Strain at a Gnat?

Jesus once accused the Scribes and Pharisees of straining (choking) on gnats, but swallowing camels. He was, of course, making the point that they were getting caught up in fine points of doctrine, while leaving major points either unaddressed, or completely backward. It’s kind of like being so careful not to scratch the paint on your new car, that you total it. In the long run, you’d obviously rather deal with a scratch or two.
I think sometimes we miss the point: The gospels paint the Scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees as being arrogant, hypocritical, and just downright evil. I’m not going to say that they weren’t, but, they were the religious people of the day. We like to compare ourselves to the disciples, because we are the disciples in our time period, but, much as we try not to be religious, we end up getting caught up in our religion, instead of in doing the work of Christ, and we end up being Scribes or Pharisees or Sadducees. This is exactly what Jesus was trying to warn us against.
Sometimes we lose sight of what we’re really all about. The mission is to see souls saved. I remember one time a guy from my church got all bent out of shape because of some woman that he felt was wearing too much make up. Well, okay, she was wearing too much make up, but that’s not the point. Big deal. Just for the sake of anybody that may be wondering, I’m not talking about Tammy Fae, this was a woman in a restaurant where we were eating. I don’t think God ever sent anyone to Hell over how much make-up they were wearing. I’m sure some people have gone to Hell over their vanity, which may have been evident by the amount of make-up or jewelry they were wearing, but the make-up (or jewelry) is not the problem, it’s the mental attitude that led to it. By the way, has it ever occurred to you that what is a sin for one person may not be a sin for another? That’s another topic. I’ll try to go into that next week.
My point is that we need to be about living right, not so much looking like we are living right—although if we don’t look like we’re living right, it makes it hard to bring people to Christ. Does that sound like a paradox? Let me put it in very simple terms: Live right, but don’t worry about looking like you’re living right. Do what you should be doing (and don’t do what you shouldn’t be doing) even when no one else is around. Don’t try to see what you can get away with, because God sees everything. There are an awful lot of people that look like they are living right, but they really aren’t. Jesus talked about (again, the Scribes and the Pharisees) being like sepulchres (tombs) that look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside they are filled with dead men’s bones. The religious people of Jesus’ day were quite capable of making themselves look good, and most people didn’t even realize that they weren’t really living right—although a lot of people did understand that Jesus’ teaching made the message much more accessible. That’s what it’s really all about.

BTW, reader Lyn in Seattle posted a comment yesterday, and Lyn, just in case you haven't looked at yesterday's comments, what you were asking for is now in my profile. I don't think I need to ask you to be respectful with it.

Circumcision and Baptism

I have heard some people say that baptism is like circumcision, and since you don't have to be circumcised anymore, you don't have to be baptized anymore, either. I always want to ask them if they have a starter in their car, and if they do, then, why? the starter is just like the old-time hand-cranks, so if you don't need a hand-crank anymore, then you must not need starter, either.
Realistically, the reason that circumcision was required to be a Jew, but not required to be a Christian has a lot to do with the fact that, although Christianity grew out of Judaism, they are two different religions. And, yes, there are many times in Scripture where it compares baptism with circumcision, it is pretty clear that while circumcision is a requirement for a man to be a Jew, baptism is a requirement for anyone to be Christian. Isn't it convenient that we know have something that women can do, too?
Let’s look at circumcision first: This was actually one of the earliest commandments, God told Abraham, long before He gave Moses the law, to circumcise all the baby boys among his descendents. Now, Moses, having run away from Egypt into Ethiopia, but now having seen the burning bush, and is going back to Egypt to set his people free, gets partway back, with his Ethiopian wife, Zipporah, and God demands that Moses’ son be circumcised—God seems to be prepared to kill Moses over this. Keep in mind that this is totally foreign to Zipporah (it probably seemed completely barbaric to her), and Moses, not really having been raised as a Jew, himself, never really pressed the issue with her, but now that they are away from her people, and heading back towards his people, God wants Moses’ family to be right. Obviously, this was an important commandment if God was willing to kill Moses over it. Keep in mind, also, that Moses was in a unique position; he was raised as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, so he knew the palace, and, even though he may not have the most favor of the current administration, they knew him, and probably thought of him as family (the black sheep of the family, no doubt, but he could make requests that ordinary Hebrews would be killed over). So God has this individual that fits the current situation perfectly, except for this one little thing, and God is ready to kill him, and raise up another one to take his place, unless he circumcises his son.
Now, baptism is generally thought to have begun with John the Baptist. Of course, John was sent to prepare the way for the Christ. Now we have four different accounts of the Great Commission, each of them at least a little different, but both Matthew and Mark agree that baptism is part of the Great Commission. That makes it sound like baptism is pretty important, too. Now, in Colossians 2:11-12, Apostle Paul makes the comparison between circumcision and baptism. In Romans 2, Apostle Paul attempts to explain why, in this new covenant, that physical circumcision means so little, but the circumcision that matters is the circumcision of the heart—which would have to be circumcision “made without hands.” In First Corinthians 7, Paul also explains that, in Christ, it really doesn’t matter whether one is circumcised or not, what matters is obedience—keeping the commandments. We have already established that Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Commission, so any attempt to disavow baptism is really an attempt to disavow what Jesus said.

Passover and the Crucufixion

I posted a blog about Communion on Monday, and it occurred to me that, although I alluded to the idea that the Passover foreshadowed the Crucifixion, I didn't go into a lot of detail about it. I will attempt to rectify that now.
In Exodus 12, God told Moses to have Israel prepare for the tenth plague--the death of the firstborn. On the tenth day of the month, the Israelites are to pick out a lamb for each household; the lamb is to be a perfect lamb, without any blemish on it. On the fourteenth day of the month, the lamb was to be sacrificed, and its blood applied to the doorposts of the house. God said that He would pass through Egypt and take the firstborn from any household that didn't have the blood of the lamb on the doorposts. In Numbers 9, God tells Moses that the children of Israel should celebrate Passover every year, and He says that they should not let even one bone of the Passover sacrifice to be broken, not even after it was dead.
In John 1:29, John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus to be the Lamb of God, a sentiment echoed in Revelation 7:17, 14:10, 15:3, 19:9, etc. In First Peter 1:19, Peter compares Jesus to a lamb without blemish, and even says that it was the blood of Jesus that redeemed us. In Hebrews 9:12, Apostle Paul tells us that Jesus' blood gives us eternal redemption (as in, the sacrificial offerings of various animals has to be done over and over, but the sacrifice of Christ was done once for all of us). Also, in John 19:33, we are told that the soldiers came around to break the legs of the three men being crucified, so that the could entomb them, and not worry about them getting away, but they saw that Jesus was already dead, so they didn’t bother to break His legs.
So, the sacrifice should be a lamb, check. The lamb should be without blemish, check. The blood of the Lamb signals the death angel to pass over, check. No broken bones, check. It’s also clear that Jesus was crucified the week of Passover: Matthew 26 indicates that the Last Supper happened on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread (Passover lasts a week), but Matthew also tells us that the chief priests and scribes didn’t want to take Jesus on the feast day, because it might cause an uproar (Matthew 26:5). Mark 14:12 also indicates that the Last Supper was on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. Luke 22:7 indicates the same thing. John 18:28, on the other hand, says that when Jesus was taken into Pilate’s judgment hall, that the scribes and priests had not yet celebrated Passover. I think that it’s a pretty safe bet that Jesus wanted to celebrate Passover once more with His disciples before His crucifixion, so He had them prepare Passover early, but none of them thought to mention that in the narrative. In fact, John 19:14 says that the day of the crucifixion was the preparation for the Passover, which, if I’m reading that correctly, was the time that the lamb was sacrificed for Passover. It’s hard to be sure, the way the Gospels were written, but it seems like Jesus was actually crucified on the fourteenth of the month.

Are You Taking That Literally?

I have heard some people say that the Bible is the literal Word of God, and I agree with that, but then I have also heard people say that they take the Word of God literally. That's not the same thing, although it sounds very similar. The thing to remember is that, even though the Bible is the literal Word of God, that doesn't mean that there are not figures of speech in it.

Do you think that when Jesus said, "Ye are the salt of the earth," that we were immediately transubstantiated into salt? (wasn't that the punishment for Lot's wife?) Or was He merely stating that, just as salt can be used as a preservative to keep certain foods from going bad, that it is only because there are some people left on earth that God thinks are worth saving, that He hasn't gone ahead and destroyed the whole planet (in other words, we are the preservative for the earth). Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a lot of prayer to understand exactly what is meant by some of the passages in the Bible. Fortunately, God wants us to understand, so He will give us understanding, if we ask for it.

One of the most amusing arguments that I have heard, as far as not believing the Bible, is, "Do you have a paddle strapped to your weapon?" This is not so much a figure of speech as just an anachronism. God was trying to teach Israel a little something about sanitary hygiene, without getting into the explanation of why it's a bad idea to just provide a place for flies to gather and spread germs. I think most of us know, these days, that if you aren't where you can flush it, you should bury it. Besides, that is Old Testament law, and we are not under the law, but under grace.

By the way, while I am on the subject, I have heard a lot of people (many of whom should have known better) say the 'The Law' is the Old Testament. The Jews divide up what we call the Old Testament (what they call the Tanakh) into three parts: The Torah, the Neviim, and the Ketuvim. By the way, they don't arrange the books in quite the same order that we do, either. It starts out the same: The Torah contains Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (although those books are called Bereshit, Shemot, VaYikra, BaMidar, and Devarim, respectively). The Neviim contains Joshua, Judges, First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings, but then goes to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets (Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel A, Shmuel B, Melachim A, Melachim B, Yisheyah, Yermiyah, Yechezchial, and Treisar). Ketuvim contains everything else. My point is this: Ketuvim is the Hebrew word for writings, basically, this is the poetry of the Tanakh; Neviim is the Hebrew word for Prophets, so all the books written by prophets are included in the Neviim; Torah is the Hebrew word for law, so all the books of the law are in the Torah, or the books of Moses--also known as the Pentateuch (although Pentateuch comes from the Greek, so I guess it would be improper to refer to those books as the Pentateuch unless you were also using the Greek names Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Did you catch what 'The Law' actually is? The five books of Moses--which would explain why the Law is sometimes referred to as the Law of Moses.

In summary, the Bible should be taken to be the literal Word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally, and 'The Law' refers to the five books of Moses.

Communion

I have been, up until the past week, very involved in the multimedia department of my church. Yesterday was the first Sunday morning service in years that we did not videotape. That means that it was the first time in years that I have actually been "in service." As a result, yesterday was the first time in years that I have received communion. Some of you will probably be shocked by this; I know that some churches teach that if you haven't received communion within at least the last year, then you are in trouble with God. Personally, the cynical part of my nature suspects that has more to do with the offering than it does with communion...

The rite of communion has its roots in the Last Supper, where Jesus broke bread with the Apostles, and gave them wine, and told them that the bread was his body, and the wine was his blood, and that they should eat and drink to remember Him. Now, the Last Supper was, itself, an observance of the Passover. Later on, God commanded Israel to keep the Passover on an annual basis (maybe that's where the idea that you must take communion at least once a year comes from). Clearly, the Passover foreshadowed the crucifixion (at Passover, a lamb without blemish was sacrificed so that the death angel would pass over the households that were sanctified with the blood of the lamb, while a the crucifixion, the perfect Lamb of God was sacrificed so that anyone who is sanctified with the blood of the Lamb will have eternal life).

The word communion is used only four times in the New Testament, and two of those times it is used simply to mean fellowship (in fact, the Greek word, koinonia, is translated as communion four times, but is used sixteen other times--twelve of those times it is translated as fellowship). In First Corinthians, the term is used twice (in the same verse) in a clear reference to what is now termed as the rite of communion. I can't find anywhere in the New Testament where a timetable is given for how often one should (or must) receive communion, although, in the very next chapter of First Corinthians, Apostle Paul describes the rite of communion, and tells the Corinthians that, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

By the way, some churches use grape juice instead of wine in their communion services. I don't think it really matters, personally. Of course, I don't believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, either (quite frankly, the fact that there is a debate over transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation puzzles me. There isn't that much difference between the two beliefs). Maybe if I did, I would be offended by the idea that people think that grape juice can be used instead of the blood of Christ. I think it is fairly obvious (although, to some, less obvious, because they have a twenty-first century mindset and can't stop to think about what life was like before refrigeration), that, in Biblical times, grape juice wasn't a viable beverage, because sometimes when people drank it, they became violently ill, and no one knew why. Wine, on the other hand, could be stored at room temperature (even when room temperature was in the eighties) for years without going bad (and when it did "go bad" it simply turned to vinegar--not exactly tasty, but not particularly harmful, either, especially when ingested in the small amounts that are conceivable for "wine" that doesn't taste like wine any more). We, of course, know that grape juice can be kept for a very long time, as long as it is refrigerated so that bacteria don't have a chance to grow in the juice, while wine can be kept at room temperature for a very long time, because the alcohol in the wine kills the bacteria. We have options that the early church didn't have.

The Prodigal

Interestingly enough, after posting yesterday on the subject of hypocrisy, during which I wanted to include the lyrics of "Undo" by Rush of Fools (what a name for a Christian group, by the way), I googled for the lyrics, and came up with another blog that was using the lyrics, but her subject was the Prodigal Son. Last night, my pastor taught a study on the Prodigal Son. Coincidence? I think not.

Anyway, the story has different levels. I think most of us get the idea that the younger son took his inheritance (early), and went to a far country, and wasted it. When he realized what a stupid thing that was for him to do, he decided to go back home and ask his father for a job. When he returned home, however, his father forgave him completely, and put him back in his place as the son of the household.

I think a lot of people overlook the older brother's part of the story, though. When the older brother came in from working in the field, he found a celebration going on. He asked one of the servants what was going on. When he found out that his brother had returned, instead of rejoicing with his father, he became angry. He undoubtedly thought that his brother had dishonored his father, and even the family name, but here is dad making a big fuss about his return. It sounds as though the older brother would have been perfectly happy to have never seen his brother again.

Consider for a moment what Jesus was trying to teach: Not just that there is forgiveness in God, but that sometimes we in the church have a hard time forgiving others in the church. It doesn't even have to be a sin that we are directly a victim of. It's interesting, too, that Jesus told this parable to religious people who were criticizing Him for hanging out with sinners. Clearly, these religious people didn't understand that these "sinners" had been forgiven, and were welcome in the Kingdom. It was the religious people whose souls needed mending, but they were too busy being better than everybody else. Ever meet anybody like that? Ever been anybody like that?

It's interesting, too, that the older brother, when he heard the commotion, didn't ask his father what was going on, he asked one of the servants. You might think that it was simply more convenient--the servant was right there--but, really, whom should he have been talking to? And even when his father came out and talked to him, he was angry with his father, and felt cheated. So why is it that the father didn't tell the older brother before he started the party? Maybe because the older brother wasn't communicating with his father the way he should have. Maybe that's why he asked a servant, instead of talking to dad.

Yet, we know that God wants to hear from us. We know that God wants to supply our needs, even when we don't know what our needs are. We know that God wants us to be joyful. God doesn't want us to be jealous of each other. If it seems that somebody else got a better deal than we did, maybe it's because we aren't seeing the kind of sacrifice that the other person made in order to obtain that reward, or maybe it's just because we aren't taking our needs before God in the first place. The Bible talks about not having as a result of not asking, and then when you do ask, you ask amiss. We need to be honest with ourselves, and with God, to bring our needs before Him, and let Him meet our needs as He sees fit--not as we see fit.

Hypocrites

Jesus didn't do a lot of name-calling when He walked the earth, but one insult that He used pretty regularly was, "Hypocrite." Alternate translations for the Greek word used would be dissembler, or pretender. To some extent, we've all been guilty of that, at one time or another. Much as I would like to pretend that I've never pretended to be something I'm not, that would hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not unforgivable, though, as much as Jesus railed against it. If you look at the times that He used that term, He used it to describe people that claimed to serve God, claimed to have knowledge of the Old Testament prophecies, and yet, did not recognize Jesus for who He was.

Most of us are more likely to get caught up in a different type of hypocrisy: one where God uses us to accomplish something, and then we walk around like we did something. Pride plays into this form of hypocrisy. Herod the King died because of his own pride. One instance where I almost fell for that, myself, I was hanging with some friends from church, and a couple of them were playing pool, and one guy walked away from the table, and the other guy invited me to play next. I walked over, picked out a reasonably straight cue, and ended up running the table. I tried not to look surprised--I had never run the table in my life (and I never have since). Later on, I found out that the guy that I played had beaten the other guy, badly, and then took pleasure in rubbing it in; so the guy that walked away from the table was praying that God would take the other guy down a notch. Had me puzzled for a while, because I knew I didn't do it, but I didn't understand what had happened.

There is, of course, forgiveness, at least, for those of us that are legitimately trying to let God use us. We have to be humble enough to understand that anything we do of any worth is God in us, and not ever just us. In writing this, I was reminded of a song by Rush of Fools called "Undo." The lyrics of the song make reference to the narrator(?) being a hypocrite and a prodigal, and he calls upon God to help to change, to "undo what I've become." This is something that we all need to do on a regular basis. Apostle Paul said, "I die daily." We have to keep slaying the old man, and renewing our dedication to God. It would be nice if we could just do it the one time and be done with it, but it keeps coming back. David (a man after God's own heart) once said, "I am a worm, and no man." That encourages me, because, so often I feel worse than useless, and I have to think that he felt the way I feel, and yet, in retrospect, he did so much for God (or, at least, allowed God to do so much through him).

BTW, the link for the lyrics for "Undo" above actually goes to another blog called "React less, Pray More" maintained by a young woman who identifies herself only as Ashley in Honduras (or AshInHonduras). There's some other good stuff on that blog entry besides just the lyrics...

Gun Control Part 2

About two o'clock this morning, I woke up with a brilliant idea to put in today's blog. I spent several minutes thinking it through, and broke it down into three main points, and got some idea what scriptures I would use to support the three points, and then drifted back to sleep, comforted by the idea that all I had to do was to type these things into the computer and be done for the day. I sure wish I could remember what it was about. Past experience indicates, however, that what seems brilliant at 2:00 AM is usually utter nonsense during daylight hours.

This morning, though, I find a very interesting comment left by a Christian and former police officer named Frank Taylor about my posts on gun control last week. My post was, by the way, a classic example of bad timing. I spent some time Thursday ranting about gun control, and just a few hours later, and not many miles away, there was a shooting at a college campus. Had I but known, I'm sure I could have come with some other example of things that frustrate people (which was, really, the point I was trying to make). Anyway, Frank tells me he comes from a "slightly different viewpoint." From what I can tell by his comment, it's very slight. He lives in Connecticut, and has a carry permit; I live in Illinois, so I don't (in Illinois, only police officers and security guards can get carry permits). To be honest, I wouldn't carry a gun if I could; I'm a veteran, so I'm not uncomfortable with guns, however, my weapons training has been military--I don't know all the legalities of what I could do if I did carry. I'm not comfortable carrying a gun in a civilian community. With my luck, I'd stumble onto a movie, shooting on location, without realizing it, and end up shooting Bruce Willis.

At the same time, does it worry me that Frank Taylor carries a gun? Not at all; his comments make it clear that he knows when and where he can carry, and that he is a responsible individual that uses whatever tools he has available to him responsibly. I saw G. Gordon Liddy on a talk show once, and the host asked him about his gun collection. Liddy's response? "I don't have a gun collection. I am a convicted felon; I am not allowed to own a gun. My wife has an extensive gun collection, some of which she keeps under my side of the bed." Does it worry me that a convicted felon has guns available to him? Most felons, it probably would; Liddy, not so much. There are certainly things in his past that would cause me to question his judgment, but none of them involved misuse of a gun.

Gun owners have for years made the statement, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Gun control activists like to add the phrase, "with guns." That is, sometimes, the case. Frank makes the statement, "remember you can be run over by a car, too, and no one is trying to take THEM away." Quite frankly, if someone wants to kill you badly enough, they can probably find a way to do it, even if they can't get their hands on a gun. The problem, of course, is that the situation does sometimes arise where one individual is angry enough, momentarily, to kill, and if there is a quick and easy way to do that (like a gun) they will. Of course, it doesn't have to be a gun; it could just as easily be a knife, an ice pick, or, in the case of a particularly strong individual, bare hands.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need any gun control, because no one would ever try to kill anyone else. In the real world, no amount of gun control will ever stop people from killing. Frank also makes the statement, "As a Christian AND a former cop, this one man resents the fact that so many in government would disarm me, and therefore prevent me from protecting myself, my family, and others in an emergency. Just the gun? I hear you ask. No, I carry a fairly complete set of tools, rope, chains, electric extensions, blankets, first aid equipment, flashlights." This, by the way, is the expression of frustration that I was trying to get across in Thursday's post. I mentioned before that I would not be comfortable carrying a gun in a civilian community, but I don't like the idea that the state of Illinois thinks it has the right to tell me that I can't (even though I wouldn't if I could). Frank also goes on to say, "Make the gun laws work for the Law Abiding. Take the fear out of carrying one and using it.... then the next time someone decides to 'express his rage' at an innocent person or group of people-- let there be someone there able and WILLING to return fire to STOP him/her from hurting anyone else." Exactly. I believe that is what our founding fathers meant by the second amendment.

Irony

A lot of my post yesterday dealt with the futility of Gun-control laws--not that gun-control is necessarily a bad thing, but that most gun-control laws are not well thought out. Last night there was a shooting at Northern Illinois University. Currently, there are 6 dead, and many more wounded. Most of these are young people (the oldest was thirty-two, so, depending on your perspective, all of them may be young people), the kind of people that you expect to live long and eventually bury their parents, not the sort to end up being buried by their parents. It's an extremely sad situation, and we should pray for the survivors and the families of the dead. There is no known motive, although some of the survivors said that he concentrated his fire in one area of the lecture hall, as if there were some person, or group of people, that he particularly wanted dead.

I don't understand the mindset of someone who would just willfully go out and kill a bunch of people. I can understand being angry at someone (there have been times that I was angry enough at someone that--momentarily--I wanted to see them dead, or at least seriously injured), but you have to be a little nuts, I think, to just go on a shooting rampage. I would like to think that killing is not a normal response to being upset, but the story of Cain and Abel proves that it's one of the earliest human reactions.

Jesus said that just to be angry with your brother without a cause is a great sin. I'm glad that 'without a cause' qualifier is in there, or I'd be in serious trouble. I definitely have a temper. Some other people have worse tempers, bu then there are a lot of people who don't seem to ever get angry at all. I wouldn't really want to never get angry, but I wish I was better at channeling my anger in a more constructive manner. There a lot of things that happen that should make one angry, and some of those things could be corrected, if the anger were channeled effectively. We as human beings have a bad tendency to just yell and scream and waste energy and make things worse when we get upset. I have a bad habit of getting angry, and then work so hard to not yell and make things worse, that I end up doing nothing at all (except raise my blood pressure). I might have succeeded in not making things worse, but I haven't made things any better, either.

In situations like that, we often pray, and expect God to make things better; in the meantime, God is trying to use us to make things better. Sometimes we don't even recognize the tools that He gives us. There's a story about a solid Christian man, caught in Katrina. He prayed and prayed, and God answered, and told him not to worry, that God was going to save him. Secure in this knowledge, the man began to tend to his immediate situation. The storm ended, but the flood waters began to rise. Soon he was on the roof of his house, and a boat came by. "That's okay," he called out, "God's going to save me. Go save someone else." After a brief protest, the boat left. Soon another boat came, and a very similar conversation took place. Later on, a helicopter came by, and there was a rerun of the previous two conversations. Soon the man drowned, and went to Heaven. He protested strongly that God had promised to save him. "We sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?" God would like to make this world a better place, but he wants to use us to do that. Will you let God use you?

Update: The number of dead has been updated above. Apparently the report of seven dead was in error, they are now saying there were only six. Still too many...

What's the Use?

There are two types of gun owners in this country: those that got their guns legally, and those that did not. We know that we have a problem; guns keep getting used in robberies, or random shootings, or other crimes. We keep passing new and more restrictive gun-control laws, and the problem seems to be getting worse, instead of better. Why is that? Well, let's stop to consider: gun control laws may make accidental shootings less frequent, and they make crimes of opportunity or crimes of passion less frequent, someone who intends to use a gun to commit a crime probably isn't going to have much compunction about committing a crime in order to obtain a gun. At the same time, when gun-control laws are restrictive, a law-abiding citizen is considerably less likely to have a gun with which to defend him/herself. Statistically, one is much more likely to be victim of a violent crime in an area where gun-control laws are most restrictive, but we have to do something. The good thing about gun-control laws is that they do reduce accidental shootings, and they reduce gun theft (it's hard to steal a gun from somebody who doesn't have one). Unfortunately, the rate of other crimes goes up, and more than make up for the gains provided by those laws. So what do we do? The intelligent thing would be to sit down, do some careful research and figure out what we could do that would actually be effective, and if there are ways to better enforce the laws that we already have. Unfortunately, politics being what it is, any politician that actually tries to study the problem, gets accused of dragging his feat--kowtowing to the gun lobby, so our gun-control laws tend to be a series of band-aid solutions, resulting from knee-jerk reactions to real problems that Joe Taxpayer (understandably) wants the government to deal with. This results in a great deal of frustration for the law-abiding citizen in a high-crime area who just wants to protect his family.
Sometimes we, as Christians, become frustrated with ourselves. We set out, each day, to live the life that God would have us to live, and most days (if not every day), we find ourselves falling so far short of the potential that we have in God. That can be so depressing. Sometimes we just want to throw up our hands and quit. "What's the use?" we say, "I'm never going to get this right." And yet, we know that God has promised. He didn't promise to make us perfect, He promised that His Grace is sufficient. In First Thessalonians 4, Apostle Paul uses the phrase "we which are alive and remain." I've noticed that most people seem to think that he meant, "we which are alive and remain alive," but that would be redundant. It's redundant enough that he used the phrase twice (in verse 15 and verse 17); I submit that he meant, "we which are alive and remain faithful, which remain trying, which remain striving for the Kingdom..." What's the use? If we continue in His Word, we shall be given a crown of Glory that fadeth not away...
It just doesn't get any better than that.

Is Technology Good or Bad?

I have a lot of discussion lately about the evils of the Internet, mostly from people considerably older than myself. Of course, there are some religious groups in this country that believe that is wrong to own technology. Don't misunderstand me, they have no problem going to a neighbor's house to call 911, but they won't allow phones in their own homes. They also don't wear any colors other than black or white, and they don't like having bright orange triangles on their horse-drawn buggies (but they accept that as a legal, safety requirement for slow-moving vehicles). It's not hard to imagine a future where most of society has accepted interstellar travel as a part of life, while some people refuse to travel in any vehicle that isn't horse-drawn.

I know a man that refers to the TV set as a "Hellavision." He doesn't own one. He has been known to sit and watch a football game on other people's sets, but, for the most part, he doesn't watch TV. Of course, there are a lot of things shown on TV that we, as Christians, really don't need to see. Very little on TV even acknowledges Christianity, and what does, generally only makes mention to poke fun of. Think about it: who is the best-known character on a television show who is known for being Christian? I'm thinking Ned Flanders. Anybody out there got a better answer? Granted, nobody on that show really gets treated with a lot of respect, but Ned is, well, for lack of a better term, a cartoon character. Even as a type that, it seems surreal; I'm complaining about a character on a cartoon show as being cartoony. I guess my point is, it would be nice to see a Christian character on a show that was known for being kind and compassionate, and for having a sincere relationship with God. 56% of Americans surveyed identified themselves as Christians; why is it that an American character on a TV show with a religious label is more likely to be Muslim than Christian?

Granted, there have been some exceptions: Suzanne Summers' character on "Step by Step" dragged her husband to church (and the writers gave the pastor of that church some real wisdom). On "The Drew Carey Show," Drew and his friends went to church in one episode. On "WKRP in Cincinnatti," Herb Tarleck once was asked to let a camera crew from a local TV station follow him around for a day for a TV special--They showed up on a Sunday morning, and he suddenly decided that it was important that the people of Cincinnati at least think that he went to church, so he got up, got himself and his wife and kids dressed for church, and led the camera crew on a tour of Cincinnati, until he found a Seventh Day Adventist's church that he swore they attended every Sunday. "Seventh Heaven" (ran for 10 seasons on WB and one on CW) was about the pastor of a small church somewhere in California, and his wife and kids (unfortunately, the show defies description: It is occasionally funny, but not funny enough to be a sitcom, it tends to be more dramatic, with a story line that keeps continuing--Is it a Christian soap opera? "Seventh Heaven" has also been called the most popular show that nobody watches). The late Michael Landon's drama, "Highway to Heaven" and "Touched by an Angel" both managed to present Christianity in a dignified and respectful manner, and still bring in viewers. "Promised Land" tried, but went belly up after only three seasons. "The Father Dowling Mysteries" suffered a similar fate. Anybody else know of other examples of Christianity on TV?

Realistically, though, evil is something that requires thought. The Internet is not evil; your television set is not evil. Both of those can be, and have been, used for evil. There are certainly things on the Internet that no Christian should ever want to be exposed to, there have been things on television that weren't any better, but there have been good things on both, too. Personally, I think it's a sad commentary on television networks that the examples I cited in the preceding paragraph are the only examples I can come up with of "Christian programming," but that doesn't make the medium evil. A good number of the people involved in planning the schedule may be evil, but the medium itself is not capable of being good or evil. If the Internet seems evil to you, then I would have to ask, what are you using it for? If you are using it to access porn, then I can understand why you may feel that it is evil, but it isn't e Internet that is evil. I would hope that if you are reading this on the Internet, then you can at least see how the Internet can be used for good, even if you don't agree with me on some of the other things that I have stated in this blog.

Update: It occurred to me that on the sitcom, "Night Court," they did an episode where ADA Dan Fielding got called up for two weeks active duty in the National Guard (something that normally happens annually, but only happened once for Dan in, what, eight seasons?). He somehow wound up stranded with an Inuit family (in Alaska?), who took care of him, and he grew fond of their daughter. She became injured, and in dire need of medical assistance. Dan proceded to find some solitude and give one of the most sincere prayers ever shown in a sitcom. Dan didn't try to bargain with God, he told God frankly that, they both knew that whatever he promised, he would end up not doing it." I believe that God appreciates honesty...

Special Knowledge

Sometimes we get lulled into believing that if we know something that someone else doesn't know, that makes us special, or somehow more valuable. Really, the knowledge may be special, but we are still no more, or less, important than anyone else. In fact, if we hold that knowledge to ourselves, it may end up being detrimental to our environment--whether this is a special knowledge of how things work on the job, or an understanding of an item of Scripture. It's easy to think that, as long as I hold this knowledge to myself, they can never fire me, but, if the day comes when that knowledge is desperately needed, and you are on vacation, you might just get fired.

Sometimes that 'special knowledge' is flawed, anyway. I know of a church that teaches that if you really understand Scripture, then you will know where God came from. There is some truth to that, but the Scripture verse that they use is Habakkuk 3:3, which reads, in part, "God came from Teman..." Of course, God always was, and, even if God did have His origin in someplace called Teman, what does that mean to us? nothing, really, because we have no way of knowing where that was... But a little research shows that Teman was a city built by (or at least named for) one of the grandsons of Esau (also known as Edom). In Genesis 36 it tells us about the man Teman (or Duke Teman). In Jeremiah 49, we find that God was displeased with the inhabitants of Teman--so much so that He was going to utterly destroy the city. Amos 1 corroborates this account, as does Obadiah 1. So, in Habakkuk, God is returning from the destruction of the city of Teman. This could make for an interesting tongue-in-cheek Bible trivia question, "Where does the Bible say God came from?" along with, "Who cut Samson's hair?" (most people will say Delilah, but she didn't).

There is another religious organization that teaches that there were actually five crucifixions on Good Friday--Matthew 27 says that there were two thieves, and Luke 23 says there were two malefactors (or criminals). They say that you shouldn't assume that the two thieves in Matthew are the same men that are mentioned in Luke. I say you shouldn't assume that they are not... They are adamant that, while a thief is a malefactor, a malefactor is not necessarily a thief. I will concede that point, but, if there were two thieves, and two criminals who were not thieves (murderers, seditionists, heretics, or whatever), then that would have made a total of four malefactors; Luke clearly says that there were two. Only two. (In the Bill Cosby version of the Great Flood story, that's what Noah kept telling the rabbits, "Only two.") If the two malefactors in Luke were not the two thieves in Matthew, then Luke must not have been able to count...

There is also a philosophy floating around that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, even though both describe rebuilding the Temple at the end of the Captivity (a period of time when the Israelites were held captive in Babylon), are actually talking about two separate events--that the temple was actually rebuilt twice. Odd that the destruction of the Temple in between the two accounts is not mentioned... Does this mean that the Ezra mentioned in the book of Nehemiah is a different Ezra than the one that wrote the book of Ezra? Is the Nehemiah mentioned in Ezra a different Nehemiah than the one that wrote the book of Nehemiah? Is the King Artaxerxes mentioned in the book of Ezra a different Artaxerxes than the one mentioned in Nehemiah? Now, Ezra 4 does indicate that they were working on building the Temple during the reign of Artaxerxes, but were forced to stop building until the reign of King Darius, while Nehemiah says that they started building the Temple during the reign of Artaxerxes, and doesn't mention the work being stopped, or King Darius taking the throne. Later on in Ezra, though, in Chapter 7, it specifically mentions the seventh year of King Artaxerxes (why are we talking about him again, after talking about King Darius succeeding him? Maybe there really were two kings referred to by the Jews as Artaxerxes, but, considering that Ezra would presumably then include both of them, that would indicate at least some overlap between Ezra and Nehemiah--but I think it is probably just that Ezra got ahead of himself, and backtracked his narrative into Artaxerxes' reign), and Nehemiah starts out "in the twentieth year." In the twentieth year of what? Well, Nehemiah 2:1 says that it was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes; that would be after the seventh year of Artaxerxes, mentioned in Ezra, but before the second year of Darius, also mentioned in Ezra. So, Nehemiah covers a shorter time period that Ezra, but Nehemiah's timeline is completely included within Ezra's timeline. That makes it unlikely that Ezra and Nehemiah are describing separate events, only that Ezra is including a lot of details that Nehemiah does not.

I Don't Like That

I was talking to a friend of mine recently, and the phrase, "I don't like that," kept coming up. We talked about videotaping police interrogations, and he said, "I don't like that. They could turn the camera off, beat the crap out of the suspect, and then when he was ready to confess, turn the camera back on. I don't like that." My response was, of course, "As opposed to the old fashioned way, where they just the crap out of the suspect, and there was no videotape?" Then we got on the subject of Doctor Phil. "I don't like him. Sometimes he yells at people. I don't like that." Well, I'm sorry; sometimes people need to be yelled at. Now, I haven't seen that much of Doctor Phil, and I've never seen him yell at anybody, so I can't really judge whether he was justified or not when he did.

There are things that I don't like. I don't like paying income tax, for one thing, but, at the same time, I understand that our government needs funds in order to function. I don't like the fact that our government seems to be so dysfunctional. One thing in income tax law that I particularly don't like is that if I get a refund on the income tax that I paid last year, I am expected to include that in my earned income for this year, even though I actually earned that money last year, and the government just 'borrowed' that money for several months. I don't like that, but that's the law (The IRS actually sent me a 1099 for my refund last year).

My point is that just because you or I don't like something, that doesn't make it wrong. If I'm one of Doctor Phil's patients, and he yells at me, I probably won't like it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong to yell at me. That may be the only way that he can get my attention, or it may be that I have frustrated him to the point where he loses his temper and starts yelling (that would make that yelling my fault, rather than his).

There are a lot of people that don't like what the Bible says, but that doesn't make the Bible any less right. If we tried to come up with a religious document that everybody agreed on, it would be real short--and it wouldn't mention God, because of the atheists. I've noticed that most people don't fault the Bible itself, but they will try to blame some person or organization: "The Catholic Church says that the Jews are going to Hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ. I don't like that." To be honest, I don't like it either; the Jews are God's chosen people and it seems to me that good Jews should have a place in Heaven, but, according to the Bible, Jesus said that He is the only way. There are some things in Roman Catholic doctrine that I believe should be questioned, but that particular point is Scripture: don't blame the Catholics for that. "I stopped going to that church, because they preach tithing." Again, tithing is Scriptural. Now, most of the references in the Bible about tithing are Old Testament, so some would say that we aren't required to tithe any more (we're under a New Covenant, we're not under the law, but under Grace, etc.), but it seems to me that if you allow yourself to be led by the Spirit, you will fulfill the works of the law (not because it's the law, but because the Spirit that's leading you is the same Spirit that dictated the law). In any case, the church depends on the tithes and offerings of its parishioners; just as our government needs tax dollars in order to function (or dysfunction), the church needs money to pay the mortgage, the phone bill, the light bill, and the salaries of the people who work for the church. Can you imagine trying to worship with a church that had no building (because there wasn't enough money in the collection plate to make the mortgage payment), no phones, no lights, no paid pastor? We want our church to have all these things, but we don't like having to pay for it.

There's an old story about a preacher who preached a sermon in which he said, "This church is going to crawl!" and the congregation cried out, "Amen, preacher, let it crawl!" He spent some time elaborating on that statement, describing the things that the church would do while it was crawling, and then went on, "This church is going to walk!" "Amen, preacher, let it walk!" He again elaborated, about how much more the church would do when it was walking, instead of crawling, and then went on, "This church is going to run!" "Amen, preacher, let it run!" He elaborated about how much more he felt the church was capable of, and then he said, "This church is going to fly!" The people were really excited, and cried out, "Amen, preacher, let it fly!" He elaborated some more about the great things that his church was capable of, and the he said, "But to do this, it's going to take money." "Amen, preacher, let it crawl!"

Forgiveness Part 2

It occurs to me that yesterday I posted about God forgiving us, but I didn't even mention us forgiving each other. That's an important part of the forgiveness topic. Jesus warned us in the Sermon on the Mount, right after teaching the Lord's Prayer, that if we didn't forgive each other, then neither will God forgive us. When Peter asked about forgiveness, He taught a parable in which the Lord forgave a servant his debt, but then the servant went and had one of his fellow-servants thrown into debtor's prison because of a debt. When the Lord heard about it, He 'unforgave' the first servant, and had him thrown into debtor's prison also. So it is clear that God expects us to be forgiving, and His attitude towards our misdeeds is going to be dependent on our attitude towards other people's misdeeds. I wonder how many people recite the words, "...and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors..." without really stopping to consider their meaning.

It's also important for our own mental and spiritual health. If you carry a grudge against someone, that person may not understand why you treat them the way you do. If you are trying to be 'Christian' about it, you may even make it a point not to treat them differently, just because you have something against them. That must really do great things for your blood pressure. My point is, that by holding your anger in, you are hurting yourself. Some people have even been known to develop physical symptoms as a result of holding a grudge (and not just hypertension). It usually doesn't even hurt the other person at all, and they may not even realize that you are upset with them.

On the other hand, it's hard to forgive someone who hasn't apologized. Keep in mind that they may not even realize that you feel that they have wronged you. You don't want to go yelling and screaming and acting like a crazy person, that never comes out well. If you go into that mode over something that happened 6 months or a year ago, then they may very well call the whitecoats to come collect you. Think about how you would react if someone came to you yelling and screaming about ancient history. Still, it's important, even if only for your own health, to at least try to talk to them about it (well, if it's one of those people that just likes pushing your buttons, then it might not be a good idea to let them know that was one of your buttons). If for some reason, you really can't talk to the person, it is important that you talk it out. You may be able to pray through it: Describe your situation to God--He'll listen, even though He already knows--and ask Him to help you to forgive. If, for some reason, you can't pray it through, or you don't feel forgiving even after praying about it, talk to your pastor. Don't get offended if your pastor starts playing devil's advocate. He's going to try to make sure that you can see both sides of the situation--even though he's basically guessing at the other person's logic and motivation. He's also going to be more objective about it than you are, because he doesn't have the emotional investment that you have. Be honest with him, at least as much as you can bring yourself to be, because the more he knows about your situation, the more he can help you get over it. Remember, too, that he is obligated to keep confidential anything that you tell him (hopefully this isn't about you forgiving the liquor store owner who shot you when you were trying to rob his store), if there's something that might be embarrassing to you if other people knew about it. Remember, also, that he's probably heard much worse.

Forgiveness

I have posted before about how none of us is perfect. Much as I try to maintain that illusion, myself, I know it isn't true (I also know many other people who are better at maintaining that illusion than I am). Fortunately, there is forgiveness through the grace of God. Now there is a difference between willful sin and a mistake. A mistake can still be a sin, but it wasn't intentional; it was basically an accident. There are some things that would seem to be willful sin to the human mind, that really only happened because the individual responsible got sucked into a situation where his or her mistake seemed like the right thing to do, at the time. Bill Watterson drew a Calvin and Hobbes strip once where Calvin is running along with a water balloon, and he throws the balloon up in the air, and continues to run (I can only assume that he wanted to see the water balloon hit). Well, the balloon comes back down, right on his head. The final line of the strip is, "How can something that seemed so brilliant at its conception, seem so stupid in retrospect?" That's an easy thing for a comic-strip character to do, but let's face it, we've all done something similar (not with a water balloon, but still).
Apostle Paul warns us in Romans 6 that we should not continue in sin, with the idea that Grace will cover our sins.
By the way, some people think that just thinking about doing something wrong is sin--Jesus said that whosoever looketh after a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Notice He didn't say that any man who finds a woman attractive has committed... There is difference between being tempted and committing sin in one's own mind. Granted, both could be called 'sinful thoughts,' but, temptation isn't something that you have control over. Remember that Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, yet He never committed sin.
One thing to understand is that forgiveness is not the same as remission. To have sins remitted is to have them erased. God doesn't remember them at all (at least not when dealing with the person who committed them--He still remembers them when dealing with the victim of the sin, until that person either forgives the sinner or dies--but that's a whole other Bible study). Forgiveness means that the sins have been removed from you, but God hasn't forgotten them. To be honest, that's almost as good, but there are consequences. If you've ever seen the movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" there's a line where the escaped convicts came upon a baptismal ceremony, and two of them jump in and get baptized. They understand that this will absolve them of their sins, and momentarily think that they don't have to run anymore; but George Clooney, as the other convict, tells them, "Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi's a little more hard-nosed." Even when God forgets, people still remember. I have also known people that think that absolution means that there are no ramifications to their actions. There's an old joke about people that go out on Saturday night and sow wild oats, and then go to church on Sunday morning and pray for crop failure. God will forgive, but He will not always deliver you from the consequences of you own actions. That's a whole other prayer request.

Gossip

It seems to me that I have posted on this subject before, but I don't see 'gossip' in my list of keywords, so maybe I haven't...

Mark Twain once said, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." And that was before the internet. The nice thing about the Internet, though, is that the truth can sometimes get out there pretty quickly, too. Realistically, though, you don't really know who posted what on the Internet. You can find some reputable sites on the Internet, with good information, but even they will get fooled, sometimes. We need to be on our guard.

To be honest, though, on the subject of gossip, I am considerably less concerned about what's on the Internet than I am what we say about each other. It's not unusual for those of us who call ourselves Christians to get caught up when repeating something we've heard, without checking the source, or speculating out loud--giving someone else the opportunity to repeat something that they have heard... Sometimes, too, we paraphrase something that was accurate when we heard it. Remember that game we played in Elementary school, where the teacher lined us up, and whispered something to one of us, and had that person repeat what they heard and so on, and the last person in line repeated to the class what he or she thought they had heard? Most of us laughed when we heard it, because it didn't match what we heard, and then when the teacher told us what the original message was, we had three different versions of the same message. This happens to adults, too. Someone will make a prayer request, and it gets paraphrased, and then repeated, and paraphrased some more, and before long, it bears no relation to the original prayer request. We had a woman at our church last year that requested prayer for her daughter's health, and by the time the prayer request got to the pastors, the request had something to do with this woman being thrown in jail (not that she had been, that's just how badly the message got mangled). That is an extreme example; it is somewhat more likely that a couple requests prayer that God would strengthen their marriage, and within twenty four hours, people are talking about this couple getting a divorce. We owe it to our brothers and sisters in the faith, that if we are passing on information, that we pass it on correctly.

Furthermore, just because something is true, it doesn't necessarily follow that it bears repeating. Let us suppose that our brother Joe goes on a drinking binge. It's only the one time, he managed to get through it without hurting himself or anyone else (he was lucky), and he has repented of it before God. Does it do anyone any good to talk about his past indiscretion? You might make a case that we, as loving, caring brothers and sisters, need to be aware, and stand ready to intervene if he starts heading that way again, but if it's been a year, and he hasn't gone near a bar or a liquor store, then what point would there be in talking about it? What if you were the one who made a mistake a year ago, and even though you have repented, and gone through counseling with your pastor, and you know that God has forgiven you, but your brothers and sisters in Christ are still talking about it? Tell me you wouldn't feel betrayed. You should feel betrayed. You might even pray, asking God to send you to another church (don't just up and leave, but pray about it, and listen to God).

It really comes down to this: Do unto others, and let brotherly love continue.

The Voice of God

Lily Tomlin once posed the question, "Why is that when you talk to God, that's called prayer, but when God talks to you, that's called crazy?" It's an interesting question. Of course, she was being humorous when she said it, but it points out a basic flaw in the conventional wisdom of our society. The vast majority of Americans (and probably any other country, as well) believe in some form of God or gods. Most religions advocate prayer, but most people don't believe that God talks back (some say that they do, but they would be pretty surprised if God spoke to them, and might even consider psychiatric treatment). A lot of this stems from the fact that, in recent history, at least, the vast majority of people who claim that God has spoken to them have gone on to claim that God them something ludicrous, or proved themselves to be lunatics in some other fashion. Personally, I think it's not so much that God doesn't talk, as it is that we, generally, don't listen. Even the people that claim to have heard from God, aren't listening to God. We have a tendency to hear only what we want to hear, and, most of us don't expect to hear what we want to hear from God, so we just don't listen. We'll go to church and sing the hymns that the choir director has picked out, and sit quietly while the preacher preaches (and not really listen to him, either), and we expect that at the end of life, God will critique us, but ignore the fact that we barely acknowledged Him in this life. We all want to hear God say, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." I mentioned yesterday that, in order to hear those words, one must first be a good and faithful servant. How can you do God's will if you aren't listening?

Some of you are probably wondering if I've ever heard from God. I believe I have. To be honest, I don't know how to describe it. I didn't hear a voice; I just suddenly knew something that I didn't know before. Let me give you an example: Several years ago, I moved to the area where I live now. There was a woman at the church that I had not known prior to moving here that started flirting with me. She was a widow, and a good bit older than I was (she mentioned once that she had four sons, and then she told me their ages--three of the four were older than I was), and I thought it was funny, so I flirted back (yes, yes, I know: bad idea). After awhile, though, it stopped being funny, and I prayed about it. Part of me really thought that God wanted me to marry this woman. I wanted to do what God wanted me to do, even if it meant marrying a woman old enough to be my mother, so I prayed hard. I will admit, that was one of the most focused prayers I have ever prayed. In the midst of the prayer, I didn't hear a voice, I just suddenly knew that the only way that she would marry a man my age was if she was backslid. It struck me as odd that it was phrased that way--a simple 'no' would have sufficed (although, in retrospect, I'm not sure I would have believed that it came from God if the answer had been that simple). In any case, I stopped flirting with her after that. A couple of years later, she left the church and married a man about my age (actually, a couple of years younger than me, so the same age I was when I got my answer from God. Of course, I never told anyone about that (until now), so you just have to take my word that it happened. Of course, I give this as an example, and I will admit that, there have been other occasions, when I suddenly just 'knew' something, and I really didn't know anything at all. The Bible says to try the spirits to see if they be of God. In other words, be familiar with what the Bible says, so that you can judge for consistency when a thought comes to mind that may be from God, or when someone tries to give you advice about whatever situation you are in. Does it match up? Does it seem like something God would want you to do? Notice I didn't ask if it makes sense: If David had asked that question, he never would have gone up against Goliath; Jehoshaphat would have never sent a choir into battle; Abram would have never left Haran.

Child of God, or Servant of God?

There has been a lot said about the relationship of us, as Christians, to our God. There are some places in Scripture that describe that relationship in terms of parent-child, and other places that talk about a Master-servant relationship.
Let's start by looking at the idea that God is our Father: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said to do good works to "glorify your Father," which, tells us that God is our Father, but also tells us to do good works... Later on in the sermon, He tells us what to do in order to become children of God, but, again, there is that 'doing' part... In the Lord's Prayer (or the "Our Father"), Jesus teaches us to pray to God as our Father, but then He goes on to say that we should pray that God's will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven; who do you suppose is going to do His will, here on earth? In Matthew chapter 7, Jesus makes a direct comparison between the relationship that we, as parents, have with our children, and the relationship that God has with us. This is what most of like to think of our relationship with God as being: We want something, we ask God, and He gives us good things. Keep in mind, though, that just as we, as good parents, aren't going to give our children something that we think would be harmful to them, God isn't going to give us something that is harmful, no matter how much we beg and plead for it. I also want to point out that, much as we would like God to be the loving parent who just gives us good things, every other passage that we have looked at places some requirements on us. We have to do things for God. Think about that for a minute: Didn't your parents give you chores when you were growing up? At the time, they probably seemed like things that mom and dad just didn't want to have to do themselves; in retrospect, they were probably things that needed to be done, but would be too hard to fix or clean up after an inexperienced child gave a half-hearted attempt at doing. Something to help build a work ethic, so that you wouldn't grow up thinking that life owed you something (or maybe your parents didn’t give you chores; there seems to be an awful lot of people out there that think that society owes them).
Of course, Jesus did say that at Judgment, some of would hear the words, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." (You may not want to read on to find out what happened to the ones that didn't hear those words directed at them.) I don't think God is going to call anyone a good and faithful servant, unless that person has been a good and faithful servant. In many of the parables, Jesus refers to us as servants: In Matthew 18, He even tells us about a servant that wasn't good. In Matthew 24, He tells us of a servant that wasn't faithful. In Mark 12, Jesus tells us a parable to show, not only are we servants, but we are servants that the world isn't going to treat well.
In Galatians 4, Apostle Paul tells us that, to a point, a child is a servant; the real difference is that the child stands to inherit, whereas the servant only works until he dies, or is no longer needed. I think that it's safe to say that a child isn't going to get treated quite the same as a servant, a father isn't going to want to give the nasty jobs to his offspring, but, at the same time, there are some jobs that can't be trusted to a hired hand, so, yeah, sometimes the sons (and daughters) get some nasty jobs, just because their inheritance depends upon those jobs getting done.

Charity

1 Corinthians chapter 13 is known as the love chapter. A lot of people get confused about this chapter, because the meaning of the word, "charity" has changed since 1611. There were a lot fewer charitable organizations in the early 1600's and charity meant brotherly love (what so many Christians refer to as "agape" now--which is the Greek word that was translated as, "charity" in the Bible). Since then, so many organizations have sprung up that have laid claim to the title 'charity' that most people think that a charity is an organization. It wasn't always that way, though.

I heard someone on the radio recently that said that 1 Corinthians 13:5 was actually a mistranslation. His logic was that God is love, and God cannot be provoked. I suspect that Ananias and Sapphira would disagree. So would Korah and the people that were outside the ark during the flood, but many people think that since that's Old Testament, we don't have to worry about that. I submit to you that God is the same God that He was in the Old Testament; there is a new plan of salvation, but God hasn't changed. In any case, though, God is unconditional love, and I don't think that Paul was referring to God in this chapter. He seems to be describing attributes of a Christian: In verse 1, he writes: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." In other words: no matter how beautifully or eloquently I speak, if I don't say what I say out of sincere love for my brothers in Christ, then I am really just making noise. In verse 2: "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." If I could prophesy, and knew everything there was to know; if I had faith enough to move mountains, but I only did what I did for myself, and not out of brotherly love, then I'm useless. Does that make sense? Can you see my point? So, in verse 5, when Paul says that charity is not easily provoked, are we not sometimes provoked by our brothers and sisters in Christ? I know I have been, and I know that I have sometimes provoked others. A sincere love of the brothers and the sisters in the church family makes that provocation easier to take, and it makes it take longer for anger to develop, but it does happen, even in the best of church families.