a Molehill

In the book of Jonah (and I hope most of us are familiar with the story), God sends Jonah to go warn Nineveh that He is about to destroy them. Jonah, either out of a severe dislike for the Ninevites, or just a fear of being the sacrificial messenger (killing the bearer of bad news was not uncommon in those days), or maybe a little bit of both, went the other way. He caught a ship to Tarshish, but, on the way, a severe storm blew in, threatening the ship. Jonah, realizing that God had sent the storm because of his disobedience, instructed the ship's crew to throw him overboard. God prepared a whale to swallow Jonah (and that must have taken some preparation, because normally a whale, even as big as it is, cannot swallow anything even close to the size of a man) and keep him alive until Jonah repented. Jonah did repent, and went to Nineveh, and the Ninevites repented, and God spared them. Jonah, not quite getting it, went to a nearby hill overlooking the city, and waited for the light show that never came. God had to deal with him all over again about being grateful that his work had paid off.

Now, I have had some people try to tell me that there is a hidden miracle in Jonah. They use to verses together to show that Jonah was able to go three days' journey in one day. The second part of Jonah 3:3 says, "...Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey." In Jonah 3:4, it says, "And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey..." So, apparently, Jonah was able to move at three times the speed that was humanly possible.

Or was he? Let's examine that a little more closely. First of all, a days' journey is not how far a man could run in a day; it's how far a man could lead a fully laden pack mule in a day (taking frequent breaks, stopping for meals, etc.). If it's urgent enough, you can maintain a pace three times faster than a pack mule (well, a lot of people could have, then, but with today's more sedentary lifestyles, not so much). It's generally considered that a days' journey was about thirty miles. For purposes of comparison, the Western States Endurance Run is an annual 'ultramarathon' held in California's Sierra Nevada. It is a 100 mile course, and you have to finish in thirty hours to get an award (a bronze belt buckle). If you finish in less than 24 hours, though, you get a silver belt buckle. Many people do. Think about that for a minute. Right here, in present-day United States, there are people that can run more than 3 days' journey in one day. Yet it's considered a miracle that Jonah ran three days' journey in one day.

Or did he? Let's look at the verbiage again. Jonah 3:3 tells us that Nineveh was an exceeding great city (how great was it?) of three days' journey. If the first part of the sentence is talking about how big Nineveh was, why would the second part of the sentence change the subject to how far away Nineveh was? I think part of the confusion here is cultural. We generally think of a city a bunch of buildings connected by roads. In ancient times, a city was everything enclosed by the city walls. What's the difference? Well, again, we don't think of farmland as being part of a city, but, if you leave the farmland outside the city walls, you're just inviting an attack at the beginning of harvest. If I have a grudge against you, or maybe I just don't care about you one way or the other but my crops aren't doing well, but your crops are outside your walls, all I have to do is attack you, and, while you and yours are huddled inside the walls, my troops and I can harvest your crops. Yes, you could put archers on the parapets, but I can have my archers shooting at your archers... The bottom line is, that Nineveh was a huge city, even by today's standards, but it was pretty much self-sufficient. They grew their own food, milled their grain, they had craftsmen building things that they needed, and all of that inside the walls of the city. That way, they could continue to live while under siege.

Now, Jonah 3:4 says that Jonah began to enter into the city a days' journey. Again, we are talking about a distance, not an amount of time. My best guess is that when Jonah got to the city, he got inside the gate, and (a) didn't find many people there (a soldier or two to make sure he didn't help himself to the food growing there), and (b) realized that if he started preaching fire and brimstone right there, one of those soldiers would draw a sword or pick up a rock to throw at Jonah, and he would be right back outside the gate headed for another whale... So he walked thirty miles into the city. Now there is a crowd to preach to, most of them don't have swords, and he's too far from the gate to make a run for it anyway. So he preaches; probably hoping that they will kill him quickly so that he doesn't have to suffer very long.

More on Trinity

One of the problems with the Trinity doctrine is that, most people seem to think that Trinity refers to three separate Gods. This can be a real stumbling block to someone who is already monotheistic. Sir Isaac Newton was considered to be somewhat heretical because he believed that Trinity and the First Commandment were in direct contradiction to each other. I can certainly see his point. Of course, Newton was given a lot of latitude because a) he was brilliant, b) in spite of the fact that he was arguing against something that a lot of people considered to be a fundamental part of their belief system, there was the understanding that what he believed wasn't really that much different than what they believed, and c) he wasn't overly vocal about it (many of his peers were completely unaware that he was 'anti-Trinitarian').

One of the problems with Oneness doctrine is that, as soon as one announces that one does not believe in the Trinity, the Trinitarians start trying to figure out which person, or persons, the Oneness-believer denies. The fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the best known 'non-Trinitarians' doesn't help. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was the Christ, but that He was not, in and of Himself, divine. He was the Son of God, but He was not God the Son. Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not generally considered to be part of the Oneness doctrine, but people who do believe in Trinity tend to lump together anyone who doesn't...

Christianity is, by definition, a monotheistic religion. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth... Sound familiar? John 4:24 tells us that God is a Spirit. So, which Spirit is the Father, and which Spirit is the Holy Ghost? Jesus said, in John 10:30, that, "I and My Father are One." Apostle Paul wrote, in 1 Timothy 3:16, that "...God was manifest in the flesh..." The bottom line is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all manifestations of our one God. Maybe somebody else can show me differently, but it seems to me that the Holy Ghost descended on Jesus at His baptism, and then Jesus sent the Holy Ghost to us after His Ascension, so, for the entire time of Jesus' ministry, the Holy Ghost dwelt exclusively in Jesus. So, for three years, those two manifestations were the same.

I do want to point out that Jesus was very careful about what He said as far as the identity of God. He knew who He was, but He also knew that His flesh was only temporary. Under normal circumstances, God is an invisible God. God doesn't want us making images of Him. Any image that we make of Jesus is really the flesh that He inhabited during His time among us. That would not be an accurate representation of Him, anyway.

My point is that most of us believe pretty much the same thing about God (well, except for the Jehovah's Witnesses), but we get caught up in terminology that we think expresses what we believe, but that maybe means something else to the person we are talking to. We should be clear about what we believe, so that we don't confuse those around us.

Is Trinity Biblical?

I have a book, written by a very intelligent man named Walter Martin, called "The Kingdom of the Cults." Very early on in this book, there is a list of things to help identify a cult. The very first thing on the list is that what the organization teaches must be biblical. If it's in the Bible, and the organization teaches against it, or if it's not in the Bible, but the organization does teach it, then that organization is a cult. That makes very good sense to me. That seems like a very solid proof. The second item on the list is that the organization must teach Trinity. That puzzles me. First of all, if Trinity is biblical, then that idea is covered under item 1, so item 2 is redundant; on the other hand, if Trinity isn't biblical, then item 2 contradicts item 1. Now, I've already mentioned that the late Walter Martin was a very intelligent man, but I have to wonder, why is this even listed?

I think that it's because the evidence for Trinity in the scriptures is somewhat tenuous. The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible lists 8 verses under the topic 'Trinity.' The word Trinity itself doesn't appear in scripture (of course, neither do a lot of other words that we use regularly in church). Really, it seems to me that there are eleven verses that could be used to support the Trinity doctrine: Matthew 28:19, John 14:26, John 15:26, Acts 7:55, Acts 10:38, Romans 15:16, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 1:17, 1 Peter 1:2, and 1 John 5:7. For something that so many people consider to be so important, that seems to be pretty thin. If God wanted us to believe in Trinity, wouldn't that be a bold statement somewhere in the Gospels ("Behold, I am the LORD, and my Name is Three!")?

I can come up with a lot more than eleven scriptures that could be used to argue the Oneness of God, as opposed to the Triune formula. Realistically, I could use some of the eleven scriptures listed above to argue against Trinity as easily as to argue in its favor. Some of them, taken together, can get pretty confusing: For example, in John 14:26, Jesus says that the Father will send the Comforter in Jesus' name, but in John 15:26, Jesus says that He himself will send the Comforter from the Father. So, did Jesus send us the Comforter, or did the Father send us the Comforter? And if that weren't confusing enough, in John 14:18, Jesus indicates that He (Jesus) is the Comforter, but 8 verses later, He tells us that the Comforter is the Holy Ghost.

Furthermore, what does Trinity really mean? To some people, Trinity is simply shorthand for the three major manifestations of God, to others, it means that there are three separate Gods; still others believe that the Father and the Holy Ghost are Gods, but the Son is simply the Son of God, and not really a God in his own right (but we can't ignore Him, because He died for our sins). The use of the term Trinity is very widespread, but there doesn't seem to be any real consensus as to what Trinity is. How can this be a defining point between a legitimate Christian church and a cult if we can't even decide what it is?

Saul and David

Saul was the first king of Israel, David was the second. Usually when people look at these two men they concentrate on the fact that when David messed up, he repented, while Saul would continually justify himself. This is true, but it occurs to me that there is more to it than that. What it really comes down to is that David had better overall character than Saul did.

For starters, lets look at the battle with the Amalekites. God told Saul to destroy Amalek, and to kill everything in Amalek. He was not to let anyone live, or even let any of the animals live. When Samuel met with Saul, after the battle, Saul had taken the king, Agag, prisoner, and had not killed the animals. Samuel confronted Saul, and Saul told him that they were going to sacrifice the animals to God. Samuel told Saul that "...to obey is better than sacrifice."

Now David once had occasion to sacrifice some animals to God, but the animals in question weren't his. Fortunately, the animals belonged to a man named Araunah that was friendly towards David. Friendly enough that he would have been happy to give the animals to David, but David refused. He would not sacrifice what wasn't his. He would not have expected God to honor such a sacrifice.

Let's look also at the battle with Goliath. I think most of us know the story: The Philistines set themselves in array against Israel, but then the Philistine champion, Goliath, offered to fight, one on one, any of the Israelites to settle the matter. The Israelites were intimidated; Goliath was six cubits tall--about nine feet. Now, common sense would dictate that the biggest Israelite would fight the giant. Instead, of course, the smallest Israelite on the battlefield ended up going against Goliath, without traditional weapons. David (who wasn't even old enough to be in the army) took a sling and five stones and only needed one. So, who was the biggest Israelite on the battlefield? Saul was.

Let's consider also the conflict that arose when Saul realized that God intended for David to be the second king of Israel, instead of one of Saul's sons. Saul tried to kill David, but God protected David. David had opportunity to kill Saul, and refused to do it. Now, when David, later on in life, found that Uriah the Hittite was standing in the way of what David wanted, he had Uriah killed. The difference, though, is that David repented quickly for having Uriah killed; Saul never really repented of trying to kill David.

You don't have to look to hard at these two men's lives to realize the difference in the strength of character and the faith in God that they had (or didn't have). And I have to admit, sometimes I feel more like Saul than like David. Particularly with regard to Araunah. If I needed something, and somebody offers me exactly what I need, and they seem happy to give it to me, I'm probably not going to argue with them, no matter what it is that I need that whatever-it-is for. I'm not sure that I have that kind of integrity.

Some would question how the Bible can say that David was a man after God's own heart, when he murdered Uriah the Hittite. God knows that none of us are perfect--He didn't create us that way. Most of the time, though, David had the strength of character, integrity, and faithfulness towards God that God has towards us.

What's Your Excuse?

I'm not sure what I am going to blog about today. Maybe nothing, really. I just don't really have anything on my mind right now, but I have a few minutes with an Internet connection, and an obligation to post something. Believe it or not, there are often times when I have nothing on my mind. People who really know me, know that. It seems funny, though, there are often times when I can't get to a computer when something will strike me and I'll say to myself, "I ought to write a blog about that," but then, when I get access, I can't remember what was so important. Sometimes it's just a question of fighting through the noise.

I spent Saturday sick in bed. I felt fine Friday night, and woke up Saturday just plain miserable. I made the trip from my bedroom to the bathroom several times. made the trip into the kitchen a few times, but I couldn't eat anything. I sipped some water, at first. After awhile, I felt well enough to risk sipping some apple juice. Sunday morning, I felt enough better to eat a small breakfast. After church, I tried to eat some lunch. There was a salad, some lemon chicken, with stir-fried vegetables and rice, and then some lemon pie. I didn't really feel like eating, anyway, so I ate a few forkfuls of salad, but then they brought the entree. Hmm. Do I finish the salad, that I don't really feel like eating anyway, and let the chicken get cold? No, I started picking at the chicken. It was good, but I didn't really feel like eating it, either. I ate a few forkfuls of that, with the rice and veggies, but then they brought me the pie. Isn't it funny how it's easier to eat sweets than nutritious food? I still wasn't able to finish the pie, but a whole more of that went into my gut than anything else. Sunday night a friend from church gave me some saltine crackers. Finally, something I actually felt like eating (even more so than the pie). The thing was, I knew I needed to eat. I didn't feel like eating, but I knew my immune system couldn't fight off whatever had attacked my system without fuel to work with. At the same time, a lot of my problem was gastro-intestinal in nature, so eating the wrong thing could make things much worse.

I think sometimes we are like that spiritually. We know what we need to do, but we just don't feel like doing it. Maybe we're feeling depressed about something, or we're mad at God for some reason, but we can almost always find a reason for not doing what, deep down inside, we know we should do. My mother used to tell me that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. There are a lot of people who never do what they need to do because they always let themselves get sidetracked. They aren't bad people, they just never get anything done.

Tough Choices

In the Book of Acts, it tells us that Saul the Pharisee was out rounding up Christians to be imprisoned or killed, when God knocked him down and blinded him. Realizing that only God could do that to him, but not understanding why God would (he was, after all, a loyal Pharisee, doing what he believed God wanted him to do), he cried out to God. Saul quickly learned that he was very much on the wrong path, but, God told him that He would send a man named Ananias to set Saul straight. Then, the Bible tells us, God told Ananias to go to Judas' house to share with Saul (not Judas Iscariot, of course, but that can't have been encouraging to Ananias). Ananias reacted pretty much the way most of us would: "Um, God? I don't know if this guy Saul has been operating behind your back, but he's been running around throwing Christians into jail, and having us killed... Wouldn't you rather that I go to Nineveh?" Ananias went to Judas' house expecting, at the very least, a tough sell. But he knew that God had spoken to his heart, and he knew what he had to do (and he wasn't sure that he wouldn't wind up in the belly of a whale if he tried to run away from it). He had every reason to believe that he was going to wind up in prison if he did what God was telling him to do, but he made up his mind that he'd rather be a Joseph than a Jonah. Some part of his mind must have contemplated an escape, even knowing that there is no escape from God.

When Ananias got to Judas' house, though, Saul was blind and badly shaken (I guess losing your eyesight can do that to you). Saul knew that God had sent Ananias, and was ready to listen to whatever Ananias said. I imagine that if Ananias had told Saul to sign over all his worldly possessions and cut off his right arm, Saul would have done it gladly. Ananias preached the gospel to Saul, and Saul accepted it. After that, Saul was known as Paul.

The point is that Ananias had to have felt that he was in a no-win situation. He chose to do the right thing, because he trusted in God, but he didn't see the big picture, and he didn't see the good that would come from what he had been asked to do (yes, God told him that Saul was a 'chosen vessel,' but that doesn't really tell the story of what Apostle Paul went on to do). It can't have been easy for him to go to meet with Saul. Once he got there, everything went smoothly, but he didn't know that it would until he got there. Yes, I understand that the passage makes it sounds like he just waltzed in, placed his hands on Saul, said, "Jesus sent me here to heal you and send you out to preach the gospel!" Think about that for minute. How many people do you know with that kind of faith? Now, I will grant you, it may very well be that Ananias psyched himself up to the point where he was able to appear to be completely unconcerned, but, human nature being what it is, I'll bet that he was still shaking on the inside.

God honored Ananias' faith, and He wants to honor our faith, but sometimes we are going to have to make some tough choices.

Christmas Is Coming

Here we are at the end of November. Only a few more "shopping days" 'til Christmas. Everybody wants to know what they're getting for Christmas. We've already been given a great gift. It's available to everyone, but some people won't accept it. Some would, if those of us that understand it could make it clear just what it is, and how easy it is to obtain it. It's a free gift, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything. What does that mean? I'll try to explain, but let me remind you of the scripture that says Great is the mystery of Godliness (1 Timothy 3:16). Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3:3) that you must be born again. Whatever you think you had before accepting salvation, it isn't yours anymore. It might still be in your possession, but it isn't yours. It belongs to God. Really, it always did anyway, so it's not really a loss...Sometimes it seems like a great loss. Apostle Paul also wrote once, "What fruit had ye in those things, whereof ye are now ashamed?" It took me awhile to understand that question, because I read it as if he was challenging the Romans on the ground that they were ashamed of something that they did before they accepted Jesus Christ. I couldn't understand what could be wrong with being ashamed of something that one did before they had direction... Then, after some prayer, I realized that he was challenging them on the grounds that they were ashamed of what they were doing for Christ, and kind of wishing for the days before they got saved. Very much like the Children of Israel got out in the wilderness and started wishing that they were back in Egypt. The point being that there will be times when it seems like life was better before you got saved, Notice I said 'seems.' The Bible also says that it rains on the just and the unjust, but we have a bad tendency to not remember the bad times in our past.

I saw something in a sit-com once where one of the main characters is trying to explain prayer. He said, "Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you get what we need, and sometimes, you just get what you get." A lot of times, the things we need the most, we don't even pay attention to, because they don't look like the things that we want. Sometimes we get things that we don't even understand why we got them until much, much later, and then it is often too late--we've already discarded it, thinking it wasn't something we wanted. All too often, too, the things that we want, are not what we need, and can keep us from getting what we need. The late Ruth bell Graham once said that if God answered every prayer, she'd have married the wrong man three times. Of course, she didn't really mean that God doesn't answer prayer, but His answer is 'No' a lot more often than we would like. What we have to keep in mind is that He says no because He has something better for us.

I hope that helps, Lyn. I'll be praying for you.

He Knew the End From the Beginning

God knew the end from the beginning. He doesn't always share with us His plan, because He wants us to walk in faith and to trust Him. In some cases, He puts us in situations on purpose to build our faith. In those instances, He knows the end, but He doesn't tell us how it's going to work out, to help us learn to trust Him. He has our best interests in mind, even when we don't.

I think most, if not all, of us are familiar with the story of Moses. Jochebed put her son in a little ark in the Nile river, because Pharaoh had ordered that all Jewish baby boys were to be killed. I don't know how many times I read that story before it registered that God never told her that He was going to save that baby--much less use him to lead Israel out of Egypt. It must have at least occurred to her that she might be putting her baby in the river just so that she wouldn't know when he died. She also knew that she couldn't follow the basket as the current carried it downstream; that would have attracted attention to it. Instead she sent her daughter, Miriam, to see what would happen to the baby. Miriam followed, until the basket attracted the attention of Pharaoh's daughter, who was bathing downstream. I wonder what Miriam thought when Pharaoh's daughter pulled the child from the basket. But Miriam, even at a young age, had the wisdom to speak up when the princess decided to adopt the baby, and offer to 'find' a Hebrew woman to nurse the child. This is something that also went over my head for a long time. They didn't have formula. She could have given the baby cow's milk, but I don't think that practice was widespread then. The obvious solution was to get one of the Hebrew women, whose baby had been killed while she was lactating, to feed the baby. So, because Jochebed obeyed God, and Miriam obeyed her mother, Jochebed was able to see that her son did indeed survive the river.

Even before that, God sent Abram out from his home, in search of a promised land. After Abram, but before Moses, God sent Joseph into Egypt (as a slave!) to prepare for a famine that would have wiped out Israel, but didn't, because Joseph was faithful.

The Bible has lots of stories like these three, and yet, so often we get direction from God, and we make excuses. "But, God, I don't understand how this is going to help." "I don't see any benefit to this." "I can't do this" (as if God doesn't know what we can do). Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." Yet, so often we need His help to deal with our unbelief.

Interfaith Relationships II

I posted on this subject Monday, but I suspect that most people who started to read that post thought they were going to read about dating/marrying outside one's own faith. There was very little, if anything, about that; it was more about friendships. In all fairness, I think that there is a lot of confusion about interfaith relationships in terms of dating and marriage, also.

I'm not going to try to tell you who you should or should not date. Miriam made that mistake (God smote her with leprosy). I will say this, though: The axiom is "opposites attract;" however, lasting relationships are built on common ground. If you really want your relationship to work, you need to sit down and decide what is important to you, and get with somebody who feels that those things are important, also. If your religion is important to you, then you really should be with someone, not only of the same religion, but someone to whom religion is important, also.

A lot of people talk about both interfaith and interracial marriage saying that the Bible forbids both. The only reference I've ever been able to find, as far as interracial marriage, is in Numbers 12, which I referenced above; Moses' sister Miriam was smote with leprosy because she dared to criticise Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman. Of course, he married Zipporah before God gave Moses the law... As far as interfaith marriage, I think that there is a better Old Testament scripture on that subject, but the only one I can come up with this morning is Exodus 34:17, but I think that makes the point that God didn't want the Israelites marrying outside the faith, because He knew that, at least in some instances, the Israelite men would wind up worshipping the gods of their pagan wives.

Apostle Paul writes a little bit differently in 1 Corinthians 7. He says that if a 'believer' (a Christian) is married to an 'unbeliever,' that is not a good enough reason to divorce. I don't think that Paul is suggesting that it's okay for a Christian to marry someone who is not a Christian, but acknowledging that two people who are married don't always maintain the same priorities. They may get married, and then one get saved, or two Christians may be married, and one backslide. Either way, Paul says that the believer should stay with the unbeliever, unless the unbeliever chooses to depart, in which case, okay, they didn't want to live for God, and they weren't willing to share their life with someone who was living for God, so, let them go. The believer is then free to be single, or to marry someone else.

Just an aside, I hope this doesn't sound like bashing, but I know that the Roman Catholic church in particular is very picky about 'recognizing' marriages. I knew a young Catholic woman who fell 'in love' with a Protestant man; after several months of marriage, that her church would not recognize, these two realized that they were not nearly as much in love as they thought they were. Some time later, she fell in love again, but, this time, with a Roman Catholic man. They both wanted to get married in 'The Church.' The church insisted that before they could get married, she needed to to get the church to annul her first marriage. I'm not clear on how the church can annul a marriage that the church didn't recognize in the first place... They were only to happy to grant the annulment, it was really just a paperwork drill... I also knew a young man that was a born-again Christian that wanted to marry a Roman Catholic woman. She wanted to get married in 'The Church,' so he attended Catechism class and became a Roman Catholic. He told me he didn't understand what all the fuss was about; Christian is Christian, right? Sometimes people just make too much of some things. Jesus talked about choking on a gnat, and swallowing a camel... Of course, He was talking about the religious leaders of the day concentrating on making sure all the little things are right (and the little things should be right) and getting so focused on those things, that major problems slipped right past them. All too often, the religious leaders of today fall into the same traps.

But He's a Good Person...

I hear a lot of that, in many different ways. Sometimes it's used as an excuse why someone should be saved, sometimes as an excuse not to do something.

Apostle Paul wrote about the difference between being good and being righteous in Romans chapter 5. He talks about Jesus dying for the sins of the world, but then he says that 'scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.' Some of us were 'good' people before Jesus got into our lives, but we were not 'righteous.' Most of us didn't even know the difference (some of us may still not get it). If we could be righteous without Jesus, then He wouldn't have had to die on the cross for us. Isaiah wrote that our righteousness is as filthy rags. The very best that we can do is nowhere near good enough.

In the parable of the wedding feast, in Matthew chapter 22, Jesus taught a parable about a king that hosted a wedding for his son, but many that were invited made excuses, and one of the people that did come, didn't come dressed properly. The king got very upset, and ordered that the man be bound and thrown into outer darkness... I think most people can see that the king is God, that the son is Jesus, that the wedding represents the final judgment. I think the problem that people sometimes have with this parable is, why was it such a big deal that this man, who was invited to the wedding at the last minute, came wearing the best he had available, but not really the right garment for a wedding. After all, he didn't know ahead of time that he needed to rent a tux, right? Here's the thing, though, the custom of the time was that the person hosting the wedding provided wedding garments to the guests. Why do you think all the other guests had on the right garment? So what does the garment represent? In Revelation chapter 6 it talks about white robes being given to the martyrs, and in Revelations 7 it tells us that these robes are white because they have been washed with the blood of the Lamb (Jesus). Clearly, then, the wedding garments represent robes of righteousness, but the one guest tried to get into Heaven based on his own righteousness ("Oh, I think I'm good enough to get into Heaven on my own"), without accepting the gift of salvation; without applying the blood of Jesus to His life. The point of the parable, really, is that we can't do anything of any real, lasting value unless we let God work through us, and even the best of us don't do that nearly often enough.

Interfaith Relationships

There was a discussion on the radio this morning as I was driving in to work: It seems that a pastor has been suspended from his church because he participated in an interfaith event where he prayed with a group of people from other faiths (or other denominations--I'm not clear on the details, the discussion started before I got in the car). From what I heard, most of the callers didn't seem to think that the suspension made sense, but some did. Some of the callers didn't seem clear on the details, either, one caller commented something to the effect of, "Why would you invite someone to pray at your church when they aren't even praying to Jesus, so you know their prayers aren't going anywhere?" and the announcer reminded her that they weren't talking about at his church, that he was invited to speak at a public function.

Personally, I have to disagree with the caller, anyway. I mean, I understand her viewpoint, but I think she's taking the wrong approach. It's interesting, because we had a Muslim man visit our church yesterday, and our pastor asked him to come up and speak. Understand, that, first, this man and my pastor have been friends for a very long time. This is not the first time he's attended our service. He came, yesterday, to ask us to attend a dedication (a road in our town is being renamed for a former mayor [who is not Muslim, by the way]). Why did our pastor invite him to speak? Well, for starters, he wasn't talking about doctrine. Quite frankly, even if he was, he knows what we believe, and has enough respect for us, as a church, and for my pastor, as a friend, that he wouldn't have stepped outside of the common ground (I know the man well enough to be sure of that). Secondly, it's hard enough to get non-believers into the building to start with. If we treat the man as though he's not worthy to even talk to us (is any of us really worthy of anything anyway?), how in the world can we expect to see him saved? Yes, I understand that he already thinks that he is saved, and I have no intention of arguing that point with him.

Now, I will grant you, this sort of thing can be misconstrued into a belief that the pastor thinks that Muslim doctrine is okay. He doesn't, and I don't. I think that there are a whole lot worse things out there than being Muslim. I also think that if you don't have friends outside of your church, then you're not going to be able to bring people into your church. Apostle Paul told Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist." You can't do that if you are pushing people out the door.

I should also point out that we have a man in our church who was raised Muslim. I'm not going to go into a lot of details, but, at one point in his life, someone very close to him was very close to death. He had been taught that praying for a situation like that was a waste of time, that Allah wasn't going to lower himself to intervene in a situation like that, but, this was a person that he couldn't bear to lose. So he prayed. Hard. And he got an answer. The answer he got was, "You are praying to a god who cannot save." (BTW, we're not talking about hearing voices, here, we're talking about an understanding and a feeling that was just inarguable.) He felt like Saul on the road to Damascus, so sure that he had been serving God for so long, only to have incontrovertible evidence that God was not at all who he thought he was. This began a journey that ended with him finding Jesus real to his life.

So many times, we, as Christians, act like anyone who is not of Christ is evil. Let's be honest with ourselves: Any one of us is capable of evil, Christian or not. There are a lot of good people that have not accepted Jesus as Lord. We need to be patient with them, and compassionate towards them; setting the example, and encouraging them to follow.

You Judas!

I find it interesting that in the Gospels, Judas Iscariot, the traitor, lived with the other Apostles and they never even suspected what he was. Jesus knew, of course, and He never let on that He knew until the Last Supper. No one else even suspected. John 13:29 tells us that Judas 'had the bag,' meaning that he was the treasurer for this little group; that's a position of trust. Jesus didn't have to trust him, because Jesus knew exactly what Judas was doing, every step of the way; but every one else did. Matthew 26:22 tells us that, when Jesus revealed that one of His disciples would betray Him, the other eleven each asked the question, "Is it I?" Think about that for a minute: Judas was so trusted by the eleven that each of them found it easier to believe that he himself would betray Jesus than that Judas would. In John 13:26, Jesus pretty much told them that Judas was the traitor, and yet, they still couldn't bring themselves to believe it. Why not? Were they stupid? I don't think Jesus chose eleven faithful imbeciles and one clever traitor. It's just that Judas was so good at playing the part of a committed Christian that no one could believe that he would betray the Lord. They had traveled together for three years, and Judas had always kept his agenda secret from the others (of course, it's possible that Judas really was a committed Christian for some of those three years...). God knew, of course, but God had a plan, and Judas was an important part of that plan.

I have heard a lot of criticism in the last few years of churches that find themselves in awkward positions. What is the proper procedure if the leader of a congregation is accused of improprieties? In retrospect it seems clear that, if the allegations are serious, this man should be removed from his position, at least until the allegations can be investigated. Of course, it is somewhat understandable if the church doesn't take allegations seriously when those accusations are accompanied by a lawsuit. It's easy to side with the minister if the person making the accusations stand to profit financially from the situation. On the other hand, just because someone feels that they have a right to restitution for their legitimate pain and suffering, doesn't mean that they haven't suffered wrong. How does one tell? Unfortunately, those decisions are ultimately made by people that know the accused--usually other clergy that trust this minister just as much as the eleven trusted Judas. Why he can't possible be that kind of a man, I've known him for years! So, what often happens is, a man who is very good at playing the part of a man of God, but is secretly the worst kind of monster, gets moved to another church--often without so much as a warning (oh, by the way, he was accused of misbehavior at his last church, we don't think he did it, but we are investigating. If we find anything out, you'll be the first to know).

Now, granted, sometimes this is done to protect the church's assets. There is a fear that an admission of guilt will trigger more lawsuits. The church goes into damage control mode, using the philosophy that, if we cover up what has happened, no one will know, there will be no more lawsuits, people will continue to come to church, we can continue to do God's work. This is particularly easy if the other clergy don't really believe that the reported incident actually happened. Sometimes churches will pay off families just to get the allegations to go away, without ever really considering that the accusations might be true. Of course, the thought of the damage that could be done to the church if the allegations are true makes it easy to go into denial, also.

Unfortunately, the damage done to the people in the congregation being led by a man who is not being faithful to God can be nothing short of devastating. We, as Christians, can not allow this to happen. I have spent a lot of time trying to explain why this does happen, but I don't mean to suggest that it's okay that it does happen. It's not. We need to trust God, and let Him show us what to do whenever there are indications of improprieties within the church.