Archive for November 2012
Giving Thanks
Posted on: November 22, 2012
Ah, Thanksgiving! Don’t you love the decorations for this season? All the lovely leaves, and pumpkins, and bounty of the harvest, the turkey, the corn. And, of course, the pilgrims. There they stand, Ma and Pa Pilgrim, looking fresh and clean, collar and cap snowy white, all neat as a pin, round and rosy. Pictures of The First Thanksgiving nearly invariably show a collection of such pilgrims, with a few smiling, boisterous children running around, all happy and satisfied with an overflowing abundance of bounty piled around. Gives ya the “warm fuzzies” all over, doesn’t it?
Only problem is, it’s fake. The real story isn’t picturesque. Most of us remember from our school days that the pilgrims came over on the Mayflower, but do you know how big the ship actually was? We think “ship” and imagine an “ocean liner”, or at least a small cruise ship. Try one hundred feet long and twenty-five feet wide! In other words, you could fit EIGHTEEN of them on a football field. And those are the outside dimensions, not the actual floor space in the hold where the passengers lived. There were one hundred and two passengers (and thirty crew members) on that tiny vessel. That many people in that little space? Ugh. The journey actually had a couple of false starts, as there were originally to be TWO ships going. They finally had to give up on the other ship being fixed, and set out with just the one, much later than anticipated. The crossing took two months, the first not too bad, but the second full of nearly continual Atlantic storms. No Carnival cruise! The damp and the stench would have been overwhelming and the food was miserable.
But all journey come to an end, right? So did this one. They arrived on the East coast in on November 11, but it took time to find a suitable settlement spot. They landed at what became the Plymouth Colony on Dec. 6. (Some of the passengers had now been on board for SIX months!) Great time to start a new colony, right at the beginning of winter, huh? They began building the settlement, but inclement weather and the generally poor condition of the immigrants meant that only seven of the intended nineteen buildings got done. One hundred people (two died in the crossing) in seven buildings.
With poor shelter and poor diet, in the teeth of a ferocious Northern winter, it’s no wonder that starvation and illness took a heavy toll. By spring, only fifty-three of the original passengers were still alive. That’s just over half – only four of which were adult women, and many were children. That’s just “alive”, too, not necessarily healthy enough to do the work of building or planting – or perhaps to survive another winter. The Mayflower had sailed for England in April; they had no way of knowing when – or, indeed, even IF – other settlers and supplies would be coming.
Think about all this! They left England sure of God’s leading, convinced of the necessity of the voyage, with visions of a new land where they could be free from the Church of England’s rule. (They came for the freedom to establish their OWN “religiocracy”, of course, not “freedom of religion” as so often taught. But I digress…) Think about how it must have felt, then, to have all these things go so terribly “wrong”. Ever been there? “God, I followed your leading, and look what a mess You’ve gotten me into!”
Yet, they chose to celebrate that first harvest the next October. They were undoubtedly a motley looking crew. Many probably still were somewhat haggard or bore the marks of their great suffering. The state of wear of the clothing was likely pretty shabby. For all, it would have been a bitter-sweet celebration as they thought of all those who hadn’t made it that far and all the dreams that hadn’t come true. There was no way for them to be sure the crop would be sufficient for the coming winter if that winter was even worse than the previous. They didn’t know how many of them would still be alive by the next harvest. Maybe because death and hardship were just so much a part of life then, maybe because their entire religious outlook was different and they expected life to be a “vale of tears”, or simply because their faith was strong, in the face of horrendous suffering, they were still thankful for what God had given them in that harvest.
I wonder if we modern American Christians, put in the same circumstances, would be thankful. It’s easy to celebrate and give thanks when our lives look like that stereotypical Thanksgiving tableau. When we have more than we need, and life is good, and everyone’s happy, and the sun is shining, it’s easy to be thankful. That’s where the rubber meets the road, though, isn’t it? We are to give thanks in all circumstances. When the harvest is bountiful, and when the crops fail. When our loved ones are gathered around us, and when there are empty chairs at the table. When events have turned out just as great as we envisioned, and when all our dreams turn to dust.
No matter what your circumstances are this day, I hope that you are able to give thanks. God is still good. He is still faithful. He will never leave us or forsake us. This world is not our home. As Mark Driscoll put it in a sermon, this world is as close to Hell as a Christian will ever get – and here, we STILL have God’s presence with us. If that is not a cause for giving thanks, I don’t know what is!
A blessed Thanksgiving to you all!
Facial Recognition
Posted on: November 18, 2012
I am not always too good when it comes to noticing changes in people. “Say, did you get a haircut?” “Um, no, I got contacts.” “Aw, you shaved your beard off!” “Um, yeah. Three months ago.” Oops. I also have trouble recognizing people when I see them outside the context in which I normally see them. That is, if I met you at church on Sunday, then see you at the grocery store next Friday, it is possible that I will kinda sorta have a feeling that you look vaguely familiar, yet not remember at all who you are or where we met. Embarrassing.
This morning, in a sermon related to seeking God, our pastor told of a version of Hide and Seek that he used to play with a youth group years ago. The kids would be taken to a big mall nearby and tasked with seeking all the youth leaders who were “hiding” in various places inside. The trick? The leaders could be in any section of any store, and didn’t necessarily look quite like themselves. One year, Pastor Brian (a tall guy) sat in a wheelchair, wearing a white, old-lady wig, with a blanket around his shoulders! Took a loooong time for the kids to find him that time. Had I been there, I might still be looking. I have a bad enough time recognizing people under normal circumstances, but in a context where I don’t usually see them, and in disguise? Yikes!
In the familiar story in Matthew 25 of the great sorting of the sheep and the goats at the Judgment, the Son of Man tells the sheep, on His right, blessed of His Father, to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. He tells the goats, on His left, cursed, to depart to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. The sifting factor? Their service to Jesus. Both sheep and goats express great surprise at Jesus’ commendation/condemnation for their services rendered to Him. The sheep just sound befuddled. “Well, yeah, ok, we served the ones You served as You served, but we certainly didn’t see YOU there.” The goats? You can just hear the indignation! “Well, I would have been perfectly willing to serve You, if I’d only seen You, but since I DIDN’T, how is it MY fault that I didn’t serve You?” In the end, of course, Jesus identifies Himself with those who were served. What we do (or don’t do) to the “least of these”, we do (or don’t do) to Him. I can just see the sheep’s brows unfurrow with an “Ohhhhh. Now I get it. I had no idea!”
Since we have this story of the sheep to instruct us, however, we don’t have to be like ignorant sheep! Just as the kids in the youth group finally recognized Pastor Brian’s face in that of an “old woman” in a wheelchair, so, too, we can learn to recognize the face of Jesus in the faces of the “least” around us. That homeless beggar on the corner? The young man in the wheelchair, with that vacant stare in his eyes and drool down his chin? That kid at school who others call names and make fun of? See the face of Jesus there? That old woman fumbling for change at the check-out when you’re in a hurry? That scruffy-looking guy with the tattoos who has to check the “yes” box to the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”? The old church member in that awful nursing home where the halls stink of urine? Wherever we see the faces of the poor, the sick, the oppressed, the lonely – we can see the face of Jesus.
How well is your facial recognition software working?
And the winner is….
Posted on: November 6, 2012
The election is over. Here are the results:
God is still reigning.
God is not surprised at who got elected.
The kings of the earth are still less than nothing.
There is still no authority but what has been instituted by God.
There is still no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.
God is still, in all things, working for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.
There are still no laws against love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, or self-control.
The Great Commission has not been repealed.
The poor still need feeding.
The blind still need sight.
The oppressed still need deliverance.
Jesus is still with us.
No matter who was elected, we are the elect of God!
Celebrate‼‼‼
In a few days, “come Hell or high water” as the saying goes – with the latter being pretty literally true back East – we will have yet another Election Day. Here in Washington State, as in, I think, three others across our country, there is much agitation over the possibility of homosexual marriage becoming legal, not by jurisprudential fiat, but by popular vote. It was passed by our legislature last spring, but now faces ratification by the people in the form of a referendum to either confirm or reject it. I hope it will be rejected, but I fully expect to see it approved – if not this time, then next.
While I do believe that homosexual sex is as wrong as any sex outside of the Genesis definition of marriage, I often find myself more uncomfortable with most of the Christians writing letter to the editor, ranting on the radio, and carrying snarky signs at protest rallies than I do with the majority of people advocating for homosexual marriage. I expect the World to be the World, to act on its own (lack of absolute) values, to follow its leader, the Prince of Darkness. But how is the Church responding? Consider.
First, how are we reasoning? If a Muslim came to me and began to rant at me over the fact that I do not cover my head because IT SAYS SO IN THE Q’URAN, I would not care. No matter how many verses of that book he could quote at me, it would be futile, because the Q’uran means nothing to me since I do not accept it as valid. Yet I constantly see Christians using the Bible to argue with non-Christians! “This verse SAYS YOU ARE WRONG!”, shooting verses like bullets, attempting to slay the others’ arguments. Non-Christians do not accept the Bible as Truth, so why expect them to respect arguments based on it? (Even if someone is a Christian, but is rejecting clear Scriptural teaching, beating them over the head with a Bible is seldom persuasive.) The fact that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin is not a cogent argument for the World as to why they should not legalize it.
Some Christians object to the idea of children being raised by married homosexual parents, but children have been being raised by long-term homosexual couples for years now. I have yet to see any documented evidence cited that being raised by homosexual parents results in general mental health damage. No study so far has shown any greater likelihood of children growing up to be homosexuals themselves. Obviously, such children share their parents’ convictions as to the propriety of the relationship, but if we are going to deny marriage based on the immorality of the parents’ beliefs, we sure better broaden the category, because the children of heterosexual couples who support homosexual marriage share that same viewpoint.
The concern is raised of businesses being sued for not accommodating homosexual marriages, honeymoons, etc. This argument against homosexual marriage only sort-of flies because such discrimination is already illegal. All states have “sexual orientation” listed in their non-discrimination laws. (Check out what suits have been filed, and you will find that there are very, very few, and of those that have been filed, only one or two are in states with legalized homosexual marriage – and even in those, the suit isn’t related to the legality of homosexual marriage.) That Christian adoption agencies could be forced to not take into consideration the sexual orientation of a couple seeking to adopt a child is an issue of the agency being free to operate according to its own moral beliefs, but is not an issue of the legality of homosexual marriage in and of itself. (And if an agency is trying to have it both ways, following its own principles, but wanting State funding to do so, then the agency has no claim. What the State pays for, the State sets the rules for.)
I’ve heard some Christians charge that homosexuals who want to marry want to do so in order to destroy the institution of marriage. I gotta admit, the logic of THIS entirely escapes me. On the contrary, I can entirely understand why they would want TO marry. From an emotional point of view, marriage is the ultimate commitment. Looked at from a legal point of view, marriage is the instant passport to an astonishing array of legal benefits. (Over 200, I think I saw cited.) It is possible to take legal steps to acquire many of those benefits through other means, but it is very expensive and time-consuming – and there are some benefits that CANNOT be achieved through any other means. Speaking strictly from the world’s point of view, which, remember, has no moral absolute, I can fully understand why homosexuals would want to be able to legally marry.
And that IS what is at stake. LEGAL marriage, not God-created Marriage. God defined marriage in Genesis: a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh. In the creation of Eve, the original one flesh of Adam became two. In the sexual union of Adam/male and Eve/female, the oneness of the original creation is restored. No male-male or female-female union can accomplish this reunification. God further details what He intended for marriage in His instructions through Paul, culminating in the revelation that marriage is a picture of the union between Christ and His bride, the Church. Now, the Genesis definition certainly applies universally and requires a relationship only between man and wife, but Marriage as a reflection of Christ and His bride is only possible where there is a covenant between a believing man and woman and the Lord. This is Covenantal Marriage.
In LEGAL terms, however, a State marriage license simply creates a contract between two people and the State. It makes no requirement of a “till death do us part” commitment; the contract is binding only so long as both parties continue to agree to it. The contract makes no requirement of emotional commitment; the State doesn’t care if the two parties even LIKE each other. The contract has nothing to do with sexual activity, either; sex is not required for a marriage to be “valid”. (A marriage license is not “permission to have sex”, either, since the only sex illegal in the U.S. is prostitution or with a minor.) In the State’s eyes, the legal contract called marriage is simply for the purpose of ensuring stability within society, and providing an established line for inheritance. (It used to have to do with providing for the care of children produced, but that has changed with welfare, DNA testing and child support laws.) For the State’s purpose, then, the gender of the parties involved really has no bearing. Since legal marriage is a contract with the State, then what the State sanctions, it has the right to dictate the terms of. It is up to the State to determine who may perform a legal marriage; who may enter a legal marriage; under what conditions a legal marriage may take place or what requirements may be placed upon those seeking to enter into the legal contract; what benefits may accrue to those parties; and what obligations are incurred by entering into the contract. The State can do whatever it likes with the contract marriage under its purview. It cannot destroy, redefine or change Covenantal Marriage. The two should never be confused, even though the same term is used.
Many Christians fear that if homosexual marriage is legalized that pastors would end up forced to officiate for homosexual couples. Nope. Well, possibly, but only under one condition. Remember when the pastor says, “And now, by the power invested in me by God and the State of X, I now pronounce you husband and wife”? Most pastors have chosen to act as agents of the State, which means that in performing the wedding they are serving in the capacity of a civil servant who is licensed to perform the ceremony and sign the State marriage license. But it is not REQUIRED that they serve in this capacity. If the State were to remove a conscience clause so that any pastor acting as an agent of the State would be required to marry any and all couples so requesting, then I expect most Christian pastors would get out of the legal end of it, performing only church ceremonies, which, as strictly a religious function of the church, would be out of the State’s control. Christian couples desiring a legal marriage would have two ceremonies – one civil, one religious.
The day may come when Christians will have to choose between identifying themselves with the State and obtaining LEGAL marriages that are the same as any other marriage approved by the State, or foregoing the State’s benefits and choosing to participate only in a Covenantal Marriage. We will have to decide how to deal with the fact that our children, if they attend a State school, will be taught that homosexual marriage is normal. (They’re already being taught that homosexuality itself is normal.) We may face penalties for speaking our belief. Pastors and churches could face tax implications or other legal sanctions. Is this really something new? Hasn’t the Church always suffered for its refusal to bow to Caesar? Do we suppose that our alleged “Christian” heritage, and our “freedom of religion” somehow exempt the Church in America from facing such persecution? All political systems belong to the Enemy (when Satan tempted Jesus, he wasn’t lying when he claimed that all kingdoms were his), and the Enemy is dead set against the children of the Light and against everything that is Good and True. As citizens, certainly we should take advantage of political means to fight the erosion of our political “rights”, but as Christians, we should not be surprised at the World being the World and should be prepared for the inevitable consequences.
Above all, we must be sure that we are keeping our witness like Jesus. No one can accuse Jesus of being “soft” on sin. His Sermon on the Mount ratcheted the definition of sin up to whole new levels, in fact. So much so that no matter how good we might be at not doing forbidden actions such as murder, we all know we’re hopeless when it comes to not even harboring attitudes that we’re not supposed to, such as slanderous rage. Yet one thing we don’t see in Scripture is Jesus haranguing the “sinners”. We don’t have seven “Woe to you!” condemnations about sins being committed by the World. In the account of the woman caught in adultery in John 8, the Pharisees wanted to show that Jesus was “soft” on moral issues and wasn’t ‘upholding’ the Law. Jesus didn’t back off the Law a bit. He simply made clear that her accusers were just as accountable to it. When Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”, guess what? HE was that one. Jesus is the only one without sin. HE had the legitimate right to throw that stone. But He didn’t. When her self-righteous accusers had slunk away, Jesus said, “Hey, where’d they go? Isn’t anyone left to condemn you?” She says, “Nope, nobody.” What does Jesus say? “Neither do I condemn you.” Why didn’t Jesus condemn her? There’s no indication this was a case of false accusation; she was apparently caught in the very act. Jesus had every right to condemn her, except that that wasn’t why He came. John 3:17, 18 “For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world MIGHT BE SAVED through Him. For whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe in Him is condemned already….” Jesus didn’t need to condemn the woman for her adultery. She already stood condemned. His hope was for her salvation – “Go and sin no more.” Such mercy! Such grace! What must that woman have thought of the Man Who saved her from certain death, Who spoke so gently to her, Who refused to condemn her, Who gave her a second chance at life and a new direction for that life?
Are we being like Jesus? Prostitutes, tax collectors and all manner of sinners flocked to Jesus, but I don’t see that happening with His Church today. Too many Christians, in fighting against things such as legalization of homosexual marriage, demonize the other side as The Enemy rather than recognizing them simply as fellow sinners like us. We make judgments about others’ intentions, as if we could divine their hearts, ascribing to them all the deliberate evil of the Enemy. We come across as self-appointed self-righteous guardians of purity, yet stay silent, or merely whisper, about the extra-marital sex rate in the Church, the divorce rate in the Church, the rate of pornography use in the Church, domestic violence in the Church. Where is our humility? The Church itself has been doing plenty on its own to devalue Covenantal Marriage and distort the picture it is supposed to present to the world. We have no right to be throwing stones‼
What about preaching Truth? Yes, we do have that duty – but we are to preach the Truth IN LOVE. Truth without love tells another he has to go walk barefoot on a gravelly path while Truth wears its thick-soled, steel-toed boots and wonders why the other complains that the way is hard. Truth in Love tells the person he has to walk that gravelly path, but goes barefoot itself so that it may feel full sympathy for the other’s difficulty. To simply tell homosexuals that they are damned (literally) sinners, and that “tough cookies” if they want to marry, is not speaking the Truth in Love. To stereotype them all as drag queens in the Gay Pride Parade who are out to deliberately “rub our face” in their homosexuality is not Truth in Love. To dehumanize them and refuse to recognize our own faces in theirs is not Truth in Love. Truth in Love does not compromise the Truth, but it sympathizes with the pain and struggle that are the consequences of that Truth. Truth in Love stands firm on the Biblical Truth that homosexual sex is a sin, but fully recognizes the worth and dignity of each homosexual as a person for whom Christ died. Truth in Love makes no judgment on the heart of any other, knowing that WE cannot see it, and recognizes that we do not fight against “flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness , against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Homosexuals are not our enemy – not even the ones who think they are, not even the ones pushing for legislation we find abhorrent. Even if we think of them as our enemy, then guess what? Our Lord commanded us to pray for our enemies, and He set us the example. He blessed those who cursed Him, even as they nailed Him to the cross. He forgave them, even as they crucified Him.
As I said, I hope the referendum fails. Believing homosexual sex to be sin, I cannot endorse it. But whether we wake up on November 7th to a “brave new world”, or the same old one we had before, Jesus’ call to follow Him and be like Him will still be the same. Those who have rejected the Lord will STILL be headed to Hell. Are we more concerned that they’re going to Hell, or that some of them may go there legally married?
the susie solution 