There’s a question that so many people have asked, always at a time of great stress, tragedy or some other kind of negative experience, but it’s a question with no certain answer for the earth-bound human mind. It’s the “Why me?” reaction that countless individuals have heard echoing in their thoughts when something happens to them that contradicts and rebukes their assumptions about life; and especially theiimplications of how life is “supposed” to be.
Have you noticed, you never see someone puzzled and troubled for a long period of time over the same question in regard to their blessings, their good fortune, or the incredibly lucky turn of events that brought them prosperity or enormous well-being? Sure, some may briefly ponder the “Why?” question after something really good happens, as if to wonder “What did I possibly do to deserve such good things?” But then they move quickly on to acceptance, by-passing entirely other steps so common to grieving, such as anger or bargaining.
I believe the same question, or rather belief, is behind both negative and positive scenarios. The concept of what a person “deserves” is a simple assumption about how life works, one that has been around since biblical times, and was fully acted out for us in the Book of Job.
After initially reacting to his misfortunes with a statement of faith, “God gives, God takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord,” Job begins to be troubled by the apparent disconnect between his fall from prosperity and his own self-image; fueled in particular by his view of his own personal righteousness and what he “ought” to get from God in return for it.
Meanwhile, as Job protests his rough treatment at the hands of the Almighty, the three men who came initially to give comfort turned soon to giving counsel to Job for his “bad attitude”. They figured Job had gotten exactly what he had coming, as they had always assumed that sinners “reap what they sow.” Job apparently believed that also, but didn’t feel his misfortunes matched his excellent track record, which accounts for his desire to take up the matter with God, who, in his mind at least, had some ‘splainin’ to do.
After a great deal of back-and-forth between Job and his three friends, and finally a defense of God’s viewpoint from a fifth man, Elihu, God speaks for Himself. And without giving any real answer to account for Job’s troubles, the Lord more or less tells Job, “I didn’t need your advice creating the world, and I don’t need your permission to run it.”
Surely that answer won’t satisfy many modern minds, accustomed to debate and democratic processes, nor will it pass unopposed among those who prefer answers that “make sense” to the rational human mind. But, unless we could comprehend things exactly as God does, how could we expect to fully see His purposes in what He chooses to permit or plan in His world. We’re pretty smart, but not like that.
In a recent news story, a wise father responded to his loved one, who asked the “Why me?” question, by asking back to her, “Why not you?” Simply put, the things that trouble us are part of life in this broken world; a world that we broke, not God. Troubles are an “equal opportunity” experience, and they happen to all of us. We don’t need to complicate the question further by injecting the idea of who “deserves” this or that and who doesn’t. That’s the simplest and most sensible explanation we have, short of looking over God’s shoulder as He administers the affairs of a world that only He could create, and only He can run.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
WWWJF (What war would Jesus fight?)
The recent five-year anniversary of the beginning of hostilities in Iraq served not only to recall the onset of fighting against an arguably terrorist regime, but also as a reminder that our nation has become enmeshed in a conflict that, soon after the launch of that mission, became much more than anyone had anticipated.
The degree to which this war has divided one American from another is also a reminder of another highly controversial war that formed the social and political background of my coming-of-age years, Vietnam. About the only thing that’s changed since the country was torn apart by often violent emotions concerning that war is that Americans of all opinions are much more supportive of our troops now than before, when soldiers were called “baby-killers” when they were over there, and largely ignored when they returned home.
Not that wars have ever been a widely popular event with Americans. World War 2 was a tough sell to the then-isolationist nation, up until Pearl Harbor was nearly wiped off the map. Even then, only Hitler’s declaration of war against us, following our declaration against the Japanese, assured that we would at last join the British in their struggle against Germany’s power. But many years later, Saddam Hussein is a much less agreed-upon opponent than the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
But apart from the political or social implications of going to war, I find very interesting the way different people try to relate their religious feelings to the general subject of warfare, and especially the kind of war that engenders such wide disagreement about the necessity of fighting against an enemy that may or may not, according to your perspective, be a threat to our national and personal security.
Ever since Vietnam rocked the political conscience of college students across America, there have been many people who don’t profess any particular religious convictions, who are convinced of the need to avoid any and all wars, seeking instead to “give peace a chance.” But whenever Jesus is referenced as an “informed Source” of wisdom on the subject of war, it seems that the “Peaceful Jesus” is the one most often preferred. I’ve never heard anyone try to argue from Jesus, the Cleanser of the temple, to an image of “Rambo Jesus.” Instead, “Peace on earth, good will to men” has been invoked as a general principle, aside from its Christmas context, to imply that Jesus would never approve of hostile actions against anyone, individual or nation. But, as contemporary English versions make clear, the angels’ announcement is better translated as a promise “…on earth, peace among men with whom He is pleased." (Luke 2:14)
In summary, two main points could be made about Jesus and peace.
(1) Jesus never promised “peace on earth” in general. If anything, he said to those who were looking for Him to restore the Kingdom of Israel in their time, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Wherever that Gospel has gone, there has been conflict between light and darkness.
(2) Jesus is the One who will one day launch the greatest “offensive” the world has ever seen, when He returns to conquer His enemies in the “Day of the Lord.” In that day, “While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)! Talk about “Shock and Awe!”
But for now, does Jesus want His individual children to be “peacemakers?” Definitely! Is it appropriate on the individual level to “turn to other cheek?” Likewise! But just as the nation of Israel had a place for armed conflict against the enemies of peace and righteousness, I believe it’s appropriate for our nation to prosecute a war, at the least, for defending itself against imminent threats from nations radically opposed to a biblical peace, or to defeat an aggressor determined to take away our peace by armed aggression.
The tricky part seems to be defining a “threat.” If there is general agreement on that, and that’s something very much absent in relation to Iraq as it was with Vietnam, then such necessary conflicts, while still fitting Sherman’s eloquent description, “War is Hell”, are nonetheless to be preferred to allowing other nations, who don’t share our love of “peace on earth” to have their way with us. The good news is that, even in times of war, there can be peace, “not as the world gives”, but the peace of God that “passes understanding.” And that’s a peace we don’t have to fight for – just surrender to King Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
The degree to which this war has divided one American from another is also a reminder of another highly controversial war that formed the social and political background of my coming-of-age years, Vietnam. About the only thing that’s changed since the country was torn apart by often violent emotions concerning that war is that Americans of all opinions are much more supportive of our troops now than before, when soldiers were called “baby-killers” when they were over there, and largely ignored when they returned home.
Not that wars have ever been a widely popular event with Americans. World War 2 was a tough sell to the then-isolationist nation, up until Pearl Harbor was nearly wiped off the map. Even then, only Hitler’s declaration of war against us, following our declaration against the Japanese, assured that we would at last join the British in their struggle against Germany’s power. But many years later, Saddam Hussein is a much less agreed-upon opponent than the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
But apart from the political or social implications of going to war, I find very interesting the way different people try to relate their religious feelings to the general subject of warfare, and especially the kind of war that engenders such wide disagreement about the necessity of fighting against an enemy that may or may not, according to your perspective, be a threat to our national and personal security.
Ever since Vietnam rocked the political conscience of college students across America, there have been many people who don’t profess any particular religious convictions, who are convinced of the need to avoid any and all wars, seeking instead to “give peace a chance.” But whenever Jesus is referenced as an “informed Source” of wisdom on the subject of war, it seems that the “Peaceful Jesus” is the one most often preferred. I’ve never heard anyone try to argue from Jesus, the Cleanser of the temple, to an image of “Rambo Jesus.” Instead, “Peace on earth, good will to men” has been invoked as a general principle, aside from its Christmas context, to imply that Jesus would never approve of hostile actions against anyone, individual or nation. But, as contemporary English versions make clear, the angels’ announcement is better translated as a promise “…on earth, peace among men with whom He is pleased." (Luke 2:14)
In summary, two main points could be made about Jesus and peace.
(1) Jesus never promised “peace on earth” in general. If anything, he said to those who were looking for Him to restore the Kingdom of Israel in their time, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Wherever that Gospel has gone, there has been conflict between light and darkness.
(2) Jesus is the One who will one day launch the greatest “offensive” the world has ever seen, when He returns to conquer His enemies in the “Day of the Lord.” In that day, “While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)! Talk about “Shock and Awe!”
But for now, does Jesus want His individual children to be “peacemakers?” Definitely! Is it appropriate on the individual level to “turn to other cheek?” Likewise! But just as the nation of Israel had a place for armed conflict against the enemies of peace and righteousness, I believe it’s appropriate for our nation to prosecute a war, at the least, for defending itself against imminent threats from nations radically opposed to a biblical peace, or to defeat an aggressor determined to take away our peace by armed aggression.
The tricky part seems to be defining a “threat.” If there is general agreement on that, and that’s something very much absent in relation to Iraq as it was with Vietnam, then such necessary conflicts, while still fitting Sherman’s eloquent description, “War is Hell”, are nonetheless to be preferred to allowing other nations, who don’t share our love of “peace on earth” to have their way with us. The good news is that, even in times of war, there can be peace, “not as the world gives”, but the peace of God that “passes understanding.” And that’s a peace we don’t have to fight for – just surrender to King Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
Friday, March 14, 2008
It's enough to drive a man to drink!
Probably no one knows when alcoholic beverages were first used for euphoric effects, though it might be assumed that the intoxicating properties of certain plants were discovered before that. In any case, mankind has apparently been making use of mood-altering substances for a very long time. For example, Noah was hardly off the ark when he also fell off the wagon, got tipsy on some wine, which turned into a bad time for one of his sons.
The problems associated with excessive use of alcohol are well documented, as is the tendency for those who are given to abusing it to do so, especially if they are presented with some occasion, like a party or a holiday, that invites them to "drink up!" And soon we'll see millions celebrating an annual occasion that seems for many to be little more than a good excuse to consume way more beer than is healthy; to say nothing of the kind of behavior that generally accompanies drunken parties.
Now, of course, my musings on this subject will have no more effect on the revellers than the average Sunday School teacher scolding the naughty boys on the sidewalk outside the church (not that such a thing is likely to happen these days.) Indeed, my own high school Sunday School teacher would not have had much effect on us who were in her class, mainly because none of us, as far as I recollect, had any inkling of what true Christianity was all about.
And that, simply put, is the point of today's reflection. It's one thing for citizens of a free society to decide that they have the right to celebrate a holiday with drunken parties. But, would it be possible, in the interest of common respect, to change the name to, maybe, "Irish Day," or "Green Day?" The Irish are pretty well known for loving a good glass of brew, so it would seem a more appropriate name for such a day, rather than celebrating the memory of a Christian missionary like Patrick by doing things quite contrary to anything Patrick would likely have approved of.
While there is still a lot of difference of opinion about the history of the real Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, it is agreed that he was a Christian, and devoted much of his life to either bringing Christianity to the pagan Celts, or at the very least helping the budding church in Ireland to take hold among the majority Celts. Either way, it's more than a little ironic that a day has gotten set aside to remember him, a day which is now better known by the average American for intoxicating spirits than for works of the Holy Spirit.
In a way, it's not much different from what has become of many "Christmas parties" in businesses across the country. And perhaps it simply shows how eager many of our citizens are for any reason to break from the humdrum of their everyday lives. If only more people could know the truly "intoxicating" joy of Jesus in their hearts; and that's a "high" that works equally well in every season of life and never leaves an unpleasant hangover.
The problems associated with excessive use of alcohol are well documented, as is the tendency for those who are given to abusing it to do so, especially if they are presented with some occasion, like a party or a holiday, that invites them to "drink up!" And soon we'll see millions celebrating an annual occasion that seems for many to be little more than a good excuse to consume way more beer than is healthy; to say nothing of the kind of behavior that generally accompanies drunken parties.
Now, of course, my musings on this subject will have no more effect on the revellers than the average Sunday School teacher scolding the naughty boys on the sidewalk outside the church (not that such a thing is likely to happen these days.) Indeed, my own high school Sunday School teacher would not have had much effect on us who were in her class, mainly because none of us, as far as I recollect, had any inkling of what true Christianity was all about.
And that, simply put, is the point of today's reflection. It's one thing for citizens of a free society to decide that they have the right to celebrate a holiday with drunken parties. But, would it be possible, in the interest of common respect, to change the name to, maybe, "Irish Day," or "Green Day?" The Irish are pretty well known for loving a good glass of brew, so it would seem a more appropriate name for such a day, rather than celebrating the memory of a Christian missionary like Patrick by doing things quite contrary to anything Patrick would likely have approved of.
While there is still a lot of difference of opinion about the history of the real Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, it is agreed that he was a Christian, and devoted much of his life to either bringing Christianity to the pagan Celts, or at the very least helping the budding church in Ireland to take hold among the majority Celts. Either way, it's more than a little ironic that a day has gotten set aside to remember him, a day which is now better known by the average American for intoxicating spirits than for works of the Holy Spirit.
In a way, it's not much different from what has become of many "Christmas parties" in businesses across the country. And perhaps it simply shows how eager many of our citizens are for any reason to break from the humdrum of their everyday lives. If only more people could know the truly "intoxicating" joy of Jesus in their hearts; and that's a "high" that works equally well in every season of life and never leaves an unpleasant hangover.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Make your choice
A recent survey has been in all the news services. We are told, according to the headline, that “Americans freely change, or drop, their religions.” In an increasingly “fluid” religious environment, nearly half (44%) of Americans say “they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.” And in a new evidence of the diminished importance of religion in U.S. society, 12.1% of the respondents said their religious identity is "nothing in particular." In some areas, such as Oregon, this unaffiliated status is greater than 25%.
All of this should not surprise anyone familiar with the direction American culture has taken over the past 40 years or so. We live in an age where values like tolerance and choice have taken on a status formerly given to qualities of truth like integrity and moral virtue. Not that people can’t have both integrity and tolerance, or virtue and a respect for the choices of others. But if there is still any consensus on the nature of truth (and that’s questionable in today’s philosophical climate), it should be clear that adherence to principles of truth demand that some ideas can be tolerated in the name of religious freedoms, but that doesn’t make all ideas equally true and equally virtuous.
In purely logical terms (and not all will agree on the philosophy of such logic), if such a thing as truth exists, it is true without regard to how many people believe it, much less what percentage of people in a poll agree with it. And if such a thing as truth exists, it will be just as true now as it was two thousand years ago, without regard to the shifting opinions of societies and cultures. Otherwise, truth is simply another term for whatever I believe, at whatever time I happen to believe it.
I believe the Bible for many good reasons, not simply because it’s the book I was brought up to regard as God’s Word. In fact, I rejected the Bible’s claims to authority and truth for many years as I entertained the ever-popular idea that there are “many ways to find God.” Fortunately for my soul, I found truth in a place I had been trying to avoid, in the words of Jesus, who dared to say, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6) And while I have given time to investigate other claims to truth, I believe they all lack the authenticity of an empty tomb, a Risen Savior, and millions of lives, like my own, that have been changed by the power of His truth; truth that He promised “will set you free.” (John 8:32)
So, if people changing their “faiths” means changing denominations, I’m fine with that. I was raised by a Methodist family, learned Bible stories at a Presbyterian church, and now pastor a Baptist church. And Jesus is worshipped as Lord and Savior at all of them and many others as well. So choice and tolerance for such choices works fine if it remains within a context of truth. But if one chooses to regard an idea as truth that contradicts the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God’s only Son and Redeemer, then I can tolerate that choice in an open society, but I can’t accept it in the same way as a choice to worship God “in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
Indeed, God gives human beings the freedom to make their own choices, to worship or not worship, to worship Him through Jesus or to seek Him in an endless variety of ways, including some that utterly contradict each other. But a day will come when the time to make choices or to change one choice for another will be finished. In that day when Jesus becomes, not the Savior, but the Judge, then He will decide whether or not our choices are valid. And He won’t need a poll to help Him.
All of this should not surprise anyone familiar with the direction American culture has taken over the past 40 years or so. We live in an age where values like tolerance and choice have taken on a status formerly given to qualities of truth like integrity and moral virtue. Not that people can’t have both integrity and tolerance, or virtue and a respect for the choices of others. But if there is still any consensus on the nature of truth (and that’s questionable in today’s philosophical climate), it should be clear that adherence to principles of truth demand that some ideas can be tolerated in the name of religious freedoms, but that doesn’t make all ideas equally true and equally virtuous.
In purely logical terms (and not all will agree on the philosophy of such logic), if such a thing as truth exists, it is true without regard to how many people believe it, much less what percentage of people in a poll agree with it. And if such a thing as truth exists, it will be just as true now as it was two thousand years ago, without regard to the shifting opinions of societies and cultures. Otherwise, truth is simply another term for whatever I believe, at whatever time I happen to believe it.
I believe the Bible for many good reasons, not simply because it’s the book I was brought up to regard as God’s Word. In fact, I rejected the Bible’s claims to authority and truth for many years as I entertained the ever-popular idea that there are “many ways to find God.” Fortunately for my soul, I found truth in a place I had been trying to avoid, in the words of Jesus, who dared to say, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6) And while I have given time to investigate other claims to truth, I believe they all lack the authenticity of an empty tomb, a Risen Savior, and millions of lives, like my own, that have been changed by the power of His truth; truth that He promised “will set you free.” (John 8:32)
So, if people changing their “faiths” means changing denominations, I’m fine with that. I was raised by a Methodist family, learned Bible stories at a Presbyterian church, and now pastor a Baptist church. And Jesus is worshipped as Lord and Savior at all of them and many others as well. So choice and tolerance for such choices works fine if it remains within a context of truth. But if one chooses to regard an idea as truth that contradicts the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God’s only Son and Redeemer, then I can tolerate that choice in an open society, but I can’t accept it in the same way as a choice to worship God “in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
Indeed, God gives human beings the freedom to make their own choices, to worship or not worship, to worship Him through Jesus or to seek Him in an endless variety of ways, including some that utterly contradict each other. But a day will come when the time to make choices or to change one choice for another will be finished. In that day when Jesus becomes, not the Savior, but the Judge, then He will decide whether or not our choices are valid. And He won’t need a poll to help Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)