GIGO

I took some computer science classes some years ago, and one of the biggest things my professor wanted to make sure that we knew was the 'GIGO Principle." A lot of people try to blame a lot of things on 'computer error,' when, in fact, it is considerably more likely that those things are 'carbon-based errors.' My prof always insisted that computers don't make mistakes. I disagree. I've run the same code through the same compiler on the same computer and gotten different results enough times that you will never convince me that computers don't make mistakes. The point is essentially true, though, the computer can only work with the information it is given. If you give it nonsensical data, then what you get out is equally nonsensical (if not more so). GIGO stands for "Garbage In, Garbage Out."
We, as human beings, have some things in common with computers. We have more memory, but we can't erase memory nearly as easily. We are actually smarter, but, we have so much stuff stuck in memory that it sometimes takes longer to dig out the needed information, and when we do, it is frequently distorted by other experiences. Most importantly, if we take in garbage, we will eventually spew out garbage, as well. Jesus said that it's not what goes into a man that defiles the man, but what comes out of the man. He was talking about eating without washing one's hands first. Quite frankly, we generally wash our hands before eating for sanitary reasons, but, let's face it, most of the time, what's on your hands isn't going to kill you, anyway (of course, in Jesus' time, there were a lot fewer industrial chemicals and pesticides, greases and oils to worry about). But what I'm talking about isn't so much what you eat (or might have on your hands while you are eating) as what you take in--what you read, listen to, or watch.

David said that he would set no wicked thing before his eyes, but that he would meditate on God's Word. David made his share of mistakes, but this is a man that the Bible refers to as a man after God's own heart. I would like to become a man like David, but, to be honest, on my best days, I can end the day by saying, "Today, I was an unprofitable servant. I have done that which was my duty to do." I don't have many days like that, but God is good to me anyway.

Look, I'm not saying that watching, say, slasher movies is going to send you to Hell. It may be that some people watching slasher movies would eventually start thinking that it's okay to start going out and killing people, but those people are probably a little unhinged to start with. What I am saying is that there are a lot of things that you could be watching, listening to, or reading that will have a negative effect on your mental outlook. There are also things that you could be experiencing that will have a positive effect on your mental outlook. There's an old story about a wise Native-American man who said that he felt like there were two wolves inside him, struggling for control, one good, and one evil; which one got control? whichever one he fed more. If you read your Bible--and don't just read it, study it: look for connections between, say, Job and Hezekiah; compare and contrast Peter and Paul, that sort of thing--that should be a positive thing (I say 'should' because I know that a lot of people study Scripture just to try to find fault with it, that would be a negative). If you take in good things, and make an effort to avoid taking in bad things, then that will help to build up positives in your heart and mind, so that what comes out of you is also positive.

A Little Bit More

I have mentioned before that I am a Navy veteran. When I was on the ship, there was a guy that had a drinking problem, and knew he had a drinking problem (there are a lot of people in the Navy with drinking problems--few of them know they have a problem). He normally avoided drinking, because he knew that one drink led to another, and two drinks led to four, etc. As long as he didn't take that first drink, he was okay, but if he took a drink, then he felt like he could 'handle' a second drink... We pulled in somewhere in the Bahamas, I think it was, and at the liberty brief they warned us that they didn't have a local Coca-Cola bottling plant, which meant that Coke had to be imported (Pepsi, too, in case you were wondering). They did have local distilleries, though, so liquor didn't have to be imported. This means that rum is cheaper than rum-and-Coke, and rum-and-Coke is cheaper than Coke. So, our intrepid thirsty friend goes out to but a Coke, and, even after the liberty brief, he was surprised at what a Coke cost. To be honest, I was a little surprised, too, but I knew what I wanted, and I was already expecting to have to pay more for it (after that, I bought Coke on the ship, and carried it with me out into town). He decided that for that much money, he should get his money's worth. The flaw in the logic is, that if what you want is Coke, then the only way to 'get your money's worth' would be to get a larger Coke, which, of course, wasn't going to happen. Conditioned by American values, though, he felt like he was getting a better deal by getting a rum-and-Coke, as opposed to a 'virgin' Coke. I've already mentioned that rum was cheaper than Coke, so, take a guess at how much Coke he got in his drink. So now he's paid extra for the privilege of having just enough Coke in his rum to taste. And, he's getting a much stronger drink than he anticipated, and it doesn't take long for the alcohol to go to his head and convince him that another rum-and-Coke is a good idea.

Later on that evening, he was walking through the streets, and noticed a hotel that tried to create the impression of being an international entity by flying flags from many different countries from the building's facade. He was inebriated enough at that point to become very insulted that these 'foreigners' were flying an American flag, so he took it (we were, of course, the foreigners, but in his state of mind that wasn't clear to him). By the way, in case you are wondering what I was doing during all of this, we didn't get liberty at the same time--I didn't see him all that night, but he told me about it in the morning.

When he sobered up, and realized what he had done, he took the flag back, and explained himself, as best he could, to the manager of the hotel. The manager was gracious enough not only to not press charges, but also to thank him for returning the flag.

I think what brought this incident to mind was Gehazi trying to get something for nothing, in the story of Naaman the leper. I can understand Gehazi's desire, but, of course, the fact that he tried to sneak around behind the back of the man of God shows that he knew he was wrong. My friend should have known he was wrong (he knew he had a drinking problem, but he had a drink anyway), but he let money cloud his judgment. Granted, he wasn't trying to get something for nothing, exactly, but he did try to get more for less. Generally, more for less is a good thing, unless the 'more' isn't what God has for you. David ran into the same problem with Bathsheba, and that turned into a real tangle.

So often, we think we know what's best for us, but God has something better in mind. Sometimes, when we pray, we get what we want; sometimes we get what we need, instead. Sometimes we get things that we didn't even know that we wanted, and yet, it makes us forget all about what we thought we wanted.

The Formula of Baptism

One source of contention among many Christian scholars is something known as "the formula of baptism." In other words, what formula should one use when performing a baptism--what words should be spoken? This can get confusing, because of the way baptism is talked about in Scripture (it doesn't help any that there are no quotation marks--more about that later).

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In Acts 2:38, Peter said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. In Acts 8:12, Phillip baptized several people, and in verse 16, it says that those people were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Later on in that chapter, Philip baptized a eunuch visiting from Ethiopia, and in the next chapter, Ananias baptized Paul, but neither account addresses what formula was used. In Acts 10:48, Peter commanded a group of people to be baptized in the name of the Lord. In Acts 16:33, Paul and Silas baptized the Thessalonian jailer, and his household, but it gives us no indication of what words were used.
So, Jesus said to do one thing, and the Apostles went out and did something else. Not really. There are two (maybe three) schools of thought on this. Some people say that the book of Acts isn't telling us what formula the Apostles used, only that they baptized under the authority given to them by Jesus; in other words, the spoken words were along the lines of Matthew 28:19, but the written description identifies the source of their authority in baptizing. Some of those people say that you shouldn't use the Book of Acts for formula, because no two baptisms in Acts were done the same way (I would have to ask the question, how do you know that Ananias baptized Paul differently than Paul baptized the Thessalonian jailer, but that's just being nit-picky). The remaining school of thought is that Jesus wanted to make sure that the Apostles understood who He was: He told them to use the name, and they baptized in the name that had been given to them, which was Jesus. Peter said in Acts 4:10-12 that the name of Jesus is the only name given among men whereby we must be saved. Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 6, and again in Colossians 2, that baptism allows us to put on the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I have heard many people say that 'leaving out' the terms 'Father' and 'Holy Ghost' is to deny the Father and the Holy Ghost (usually by the same people who say that you don't have to baptized to be saved, because 'water' didn't die on the cross for your sins). Jesus said that no man could come to the Father but by Jesus. Why is that? because there is only one God. Keep in mind that the evangelists in the Book of Acts were, with the exception of Paul, men who were taught by Jesus. Do we really think that we understand the teachings of Jesus better than they did? Of course not, but, because there are no quotation marks, we have a hard time being certain what words were actually spoken.

Naaman

I started to mention Naaman the leper on Thursday, when the subject at hand was water, and we got into the rite for recovering a leper, but I realized that the story of Naaman would have taken up a lot of space, and not contributed that much more to my point. However, yesterday, my pastor preached the story of Naaman, so, now I will blog about Naaman. If you haven't read Thursday's post yet, though, you might want to read that before you read the rest of this.

Naaman was a general with the Syrian army who also happened to have leprosy. He was also married (with kids? the Bible doesn't say), and his wife had a Hebrew slave girl. I have to believe that Naaman was a benevolent master (for more than one reason). The girl (what was her name? the Bible doesn't tell us that either, even though she is very important to the story)told him that, in Israel, the man of God could heal the leprosy. Naaman, being an important man in the Syrian military, gained audience with the king, and asked permission to go to Israel to try to be healed. The king, who would have liked to have had this general healed, gave permission, and Naaman went to Israel. Naaman first went directly to the king of Israel. The king believed that this was a trick, and bemoaned the 'fact' that the Syrians were trying to pick a fight. Elisha the prophet sent a messenger to the palace, and told the king to send Naaman to see Elisha. The king, afraid that he was going to have a war on his hands if Naaman was not healed, sent Naaman to Elisha. Elisha then had his servant, Gehazi, tell Naaman to dip himself seven times in the river Jordan. Naaman was, at first, upset. I can imagine the thoughts running through his head: "What? we don't have any good rivers in Syria? There's something special about the Jordan river, I had to come all the way to Israel to take a bath? Are you suggesting that I am a leper simply because I don't wash enough?" But one of his servants said, "My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he saith unto thee, 'Wash, and be clean?'" So Naaman relented, and went and dipped himself in the river Jordan, according to the words of the prophet. Now, he went under once, and came up still a leper. He went under a second time, and came up still a leper. After he obeyed completely, and dipped himself the seventh time, then he came up clean. So then Naaman went back to the house of Elisha, and tried to give him presents for the healing. Elisha told Naaman that God had healed him, and that he should be grateful to God, and wouldn't accept any gifts. Gehazi, meanwhile, is thinking, "What? Are you crazy? He's got all this stuff that he brought specifically for this healing, and you won't take any of it?" So Gehazi snuck off, and ran and met Naaman's chariot before he had gotten very far, and told Naaman that Elisha had some unexpected guests, and could he just get a little something for them? Naaman was only too happy to give Gehazi whatever he wanted (which, to be honest, was still only a fraction of what Naaman had expected to pay for his healing), and wished Gehazi and Elisha well, and went on his way. When Gehazi returned to Elisha (after hiding the stuff), Elisha asked him where he went. Gehazi didn't think Elisha had even noticed him being gone, and replied, "Thy servant went no whither" (I didn't go anywhere). And Elisha told Gehazi exactly where he had gone, and what he had done, and then told him that Naaman's leprosy was now Gehazi's. Gehazi looked, and he was leprous.

Now, I mentioned that Naaman was a benevolent master. The Hebrew girl might have told her master about the greatness of God even if she didn't like him, but the one servant called Naaman, "My father." I have heard some people say that that servant was Naaman's son, but I don't think so. I know that sometimes slave owners have taken advantage of their female slaves and wind up with little ones, but they generally either brought those children up as slaves, and never acknowledged that those slaves were their own children, or they brought them up as their own children, and not as slaves. It seems to me that this servant was basically using shorthand: He was saying, "Master, you know that I love you and respect you as my own father..."

I think that it is very telling that Naaman went to the king of Israel and the king didn't have a clue what to do. A lot of times we get into situations, and we may pray about the situation, we may believe that God has the answer, but we try to work it out on our own anyway.

When the man of God told Naaman what he needed to do, at first Naaman didn't like it; but, when he realized that what he had been asked to do was simple (maybe a little weird, but easy to do), he went and did it. Once his obedience was complete, then he was healed, but it wasn't a question of, well, I'll dip myself three times, and then be about half healed, and that will be good enough. Okay, I admit it, that's kind of stupid: Why would anyone settle for being half healed of leprosy? But so many times God gives us something to do, and we either do it half way, or we do it half-heartedly, and then we wonder why we don't get the reward. If you were washing cars for a living, and only washed half of each car that came through, would you expect a whole paycheck? Keep it up, and you won't get a paycheck at all...

Naaman can be forgiven for thinking that the gift of God can be bought with money. God owns everything, he doesn't need money-but churches have expenses, and God has given parishioners to churches, and he's given jobs to those parishioners, and he blesses those that pay their tithes...

Gehazi, on the other hand, tried to turn a profit just because he was present when a miracle took place. To be honest, out of all the people in the story, Gehazi is the one that I can identify with the most. I probably would have fallen for that. Naaman's got all this stuff that he wants to give away, and you won't take it because you didn't do anything... Can't I at least have some of it? Yeah, I know I don't deserve any of it; I didn't do anything either, but he wants to give it away... But, you know, God has so much for me that I already don't deserve.

Baptism

Yesterday I posted about the importance of water in the scriptures. I used almost all Old Testament scriptures in that post. In the New Testament, water takes on a new importance, which is foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Let me start by pointing out what Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of water and of spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." There are basically two schools of thought on what Jesus meant by that. Jesus had already told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again, and Nic asked a question that indicated that it seemed to him that Jesus was talking about a physical birth. Of course, we know that Jesus was not, but this was a whole new idea to Nicodemus. So, one school of thought is that Jesus was answering Nic's confusion by making a reference to the 'water,' or amniotic fluid, that is released at childbirth. The other school of thought is that, certainly Nic would have known about the water of childbirth, so either Jesus is treating him like an idiot who doesn't know, or Jesus is deliberately trying to confuse Nic by making an obscure reference to physical childbirth. The point is, Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. He wanted to know what Jesus had to say, and he seems to have had a good idea that Jesus had some answers; that He knew something (perhaps several things) that the Sanhedrin didn't. But Nic also didn't want the other Pharisees to know that he was seeking out Jesus. So Jesus isn't going to send him to John the Baptist; to be honest, I'm sure Nicodemus knew about John the Baptist's ministry, anyway, but, again, he wouldn't have wanted his peers to know that he was seeking something from these rabble-rousers. Quite frankly, in the long run, John's baptism wouldn't have done Nic much good, anyway. In Acts chapter 19, Paul found a group of 'believers' who had been baptized by John, but had never been baptized into Christ. Paul pointed out that John taught them to believe in Him that should come after, that is, Jesus. So they got baptized all over again. John's baptism was all there was until the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but then it really didn't even apply anymore. There was this new baptism, not of repentance, but of remission of sins, which is a whole lot better.

Moving on, we find that baptism is something that Jesus didn't talk about until after His death, burial and resurrection, other than His own. The apostles, in the Book of Acts, certainly seemed to think that baptism was important: Each time they made a new convert, they baptized him or her immediately. They didn't wait until they had 50 people that wanted to get baptized, or wait until the annual baptismal gala, or wait three weeks to see if the new convert was really serious; they always baptized immediately (or, straightway, in Biblical terms). In Acts chapter 2, Peter preached a sermon to a large group of people, and then they baptized them. In Acts 8, Phillip preached to a group of people, and baptized them; then went on to preach to a Eunuch on his way back to Ethiopia, and baptized him. In Acts chapter 10, a Roman named Cornelius was praying, and an angel told him to send for Peter; when Peter got there, he preached the word, and baptized Cornelius. In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were imprisoned in a Thessalonian jail, and were able to share with the jailer, and baptized the jailer, and the jailer's family at an unreasonable hour of the morning. I think that it is very clear that the Apostles believed that baptism was important.

So, we have baptism as an extension of the ritual washing in the Old Testament. It again symbolizes cleansing, and purification, and again, is something that must be done in faith for it to have any effect. Some have referred to the rite of baptism as simply being an outward sign of an inward change, but I have to wonder, can one have the inward change without the outward sign? I understand that one can have the outward sign without the inward change, in which case one has simply gotten wet. But, if one truly believes, and is willing to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior--knowing that Jesus taught baptism--why would one not get baptized? I also know that some people like to get into hypothetical situations (what if I got hit by a car before I had a chance to get baptized? etc.), but I'm not going to get into that right now. If you have accepted Jesus as your personal savior, and you have the opportunity to get baptized, why in the world would you fight against getting baptized?

Water

Let me start by saying the Heath Ledger died yesterday; an apparent victim of an overdose of sleeping pills. His family is saying that it was accidental; the autopsy was "inconclusive," which I assume means that they have determined that, yes, he died of an overdose of sleeping pills, but there is no compelling evidence that it was accidental or that it was intentional. Forensic medicine really has no definitive way of determining a person's state of mind at the time of death once they are dead. In any case, my condolences to his family, friends, and fans. I have a son very close to Heath Ledger's age; I can't imagine what it would feel like to lose my son, and I won't pretend to know what Heath's family is going through.
That has nothing to so with the rest of this post, I just felt that it was important to say. I don't usually mention deaths in my blog, but this was a young man who had a lot going for him; had a lot of reason to live. Someone whose family had every reason to expect that he would live a long time.

Water is mentioned prominently several times in the Bible. In Genesis, water is one of the first things mentioned (after chaos); in fact, it doesn't specifically mention that water was created, even though it had to have been. Still in Genesis, God used water to seperate Noah and the animals from the corruption that had crept into His creation. Apostle Peter wrote about Noah being saved by the water, although that's a little different perspective: We usually think of the ark saving Noah from the water. Peter is making the point that the water saved Noah from sin. God also used water to save Moses, as a baby, and his name reflects that. When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt, God used water to destroy Pharaoh's army, and to seperate the Israelites from the Egyptians. In the Law, over and over it makes reference to washing in water as part of a purification process. When the children of Israel finally reached the Promised Land, they had to pass through the waters of the Jordan river to get there; if you look on a map, you will see that it is very easy to get from the Red Sea to Israel without crossing the Jordan (it's really just a question of heading West while still South of the Dead Sea instead of North of the Dead Sea). God purposely led the Israelites that way, which suggests that He had a purpose from them going through the water (even though none of them got wet). Just to further demonstrate His power? Maybe, since only two of the Israelites had personnally observed the parting of the Red Sea, but it seems more likely (IMHO) that it symbolized a seperation between their lives in the wilderness and their lives in the Promised Land. In the book of Judges, God used water, in the form of dew, to show Gideon that He was going to use Gideon to deliver Israel, and He used water to test Gideon's army; only those who passed the test were allowed to fight the Midianites. God used water to revive Samson after he killed the thousand Phillistines. There are, of course, many examples of water being used to cleanse, or purify, or save in the Old Testamant. In many cases, the use of water was largely symbolic: I made reference earlier to God having Israel cross the Jordan river to get into the Promised Land, even though he could have directed them the other way around the Dead Sea and arrived at the same place, also there are references to lepers being cleansed of their disease just by washing in water. Does this mean that the cure for leprosy is simply taking a bath? Of course not, not any more than looking at a brass serpent can replace anti-venom. What we are looking at is examples of faith in operation. God said do this, people did it, and they were healed. It isn't that washing in water cures leprosy, but when people did it, in faith, believing that God would heal them, then they were no longer lepers. Water didn't heal them, but they wouldn't have been healed without the water. As I said, the use of water was symbolic, it was the obedience, through faith, that did the healing. It's easy to rationalize that, since the use of water was symbolic, that the water is then unnecessary. That simply isn't true. God commanded the water, and God does the healing. God could have chosen to heal without a symbol, but He didn't. He could have chosen a different symbol, but He chose water. Water is a good symbol; don't argue with God.

Satan

There has been some discussion as to whether the devil is real. One thing I know, if you ever see anybody running around looking like the guy in the above photograph, if it isn't Halloween, you might want to check and see if he knows it's not Halloween (and if he says he's not dressed up for Halloween, then you might want to call your local mental institution and let them know you've got one for them); that's not really what the devil looks like.

Wiccans beleive that there is no devil, that's part of Judeo-Christian "mythology." Of course, some people that call themselves Christians don't believe in Satan, either. I think that we can all agree that evil exists. Some people think that there is no intelligence guiding the evil in this world (sometimes it's hard to believe that there is any intelligence in this world, period). May I suggest that an intellect great enough to guide all of the evil in this world, is intelligent enough to be subtle about it. After all, if we can be seduced into believing that there is no evil force conspiring against us, then that makes it that much harder for us to fight against that force. How can you fight against something you don't believe in? You are then reduced to fighting the symptoms, rather than the problem itself. Familiar with the practice of bloodletting? Bloodletting was the practice of treating a fever by drawing blood from the patient; it did reduce the fever, because with less blood, it was actually harder for the body to generate heat and circulate that heat to the body. What 18th century doctors didn't realize was that the fever was part of the body's defense mechanism--trying to use an elevated body temperature to kill the infection. Drawing a significant amount of blood to reduce the fever not only circumvented the body's natural attempt to kill the bacteria that were the real problem, it also weakened the body and made it harder for the defenses to ward off the infection. Very few patients survived bloodletting, yet it remained the treatment of choice for decades.

I remember reading a comic book as a kid where Lex Luthor managed to design an electronic circuit (while in prison) and got one of his cronies to implant it in the latest NASA satellite. The circuit had a hypnotic effect on the world and made people forget all about Superman. So, no matter what Superman does, people always find a way to explain it away as some sort of natural phenomona. It takes him the rest of the issue to figure out what happened, and then burn out the circuit with his heat vision. When I read about it, I couldn't help but think, why would this even bother him? He could do all the good he wanted to, and marry Lois Lane, and never have to worry about the bad guys trying to get even by killing her... Of course, as a reader, I wanted the issue to end with everything back to normal, which it did, but it stuck in my brain because it just didn't make sense; Luthor did Supes a great favor, and then Superman went and messed it all up for himself.

This is exactly the situation that Lucifer is in (except for the doing good part). He can walk to and fro upon the earth, plant thoughts in peoples' heads, and have them think that those thoughts are their own, or worse, that they came from God. Most people don't even suspect Satan, because they either don't believe he exists, or that he is some red guy with horns and a tail, carrying a pitchfork. Beelzebub was created as an angel; a spirit. When he got kicked out of Heaven, his appearance was not changed. The image usually associated with Ol' Scratch is actually derived from the fauns of Roman mythology; I don't know why, I guess an image of a non-existant creature works just as well as the image of a creature with no physical being...

The Universal Conspiracy

I heard it said recently that the entire universe is conspiring in our favor. I'm not sure that's true--in fact, I'm quite sure that it isn't true, at least, not exactly.

There is a significant portion of the universe that would like to see each of us fail. God is, of course, bigger than all of that, and He wants to see us happy and successful. His definition of successful may not be yours or mine, though. Most of us run through life chasing happiness, not realizing that it can never be caught. What makes one happy usually has little or nothing to do with what one expects to make oneself happy. It usually has to do with tending to the needs of others; unfortunately, usually the other person doesn't have a clue what they need. The Bible talks a lot about things being temporal, or temporary. As long as we are in this life, some things seem to be important to us: we have to work a job so that we can pay the rent, buy the groceries, make the car payment; while we're on the job, the boss always seems to be asking too much, co-workers give us a hard time... but, this life is sixty or seventy years, maybe eighty or ninety--a few people live past a hundred; the next life is eternal. A hundred and fifty years, compared to eternity, is like a drop in the ocean (really, one drop is a bigger percentage of the ocean than 150 years compared to eternity). This whole life is temporary. But, if I haven't eaten in awhile, and you come along and try to give me something I need, but that I can't eat, I'm liable to throw it right back in your face. It isn't going to seem like something I need, because my mind is on my belly. Sometimes we have to deal with people's temporal needs before we can fulfill their eternal needs. Even then, if doesn't match up with what they think they want, they may not respond. The good news is, just because someone is by the way side today, they may be good ground tomorrow; God can transform them.

The Real Transformer

Recently, a movie came out on DVD called, "Transformers." My kids watched the cartoon series when they were younger, and I have to admit, I kind of enjoyed it myself. I liked the movie, too. But, Romans 12:2 tells us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. I guess that's like being born again. There are a lot of people that try to say that you don't have to be born again. I think you have to be born again pretty much on a daily basis.

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus talked about the seed falling on different types of ground. There is hard ground, stony ground, thorny ground, and there is good ground. The main point here seems to be that, as we share the Gospel message, we need to be aware that different people are going to react to the message differently; some won't accept it at all. It's also important to realize that each of us are still receiving the message; we never stop learning. We get to choose, each day (sometimes each hour) if we are going to be good ground or not. We may decide some days that we are stony ground, and we are just not going to let anything sink in (or grow). Other days we may be thorny ground, so worried about paying the rent, and buying groceries, and making the car payment... Or maybe the boss has been riding our case, or somebody started an ugly rumor at work; and we forget that, in the long run, none of that matters.

In Second Corinthians 13:5, it says to examine yourself, to see whether you are in the faith. Just because you're in the church, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are in the faith. Some days, I'm afraid to examine myself, because I don't want to know where I stand with God. I just have to pray for forgiveness, and trust that He hasn't given up on me (even though I would have, if I were Him). I have to ask Him to help me become the man that He has always wanted me to be.
In the Parable of the Tares, Jesus taught us that tares (weeds), sometimes spring up in wheat fields. You don't want to weed out the tares, because the roots get entwined with the wheat. So, one simply waits until harvest time, and when the wheat is harvested, then the tares are burned. Again, the point is, one could be right in the middle of a good church, and not be right with God. The big difference between a wheat stalk and a tare, at least at harvest time, is that wheat bares grain, but tares don't provide anything of use (except when they are used as kindling). The good news is that God knows how to transform a tare into a wheat plant.

Every Man Is my Superior

Many. many years ago, on "All in the Family," Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Connor), was giving a hard time to a mentally challenged stock boy from Ferguson's market and trying to plane a door that had been sticking at the same time. Mike Stivic (Rob Reiner) tries to get Archie to leave George, the stock boy, alone, and also tells him that the plane that he's using on the door isn't doing anything. Archie, of course, argues with Mike, and one thing leads to another. Eventually, the two of them are arguing, and the mentally challenged man is left with the door and the plane. Ordinarily, I would say that leaving someone like that with a sharp instrument would be a bad thing (a disaster waiting to happen?), but, in this case, it worked out very well. In a few minutes, George had the door planed down. Archie, of course, demanded to know what he did; and George explained to him that the blade was in backwards. George left, and came back later with a plaque that said, "Every man is my superior, because I may learn something from him. Every man is my inferior, because he can learn something from me." This, of course, was not what Archie wanted to hear, but since George had corrected a mistake of Archie's it was hard for him to argue the point.

I think most of us have some special knowledge or talent, something that we feel confident sets us apart from the rest. There's a lot of truth to that, but, at the same time, each of the individuals around us also has a special knowledge or talent that sets them apart. If I can beat you at chess, but you can beat me at ping-pong, then which of us gets bragging rights? Or if I can beat you at chess and ping-pong, there still has to be something that you can do better than I can.

Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that because someone is good at one thing, they are more important, or that they are better at all things. I am amused when the media spends an inordinate amount of time covering the opinions of actors on subjects that have nothing to with acting. I understand that a lot of movie fans are interested in what the stars think. I'm not one of those people, personally. For example, I think Matt Damon is a fine actor. He amazes me with his ability to come onto the screen (usually with very little to physically differentiate him from any other role that he has played--in "Dogma" he wore a hoodie throughout the movie, in "The Good Shepherd" he wore glasses, and yet, he never wears a mustache or a beard or grows his hair long...) and just wraps himself into the character he portrays. Within minutes, I am not thinking of the person on the screen as Matt Damon: he is Will Hunting, or Jason Bourne, or whoever. Having said that, I do not know, or care, anything about his political beliefs. His ability as an actor does not make him an expert on politics.

In First Corinthians Chapter 12, Apostle Paul spends some time teaching about how God has given different people different abilities to work together to make the church work. Just as in a physical body, we may use our eyes more than our noses, it doesn't mean that a person's nose isn't important. We can live without our legs, but it sure is nice to be able to get up and walk around. Paul refers to the church as the body of Christ. We are the hands and feet and eyes and ears of Jesus. None of individually can do all the things that are needed, but by working together, my strengths may help overcome your weaknesses, and vice-versa. Our combined strength in God makes the church invincible--the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Amazing Grace

Recently the movie, "Amazing Grace" came out on DVD, starring Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic) as William Wilberforce and Albert Finney (Ed Masry from 'Erin Brockovitch') as John Newton. The movie is not nearly as much about John Newton as one would think; it more has to do with William Wilberforce's campaign in Parliament to have the slave trade abolished. His campaign was influenced by his friend John Newton, a reformed slave trader himself who claims to be haunted by the ghosts of thousands of slaves that didn't survive the trip across the Atlantic in Captain Newton's ship. How much of the movie is actually true? That's hard to say; certainly the main plot is accurate, but the details are probably almost all conjecture. For some reason, I don't doubt that William Wilberforce actually stood up in a session of Parliament and sang 'Amazing Grace,' although not with that tune (the lyrics were not applied to the tune that we currently identify with 'Amazing Grace' until much later, but most of the audience wouldn't have known that, and would have been confused if Ioan Gruffudd had actually sung the tune that was used at that time).

It's a good story: A man who was, two hundred years ago, able to look past color and be outraged by the sufferings of his fellow man, even though that fellow man looked very different from himself. Another man, realizing that he has lived a despicable life, seeking redemption, and probably never really sure that he had found it. It's unfortunate that this didn't happen until after America gained it's independence, we might have been spared some of the most painful experiences that we, as a nation, have gone through. As it was, when the British outlawed the slave trade, we simply began dealing with Spanish and Portuguese slave traders. It took us a long time to learn the lessons of William Wilberforce (some of still seem to be learning).

Could a man like John Newton be redeemed, after causing so many deaths, and dealing in human lives? Certainly. God mercy knows almost no bounds. In this life, that may not seem fair, but in the life to come, no one will begrudge Reverend Newton his place (especially not those of us who love singing the hymns that he wrote the lyrics to).

In the book of Acts, there was a pharisee named Saul, who had letters that authorized him to do whatever was necessary to seek out members of this new cult of Christianity, and have them hauled in and incarcerated. Many faithful brothers and Sisters in the faith died, because of Saul. But God dealt with Saul on the road to Damascus, and Saul was converted, and became Apostle Paul. Apostle Paul became one of the most (if not the most) prolific evangelist of the early church, he was also one of the most prolific writers: 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul (some argue against Paul authoring Hebrews, but that would still be 13 of 27). Paul's past sins were remitted--separated as far from him as the East is from the West--and yet, I tend to believe that he never forgot what he had done, and always felt that he had much to atone for. I suspect that the actions of Saul, drove Paul to be a better Christian. Similarly, I think that actions of Captain John Newton kept pricking at the conscience of Reverend John Newton and caused him to work for God, to try to atone for some things that God had already forgotten. The irony here is that both men wrote about grace--Paul extensively in the book of Romans (and Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians...), and John Newton in the hymn, 'Amazing Grace,' and yet, both men's actions would tend to indicate that they had a hard time accepting grace, personally (perhaps they were each so individually thankful to be the recipients of grace that they wanted to make sure that others knew about grace...). I'm sure both men were haunted by that little voice in the back of the head that says, over and over, "You can never make up for what you did. You can never do enough. You will always be that man that did all those terrible things." The voice is partially correct: One can never do enough to make up for past sins, that's why God has extended grace to us. Will we always be the person who committed those sins? No; Jesus said you must be born again: You have to start your life over in God. We, being human, never forget what we did, but God looks past that, and gives us a fresh start. Grace truly is amazing.

Defending the Indefensible

In First Samuel 26, David (not yet King David) finds himself in an awkward position. The prophet Samuel has actually anointed David to be king over Israel, but King Saul is still alive, and is clearly not going to abdicate the throne any time soon. In fact, Saul has seen the writing on the wall and realizes that David is going to succeed him, rather than one of Saul's own sons, and he isn't happy about it. In this passage, David is on the run, but Saul, and his soldiers, are hot on David's trail. At night, under cover of darkness, David manages to circle back and sneak into Saul's camp while Saul is sleeping. David could certainly have, at this point, killed Saul in self-defense, and it would be difficult for any man with any real sense of justice to find fault. But David not only refuses to so it, he forbids any of his men to harm King Saul; not because of any great love for Saul, but because Saul was made king by God, and David believes that when God is ready for David to become king, God will work out the details. David doesn't want to circumvent God's will by taking matters into his own hands.

It occurs to me that, usually, when one defends another person, then others have the natural reaction that the person doing the defending is taking sides. It is possible to defend another person without actually agreeing with them, but not agreeing with the situation or the methods being used against that person. John Grisham's non-fiction book, 'The Innocent Man' details the life of a man who was convicted of murder and served over ten years in prison before it finally became clear that someone else was guilty. To be honest, I have to take issue with the title of the book; the man may not have been guilty of the murder of which he was convicted, but he was far from innocent. To be honest, it's hard for me to drum up too much sympathy for the man that was wrongfully convicted: he probably should have served at least a good chunk of that time for other crimes that he did commit but didn't get convicted for (although in a mental institution, rather than a penal institution). On the other hand, the real killer was allowed to roam free for many years; it's a little surprising that he didn't kill anyone else.

Right is right, and it goes back to the sense of fair play that I talked about yesterday. There have been times when I have heard someone attacked, and I have kept my mouth shut, because I didn't want anyone to think that I was taking the side of the person that was being attacked; but, really, the attack was just plain wrong (even if the person being attacked was also wrong). The other night, I heard someone say that they couldn't believe anyone would vote for a Muslim for president ("this country was founded on Christian principles..." "the Muslims attacked us..."). I pointed out that there aren't any Muslims running for president, and he seemed genuinely surprised that I didn't think Barack Obama was Muslim; he responded that Obama certainly isn't a Christian. I almost told him that Obama is as much a Christian as anyone else in the race, but I didn't. To be honest, I was taken by surprise; I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the Muslim angle is propaganda touted by other candidates. Then he started talking about Obama's Muslim upbringing (not that Obama was raised as a Muslim, that's just more propaganda). I personally am not very fond of Obama (although I like his inexperience, I think that's a good thing--usually by the time a politician is 'experienced' enough to run for president, he {or she} is either corrupt, or completely out of touch with the needs of the American people). But, for the record, Barack Obama is a long-term member of a United Church of Christ church in Chicago. I'm not sure where his middle name came from, but I think that it's important to remember that when he was born, Saddam had not yet risen to power in Iraq, but Jordan had a benevolent king named Hussein.

As long as I am on the subject, let me point out some other things that I have heard that violate my sense of fair play. Some have suggested that Hillary Clinton should have gotten a divorce ten years ago. They say that the only reason she didn't, is because she felt that the divorce would work against her in her bid for the presidency. There is, of course, no real evidence to support that theory. Let's consider for a moment that divorce can be a traumatic event, particularly for the children, if there are children involved. I think we should at least give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt, that she may have done what she did to spare Chelsea. I realize that not too many unhappy married people practice that philosophy these days, but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to accept that theory. Don't misunderstand me, I think that the situation having been what it was, she had every right to file for divorce; had she done so, I would have supported her decision, but I also think that she had a right not to divorce, and so I support her decision.

Mitt Romney has gotten some flak about being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and Letter Day Saints (the Mormons). Two main things that have come up: 1) a lot of Mormons have some odd ideas about African-Americans, and 2) a lot of Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. First of all, just because a lot of Mormons are prejudiced, it doesn't necessarily follow that Mitt Romney is. This is, of course, why he has made statements recently about marching with his father in civil rights marches in the 60's. It appears that his memories are a little more grandiose than the actual events, but, in any case, it makes it hard to believe that he is a racist. Secondly, although I disagree completely that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, the idea that maybe Mitt Romney believes that, really doesn't bother me. I know a lot of brothers that don't have anything in common. If one were to consider Lucifer to be a son of God (as opposed to a creation of God) then he would definitely be the black sheep of the family. It seems to me that the Bible makes it pretty clear that Lucifer wasn't always evil. In point of fact, from what I understand of Mormon doctrine, the reason Satan was kicked out of Heaven was that he kept fighting with his brother...

It's Not Fair!

Yesterday I posted about people worrying too much about what other people are doing, or what is happening to other people. I may not have made it clear that I understand that we, as human beings, have an innate sense of fair play. To be honest, a lot of us (myself included) feel like things should be exactly equal, all the way across the board, except for ourselves--we should be a little 'more equal' than everybody else. To be honest, I think most of us get at least a little bent out of shape when we see someone else getting the short end of the stick for no apparent reason; especially if that person happens to be of a different race than ourselves.

In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." The case in point, it was common practice in the early fifties for a town to have several 'white' schools, and one 'colored' school. The 'colored' school was usually the oldest school building in the local school system, whether it actually had enough classrooms to suit the needs of the students. In addition, whenever one of the white schools got new desks or new books, the old desks or books went to the 'colored' school. The African-American kids never got new desks or new textbooks (generally they didn't even get current textbooks). Is separate but equal possible? I would think so, but extremely unlikely. By putting kids in the same classroom without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin, everybody gets the same education--barring indiscretions from the teacher, of course (but even some of the white kids will complain if their sense of fair play is violated--even if the victim of the teacher's actions is not white).

God gave us a sense of fair play, but sometimes it works against us, because we don't see the whole picture. It doesn't help any that, not only are we limited by our own senses, but, frequently, we are limited by what others perceive and pass on to us. Sometimes people tell us things that they believe to be true, that turn out to be nothing more than gossip. We don't always pick up on it, because they don't tell us that they heard from their neighbor, who got it from her cousin, who's college roommate's boyfriend is a police officer... Sometimes things are as fair as can be, and just don't seem to be.

What does that have to do with you?

I have mentioned before that I am a Navy veteran. During one period on my first ship, my division officer became concerned about morale and productivity, and asked us for suggestions for incentives. One of the other guys suggested extra liberty and more concrete expectations. Prior to that time, the bulk of our work assignments for a given week were given out on Monday, but then on Tuesday or Wednesday, frequently new tasks were assigned, and then the things that were assigned on Monday ended up getting pushed back to Friday. If we could know, on Monday, what needed to get done that week, we could budget our time accordingly, and if we could leave when the work was done, that would provide incentive to get the work done. The division officer thought that was a good idea, gave us the go ahead. To his credit, he actually got very good at side-stepping those annoying little priorities that normally seemed to pop up in the middle of the week, and we were able to sit down on Monday morning, and portion out the work load in quarters: One quarter to be done on Monday, one quarter on Tuesday, etc., with Friday being a catch-up day, if necessary. The idea being, when we got our work done for Monday, we could leave, or, if 4:00 PM rolled around and we weren't done yet, we left anyway (just like everybody else) and we pushed that back to Tuesday, and whatever was left on Friday we took care of then. Of course, we understood that we were going to be getting underway soon, and once we left the pier, that wasn't going to work. It actually worked very well, for a while, our morale was better, and we got more work done, which improved the division officer's morale. But (and you knew there had to be a 'but' in there somewhere), the First Lieutenant complained about it. Allow me to explain who the First Lieutenant is on a ship. On board ship, one of the most important groups of people is known as 'deck' (deck also happens to be one of those groups of people that nobody thinks of as important unless they are not doing their collective job) . Deck is responsible for the preservation of the ship. On some ships, deck is a department; on my ship, deck was smaller than that, so deck was a division. If deck is a department, then the First Lieutenant is the deck department head; if deck is a division, then he (or she) is the division officer. Now deck is spread out all over the skin of the ship. There is always some part of the ship where the paint has been damaged, and the salt from the sea can get in a start corroding the steel of the ship. If deck slips up, the ship can rust right out from under you. The paint can protect the steel, but, it also can hide the rust. You understand now why I say these guys are important. They are also in a position that they know who comes aboard, and who leaves the ship. The First Lieutenant's complaint was that it was demoralizing to the guys in deck to watch my division leave at 10:00 AM every day. So, our incentives went away, and life in my division went back to normal. To some extent, I can see deck's point: We are all on the same ship, we are getting paid by the same office, why is it that one guy works only a few hours a day compared to some other guy? At the same time, different jobs have different work requirements; if I can do my job in three hours, and it takes you all day to do yours, what does my work hours have to do with you? It's not like either change affected deck's workload or work hours...

In Matthew chapter 20, Jesus taught a parable about a man who owned a vineyard, and needed workers. He knew a spot in the marketplace where men would go if they were looking for work (sort of like today's temp services), and so he went there, and hired some workers for the day. He went back several times later, and hired more men each time. When he went to pay these men, he started with the men who had only come to the vineyard in the late afternoon. The men who were hired early in the morning complained that even the men who were hired in late afternoon (and had avoided working when the day was hottest) got paid the same thing. It didn't seem right to them, but they weren't hired on an hourly scale. Here we aren't talking about different jobs (they all did the same job), just different requirements. Now the man who owned the vineyard felt completely justified in that, it is my vineyard, you come and work for me at the wage we agreed on this morning, or you don't work; don't worry about what agreement I have with any other of my workers, that's none of your business. Of course, Jesus is talking about different people that accept Jesus at different times, or at different times in their lives. You get the same reward (Heaven) whether you accept the Lord as a teenager or on your deathbed. Keep in mind, though, you may not get the opportunity for a deathbed repentance (I saw a bumper sticker once, referring to this parable, that said, "Many people who plan on accepting the Lord in the eleventh hour die at 10:30"). You don't know what the next moment will bring. I don't mean to sound morbid, but a drunk driver could end you mortal existence tonight; if you haven't accepted Jesus as Lord of your life, you should do so now (of course, if you don't think you need to, then going through the motions isn't going to help you any).

Pardon the interruption, but let me get back on the subject at hand: When Peter asked Jesus about what would happen to John, Jesus replied, in John 21:22, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." Of course, if you read on, John points out that Jesus didn't say that John would live to see the return of Christ, only that if he did, that had nothing to do with Peter.

The point is, don't worry about what God has for someone else. Do what God had for you to do. It may not even seem important, but do it. Realistically, you can't possibly see everything that someone else is going through or has gone through. It's kind of funny, really, oftentimes we feel like nobody else knows or understands what we're going through, but we don't stop to consider that we don't know what other people are going through... But God knows.

Addictions

When you talk about addiction, most people automatically think about drugs. Certainly drug addiction is a serious problem, but there are other addictions. Some people don't think of alcohol as a drug, but it is, and so alcoholism is just another drug addiction. Nicotine is also a drug, but it is generally more habit-forming than addicting. Part of the problem is that different people are susceptible to different things. One person may be able to smoke for awhile, and then stop for awhile, and then pick it up again, while another person may suffer withdrawal symptoms within hours after putting out a cigarette; for one, it's a habit, for the other, it's an addiction.

But drugs are not the only thing. For some people, gambling is an addiction. Granted, there is a certain amount of thinking that they just need one quick win to get ahead, and then they will stop; but the more they gamble, the more they lose, and the bigger the win needed to get out of the hole, and then, on the rare occasion that they actually get that big win, then they develop the attitude that they can afford to gamble now, they have money, and end up losing everything anyway. Casinos don't exist to make their customers rich--they exist to make their owners rich.

Some people find pornography addicting. Psychologists say that the appeal of pornography is that one can engage in sexual activity without actual having to go through the social activity that normally leads to the emotional closeness that should lead to, well, I'll say marriage, even though most psychologists probably don't consider marriage to be a mandatory precursor to sexual activity... The problem, of course, is that God has given us a desire to procreate: We, being the basically simple-minded people that we are, have turned that into a simple desire for sex, at least on the surface. Below the surface, though, there is a desire to see our genes, our DNA, in the children that will eventually grow up and, either take care of us in our declining years, or choose our nursing homes. No matter how much pornography one views, that basic need is never met: It's sort of like painting over rotting wood to cover the problem instead of replacing the wood and fixing the problem.

There is a statement commonly attributed to John D. Rockefeller (although I can't find anything to directly link him to the quote), that, when asked "How much money does it take to make a man happy?" he replied, "Just a little bit more." In the book of Ecclesiastes, God tells us that we will never be satisfied with increase; this doesn't just apply to money. Whatever action that makes one feel better, if it is not of God, will snowball; it will take more and more to achieve that same feeling, and, even then, it's a temporary feel-good type of thing, it is not satisfaction. Mick Jagger was right about that...

It's Funny

It is funny that everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die. On the other hand, if one is too willing to die, then one's death might be considered suicide, and you don't get to Heaven by killing oneself. Although some believers in Islam would disagree on that. Personally, I think it's funny (funny odd, more than funny ha-ha) that they think that if they kill themselves 'for the cause' then they get 72 virgins in Heaven (is that actually in the Koran somewhere? I doubt it, but I don't know). So if a woman keeps herself pure for Allah, she gets to spend eternity sharing a suicide bomber with 71 other women who kept themselves pure--that's her reward?

Mark Twain once pointed out that everybody believes that we are going to be playing harps in Heaven, but most of us don't take harp lessons here on earth. Of course, he suggested that we are all going to end up in Heaven not knowing how to play the standard-issue harp, but plucking away at it anyway, for the glory of God. I don't remember anything in the Bible about playing the harp in Heaven, but I do know that the Bible says that in Heaven we will know much more than we do here on earth (1 Corinthians 13:12). Just between us, I don't think we're going to be playing harps in Heaven, but, if we do, we'll know exactly how to play them.

It's funny that we tend to think of St. Peter as the gatekeeper for Heaven. Where did that come from? I know Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom, but I really don't think that means that Peter is going to spend eternity at the gate, comparing names to a list, letting people in, or turning them away. Matthew 25 certainly doesn't describe judgment that way. Isn't there a difference between a gatekeeper and a keymaster, anyway?

I also think it's funny that so many people got so upset over 'The DaVinci Code.' If some of the concepts in that book (or movie) caused you to question your faith, then maybe your faith needed to be questioned, but, it was a work of fiction. Even if there really is a group of people that believes that they are protecting the last descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (and there is not), that doesn't prove by any stretch of the imagination that there actually ever was a descendant of Jesus and Mary... (Just a side note, Dan Brown asserts in the beginning of his book that the Priory of Sion is a real organization. It was--maybe it still is, but I believe it has been dissolved. However, the Priory never claimed to have any knowledge of the descendants of Jesus. Their stated purpose was to protect the descendants of the former kings of France.) Keep in mind that, book or movie, "The DaVinci Code" is a work of fiction. Of course, it is a work of fiction that works best in the mind of the reader if certain ideas are presented as being factual. Remember 'The Blair Witch Project?' The movie did very well as long as people believed that it actually was spliced together from film recovered after three film students disappeared in the woods, researching the Blair Witch. Once word got out the film was completely fictional, most people lost interest.

Trust

Trust can be a real issue for a lot of people. We don't trust each other, we don't trust our government, we don't trust anybody. Even people that mean well will eventually disappoint, or let you down because they are people. We are only human, none of us is perfect.

We are taught in the Scriptures that God is our Father. This can be problematic, at least for some people, because human fathers are, well, human. To compare God to a human father risks attributing fault to God. Even our own natural fathers are human and prone to failure; but the relationship we are supposed to have with them is similar to the relationship we should have with God. We as human beings have a bad tendency to attribute human qualities to non-humans. Sometimes we even humanize objects (that's easy to do with computers, but sometimes we even blame a piece of furniture for being in the way as if it had moved itself from where we left it--sometimes we even assign it a motive for moving...). Someone asked the question, "Why does a mirror reverse left and right and not up and down?" Let's do a thought experiment: Suppose that you are lying on your left side, facing a mirror; now left is down, and right is up. Move your right arm (your 'up' arm). Now, does your reflections 'up' arm move, or does its 'down' arm move? (If you have a hard time imagining this, try it and see how it comes out.) The 'up' arm, of course, because mirrors don't reverse up and down. Now, consider for a moment, isn't the arm that moved on your right (remember, right is up)? The problem isn't that mirrors reverse left and right, it's that we expect them to reverse left and right (the reflection looks like another person, and that other person's right should be to our left, but it isn't) and they don't reverse anything. This is just us, humanizing our own reflections.

We should not attribute human qualities to God, however. Aren't we created in God's image? Yes, in the sense that we are immortal souls, but, unlike God, we have mortal flesh that doesn't always agree with what is best for our souls. Voltaire once commented that, "If God created us in His own image, we have more than reciprocated." There is a certain logic to the idea that if God created us in His own image, then God must look like us, yet, most of what we think of as our defining characteristics aren't common to all of humanity. Some of are fair-complected, others are dark complected, many others are somewhere in-between; so what color is God? Again, God is a Spirit, He is not flesh and blood. We can, and should, trust God, because He is not a man, that He should lie; He is not a man that He should repent (or have anything to repent of, except for creating us). Don't misunderstand me, I know that there are times when God has changed His mind (usually because of something than one or more of us human beings has done), but as far as Him having done something evil and having to repent of that, no, that's never happened.

I hate it when people overlook the obvious. Sometimes I wonder if what they are overlooking is only obvious to me. For example, many times I have heard people comment on the contention between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:38, and they say, "Now, we don't know what the contention was between Paul and Barnabas..." And I say, "You don't? Did you try reading the previous two verses?" It seems obvious to me that Barnabas felt very strongly that God wanted him to work with Mark, but he had grown so accustomed to working with Paul that it really didn't even occur to him that he was supposed to work with Mark instead of working with Paul. Meanwhile, Paul felt very strongly that he wasn't supposed to work with Mark, but he also was very accustomed to working with Barnabas, and it didn't occur to him, either, that Barnabas should work with Mark and Paul should find someone else to work with. But Barnabas insisted that they should work with Mark, and Paul insisted that they should not, and eventually they realized that they could no longer work together--which is what God wanted all along anyway. So Barnabas worked with Mark, and Paul worked with Silas.

Paul and Silas went on to be thrown in jail in Thessalonica, but then led a revival in the jail. That's an interesting story in and of itself. Paul and Silas, having been beaten badly, and having their feet locked in stocks in the inner prison, began praising God. The other prisoners heard them, and had to have thought that these guys are nuts--just completely whacked out of their gourds--but then, God sent an earthquake, and the stocks came loose, and the door to the cell opened. The jailer awoke, and seeing the door opened, assumed that Paul and Silas had escaped. Knowing what kind of punishment he would receive, and the disgrace to his family, the jailer thought it better to kill himself on the spot. He pulled out his sword, and Paul, knowing what was going through the jailer's mind, stopped him, and assured him that no one had escaped. The first thought in the jailers mind was probably that these guys are nuts... but he realized that Paul was the kind of man that didn't want to be even partially responsible for someone else's death. This Paul, he's real, he could have walked away and let me die, but he put my own life above his own (think about it: Paul didn't know what the morning held, he and Silas could very easily have been executed for their alleged crimes). What drives a man like that? How can I be more like that? The jailer took Paul and Silas to his own home, tended to their injuries, they shared with him the gospel message, and he was baptized, and his whole family (at what time? 2:00 AM? We know it was midnight when Paul and Silas started worshipping in their cell...) I wonder what the jailer's wife thought when he brought two prisoners home in the middle of the night (in the middle of his shift), and woke her up, and wanted her to listen to what they had to say... She probably thought her husband was nuts--completely whacked out of his gourd, but she knew that something had changed his life. Insanity is not contagious, but, sometimes, sanity is.

Silly Questions

Dave Barry once wrote that "a woman is someone who, when asked what is wrong, says, 'Nothing.' A man is someone who, when he asks a woman what is wrong, and she says, "Nothing," believes her.

Really, I think that it is not so much that we believe her. I know that on more than one occasion, I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get a woman who was obviously troubled, to tell me what was wrong, only to come to the conclusion that she wasn't going to tell me until she was ready. So, after exhausting all known methods for extracting information, I decided that is was best to go along with the game and pretend that nothing was bothering her. Apparently, women find it considerably more satisfying to lower the boom on someone who appears not to realize that she is upset. I'm not sure why that is, but that understanding can be a real timesaver.

God sometimes doesn't answer right away, either. Maybe that's where women get it, I don't know. Oftentimes, we pray to God, expecting a yes-or-no response, and the answer we get is, "Wait." And we ask, "For how long?" and we get no response. And a lot of times, when the solution (finally) arrives, we realize that God set the answer in motion before we even asked. Is that because He knew that we would, or just that time is meaningless to God? I'm not sure.

You've probably heard the story about the man who had a conversation with God and was asking silly questions:

"God?"

"Yes, my son?"

"How long is a million years to you?"

"A million years to me is like a second to you."

"Oh. (long pause) God?"

"Yes, my son?"

"How much is a million dollars to you?"

"A million dollars to me is like a penny to you."

"Oh. (long pause) God?"

"Yes, my son?"

"Can I have a penny?"

"Certainly, my son. Just give me a second..."

Money is certainly meaningless to God, and I suspect that time is, too. We know that He knew the end from the beginning; some say that it is because He controls everything, but I believe that He has given us freedom of choice. I believe that God knows everything that will ever happen because He is not constrained by the flow of time the way that we mere mortals are. He can see what is going to happen, without guessing, and without manipulating. Oh, don't misunderstand me, God does manipulate things sometimes, but only for the greater good--and, usually, because one of His children has asked Him to.

Solomon's Temple

(Image from www.mishkanministries.org/architectural_modles_kst.htm )

I have heard a lot of discussion about King Solomon's Temple; King David wanted to build a temple for God, but God refused him. Later King David told Solomon that it would be Solomon's responsibility to build the temple. There are multiple theories about why God wouldn't allow David to build the temple, but most of them seem to be out in left field to me.

If you look at the text where David found out God didn't want him to build the temple, God starts out saying that He doesn't need a house (after all, why would a spiritual being need a physical house), and a lot of the rest of it actually sounds like Messianic prophesy. God certainly told David that after David's death, God would raise up one of David's sons and establish his kingdom; I have to wonder though, did God mean immediately after David's death? He says that He will establish that throne forever: Does that mean that Solomon's throne is established forever because we still remember King Solomon today? It seems to me that God is talking about Jesus, of the lineage of David, whose throne is established for evermore.

Now, if you look at the text where David assigns the task to Solomon, it reads very differently. David seems to think that it is because of the bloodshed during his reign that he was not allowed to build the temple. There was no mention of bloodshed before... Further, David says that God prophesied that Solomon, by name, would build the temple. There was no mention of Solomon's name before, and, quite frankly, it would have been meaningless if there had been; Solomon hadn't been born yet, David could have named any of his sons Solomon... God definitely told David that the temple would not be built until after David's death, but there's no mention of that when David spoke to Solomon. So what happened? Well, it's certainly possible that the writer of First Chronicles (Nathan?) simply left out some of what God told David. It's also possible (and more likely, IMHO) that David had thirty years to ponder what God had told him, and that he formed his own opinions about what God meant, and he paraphrased or embellished the instructions unintentionally. I have been asked if I thought David lied to Solomon: No, I don't think he lied, but I think what he said wasn't entirely true; lying implies intent to deceive, I don't believe that there was any such intent.

I also want to point out that a lot of people believe that when David talked about bloodshed, he was specifically referring to the death of Uriah the Hittite. I would tend to agree. All of the other blood that was shed during David's reign was the blood of enemies of God, or at least, enemies of Israel (if there was a difference). Uriah was one of David's mighty men: a hero of Israel. David had not yet met Bathsheba (Uriah's wife, for whom David had Uriah killed) at the time Nathan told David that God did not want David to build the temple. We know this because there are two places in the Bible where it talks about David sending Joab to besiege Rabbah at the time "...when Kings went forth/out to battle..." and both times, David tarried still at Jerusalem. The point, of course, being that David was not where he was supposed to be. The first time is in Second Samuel 11:1, the second being First Chronicles 20:1. Obviously, these are both references to the same battle, but in Second Samuel, the narrative goes on to spell out the whole story of David suffering from insomnia, and going up on the roof, and seeing Bathsheba (the original bathing beauty), and thinking that she could put him to sleep; not caring that her husband, Uriah was off at Rabbah, putting his life on the line for his nation, Israel. For some reason, First Chronicles doesn't mention Bathsheba or Uriah; perhaps an attempt to reduce redundancy. Amazingly, only two chapters later, David charges Solomon, his son by Bathsheba, to build the temple. That should make it clear that First Chronicles is somewhat abbreviated. In any case, there are also two places where it makes reference to God saying no to David when he was seeking to build a house for God: Second Samuel 7:5, and First Chronicles 17:4--both times, several chapters prior to his encounter with Bathsheba. So, even though David may have still felt guilty over the encounter when his son Solomon was old enough to assume the throne, it really had nothing to do with why God denied him the opportunity to build the temple.