Christmas Is Coming

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

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

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

He Knew the End From the Beginning

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

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

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

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

Interfaith Relationships II

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

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

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

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

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

But He's a Good Person...

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

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

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

Interfaith Relationships

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

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

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

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

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

You Judas!

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

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

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

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

The New Earth

Yesterday I commented briefly that I don't believe that God is going to create a paradise here on earth, second only to Heaven, after the end times. Just for the record the scriptures that are normally used to defend this idea are usually not taken from the King James Version Bible, but read something like Matthew 5:5, "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." and Revelation 21:1, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth..." To be honest, I don't really have a whole lot to say about that, except that I believe that those verses are being interpreted. If I'm wrong, I'm okay with that, because I don't think the fact that I don't believe in a paradise here on earth would keep me from inhabiting it. Of course, the same people who believe in there being a paradise here on earth believe that there is no Hell; so, if they are right, I really have nothing to lose. Don't misunderstand me, they don't believe that everybody is going to live in paradise, most people will simply cease to exist. I'm okay with that, too. I would like to live forever in paradise, but I know that I don't deserve to, and that, if I did, it would only be because of the gift of God's grace. With the understanding that I don't deserve to go to Heaven, I would at least like to not go to Hell.

To some extent, that is what I refer to as 'blackmail logic.' You should believe this, because if you don't, that could happen. Sorry, my faith just doesn't work that way. You might get me to examine the concept more carefully and more completely if you can get me to believe that it is in my own best long-term interest to be right. Will I change what I believe just on the ground that I will be better off if such-and-such happens to be the case, and I can't prove that it is not the case? That's a little like saying, I would be better off if there were an invisible bridge that leads from California to Hawaii, and, since I can't prove that there's not an invisible bridge there, I'm going to step out in faith and walk across that bridge. That's either going to be really short walk, or a really long one (better pack several lunches, just in case).

In any case, I can't just abandon everything the Bible says about Hell and everlasting torment (Matt 5:22, Matt 5:29-30, Matt 8:12, Matt 18:9, Matt 22:13, Matt 24:51, Matt 25:30, Mark 9:43, Luke 12:5, Luke 13:28, Luke 16:23), just because there is some talk of a 'new earth' (which isn't even described as a lesser paradise). So what is the new earth? I don't know, but I believe that if it was important for me to know in this life, then it would be explained in the Bible.

Hold Fast, But Let Go

Yesterday morning's sermon title was "Hold On ... Let Go." The two main scriptures that my pastor used were Hebrews 10:23 and Hebrews 12:1. Hebrews 10:23 admonishes us to hold fast to the faith, while Hebrews 12:1 tells us to lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us. His point was, of course, that we have to hold on to Jesus, but let go of anything that would keep us from doing what God would have us to do. He used the example of past experiences coming back to haunt. He spoke of an individual that had a particularly horrific experience, and had suffered for years as a result, and that, in counsel, my pastor had told this individual, "I'm not asking you to forget, I'm asking you to forgive." The man was dumbfounded. We throw around the phrase "forgive and forget" a lot, but, in reality, if somebody truly hurts us, we're not going to forget. Sometimes we are barely able to forgive.

I know that I have had incidents in my life that come back on me from time to time. Some of those instances I find very hard to forgive. One thing that makes it easier on me when those things come to remembrance is the realization that I can't take vengeance on them (and most of time that is quite literal--I'm angry at an individual that I haven't even seen in years), and the understanding that if God is anywhere near as angry at them for what happened as I am, then they are going to Hell. Is that what I want? No, really it's not. There is no one that I can think of, that, if I had the opportunity to choose, I would choose for them to go to Hell. There are some that I don't think I would want in Heaven, but not any that I would want to go the other place (and, no, I don't believe there are any other choices--one of these days, maybe I'll blog about purgatory, or the idea that after God destroys the earth, that He is going to re-create it as a new paradise, second only to Heaven itself, for those not quite good enough to go to Heaven).

Now, you may know people that you feel deserve to burn for eternity. I suspect some of you feel that way about someone (I have felt that way about some people in the past, but I got over it); realistically, if you sit down and really think it through, to have someone spend eternity in the worst possible torment... I don't think that's really what you want. If it is, then let me refer you to Matthew 5:22.

Even secular psychologists will tell you that by not forgiving someone, you are really only hurting yourself. All the anger in the world directed at someone else, only raises one's own blood pressure, increases one's own heartbeat, causes one's own mental anguish. Sometimes we really just have to let those things go. The term that is used for refusing to forgive is, 'self-destructive.'

I am reminded of something I read many years ago. Two men that worked in New York City rode the subway to work every morning, and every morning, one of them would stop and buy a paper at the only newsstand in between the subway station and the building that they both worked in, and the news vendor was always surly. The guy that bought the paper never seemed to let it bother him, but it drove his friend crazy; finally, one day he asked, "Why don't you ever get upset at the way that man treats you?" The reply: "Why should I let him determine my day?" I have wanted to be like that ever since I read that.

Evangelism

I can access the usual resources again. Not sure what happened to them, but I'm glad that they are back.

Evangelism is a subject that I am perhaps a bit touchy about. I personally don't feel called to be an evangelist. Of course, Apostle Paul admonished us to do the work of an evangelist, and he doesn't seem to be talking to just those that have 'the gift' (some would say that that's just written to Timothy, but it seems kind of silly for it to be in the Bible if it were only intended for one man). Of course, there have been a lot of people who have 'evangelized' without wisdom. It can be particularly difficult to talk to someone about God who has been the victim of an over-zealous, under-compassionate evangelist in the past. The United Sates is generally regarded as a Christian nation, but our founding fathers taught religious tolerance, so all religions are welcome here. On the other hand, if you look around at those of us who call ourselves Christians, there isn't a lot of practicing of the faith (Jesus told us that we could identify His followers by their fruits, and Paul was nice enough to list those fruits for us). I posted last week on the subject of 'What Do You Believe?" Do you believe that you are going to Heaven because you have accepted Jesus as Lord of your life? Do you believe that there are people around you that are going to Hell because they haven't accepted Him? Do you think that they deserve that (more than you do, that is)? Jesus told us to compel them to come in, but that doesn't mean to push them. Pushing them only moves them farther away (in some cases, just telling them that they are going to Hell without Jesus will push them away). Every person is an individual, with their own wants and needs (okay, everyone needs Jesus--but not everyone knows that they need Jesus). On the other hand, there are a lot of people who know that something is missing in their lives, and are very much afraid that whatever it is could keep them out of Heaven, so if you don't tell them, they won't listen to anything else you have to say.

Last night we had a visiting pastor speak at our church. He is from a country that is predominantly Buddhist, and they have laws against converting a Buddhist to any other faith. He has found, though, that if you go in, and find out what people need (and everybody needs something), and help meet those needs (physical needs), then, not only are they more receptive when they finally ask, "Why are you doing this?" and he tells them it is because he is a Christian, even the ones that don't want to even consider converting are less likely to call the authorities. My point is that you can "shotgun" people with the gospel, but you're probably going to do as much harm as good (if not more), or you can spend some time and get to know the person. Find out what they need, where they're hurting. I'm sure that there were a lot of people during Katrina that needed to hear the gospel, but most of them were more concerned with where they were going to sleep that night, what they were going to eat (or when they were going to be able to eat next), what they were going to wear the next day, when would they be able to take a shower... Don't talk to me about where I'm going to go when I die right now, I'm too busy just trying to stay alive. Of course, there were probably also a few that were so convinced that they weren't going to survive that they wanted to hear all about Jesus (or Buddha or Mohammad or Krishna or whoever else might have some impact on where they would spend eternity). We have to be open to what people need right now; that means listening to God because He knows exactly what each of us needs.

Signs That Follow

Yesterday I acknowledged a comment from 'Stoneface' on Thursday's post. Today I would like to acknowledge a comment from 'Lin from Seattle' that was left on Friday's post. I get very few comments, really, but, I don't leave many comments on the blogs I read, either, so it really doesn't come as much surprise. In any case, I appreciate those people that read my blog (even though I have no reason to believe that there's more than a handful of you).

I want to spend a little bit of time on Mark 16:17. This seems to me to be one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible (if not the most). In this passage, Jesus talks about speaking with new tongues, taking up serpents, drinking deadly things, casting out demons, healing the sick... He says all of these things shall follow them that believe. There are some churches out there that say that this proves that you have to speak in tongues to be saved. Let me point out, first, that it says that they shall speak with new tongues, it doesn't say that they shall speak with other tongues. There's a difference. Let me take a side trip, momentarily, into the story of Peter's denial. When confronted, he denies knowing Jesus, but one of the people there points out that he is a Galilean, and his speech 'bewrayeth' him. Now, I'm sure that it was well known that Jesus' followers were predominantly Galileans, but this is the time of Passover, there must have been hundreds of Galileans in Jerusalem that didn't have anything to do with Jesus. So what is meant by the phrase, '...thy speech bewrayeth you?" It seems to me that Peter answers that in the next verse. It says that Peter began to curse and to swear. So the accusation was not, "You talk like a Galilean," it was, "You talk like a Christian," so Peter made an effort to not talk like a Christian (yes, I know I split an infinitive there, but I'm trying to make a point). Speaking in new tongues means that some of the words that you used to say, before you knew Jesus, you don't say anymore; some of the things that you used to talk about, you don't talk about anymore, because you have new priorities.

Further, I have to wonder, most of these churches that teach that you have to speak in tongues to be saved, don't take up serpents. I am aware that there are 'snake-handling' churches out there, and most of them are Pentecostal (for those of you who are not aware, the term 'Pentecostal' refers to Acts chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, when the 120 in the upper room began to speak in tongues). Last night a friend of mine told me he had heard about a church where they drink poison as part of their worship (he said some parishioners had died, but some had lived). I have to wonder, though, in these churches, if someone gets sick, do they pray over that person and recover that person every time? I mean, if you aren't considered a believer until you speak in tongues, can you be considered a believer if you pray for the sick and they don't recover?

It seems to me that Jesus was speaking more in spiritual terms than physical. There are two-legged serpents around us all the time, and, most of the time, as long as they mind their business, we'll leave them alone. When they start trying to keep us from doing what God has for us to do, then we need to put them in their place. We drink in deadly things from the conversations of these serpents at work or at school, but we don't let those things affect us. Some times we do see the sick get healed, but, more often, it's people that have a spiritual problem that we can work out through God's grace. Casting out demons? Sure, but usually before the demon gets enough of a hold in a person's life that anybody would say, "Oh, that person is possessed!"

Let me again take a side trip: I have heard people that complain that their mentally-ill friend or relative was 'diagnosed' as demon-possessed at some church because the symptoms were similar (or identical) to the symptoms described in the Bible of someone that Jesus cast a demon out of. These people get very critical of the Bible, because 'Christian' people tried to prevent this mentally-ill person from getting psychiatric treatment. The question is, does the Bible use the term 'possessed by a demon' to mean mentally ill? Personally, I don't think so, but, at the same time, I don't think, that in modern society, it should make any difference. The Bible was written by men long before there were any ideas about mental illness. If they saw a person who was mentally ill, they would probably assume that the person was possessed. It seems to me, though, that the important point in each of those stories is that, after they had been with Jesus, they were better. The point is more that Jesus healed--whatever was wrong with people--not so much what He healed people from.

Finally, an apology. Usually, I provide links to the scriptures that I refer to, but this week, I can't seem to get to the online resources that I normally use. Break out your paper copies (if you have them).

Walking a Tightrope

I got a comment on my post from Thursday from someone who goes by 'stoneface.' Stoneface made the observation that a lot of churches are so afraid of being perceived as teaching works for salvation, that they either don't teach works at all, or they underemphasize works. That's an excellent point, and I appreciate him (her?) bringing it up. It occurred to me that there are other topics that churches kind of have to walk a tightrope.

Probably the most obvious is financial. The Bible talks about paying tithes and offerings (in Micah, God accuses Israel of robbing Him, the widow and the two mites illustrates the idea of giving until it hurts, and, of course, God loves a cheerful giver). Of course, there have been a lot of preachers that have preached what is now known as 'prosperity doctrine' which basically boils down to something along the lines of, 'God wants to bless you through your giving. If you aren't giving to the church, you should be. If you giving to the church, but you don't have money left at the end of the month, it's because you aren't giving enough to the church.' You can usually tell churches that teach prosperity doctrine because the pastors of those churches drive foreign cars and live in multimillion-dollar homes and have their own private jets (or soon will have). Other preachers don't want to be perceived as being like that, and wind up with church buildings that are falling apart. It takes money to operate a church. If you are a member of a church, you should be supporting that church. "Oh, God will provide." Of course He will--by making sure that there are faithful people in the church that have jobs and will support (and sometimes are between jobs and find ways to support anyway). God doesn't need your money, but if you don't give, don't expect God to be pleased with that. Don't give your rent money to the church, and then ask the church to pay your rent. God doesn't want you to be homeless, or to have your lights cut off, but He does want you to do your part, even if only as an exercise in faith. If you're mad at the preacher, give anyway. If you think the preacher is a money-grubber, then pray and seek God about it. If He leads you to find another church, then go. If He doesn't, then, you need to spend some time and resolve your feelings.

Another area is the authority of the pastor. Pastors are appointed by God, not by a church board. Now, if the church board is doing their collective job correctly, then God will lead them to hire the pastor that He had in mind; otherwise, the church is going to have problems. Once a pastor has been installed, though, it should take an act of God to remove him (literally). If you really think that you have the wrong man at the helm, then pray about it--but pray for understanding that if that is the right man, that God will help you to deal with him; as well as praying that if he's not the right man, that God will find a way to move him out and move the right man in. I've heard of pastors that were 'called' back and forth between the same two or three churches many times as each church refigured its budget and found more money for the pastor's salary. That's not right, either. Of course, there have also been pastors that have abused their authority in other ways. I don't mean to suggest that I think that it's okay; it's not. If he's done something that could lead to criminal charges, then he should be dealt with accordingly--especially if that involves children.

Sometimes people will decide, "I don't like that preacher; I'm not going back," when the preacher is just trying to look out for their soul. You can probably find a church that will tell you what you want to hear, the question is, can you find a church that will tell you what you need to hear, even when you don't want to?

Want Some Cheese With That Whine?

When I first moved to this area, there were two Christian radio stations. At least, two FM stations that played Christian music (part of the time--neither one played music 24-7). One of them had a bad tendency to play any hymn in the hymnal sung by whichever tabernacle choir... The other one played more contemporary stuff, but they had a bad tendency to have a talk show on when I really just wanted to listen to music. To be honest, it never made much sense to me: How much do you have to pay somebody to introduce songs and play them? Shouldn't that be less expensive than paying somebody to interview guests (I'm thinking, perhaps erroneously, that even somebody who shows up on a talk show to promote their latest book or whatever, is still entitled to a royalty payment for being on the show)? Eventually that station beame a 'Christian Talk' station. Fortunately, the other station updated its playlist at the same time--but they also had a lot of hour-long preaching programs and talk shows and what-not that seemed to come on when I wanted to listen to music.

Then the Christian Talk station moved to the AM band, and the parent company brought in a whole new station that just played music. Very quickly after that, another company started a new station that played just music. Wow! Now we're getting somewhere. Now the first station started out with a very limited playlist, but it was slowly growing. To be honest, the second stations playlist wasn't much better, but it had the added disadvantage of being listener supported. I'm not against listener supported radio in and of itself, I just find pledge week annoying. Especially a radio station that claims to be doing God's service, but feels like their semi-annual pledge week needs to be eight to ten days and done more than twice a year. I say disadvantage, but, again, the first radio station was supported by commercials. Even though I live in a large metropolitan area where there are a lot of religious people, a lot of the comercials that they played didn't seem to fit well with a Christian audience (most of them were at least innocuous, but, laser hair removal?).

In any case, it worked out okay, as far as I was concerned; I could listen to one station, and when I got annoyed at pledge week (or even just being reminded every few minutes that they were listener supported and you don't have to wait until pledge week to make a donation) I could switch stations. Then if I got annoyed at the stupid commercials (or hearing the same eight songs played over and over), I could switch back. In other words, I wasn't entirely pleased with either station, but, between the two, life was good. A lot of people that I knew complained about the first station: Their commercials are stupid. They keep playing the same songs over and over. They play all eighty's music (this from people whose knowledge of the eighty's is limited to what they learned by watching "That 70's Show"). I personally never understood what all the whining was about. Yes, most of their commercials were stupid (but given a choise between stupid commercials and almost constant begging for money; I don't know. I'd say it's a toss-up), and they did have a very limited play list, and most of the songs that they played were geared toward a somewhat older audience (but the other station played almost exactly the same songs). The biggest annoyance to me was that it always seemed like whenever I had had enough of one station and switch, the other station was playing the song I had just heard.

Eventually, the first station closed its doors. I was not happy, but a lot of other people were. And, again, I didn't understand. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. If you really prefer the listener supported format, then listen to that. Most of these people don't even seem to have noticed that, since the commercial radio station went away, the listener supported station has gotten much worse. Something about not having competition, I think.

Really, I think the point is that murmering and complaining doesn't do anyone any good. When Moses was leading the Children of Israel through the wilderness, they kept talking about how much better it was when they were slaves in Egypt...

What Do You Believe?

I have a dimple on my chin, and that sometimes makes it difficult to shave. Most of my face is not a problem, but it's hard to get to the little hairs in my dimple. Some days, I manage to angle the blade just right and trim those bad boys right off, other days, I just can't seem to get them. Several years ago, I had one of those days, and it must have been a particularly bad day (or maybe one of several such days in a row) because I had a number of people comment on it. Towards the end of the day, a friend of mine told me that I had 'dirt' in my dimple. Taking a quick moment to decide whether it was actually worth explaining to him that they were whiskers, and deciding that it was not, I thanked him for pointing it out and started to walk away. He stopped me, and insisted that he was serious. Okay, no problem, thanks, and I started to walk away again. We cycled through this several times, and each time he got louder, and more upset. Meanwhile, I'm thinking to myself, "I'm not arguing with you, why are you arguing with me?" Finally someone else pulled him aside and explained it to him. If I had realized this conversation was going to take so long, I would have explained it to him in the first place.
After awhile, I came to the conclusion that he was arguing with me because the bathroom was in the opposite direction from the direction I kept trying to go each time I thought our conversation was over. Obviously, if I had believed him, I would have gone to the bathroom and washed my face. Of course, I realized that, although he was being honest with me, he really didn't understand the situation. He, meanwhile, is judging my belief by my actions rather than my words. Clearly I didn't believe him, and he didn't understand why not.
I said all of that to say this: Jesus said, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" In today's society, I think that it's because a lot of people don't understand what the word 'lord' means. A lord is someone that is placed over you, one that you must obey. A lot of people call Jesus, Lord, who really just want Him to be their savior. News flash: He won't be your savior, unless you let Him be your Lord, also. If you believe that Jesus is your Lord, you will at least make a good effort to do what He says (you won't always succeed, that is a given, but you have to at least try).
I realize, of course, that this goes back to the question of whether one is saved by faith or by works. It is by faith, there should be no question about that. At the same time though, if your mouth says that you believe, but your actions don't match what you say, what is it that you really believe?

God Will Not Share His Glory

I was listening to a song this morning that has a line in it, "You will not share your glory with another." From what I understand, the story behind the song is a little complicated. It was written by a worship leader at a church, after a brief mandated suspension. The pastor felt that the worship team was getting kind of a collective big head, as in, they had a general attitude of 'look what we can do' rather than an attitude of glorifying God. That sort of defeats the purpose of the worship team. Anyway, the pastor talked to them about it, and asked them to take a break from leading worship. During this time, they reflected on their collective attitude, and realized that the pastor was right, and made a commitment to use worship for worship and not for self-promotion. The first several times that I heard the song, I thought that line had to do with the fact that there is no other God but God, but then I heard how the song came about and realized that what they are really saying is that God won't even share His glory with someone making a show of serving Him. You either are serving Him legitimately of a pure heart, giving all honor and glory to Him, or you are serving yourself.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did a good job of explaining this: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Your light, meaning your example, so shine, that men may see your good works, and glorify your Father. Seems kind of backwards, doesn't it? But it isn't. Remember that we can do nothing of ourselves, so if what we are doing is really good works, then God is the one actually doing the work, anyway (I have blogged about this before). In John 12, Jesus says that if we lift Him up, we will draw others to Him--that's what we, as Christians are supposed to be about, anyway.

Walking Through Dry Places

What does it mean to walk through 'dry places?' I think we have all done it. There are times when, no matter how much you pray, it feels like your prayers don't go past the ceiling. You fast, and it doesn't seem like God even notices. You try to do your best to do what God would have you to do, and it just all falls apart. At least on some level, you feel like giving up. These are dry times. Why does God allow us to go through that? My best answer would be that it builds character. If nothing else, it helps you to be understanding and compassionate when you meet other people that have to reach up to touch bottom.

To be honest, we Americans are pretty spoiled. We can feel down and depressed because none of the three flavors of ice cream in the freezer appeal to us right now (Darn! No Moose Tracks or Chunky Monkey tonight--should I run out to the store and buy some? I don't want to get dressed and go out...). And I say 'we Americans,' but there are people right here in this country that would give you all the money in their pockets for one our leftovers...

What does it mean for a spirit to walk through dry places? I heard a really good explanation for that many years ago, and, unfortunately, I didn't write it down. It seemed so obvious (once it was explained to me), I didn't think I would have any trouble remembering. In any case, this is the best explanation that I can muster: When Jesus cast Legion out of the young man, in Mark chapter 5, Legion asked that, instead of just casting them out, that He allow them to go possess a herd of swine that were nearby (Why were Jews keeping pigs? probably because they didn't have garbage disposals). Why would it be important to each demon to be allowed to go into another warm body? Remember that demons are spiritual beings, designed to live without any physical form. Yet here we have these demons begging for host bodies. Was this so that they could kill the pigs? I suspect just the opposite--that Jesus didn't let them take full control of the pigs right away, and the swine, possibly not aware that they were being possessed, certainly knew that something was going terribly wrong for them, and, in a panic, ran into the water and drowned themselves--killing the warm bodies that the demons wanted so much. End result for the demons is that they are again without a host body, almost as though they hadn't been allowed to possess the pigs in the first place. So, what was the point? Possibly the demons wanted to do one last little bit of mischief before moving on, but I think it was more complicated than that. These spiritual beings use host bodies as insulation, a kind of a buffer between them and other spiritual beings. God created us as free moral agents. He allows us to choose whether to accept Him, or to allow Him into our hearts. He could force His way in, but He doesn't. Of course, if we don't let Him in, there are other spiritual beings that won't ask. They cannot occupy the same flesh at the same time that He does, but if He isn't there, we, as individuals, apart from God, cannot stop them. But that makes those of us who have rejected God the only refuge from God for any other spiritual being who might wish to avoid God. God is omnipresent--He is everywhere, except in the bodies of people who just won't allow Him in.

Jesus talked about an unclean spirit being forced out of a man in Matthew chapter 12. A lot of people misread this passage. The subject of the sentence is the unclean spirit: "43) When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he (the unclean spirit) walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44) Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out (I will go back to the man that I came out of); and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished (Jesus has been here, and cleaned this man up, but now He is gone). 45) Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." The italicized parentheticals are mine, but I wanted to make the point that every time the word 'he' is used in that paragraph, it is referring to the spirit.

To be honest, the parable works the other way, too: If, as a Christian, you go through dry times, the life that you led before you got saved can start to look good to you, but if you go back to that life, you end up worse off than ever.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that in the previous paragraph I should have said that the parable almost works the other way: As a Christian, you will have dry times, and there will be times when it seems like you can't find rest, but if you persevere, God has rest for you: It's just that sometimes He wants you to know that you can endure more than you think you can.

Theocracy

I have heard a lot of talk in the past six years about how the current administration is trying to turn this country into a theocracy. I would have to say that, if that is their intent, they are doing a very poor job of bringing that to pass. Of course, I don't believe that it could ever happen anyway, because God didn't intend for this country to be a theocracy.

To a certain extent, this country is an experiment; one that is still ongoing. Our founding fathers were, for the most part, deeply religious men. They believed that they had a right to believe what they believed, and that the government should not dictate to them what to believe. The best religious choices are the ones made by the individual.

It has been said that you cannot legislate morality. I have heard a great deal of discussion on this issue. I started to say that I have heard a lot of discussion on both sides of this issue, but, really, I haven't; most of the discussion that I have heard skirts the issue completely. I think a lot of it stems from the fact that people will sit and discuss the phrase without defining the words used in the phrase. Morality is a character trait, to legislate means to make law; all the laws in the world cannot force a change in a person's character. The Bible never uses the word morality, but it does use the word 'righteousness,' which is the first entry in the thesaurus for 'morality,' and the Bible says that righteousness cannot come from the law.

The bottom line is, if I do what I do simply because there are laws that require me to live like that, and I don't have the courage or ingenuity to find ways around the law, then I am still a reprehensible person. The world would be a much nicer place to live, but to what purpose? I should do what I do because I have a legitimate desire to please my Creator; and because I have faith that He wants what is best for me. He has a plan, and I am part of His plan; if I allow myself to be used of Him, then I can fulfil my part in His plan. If I get stubborn and do only what I want to do, then I frustrate His grace and subvert His plan, and I can be replaced. Every one is expendable to God; to borrow a phrase from Bill Cosby (even though Dr. Cosby wasn't talking about God), He can strike me down, and make another one that looks just like me. But, again, I shouldn't do what I do out of fear, but out of desire. God loves a cheerful giver, even when what you're giving is your time and effort (not to neglect tithes and offerings).

My Father Is a Jewish Carpenter

I have blogged in the past about Judaism, and two days ago I posted about trying not to create offence. Today I heard about a new way of creating offense that I had never heard of before: It seems that there is a Christian family living in a predominately Jewish area that just recently discovered Christianity's Jewish roots, and are now adopting Jewish customs. I can see how that could be fun and interesting, and might even help one to understand some of the references in Scripture that so many people not familiar with Jewish customs have a hard time with. Still, there are better ways to bond with Jewish people.

Quite frankly, there is a peculiar relationship between the three major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three religions believe at least some of the same things. Jesus was born a Jew, and the Koran mentions Jesus as having been sent as a Savior to the Jews. There are, of course, major differences in the religions; with each of the three teaching that the other two are, although close, somewhat wrong. Usually the big objection to Christianity (from the other two religions) tends to be that all through the Old Testament (or Tanakh), there was one God; then Jesus came, and suddenly there are three Gods. Even if you accept Jesus as an additional God (which you shouldn't--He is not another God), where did this other God come from? Both Christianity and Islam look at the Jews as having been God's chosen people, but they rejected the savior that God sent for them (at this point, there are two divisions, though; a lot of people want to just write them off, while some of us still see a great deal of potential in the Jews). Islam, on the other hand, in some ways seems to follow along the lines of Judeo-Christianity, but in other ways, seems to have taken a sharp left...

In any case, to simply adopt the customs of another group of people can be annoying, or insulting. I understand that the Jewish neighbors at least know why this Christian family is suddenly trying to act Jewish, and they know that it is not attempt to mock them. It occurs to me that a better way to bond with Jewish neighbors would be to ask questions about their customs and their faith. Not to imitate, but to gain an understanding. It helps if one has a legitimate question regarding an Old Testament Scripture that is referred to in the New Testament (such as "What was David referring to in the 22nd Psalm?" knowing that he was describing the Crucifixion; or "What child was Isaiah talking about in Isaiah 7:14?" but be prepared that they are going to tell you that he was talking about his own child--Isaiah's wife became pregnant shortly after that), but ask for help in understanding, and then wait for an opportunity to explain why that explanation is important to you (and if it isn't important, keep it to yourself).

We, as Christians, have a bad tendency to behave as though we are better than non-Christians. God so loved the world... He doesn't have a special love for us, He loves all of His creation; He would like to save more people, but it is up to us.

Don't Make Me Angry

Bill Bixby used to utter the line at the beginning of each episode of 'The Incredible Hulk': "Don't make me angry, Mr. McGee, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry." It's such a classic line that it is still, occasionally, paid homage to. The Bible says to be angry and sin not; anger in and of itself is not a sin, but most of us maintain our principles only with great difficulty (if at all) when angry.

What I really hate is when something that upset me greatly, some time ago, for whatever reason comes back to mind. I have had it happen that I will start thinking about an event that happened years ago, but that didn't work out the way it should have (at least in my own mind) and I can fell my blood pressure rise... Usually those things are situations that I know I could have handled better. Of course, they are also situations that if the other person had done what they were 'supposed to,' I wouldn't have had to handle the situation at all. Again, the Bible says that we should rather suffer ourselves to be defrauded, rather than to take action against a brother.

On the other hand, we shouldn't let a brother or sister continue in sin, either. Of course, if I have been sinned against, then it becomes personal; if I am angry about it, then I have a hard time approaching the person who wronged me in a spirit of meekness. I know that's what I have to do--but at that point, it's usually easier just to let it go (to suffer myself to be defrauded), to swallow the hurt and walk it off; even though, the brother or sister really needs to know that they may not be walking the straight and narrow. I also have to prayerfully consider whether I even have a right to be angry. Maybe sucking it up and moving on really is the right thing to do, but then I have to pray, not only for a forgiving spirit, but also to be forgiven for my presumptuousness.

And, in the line of being angry without a cause, I must admit that sometimes I get angry at God. Sometimes I want to hurt Him, but I know that whatever I do to hurt Him ultimately hurts me a whole lot worse. God may have already gotten tired of hearing me pray, "God, I'm mad at you. I probably don't have any right to be mad at you, but I am. I don't understand why this situation is turning out the way it is, but I know that you see the big picture, and I don't. I know that all things work together for good, but I don't see how this situation is going to help anybody." Of course, the word 'probably' in the above is really just an example of my own reluctance to accept responsibility, and, at the same time, an attempt to reconcile my knowledge that God has my best interests at heart, with my belief, at the time, that I was getting the short end of the stick. You know, it's funny, I remember praying that prayer several times, but, in retrospect, I don't remember what the reason was on even one occasion...