The "Little Bang"?

According to BBC news, scientists working with the new atom smasher in Switzerland, known as the "Large Hadron Collider", have successfully created what they call a "mini big bang". They smashed atomic particles together in a way to produce the kind of mixture they believe was the result of the "Big Bang", a colossal explosion of matter that is believed to have taken place at the very beginning of our universe. In other words, they think they made a "little bang" to produce their own mini-universe stuff.

It's a great moment for them, no doubt, especially considering how much work it has been to make this atom smasher, so much larger and more powerful than any of its predecessors. And they had to stay with the project after it broke down in initial trials. But genius and hard work can accomplish a lot.

But now, hold on... this experiment was entirely the result of years of planning and human invention, carefully staged and executed in a machine that boggles the ordinary mind for its complexity. And its result produced this "mini big bang", to illustrate, they say, an event that took place billions of years ago to form the materials of our universe, from which all matter, living and non-living, got its start.

But "they" also say the original "Bang" happened as a result of natural forces, not being directed by any intelligent or creative Being. It just happened, and now it took an immense army of scientists, technicians, inventors, and workers of all kinds (not to mention money) to make a teensie little example of what "just happened"?

Are these scientists too blinded by their humanistic, rational beliefs that they can't see the obvious? If there was such a beginning to our universe, surely it couldn't require less intelligence to produce something infinitely greater than a "mini bang" that required a human intelligence and effort that was itself the result of centuries of human learning and experimentation. I can only agree with what the apostle Paul said of such men, who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:7)

New morality, same results

Surveys of modern America reveal a lot has changed since things were "left to Beaver" and "Father knew best". Not that these classic TV shows reflected all of society at that time, but the general morality of average Americans was still heavily against behaviors that are now commonplace and accepted by a majority of people.

We're told that 40% of births are to unmarried women. "Cohabitation" of unmarried men and women is becoming a quaint term to describe what is now a fully accepted practice, and is probably viewed by many as a judgmental term as well. Speaking publicly against behaviors condemned by society in Beaver's day is now called "hate speech", and some news pundits seemed shocked that anyone could still be opposed to marriage rights for all citizens.

For those who still believe God spoke once on these and other subjects of moral behavior, this "new morality" may be new to us as a society, but hardly new for the world as a whole. Moral decadence in respect to God's Word is as old as humanity, and the results will be the same as ever. And that result is not to be measured in human acceptance or judgment, not in polls or commentary. The result is summed up in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death."

What death, they might say? Indeed, the first tempter posed the same challenge, when he told the woman he was about to deceive, "You shall surely not die!" Sure, she didn't drop over dead, and neither do people who reject God's "old" morality for an updated version. But surely their souls die in respect to all that God created them to experience through living by His Word. And the deadness of the spirit, in which all humans are born, and in which they will persist until they are born again by the Spirit of God, cannot be undone so easily as the moral codes of a nation.

Perhaps this modern morality has changed our society's view of acceptable behaviors, but the result will be the same as always.

Do we need a "Day of Prayer" to pray?

Just to be clear, I believe the action taken last week by Wisconsin District judge Barbara Crabb, branding the National Day of Prayer as "unconstitutional", is another cave-in to the atheist, secularizing groups and ideas that are gaining ground in America's courts. And, despite the failure of California atheist Michael Newdow to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, the battle to cleanse the political and public sphere of religion is far from over (and the Christian religion in particular, since no atheist seems overly concerned about the growth of Islamic influences in schools.)

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that the First Amendment's prohibition of "establishment of religion" should be understood in 18th century context. By "establishment", I think they sought to avoid the official recognition of a particular sect of the Christian faith as the "established" church, as the Lutheran church was in much of continental Europe and the Anglican church was in England. That kind of official status for a certain sect was not only a legal endorsement of beliefs, it was grounds for governmental discrimination and persecution of "non-established" religions.

Such an establishment is clearly not what's up in setting aside the 1st Thursday of May as a National Day of Prayer (for those who want to observe it, with no requirement to do so by any others.) No one is excluded by the proclamation, but only by their choice to abstain. No one will be prosecuted for "failure to pray". Nor will anyone be barred from public office or other governmental activities for being absent at the prayer rally.

So, two observations: First, while this decision is a sign of the growing influence of a negative attitude toward public religion, it's not yet to the point that public prayers will draw the wrath of some national prayer police, like might take place in any number of countries today. We don't need a "National Day of Prayer" to pray, if we just all agree to meet as individuals and churches and communities.

Second, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the group responsible for bringing this action to judge Crabb, should consider that the "freedom to embrace religion" is also a constitutional guarantee, including the freedom of a religious majority in our government to recognize a day for prayers among that majority in the nation as a whole. If Congress comes in time to have an atheist, agnostic or secular majority, then I'll stand up for their right to have a "National Day of No Prayer", or whatever they want to call it.

But again, to be clear, I believe all such freedoms and rights are for this world only. According to the Bible and the words of our Savior Jesus Christ, that will all come to end when "every knee will bow, and every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord." (Philippians 2:10-11) And there won't be any earthly judge to overturn that decision.

Beware religious scams

Ever since the Devil first tricked humans into disobeying God, the world has been filled with imitation religion and spirituality. Some of them are bizarre, like folks waiting for aliens to come get them, and some are so close to the "authorized" version that it's easy for people to be confused. Of course, from a biblical view, there's only one truly "authorized" religion, and that's the one revealed personally by God, first through the prophets of Israel and finally through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

And the imitations and clones and other variations of real Christianity have been marketed by Satan ever since Jesus rose from the dead and sent His apostles into the world with the Gospel. The complete list of variants would be too numerous for this space, but just consider some current imitations that take up space in our news reports.

We have pedophiles masquerading as caring priests, hateful demonstrators pretending they're really standing up for God's Law. We see "preachers" enriching themselves by raking in the offerings of the gullible. And, in today's news we see a "Christian" militia group, claiming to prepare for Antichrist by arming themselves for an assault on the American government.

And the deadliest imitations are all the "fake Jesus" ideas, which Satan uses for those willing to believe that a man called Jesus really lived. But from that point the similarity between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of men's imaginations end. Some say He never claimed to be the Son of God - the Church made that up. Some say He didn't really die on the cross. Some say He died but didn't rise again. Some say He rose, and now we can be just like Him as a powerful, divine being.

Satan, like the scam artists waiting to sell you a fake Rolex or an imitation something else, is quite content with people using the name "Jesus", as long as it isn't the genuine article: the One who is God's only divine Son, equal with the Father, who is God's only atonement for sin, who is the Way, Truth and Life, and the only hope for eternal life by His resurrection from the dead.

Accept no substitutes! It may not be "politically correct", but if Jesus isn't the Way, then there's no way.

What makes us happy?

There are a number things that are common to every person, such as the enjoyment of music, an appreciation for beauty and a capacity for love. In fact, this is another piece of evidence that we're all made by one God with a soul of humanity, rather than being some kind of evolved life-form. Another commonly held facet of humanity is that we all seek happiness, though, like our musical tastes, we have many different ideas of happiness.

And there are also many commonly shared experiences that make us happy, a fact which was the subject of a recent article of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Based on a review of some 51 studies of the relationship between happiness and types of positive thinking, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put forth five experiences that seem to increase personal happiness, experienced as "feelings of well-being." And, to look even briefly at the list, one sees there is general agreement between their list and behaviors advocated by the Bible.

The five life choices said to increase happiness are:

1. Be grateful, expressing thankfulness in some manner to those who have helped us.

2. Be optimistic, envisioning an ideal future and journaling about it.

3. Count your blessings, writing down three good things that happened to us recently.

4. Use your strengths, identifying and finding ways to use those strengths.

5. Commit acts of kindness, donating time to charity or to unselfish deeds to those in need.

All these things are bona fide happiness producers. There's one problem: The choices and behaviors listed can be done by anyone willing to do so, but each of them is an abstraction of a quality that is produced fully only by a heart of faith in God's Word; obedient to His commands and thankful for His blessings.

To do such things without a faith relationship to God is like the difference between working a job you love and working for someone you love. The first is something you do primarily for your own rewards, while the latter is something you do for those rewards and for the sake of the one you love.

The Bible describes real happiness as something we do, not just for ourselves or because it works for us, but because it ties us to the One who has given great promises to all who trust Him and accept His Lordship over their lives. Because of such promises, people of faith can give themselves to things God guarantees will bring true happiness; including some things not normally connected with well-being, like mourning, hungering and thirsting, and even being persecuted. (Matthew 5:3-10)

But that's the thing about true happiness - it's not about what's happening now and how that makes us feel. It's about what route in life we choose to travel, based on where it's going and why we're going there. When the goodness and power of God is our assurance, then anything we do for Him is guaranteed to bring lasting happiness, not just "feelings of well-being" for today.

Are we headed "full circle?"

At the dawn of the Christian Church, the apostles faced some determined opposition in the Jewish Council, which met and agreed that this new sect of "The Way", as it became known, was getting too risky to just take a live-and-let-live policy. They brought in the ringleaders, Peter and John, and told them "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." (Acts 4:18) There was to be no attempts to enroll others in their religion, or they would risk prosecution and imprisonment; as did in fact happen.

2000 years later, the circle of intolerance seems to be coming around for Americans. Oh, it's not entirely new for Christians to get the crack-down from a government or competing religion. That kind of thing is routine in other nations, as Christians are persecuted by zealots and leaders of Muslim or Hindu religion, or a secular state like China. But America's constitutional freedoms of religion have precluded such discrimination.

But popular and prevailing culture is another force of opposition; less centralized and codified than government, but just as powerful in enforcing its will. And the evidence of current controversy in the forum of religious discussion and events suggests that an intolerance toward "speaking in the name of Jesus" is getting more and more of a foothold each year.

A current example of that is the uproar created by Fox News' Brit Hume, who "dared" to suggest that Tiger Woods should seek "forgiveness and redemption" which only the Christian religion offers. An editorial in today's Omaha paper points out the ire that's been aroused among liberal critics by such advice. Mr. Hume, say his critics, has crossed the line from a free exercise of religion to an unwelcome proselytizing that makes him, as one columnist said, a "sanctimonious busybody"; and so his conduct to another critic is "truly embarrassing."

At this point, Brit Hume is merely being scorned and ridiculed by his peers and others who reject any religious persuasion, and it seems Christian persuasion is especially rejected by a culture that insists that "all paths lead to God", and it's fine if my path leads nowhere at all. But how far will we need to proceed on this circle of intolerance toward evangelism before Christians are more than scorned and ridiculed by columnists, comedians and others who purport to speak for the majority culture?

We may or may not get to the point where our government explicitly forbids Christians to speak in the name of Jesus, as is already true in some places. But the tide of cultural disapproval of exclusive religion, insisting on "One Way" and "One Book", is continuing to rise around us. And those who challenge the standing policy of their culture will have to decide if they want to stand with Peter and John, who responded to the Council's prohibition by saying, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard. "(Acts 4:19-20)

Real men...

Every weekend of the Fall season, football fans get to watch their favorite gridiron gladiators battle for pigskin supremacy; or at least "show up" and do their very best against the opponent. Win or lose, every fan expects an all-out effort, to “leave it all on the field.” And even beyond the sports venue, this kind of effort and willingness to face up to any opponent, challenge or adversary is a key part of what most regard as “manliness”.

What it comes down to in practical terms is the "warrior" attitude that seeks to exert power, win the day, to remain un-bowed before whoever or whatever is confronting us in our quest for high-value objectives. There's a place for bravery and steadfast courage, but it gets easily confused in the human mind with raw power, especially the kind that's used for personal benefit.

So, when Paul tells the Church to “Stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13), it might be natural for modern minds to think of this in similar terms to what we expect in sports, business or war. The modern stereotype of a man includes things like aggression, bravery and a willingness to stand up to any opponent. Most boys play some form of “King of the hill,” and take this assertive, power-play mentality into their grown-up life. Those who can’t or won’t are often branded with some kind of negative label, like “wimp”, “cupcake” or “momma’s boy”.

This might explain a lot of unnecessary conflicts that spoil relationships in the home, the church and the workplace. When maturity is confused with power and conquest, people see competition instead of partnership, and humility is labeled as weakness.

But such images and expectations come into direct conflict with the example of Jesus Christ, who openly and unapologetically declared, “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29). I don’t think anyone who knew Jesus of Nazareth would have thought of Him as a “wimp”, or one who would back down from a confrontation with evil. The difference is that He stood up for God’s rights, not for His own. He bravely faced the cross without a hint of self-pity or reluctance, but stood silent before the accusations of Jerusalem’s leaders.

The “power-play” kind of manliness accounts for a great many church splits, many broken homes and other impaired relationships, and stands in stark contrast to the Bible’s image of “acting like men” (or mature women for that matter). Paul puts the whole matter of real maturity and strength into perspective, as he concludes his short exhortation in saying, “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14). Real men know how to live with real love, just like the greatest Man who loved the world in the greatest way, when He went boldly and powerfully to the cross for sinful mankind.

Why Christmas?

With things that are familiar and such a part of our lives that we do them on autopilot, it's a good mental exercise to take a minute and remind ourselves what it's all about, or else we get to taking it for granted. We just had our annual reminder of the things we have to be thankful for, and now it's almost the climax of the Christmas season; a much bigger deal in terms of the hoopla most Americans devote to various events of partying, shopping, eating and gifting. All the more reason we have to be careful not to forget why this holiday came about to begin with.

Jesus came into our world in exactly the way God knew He needed to come, to fit the need of a problem between God and the human race. And only the right solution would address the particular problem that, according to the Bible, separates mankind from the relationship with God He created them for.

If the problem was man’s ignorance of God, then we would have needed a Teacher. But people fail in many things they know they should do/shouldn’t do. Knowing may be important, but it doesn't trump unwillingness.

If the problem was man’s own inability to please God, then we would have needed a Helper. But people often fail to please others, but not because they can’t; more like because they would rather please themselves.

If the problem was man’s errors in offending God, then we would have needed an Expert. But the greatest expert can't make people learn from mistakes, and even promises and vows won't guarantee a person won't repeat the same mistake.

If the problem was man’s stubborn attitude toward God, then we would have needed a Counselor. But people can be told again and again about their misdeeds, and, despite insights and lightbulbs in the mind, many don't change.

If the problem was man’s rebellious nature toward God, then we would have needed a Ruler. But people disobey their human rulers all the time, and even crucified the King of heaven when He came.

The real problem is man’s sin against God’s Person, a simple choice to do what we want to do, rather than what He wants us to do. And we do it, not because we don't know better, not because we just can't seem to get it right, nor because we're weak and incompetent. We disobey God, in spite of what we put into our memory cells and recite when prompted. We choose to prefer our own way because of what's in our hearts, not because of the content of our minds or the culture of our society or the training of our families. Simply put, we do it because we think it will benefit us in some way, and that's more important to us than anything someone else, including God, tells us is good for us.

The problem is sin, and so we needed a Savior, One who is a great Teacher, our Helper in trouble, an Expert in righteousness, a Wonderful Counselor, and the Ruler of all. But unless He came to save us from the penalty and power and corruption of our sinful hearts, all the rest would have been insufficient to solve the real problem. So the angels said to the shepherds, "Today is born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord!" I hope He's your Savior at this Christmas season!

The "apple" bites back

Many people, including some who take the Bible seriously as the Word of God, regard the story of Adam and Eve's encounter with the Tree of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden to be a piece of allegory or mythology. Those who prefer the theory of evolution over the stories of Genesis put the whole Eden scenario into the same category as the Greek gods. Others who accept some of the Bible's history have a hard time seeing the incident at the tree, complete with a talking snake, as anything other than a figurative tale to explain how mankind got into the mess of this world, with death, disease and innumerable sorrows.

But, there are a number of reasons to consider the story of Eden as being exactly as presented by Moses, not the least of which is that Jesus and various inspired authors of Scripture regarded the events of Adam and Eve's fall into sin and death to be just as described in the Bible's opening chapters. That would seem reason enough for anyone who thinks of the Bible as more than a collection of religious tales and moral lessons, with no more claim to divine inspiration that the fables of Aesop. If the Bible is truly a cohesive Book, "God-breathed" and useful for equipping servants of the truth (2 Timothy 3:16), then we have to take seriously the unified voice of its many authors, who attest to the actual events of the Fall of Man.

But in addition to this, perhaps the most compelling reason, in view of what we know of our world and its persistent troubles, is that we would have no way to account for the universal presence of certain harmful, malevolent and destructive traits of the human personality, such as are found in humans of every nation, culture, language and stage of sophistication. From the most isolated tribe in the jungle to the denizens of urban concrete jungles, there has always been in human behavior a capacity for cruelty, violence and disregard for the welfare of others. Adam and Even went for the satisfaction of their desires with that "apple", but the apple bit back in a big way!

The fact that we often describe behavior that is particularly violent with the adjective "inhuman", is evidence that we also find in ourselves a nobler motive, a desire to lift ourselves above the merely animal behaviors of the wild creatures. But this too would be impossible to explain apart from the revelation that humans are not, as evolutionary doctrine would make us, a product of nothing more than "natural selection" and the genetic mutations of whatever happened to arise from the ooze of naturally occurring chemicals.

True, it is not every person on earth that acts out such natural passions that lead to violence and inhuman treatment of their fellows. And many act, for the most part, in ways that are gracious and generous to the well being of others. But that doesn't negate the fact that the tendency to act in gross selfishness is present, in those of great education and refinement as well as in those of humble and simple means and lives. When we see habits and lives marked by kindness and "good will to men," it is nonetheless in great distinction to the kind of "inhuman" deeds that our news channels report to us daily, and with increasing frequency.

What makes the difference then, if the capacity for cruelty and selfishness is indeed universal? Generically speaking, the belief that there is something greater than ourselves, a goal greater than our own well being, a reason for living that is larger than our small ambitions for self-improvement, each of these is capable of lifting men to a greater level of moral behavior in regard to their fellow men. So the committed Buddhist or the faithful Jew or the "peace-loving" Muslim may find reason in their philosophies for loving at least some of their neighbors.

But, for my money, all of these lack the power to overcome the universal nature of man's heart toward selfishness. When we choose actions that gratify our selfish nature, we put aside the noble convictions of mind in favor of the more pressing desires of the heart. And this is what separates the religions of Man from the redemption of Christ. Only He can change the heart and give men daily strength to walk by His Spirit, so as to put aside the desires of human nature. When that happens, humans are able to live up to the nobler aspirations of their hearts, which are there only because Man is created in the image of a noble, good and gracious God.

And that's what Christmas is about. God came personally into our sad world, with the intention of offering in the death of His Son a way out of the death and sorrow of Eden. Evolution has no credible explanation in its godless and random science for both aspects of man's nature, the dark and the light, the violent and the kind, the "inhuman" and the noble. Only the Bible yields that explanation, as well as the solution in God's own way of redemption, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Merry Christmas!

What kind of stimulation is needed?

One can get different views of the effects of the government's "stimulus " initiatives, depending on which party is spinning the evidence. Whether any new jobs have really been created, or existing jobs saved due wholly or in part to the infusion of cash into the economy is uncertain. The "cash for clunkers" program seemed to have some immediate effect among auto dealers, but it's not clear this effect will be broad-based throughout the marketplace.

But, at the very least, you could give our government some credit for trying to do something to "kick start" an economic recovery. Not all such ideas are effective, but sometimes a poor idea is better than none, since, at least, a poor idea can be tweaked; which is more than you can do with the absence of ideas.

But, as we see illustrated often in the Bible, an economic stimulus often works against the long-term and greater interests of humankind. The love of money, says Paul, is "a root of all kinds of evil." There are worse things that happen to people than a lack of money. A lack of love, a lack of compassion, a lack of sensitivity to the voice of God, all these are far worse than a cash shortfall. And, when God works to stimulate the heart toward greater spiritual and moral vigor, He seems to do so more often through a lack of certain things, than through a sudden abundance of the same.

More people, for example, have searched for spiritual harmony with God because of a lack of peace or joy, than because they have all the peace and joy their heart desires. Many have sought the Lord when their lives "hit bottom" in some respect, rather than when they felt they were "on top", enjoying the view. More have been open to the Gospel of Christ by feeling a hunger for meaning and satisfaction in life, than those who feel already full and in need of nothing (such as the Laodicean church of Revelation ch. 3).

The saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" pretty much applies to people's motivation for spiritual renewal. But God's stimulus package for a broken heart, a crushed spirit, an empty and unfulfilling life, is not to give things that would make most humans feel less need of Him. This is, I believe, the meaning behind Jesus's pithy statements like, "Blessed are the poor", "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst," and "Blessed are you when men persecute you." We are more likely to seek the Lord when we feel something missing from our lives, than when we add up our abundance and say, "Soul, you are well off."

Eternal health insurance

Who would have thought 20 years ago that the subject of health insurance could get such widespread national attention? Town hall meetings, TEA parties, Congressional debates, endless arguments on cable TV, just to name a few of the forums for airing our opinions on the questions of how best to insure everyone's health needs. It's amazing how many people can take such disparate views on a subject, each one being convinced he/she has taken the correct position.

Sounds a lot like the age-old debate over religious truth doesn't it? Some say there is no absolute truth (and they're absolutely certain of that), while some say all truths are equal and lead to the same place, while others claim only their truth is the right one.

Of course, in the area of "eternal health insurance", I don't think anyone would want their government to be making the key decisions, not even those who favor the "public option" in health insurance. And certainly we wouldn't want to leave to our legislators the responsibility of deciding which eternal plan fits best.

Fortunately, the Author of life has already passed a Law of eternal welfare, though in a most un-democratic way. God is the ultimate Autocrat (the power resides solely in Himself) when it comes to declaring how spiritually sick mankind may be healed. No debate, no pundits' opinions, no stumping to get everyone on board, just a simple declaration: All have sinned, all may be saved through faith in the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Not Blue Cross, but Calvary's Cross is what we need.

Anyone interested in their eternal health needs to think very seriously before they take any other "policy", or before they decide "I'm fine, I'm sure I won't need coverage." Whatever are the implications for the current health care debate, the implications for eternal health are far greater, and worthy of at least as much interest as people are giving to what's going on in Washington.

Maybe it's safer to be a dog.

We get used to hearing stories these days about the animal rights crowd at PETA, the "People for Ethical Treatment of Animals", as they go to great lengths to protect animals of all sorts against "unethical" treatment. But normally we think of the Humane Society as more within bounds that the rest of us non-PETA types can agree with.

That opinion may change for some, after reading in today's Omaha news about a man being ticketed for animal cruelty, after the Humane Society followed up on a veternarian's concerns about the man taking his sick dog home, rather than paying for the animal to be treated or turning it over to the HS folks, who would have euthanized the dog.

According to the World-Herald reporter, "The Humane Society and Omaha police, acting on the veterinarian's concerns that Palmer might kill his own dog, went to his home Sept. 8 with a warrant, used a battering ram on the door and dug up the dog's body in the backyard." After determining through testing that the animal was not killed, but rather died of its "treatable" disease, the owner was issued the citation.

One wonders what the HS would do about farmers and other rural people, who in times past (maybe not really past) used their own form of "euthanizing" on a terminally sick or otherwise unwanted animal, in the form of a bullet that sent Rover packing to doggie heaven. To be clear, I have been grieved as any dog lover would be, to have taken two of them at different times to a vet or the Humane Society for their departure from this world. And now I see that it was a good thing for me that I didn't leave them at home on "dog hospice", thus running the risk of an unwelcome visit from the authorities.

I sympathize with those who would want us to have laws to protect dogs from cruelty, but why does it seem that many of the same folks who stick up for the "rights" of animals are also in the same political vein with those who deny such rights to an unborn child. I don't see anyone following a pregnant woman home to make sure she doesn't abort her child. No, that's her choice, says the group of people eager to defend a woman's right to choose.

It looks like it's safer to be a dog than a fetus. At least then you have people in governmental authority ready to fight for your well-being. This dog owner didn't have a "choice" over his own animal, while a woman can legally do whatever she wants with a human being inside her womb. What a world we live in!

What would you do if you were God?

Obviously, asking people to pretend they're God, and then imagine what they might do with the various problems of this world and its people, is a nonsensical proposition, because no one really knows the mind of God enough to make an intelligent answer. But some might venture to say what they would like to do if they were the One to call the shots

For example, someone might say, "I'd get rid of all the bad people"; which, according to the Bible, would have totally cleaned out the place by now (including the speaker), since we read "there are none good, not even one." Or another might suggest, "I'd get rid of all sickness and war and poverty." But that too would be problematic, since all those bad things and more are the result of mankind's sinful condition, which, as already stated, includes us all.

So, what's a God to do? If He just took us all back to Eden where everything was perfect, besides hearing a lot of complaining because there's not a McDonald's in sight or a mall or cars and all the rest, He would have to do something with the human race, since we're at heart just like the ones who got expelled the first time around.

If He permanently altered our nature to make it impossible to disobey Him, we'd end up like the rest of the animal world, with no independent will and mind to do our own thing. We maybe wouldn't know the difference once the change was made, but He would know, and the whole purpose for making mankind in His image, to have a true relationship on the spiritual level, would be lost.

But if He just made us promise to be good this time, and then we showed we couldn't do any better than Adam and Eve, we would either be right back where we are now, or God would have to suspend the whole rules thing, and just let us be. And that would be far worse, if you can imagine a world where there are no laws, and hence no justice to enforce those laws, no barriers on human behavior to hold back unchecked human nature... well, that sounds a lot more like Hell than Heaven to me.

We may not be able to fully understand why God chose to let His image-bearing creations disobey Him and totally mess up a world He pronounced as "good", but, as any all-powerful and all-knowing Creator might do, He has a plan and a purpose in all of it. And, if He has allowed this world to go on its pathetic condition this long, it must be because He has a really great plan and purpose, especially for those who accept His mercy and forgiveness made available through His Son, Jesus Christ (which was part of the plan even before He made mankind). So I'm really glad He's God, and not me. I'd have made it even worse by now - how about you?

Who's calling please?

The concept of a "call" to ministry, or any other action taken in the name of Christ, is a somewhat slippery one. After all, if God is still "calling" men and women to a specific task of service, it's a pretty subjective experience for the one called. The apostle Paul had a very definite experience on which to base his claim that he was "called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (1 Corinthians 1:1). But normally, when the New Testament speaks of God "calling" believers, the word is used in the sense of the call to salvation by the Holy Spirit.

We often hear of someone speak of a call to the professional ministry, meaning a sense of conviction and certainty concerning the will of God for that individual. But I've never heard of someone claiming to have had a "Damascus Road" experience, upon which to base their claim to be so called. Instead, it's the more ordinary sense of inner leading that is, for practical purposes, indistinguishable from, say, a doctor's sense of vocational calling, or what my wife experienced when, even as a young girl, she sensed she should train to be a nurse (and she did, and her career has supported that perception).

But, does that subjective conviction or sense amount to a divine calling? That's where the slippery part is. To automatically ascribe such a conviction to God gives room for all kinds of people to attribute their actions to God with justification, including those who commit acts of violence "in the name of God", or because "God told me to." Surely, there ought to be some way to connect such perceptions to the Bible, in order to separate an actual "calling" from an ordinary, and very human sense of psychological attraction to an idea or practice. Otherwise, how do we know who's really "calling"? It could be just the echo of our own mind, as is surely the case with those who feel they've been called to do things clearly outside the bounds of biblical truth.

And, case in point, today's news from the recent meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest and most liberal-leaning Lutheran denomination) tells how the vote of those gathered went in favor of allowing ELCA churches to be pastored by someone who is both homosexual and sexually active in a "committed" relationship. They aren't the first to take this step, just the latest. The justification for this action was expressed by one delegate as being consistent with God's leading in his own life, as he said, "The same-gender couples I know live in love and faithfulness and are called to proclaim the word of God as are all of us." (My emphasis)

So, which is it? Are they indeed "called" by God, or are they just "led" (by whatever influence or perception that might be)? If the Bible is a unified book of God's inspired writings, then there is no way to justify such a calling with the clear statements of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality; at least not for those who take the Bible's words at face value, and don't try to bend them to fit modern sensibilities on this subject. Such "same-gender couples" may "live in love and faithfulness". But that doesn't mean they are biblically in the same category as a heterosexual person in respect to the calling of God to do His work (not that all heterosexuals are cleared for takeoff in the ministry either).

So, who's calling? If God has called these individuals to proclaim His gospel in a professional sense, then those who interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle are mistaken (as the gay-friendly churches are indeed saying). But if that's the case, then I've wasted 35 years of Bible study on a book that can't be trusted to say what it means. Either that, or God has changed His mind of this subject and I just didn't get the memo.

The more things change...

The pace of change in modern life is sometimes hard to keep up with, especially in the area of technologies in business, medicine and everyday living. But like the old saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Despite all the I-phones, CAT scans, video conferencing, microwaves and the like, the basic stuff of life isn't really different from the days when the Bible was written.

Reading through the first chapter of Romans this morning, it was clear once again that the things that most trouble our lives from day to day are pretty much the same as what troubled society in Paul's day. And the root of it all, placed in the human heart and mind, is still to be observed in the daily news and the daily grind we're all facing.

If anything, the many changes of how we go about our lives have only served to magnify the fact that Paul identifies as the key to understanding the human condition. And that fact is this: Though men have the witness of God in their hearts, the evidence of His creative power and nature as seen in the physical universe, they nonetheless "do not honor Him or give thanks."

Does that describe every human being? No, there are many who "fear God and keep His commandments," but only because God has, by His grace, revealed His word to men in the Bible and most especially in His Son, Jesus Christ. But He doesn't compel anyone to believe, and the decline in general moral and social behavior that is the stuff of our daily news reports comes exactly in correspondence to a steep decline in Christ-centered, Biblical spirituality in American public life.

We have expelled God from our schools, even punishing those who pray to Him at a recent school meeting. We have seen skeptics openly ridiculing the Church and her Savior in movies, books and other venues. We have seen legal groups defending a "do-your-own-thing" philosophy in the name of First Amendment rights, while attempting to restrict the rights of a Christian to wear a cross in the office. We have seen marriage reduced to a user-defined term for any two individuals in a long-term relationship to each other. We have defended the speech that was formerly considered vulgar and improper for public audiences, while insulting some who insist on praying in the name of Jesus.

We have seen, in one generation, the moral tone of society reversed, so that behaviors that were disapproved in the 50's are now on open display, while those who still publicly disapprove are called names, instead of those who do such things. And this is exactly how Paul concludes the first chapter of Romans, where he says that, in spite of the fact that the Bible predicts a destiny of eternal and spiritual death for pursuing behaviors forbidden by God, "they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

I-phones and microwaves notwithstanding, nothing's really changed here.

The confusion of certainty

The expression, "What was ___ thinking?", whether applied to ourselves or to another person, is an acknowledgment of how easy it is to become confused by one's own sense of certainty about an idea, a conviction or desire. It's a common enough thing for us all, to get attached to an idea that "sounds right" or maybe one which seems to go along with other ideas, and then we stop reasoning about the idea, to the point that we swallow it "hook, line and sinker."

Much of the time such confusion is harmless enough, and produces embarrassment but not much else. But often such disjuncture between conviction and reality can be tragic. In one of history's most horrific examples, the Nazi party managed to sway much of the German population into believing the idea of Jewish inferiority, to the point that genocide was thought to be normal. But no less horrific is the assumption, so firmly lodged in millions of minds, that a pregnant woman's right to choice in her own medical affairs should extend to the fetus growing within her, to the point that she may be exempted from the normal laws protecting the life of another person.

In today's local news, two stories stand side-by-side to illustrate this confusion of certainty. In one report, a Nebraska woman is charged with manslaughter for stabbing a pregnant teenager, killing the fetus in her womb. The teenager is expected to recover from her wounds, while the manslaughter charge is applied to the unborn child. Now, if the teenager had done the same with a tool of some kind or an abortive drug, she would be exercising her "choice", and subject to no consequences other than some people's disapproval. For another person to do that without the teen's "permission" is considered manslaughter.

The whole thing screams, "What's wrong with this picture?" We don't charge people with manslaughter for killing "tissue", or whatever the pro-choice people call the fetus to justify murdering it by abortion. But somehow the same legal system that doggedly protects a woman's choice also applies personhood to that same unborn child, in a case when its death is at the hands of someone else who makes such a choice.

And then, a second article concerns Dr. Leroy Carhart, whose abortion clinic in Bellevue, NE has already received a lot of negative publicity for years. Now, in the wake of the killing of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Dr. Carhart is aiming to raise the fallen banner of Dr. Tiller, known nationwide for his many late-term abortions. Dr. Carhart's mission is motivated by his conviction that, "We have to keep abortion available for the women of this country."

Compare that sentiment to our current legal situation in regard to assisted suicide. Obviously you wouldn't take a person to court who had just committed suicide, but neither are there indications in the legal code that it's unlawful to take your own life if you're suffering a terminal illness. But to assist someone in doing that, even with their permission, is still subject to prosecution. No one with any legal or social standing is saying, "We have to keep patient-assisted suicide available for the people of this country." And one who tried to make such a stand, Jack Kevorkian, went to jail for his convictions.

What can explain such a schizophrenic confusion among so many otherwise intelligent people? Perhaps the idea that a fetus is either a person or it's not, take your pick but don't try to have it both ways, is a bit too subtle a distinction in logic for those whose aim is to give a woman the unfettered freedom to end her pregnancy for her own reasons.

Let there be no confusion on this point: I'm all for supporting a woman's choice to become pregnant. And if she wants to make that choice, then let her be careful to avoid all situations where a pregnancy may happen. But once an egg and sperm combine to begin the God-ordained process of birth of a separate person, then the choice to end that life is not hers to make; anymore than it would be her choice to kill a terminally ill person, even with his permission. To say anything different seems to me, in Spock's words, "illogical."

Happiness vs. joy

In this morning's "Faith & Reason" column, a regular feature of the USA Today online edition, a book review is featured, written by Lindsey Norman, who confesses that "I love Christ with all my heart, but wrestle with God's goodness at times." A common problem for many, who have a hard time reconciling their human interpretations of "goodness" with the sovereign goodness of God.

It's an age-old problem, going back to Job and his friends, who believed, as many still do, that "bad things" in one's life are a sure sign that God is displeased, and is therefore punishing the one who has incurred His wrath. The difference between Job and his would-be counselors was that they assumed he had messed up royally due to the awful mess he was in, while Job insisted something terrible had happened in God's bookkeeping, since he could think of nothing he had done sufficient to earn the whipping he and all his family had received.

With this "wrestling" in the background, Ms. Norman goes on to comment on a recent book, "The Geography of Bliss", in which the author tries to determine what nation on earth may have the happiest people, and who the least so. After reading the book, Ms Norman acknowledges, like many before her, that "Happiness is difficult to come by and, ultimately, a challenging pursuit."

Then Ms. Norman follows up with her life-lesson gathered from this insight: "I concluded that there is a distinct difference between joy and happiness. Joy is an overall state of mind, a deliberate decision. We choose whether or not to have a positive attitude and outlook on life. Happiness on the other hand is connected to external circumstances."

Again, this is a conclusion that many before her have reached, and, while I can be "happy" for her discovery, it could have come sooner for her or anyone else by learning from the experiences of the apostle Paul, especially as recorded in the letter we know as Philippians. Paul's "happiness" factor was severely strained by an ongoing list of troubles (recorded in 2 Corinthians, chap. 11), and, in the case of the Phillippian letter, by being a captive of the Romans, not for criminal activity but for Christ.

Philippians, rather than being the report of an unhappy prisoner, is so full of joy that many Bible students have considered joy to be the central theme of the letter. Personally, I think "attitude" or "life view" is more the theme, with joy as one of the results of an attitude like Paul's. He rejoiced so persistently because his life view", stated in chap. 1 as "For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain," was the deciding factor in how he felt about his circumstances.

So, even an imprisonment that kept him from his preaching travels was seen as a blessing, as he now had a "captive audience" in the guards assigned to watch him. (Chap. 1) And, though some people took advantage of his incarceration to preach the gospel of Christ "out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment." In spite of this, he said firmly, "I will rejoice!"(Chap 1) He found joy, not in his situation, but in the spiritual condition of the church, especially when they were "of one mind" in Christ (Chap. 2). He knew joy because he had "learned to be content" in his circumstances, discovering through all his trials that "I. can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Chap. 4)

Anyone who would be "happy" should spend a generous amount of time in Philippians, with the outcome of choosing to adopt the life-view of the great apostle of joy. Paul knew, as expressed in many other of his letters, that God's goodness is not limited, in this sin-corrupted world, to what we call the "good times", or to anything else defined by this world's circumstances. Rather, God simply is good, and therefore saves sinners and leads them to experience His goodness through His sovereign ability to "work all things together for good to those who love Him." (Romans 8:28). To live in the outworking of that goodness is truly joyful.

One size God for all?

For some time, many students of the Bible's teaching about the end times have considered that one ingredient in the end scenario would be a one-world religion; a blending of the world's various faiths and spiritual philosophies into a common denomination of religion for everyone. The synthesis of all faiths would become the preferred religion, a standard for all to follow; and Christians would thus become the enemies of the world-religion and its all-inclusive dogmas.

Given the world's religious makeup, however, it seems unlikely that Christians would be the only ones alienated by a "one size fits all" religion. Indeed, the current religious climate shows that Muslims are every bit as devoted to their own doctrines as any Christian fundamentalist or orthodox Jew. And that's why some people are coming to view fundamentalism of any type, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, as dangerous to world peace and harmony. And there's truth to that feeling. If there was a one-world religion that tried to merge all faiths into one unrecognizable blob, Christians wouldn't be the only ones objecting.

Nor is it likely, for pretty much the same reason, that John Lennon's vision of world peace could ever be fulfilled, in which he asked us all to imagine a world with "no religion", thus removing the source of much of the world's conflicts and enmity between peoples. There's just too many who would never be willing to give up their cherished beliefs for the sake of world harmony.

That's why I don't think a one-world religion or no religion is as likely to happen as a "unified-world" religion; a "big tent" view of religions, with room for all faiths and non-faiths under the same umbrella of acceptability. The only religions left out would be those that still insist on their exclusive right to be the "true faith"; which is exactly what Christians must hold to if they are to be true to the exclusive claims of Christ as the "way, truth and life."

No better picture of this unified world religion could be seen than, of all places, at Michael Jackson's funeral. Jackson was a co-author of the song "We Are the World", originally performed in 1985 for a benefit concert on behalf of African nations. The song was performed at Jackson's funeral, with a visual background composed of various religious symbols arranged together in an way as to emphasize that all faiths are valid. The clear message of the whole scene was "All faiths are of equal value, and deserve equal respect." It's the religious version of Rodney King's "Let's all just get along."

Even some sincere Christians like George W. Bush want to gloss over religious conflicts by supposing that Christians and Muslims "believe in the same God." That would be like saying we all believe in the same George W. Bush, except that some say he has two daughters, while others insist he has two sons and a wife named Diane. At some point we have to decide if world harmony may just not be worth the price of discarding the truth.

If such a unified world religion ever takes hold of enough people (as it has already become the preferred view of many), then Christians will be given a line in the sand that they cannot cross without denying the exclusive claims of their Savior, Jesus Christ, who insisted that "no man comes to the Father except through Me." In the end, the religion that will be persecuted by the world will not be those who cling to their religious truths, but those who are willing to die for the fact that there can be only one Truth, and His name is Jesus.

What kind of body is the Church?

The apostle Paul used the analogy of the human body a lot to describe the Church, and it's a fitting comparison, at least in theory. Like the human body, the Church is a diverse collection of parts, personalities, gifts and backgrounds, with many different roles and jobs for its members to do. And all of it is meant to be united under one Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:22-23) And, if one might wonder why the unity of heart and effort that is supposed to characterize the Church is not more evident in real life, the most obvious place to look for an answer would be in the Church's relationship to her Head.

When a human body is sick, it may be due to one of many different diseases that afflict its various parts. But when a person's entire body is devastated by a system-wide disease that affects the movements and functions of the whole body, it's usually a problem somewhere in the brain, or an interruption in the nervous system that gets its signals from the brain. Parkinson's, Cerebral Palsy, paralysis, strokes and other brain injuries, and many other dysfunctions can totally disable an otherwise healthy body.

Unlike the human body, the Body of Christ has a Head that always does His job. But the Church Body, and its individual members, have a will of their own that may prevent the Head from giving the right directions. So with the Church, there may be different members who are suffering the effects of spiritual sicknesses, like undisciplined desires, lust, pride or ambition; but when the whole body of a local church or a church denomination is reeling from the effects of sinful practices, fleshly politics and worldly ambitions, you can bet there's a significant loss of communication with the Head.

If the Church was always following her Head, there would be no fractious splits, no heresies, no drifting into worldliness, no rivalries and disputes and other things that Paul attributes to the "deeds of the flesh." There would be no "arms" of the church going off in a direction totally contrary to His Word. If Christ was truly directing His Body, there would be harmony of heart and effort in carrying out His mission of making disciples; there would be unity of faith in His Word, instead of myriad theologies and sects competing with each other.

Instead, the Church is seen by an increasingly skeptical world as "spastic", given to "convulsions" and widely divergent signals in communication that totally distort the unity of message and mind that Paul sought for the Body of Christ when he urged Christians to "make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose." (Philippians 2:2) How different would be the history and present life of the Church, if the apostle's words had been lived out on a world-wide scale. Though we can't reverse history, we could at least commit ourselves in our own local churches to making sure our Head is in charge of His Church, rather than just being attached to a dysfunctional Body.

What is the Church, really?

It would be an understatement to say that the Church, in her almost 2000 years of existence, has presented a varied and often contradictory picture to the rest of the world. At times full of compassion and service, at times more of a spiritual police force; an organization at most times more than an organism.

There may be many reasons to account for this, but a point of analysis occurred to me recently, while preparing a message on the Church; and that point has to do with what the Church is, which should be driving what the Church does. The difference between the Church and Israel is much more than a comparison of the Law of Moses vs. the Age of Grace, or one nation vs. all nations.

Fundamentally, Israel was related by birth as the seed of Abraham, called to please God by living out their faith in Him through obedience to statutes, doctrines and practices. The Church, on the other hand, is related by second birth as the spiritual seed of Abraham, called to relate to God through faith in the Savior, whose obedience to the will of God led Him to the cross, where He fulfilled the sacrifices of Moses' law for all who trust in His death on their behalf.

The bottom line of this contrast is that Israel was a people united by their common ancestry and by a relationship to God as a nation. They were charged with not only obeying the Law, but with enforcing obedience on the rest of the nation, so as to remain a holy people. The nation's holiness was a direct result of scrupulous observance of the Law, though mere legalism was never meant to substitute for the faith modeled by father Abraham.

The Church, meanwhile, is a people united by a common Spirit, and by a personal relationship to God as born-again individuals. The Church, unlike Israel, is not charged with enforcing the holiness of her members, because each one is already holy (thus addressed as "saints"). Church discipline was practiced, not to mandate holiness, but to prevent the fleshly behavior of some "so-called brethren" from diluting the testimony of the Church, which is supposed to be "lights in a crooked and perverse" world.

The Church has too often in her history acted as if Christians were just "Israel 2.0", an updated version of the nation of the Ten Commandments and laws of the Old Testament. Many subgroups of the Church have used updated versions of priests (ignoring the fact that all of us are priests under one Great High Priest). Many use rules of conduct patterned after the Ten Commandments, while some try to use those commands as the basis of a moral society by placing them in front of the courthouse; ignoring the fact that the Law can't change anyone since it can only convict, not change the heart.

The Church has engaged in countless wars over doctrine and practice, as if trying to "purge the camp of sin", like Israel in the wilderness, attempting to enforce standards and rules as each one sees them. Of course, the many and varied interpretations of those standards is why there's so many different kinds of churches, and so many different schools of thought about how the Church is supposed to be changing the world. Indeed, doctrine and practice are important, but not as the basis for our holiness.

The Church is a holy people by virtue of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit; and, when we walk with Christ in a common love for Him and for one another, we allow Christ to express His power and grace through us. When we demonstrate the light of Christ in us to a lost world, we exert more power than any crusade or inquisition could do by brute force. And that's something that good old Moses, on his best day, couldn't do.