The Temple in the Manger

I have been reading Nehemiah in my through-the-Bible schedule the last few days. I noticed that it was the condition of the walls of Jerusalem that first incited Nehemiah’s sadness (Nehemiah 1:3-4). I had not previously considered why the walls might have been of such concern to Nehemiah. Certainly, he would be concerned for the safety of the Temple treasury and all the riches that Ezra had returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel years earlier. But I suspect that there was much more.

Psalm 137:1 says, “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion.” Jerusalem, or Zion, was so much more than a city to the Jews; it was the only place where they could connect with God. While they were captive in Babylon, their beloved Zion lay in ruins, and the Temple had been destroyed. Some of them, particularly Nehemiah (1:5-11), realized that their predicament was their own fault. God had allowed the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of its people because of their waywardness. Nehemiah’s sadness was related to his desire to see the Temple and the city fully restored again.

Flash forward some 400 years. We find Jesus weeping over Jerusalem shortly before He was going to die for her sins. “And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, ‘Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.’” (Luke 19:41-44)

From the desert wanderings after Egypt to the see-saw unfaithfulness of the Judges to the failure of one king after another, Israel was the poster child for disobedience. If only they had known, “the things that make for peace.” Nehemiah thought better walls and a restored Jerusalem were needed. By Jesus’ time, it was clear that the new heart of Jeremiah’s prophecy (24:7) was the only way to make for lasting peace. It still is.

God promised to dwell in the temple at Jerusalem as long as the nation of Israel was faithful. Jesus said that He would dwell in believers if they were faithful. Paul makes it very clear that the body of Christ, the church, is the temple. Each believer individually and corporately constitutes the New Temple. When I think of the New Jerusalem (the church) and her people (the Temple), I am saddened like Nehemiah. Our walls are torn down, and the temple (us) is in pretty sad shape. How’s this for a New Year’s resolution: “We promise together not to neglect the Temple of our God” (Nehemiah 10:39).

Thoughts on December 7

FDR declared December 7, 1941, “A date that will live in infamy.” Then he declared war on the perpetrators. Not everyone in America agreed with the decision to go to war, but an entire generation was changed by the events that followed FDR’s declaration. That was my father’s generation, sometimes called the greatest generation. Almost everyone pulled together to defeat the enemy.

On September 14, 2001, George Bush made his famous “bullhorn” pronouncement. He told the crowd assembled at the site of the Twin Towers disaster, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” It was another infamous date; more people died on 9/11 than died at Pearl Harbor. Not everyone agreed with the way Bush prosecuted the “War on Terror,” but it did change all of America for a short time, maybe a year or two. Almost immediately there were those who voiced strident opposition.

Because there was no Emperor or Fuhrer to declare war against, George W. Bush had to rely on sketchy intelligence reports to locate “the people who knocked [those] buildings down.” For his efforts he was accused of lying (Bush lied; people died) or of trying to finish his father’s (George H. W. Bush) war. There is no doubt, in perfect hindsight, things could have, perhaps should have been done differently. Iraq became a failed nation-building exercise. Afghanistan became another Vietnam-like quagmire. ISIL grew out of the milieu, and continues its war of terror to this day.

I worry about today’s young people. My experience teaching classes of mostly millennials convinces me that they will not think of my generation as great at anything but making messes. Actually, their lack of historical perspective makes me doubt they will think of anyone but themselves. Most were just children in 2001, and while they may have been confused or scared, few seem to have grasped the real significance of the event. (For memories of 15 millennials see this Bustle article.) They seem primarily concerned with comfort and convenience and the latest gadget from Apple.

The millennials’ older brothers and sisters will remember 9/11. Many thousands went to war “against terror,” and many never came home. Many more were injured physically in ways that they will always struggle with. And then there are the countless thousands who still fight battles deep within; their bodies are often perfectly whole, but their lives have been changed in ways that have virtually stolen “normal” from their existence.

When I look at the deep divisions that plague America, I long for the way the December 7’s and 9/11’s in our history have caused us to come together in common cause, if only for a while. Surely there is more to unite than divide Republican and Democrat, black and white, gay and straight, religious and not-so-much. If ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter and Gay Pride marches are the social mechanisms on which we must rely, I fear it will take another “date that will live in infamy” to wake us up.

Since December 7 remembrances come as most of us begin to look forward to Christmas, and I am writing this while listening to Christian Christmas music, the incongruity strikes me. I wanted to share a line or two from a poem by W.B. Yeats, but I can’t decide what not to share, so with your permission, I will present the entire poem for your thoughtful consideration.

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre  

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst  

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.  

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out  

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert  

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,  

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,  

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it  

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.  

The darkness drops again; but now I know  

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,  

And what rough beast, its hour come ‘round at last,  

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Two World Wars and the Irish struggles for independence in his homeland gave Yeats a cynical outlook. I may disagree with his conclusions about political governance, but this poem reminds me that anarchy is not the answer either. In fact, the only answer is bringing more and more of this sin-wracked world under the kingdom rule of the One who made the First Coming in Bethlehem. This poem also makes me long more intensely for the real second coming. Maranatha, Lord Jesus; come quickly.

Childlike, Not Childish

My wife and I are staying in the Salt Lake City area this winter. We normally go someplace a bit warmer, but there are two things in particular that are making the cold bearable: we get to spend lots of time with our new granddaughter, and we can attend Capital Church every Sunday. This is one of those churches that makes you excited to get up on Sunday morning. You never know what you’re going to hear, but it is always timely and drawn directly from the Word of God.

The sermon series we’re hearing now is called “Christmas at the Movies.” My first reaction when Pastor Troy Champs announced the series was doubtful. I wondered if we were going to move away from Bible preaching and get into some warm, fuzzy Christmas culture stuff. I needn’t have worried, although I was really curious when I saw that the first movie we would look at was Elf.

If you haven’t seen Elf, I’ll just say it always struck me as a cross between really sappy and really dopey. In spite of that, the speaker not only drew a solid biblical message from it, but it made me think deeply about what it means to come to Jesus “as a little child.” First let me distinguish between childish and childlike. If the adjective childish is applied to an adult, it is most often derogatory, and this is how I originally saw the message of Elf; it is silly. Most of the humor in the movie is drawn from the main character, Buddy’s, childish behavior. It is funny to see an adult doing ridiculous, childish things, but there is not much material for a biblical application.

However, Buddy was also unswervingly trusting and totally uninhibited like a child. There is the biblical message. Our speaker Sunday pointed out just how relevant this is to Jesus’ words in Matthew 18. In 1^st century Jewish culture, children were considered of no value until they could contribute to the family’s support. They were on the lowest step of the socio-economic ladder. In this context Jesus said, “Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3) Kingdom entrance requires complete trust, total absence of an agenda, and an admission of our complete worthlessness outside of God’s grace, in other words, a childlike attitude.

It struck me as I was reading about the visions of God in the first few chapters of Ezekiel this morning that a childlike view of the indescribable things the prophet saw is necessary. An adult artist’s concept of perspective and spatial relationships makes drawing what Ezekiel saw virtually impossible. Many have tried. Just Google “Ezekiel’s vision image” and see them, all 405,000 of them. Yet I suspect a child would have no trouble putting crayon to paper and representing the vision. Cast aside all the grownup ideas of what can and cannot be “real,” and the Bible becomes more “real” than ever. I’m thinking of things like The Garden of Eden, Jacob’s ladder, crossing the Red Sea, David and Goliath, the visions of the prophets and so on endlessly.

The other thing that really struck me after thinking about a childlike attitude is all the places where Scripture refers to believers as children of God. The Israelites were repeatedly called the Children of God. According to New Testament teaching, believers today are children of our Heavenly Abba, adopted into His family through the work of Christ on the cross. Even secular writers sometimes say we are all children of God, which is true, but only a select few enjoy the benefits of inheritance. Disobedient children will not fare so well in the next life.

I still think Elf is pretty dopey, but I also think that my attitude toward God and His Word might look “dopey” to the unbelieving world. I have often heard the intellectual elite of the world talk about how ridiculous it is for thinking adults to buy into all the myths or fairy tales of the Bible. If we were believing in Zeus or the evil stepmother, that would be childish. However, I believe Ezekiel saw a wheel-in-a-wheel, even though I will never be able to draw it. I also believe the Messiah rose from the dead and reigns over all the earth today. That is childlike faith, and it is far from childish.

The Goodness of Wrath

If you follow my blog regularly, you know that recently I confessed to some waywardness in my daily Bible reading due to an overwhelming sense of the wrath of God as expressed in the Old Testament. (See “Daily BibleReading” and “Not Our Fathers’ God.”) I came to the somewhat snarky conclusion at one point saying, “He’s a God of wrath; get over it.” In my procession through the Old Testament, I am now at Jeremiah, the weeping prophet as he is sometimes called. I note that the God of Israel is also said to weep over the condition of His wayward children. This opened my eyes to something I had forgotten.

Jeremiah 9:24 says, “Let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.” While it is true that “justice” which can be translated “judgment” is prominent, and I note that it is executed in “righteousness,” both words are preceded by another, softer phrase.

The phrase “steadfast love” as in the ESV or “lovingkindness” in the KJV is where I want to focus. Neither translation fully captures the essence of the Hebrew word “hesed.” The King James Bible Word Book has this to say about it: “Hesed is a covenant word. Its original use was to denote that attitude of loyalty and faithfulness which both parties to a covenant should maintain toward each other…. When the word came to be used predominantly of the Covenant between Jehovah and Israel, it was realized by the prophets that such a covenant could be maintained only by that persistent, determined, steadfast love of God, which transcends every other love by its nature and depth.… The most important of all the distinctive ideas of the Old Testament is God’s steady and extraordinary persistence in continuing to love wayward Israel in spite of Israel’s insistent waywardness.”

God chose to love His children in spite of their “insistent waywardness.” The Hebrew word, hesed, is frequently translated “mercy” in recognition of the fact that because of His love, God does not give Israel everything she deserves, but chooses mercy over complete annihilation. The theme of a remnant to be saved appears throughout the prophets. So while the God of Israel does exercise righteous judgment, He also commends His merciful love to His people.

This is a comfort to me also. God does not give me what I deserve, but shows mercy in the gift of righteousness purchased by the precious blood of His only-begotten Son. I deserve wrath; I receive mercy. Someone has said that we only appreciate light because we know darkness. If God did not pour out His wrath against sin, His merciful love would be meaningless. Because He does judge the wicked, His love of the redeemed is more significant.

I am going to retract my snarky comment; I don’t think we should “get over” the wrath of God. I think we should revel in its significance. There but for the grace of God go I. God emptied His wrath on Calvary’s Savior so that I could enjoy eternity basking in His merciful love. The Old Testament is still bloody awful, but I am prepared to make the defense that it was bloody necessary. 

Keep Yourselves From Idols

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. That’s how the Apostle John ends his first epistle. When we finished studying the book recently, that last admonition seemed to come out of left field. Throughout the letter, John talks about the love of God, love of the brethren, and avoiding sin. The warning against idol worship doesn’t appear to fit the general context of the letter.

Certainly, idol worship is a sin. Just as certainly, John’s audience lived in a culture where idols, literal statues of supposed gods, did exist in plenty. Yet because the only specific sin John had mentioned in the letter was failure to love the brethren, idolatry came as a surprise to me. Until I looked back at the immediate context of the closing remark.

The ESV translators titled the last section beginning in verse 13 as “That You May Know.” Know what? John wanted to be sure that his readers knew where true life comes from. The life John refers to here is the “life of the ages,” as the Greek puts it. It is the same life that Jesus prayed about according to the gospel of John 17:3; knowing God and the One He sent, Jesus said, is life, true life, eternal life.

So John ends his letter saying we know God and His Son, and we know He is true life. The life offered by the idols was not true life; it was fake. The “life” offered by idols tended to lead people away from what was true, from true life. That makes sense if you are a first century reader; idols were everywhere. It would be easy for John’s audience to equate following idols with sin, and that sin led away from truth, as all sin does.

But that doesn’t seem too important to John’s readers today. There aren’t many people in the 21^st century who bow to wood or stone. But what is an idol, really? You have undoubtedly heard someone say that modern idolatry is putting anything else in the place of God in your life. Like putting fake life in the place of true life. Hmmmm.

It is easy to see how an addiction puts something fake in the place of the true. A heroin addict puts finding the next fix at the center of life. Nothing is more important than finding the next high. An alcoholic is in much the same boat. So is the porn addict, the gambling addict, the sex addict and so on. We can see that, but we are none of those; we are not addicted.

Our idols are much more subtle than that. Mine is cars. I love cars. The one time I went completely off the rails was when I bought a $42,000 car on impulse; I succumbed to the lust to have that car. It took center place in my mind/heart/life. I rationalized away all the reasons why I should not buy it, and I bought it. My wife came close to throwing me out of our house when I brought it home. (Right; I didn’t tell her what I had done.) My salvation came in the form of a salesperson who knew me and my wife well enough not to turn in the deal immediately. We cancelled it the next morning with nothing but my shame to pay for.

What is your idol? If it’s not needles, it could be noodles. If it’s not gin, it could be gin rummy (or lottery tickets). It could be nicotine or caffeine. These “lesser” idols may not become complete masters of your life the way drugs or alcohol can, but they can assert a kind of mastery that becomes sin. Anything that causes you to think of it first, whether it’s the first cigarette, the first cup of coffee or the fast lane to the job promotion or the best golf club or whatever, it has become an idol. It has taken first place in your heart, and it has become an idol. Idols replace the love of what is true in our hearts. John wants his readers to know what is true. “Little children, keep yourself from idols.” Now that makes sense.

A New Way of Seeing

At my age, especially with my tendency to think too much (as some have suggested), it is rare for a new thought to come to me. Yet this morning as I was trying not to wake up, I began to see something in a way I cannot remember seeing before. I’m sure someone has seen this before, but it is new to me, and therefore exciting, as I always thrill at new thoughts.

Here it is: it occurred to me that claiming not to believe in God is like claiming not to believe in gravity. From a human standpoint, the two share several common traits. Both are invisible; both are powerful; both are indescribable to some extent; neither can be fully explained by the laws we count as fundamental; neither can be disregarded without dire consequences. On this last point, it might be said that one can apparently live as if neither gravity nor God exist, but eventually one will reach a point where the existence of both will intrude consequentially upon one’s life.

It also seems that both God and gravity are pretty much innately understood at a very young age. At around nine months, babies seem to gain a respect for the existence of gravity. Researchers are not sure why this understanding comes about, but it does nonetheless. Normal boys won’t climb to the upper branches of a tree and step out into thin air; they know better. Likewise, grown men don’t step out of a flying plane without a parachute. They understand that gravity exists, even if they can’t explain it. In a similar way, a sense that a higher power exists must be driven out of the mind of most people, according to Romans first chapter.

A man could step out of a flying plane without a parachute claiming that he does not believe in gravity. He might say that because it is invisible and indescribable by the laws of physics, he chooses not to believe in it. This disbelief could be maintained for some time, depending on the altitude of the plane from which he jumped. At some point in time, however, the man would come to believe in gravity, albeit only for a split second before he entered eternity.

It strikes me that this is much the way some people are living their lives. They go about insisting that God does not exist, and, for the most part, they may be able to maintain their existence without apparent consequences. However, at some point, whether sooner or later, they will discover the existence of God. For some it will be after death, for Scripture teaches that in the final analysis, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

It would seem strange indeed to hear someone say they don’t believe in gravity, but it should strike a believer as equally strange to hear someone say they don’t believe in God. After all, God is as real to me as gravity: I trust God will someday plant my feet on Heaven’s streets as much as I trust gravity to keep my feet planted on terra firma for the time being. A wise man once said it is the fool who says there is no god. It’s just as foolish as saying there is no gravity, but the consequences are far more unpleasant and long-lasting. Remember that the next time you hear something foolish from an unbeliever.

Not Our Fathers’ God

I’m reading through the Old Testament (again), and I am struck by the violence that spills over most of the pages. In a recent post I mentioned that I was becoming depressed because it seemed that the God I was reading about was so completely foreign to our twenty-first century sensibilities that there is no way to draw people to Him. Having taken up my reading schedule again, I remain unsure what to do with the character of the God of Israel.

Perhaps I have fallen prey to the same misapprehension that colors the thoughts of many moderns: we want God to fit our concepts of who He should be. In other words, we are remaking God in our own image. We are fine with a God who brings peace to our turmoil, health to our sickness and supply to our needs. We are not so happy with a God who orders mass genocide and demands bloody ceremonies for His appeasement. How do we give an honest picture of who God is to today’s pagan?

JB Phillips suggested our God is too small. I think perhaps our God is too wimpy. I like the way the Newsboys said it a few years ago: “I’m not following a God I can lead about / I can’t tame this deity / That’s why Jesus is the final answer / To who I want my God to be.” If Jesus is the final answer, the question becomes who is this Jesus. Is He the mild, handsome man of the Sallman portrait from 1940 that populates many Boomer memories? Is He more like the Jesus People pictured Him in the 1970’s, sort of a cool hippie look.

My favorite isn’t a portrait at all; it is the Christ figure, Aslan, from C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. After all, one of Jesus’ biblical titles is Lion of Judah. There is majesty and grace in the king of the jungle imagery. But there is also something more. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis has Lucy ask if Aslan is safe. Mr. Beaver responds, “Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good… it's not as if he were a tame lion.” I can’t tame this deity.

Lewis goes even further in The Silver Chair when Aslan assigns Jill a quest: she must find the lost prince or “die in the attempt.” That is brutal. But that is the nature of things in Lewis’ imaginary world. The battle between good and evil is front and center. Lewis got it; we have missed it. Our Savior is also a Soldier. Recall that the Revelation image of the returning Christ has Him mounted on a white charger brandishing a sword. We may be doing the opposite of the first century Jews who looked for a soldier and missed the suffering servant. We worship the meek and mild but forget the mighty warrior.

But I fear a lion may be too mythical, too last century for a modern audience. I have a suggestion: picture Optimus Prime from the Transformers. He’s strong; he’s huge; he’s terrible; but he is good. I know the Transformers movies are a little cheesy, but the ideas resonate: super-powerful beings from another dimension come to save humanity. It’s not on the literary level of C.S. Lewis, but it might help some modern pagans to see our God for who He really is. Do I have any takers for a portrait of Optimus Prime in the church hallway?

Daily Bible Reading

I have a confession to make: eighteen days ago I abandoned my daily Bible reading. I know it was exactly that long because I had been using a computer reading program to keep me accountable. The electronic accountability model had been working; I read through the entire Bible in one year, and I was on a second pass through in a different translation with a different schedule. I had been faltering a little in my regularity, missing a day or two and playing catch-up, but then I stopped altogether.

The shame or guilt or something finally overcame me this morning and I cranked up the computer and opened my Bible study program. I was surprised to find it had been eighteen days; it felt longer. Ironically my delinquency began exactly one week after I had preached a sermon that was heavily loaded with accusations that we Christians don’t read our Bibles often enough. According the the Barna group, the number of Christians who don’t read their Bible more than once a week is alarming, especially in light of the fact that over sixty percent say they want to follow Jesus more closely in their daily lives. The article asks the obvious question: how can one learn to follow more closely without reading the followers’ manual?

In my case the question becomes why I suddenly stopped reading; I know better. I could blame a changed schedule or a series of early morning meetings that pre-empted my reading time. The truth is, however, that I stopped wanting to read because I didn’t like way it was making me feel. I had completed the books of Moses and Joshua and Judges. I was half-way through First Samuel when I quit. My problem was the way my daily reading was conflicting with my daily writing. I am working on a book that explores ways to present the gospel to twenty-first century people. The sometimes violent, seemingly arbitrary way God operated with His people in the Old Testament was upsetting me. How does one make the fire and brimstone God of Mount Sinai relevant today?

The dilemma was beginning to depress me. I was even beginning to wonder if the so-called neo-evangelicals were right to downplay certain aspects of God and elevate others. After all, “God is love” sells much better than “God is wrathful.” The problem is, if you are going to read the Bible consistently, you are going to come to the conclusion that God is wrathful. I don’t particularly like that, and the delicately sensitive, politically correct masses in 2017 certainly won’t like that. I can totally understand why Rob Bell went the way he did. (If you don’t know Bell, read my series of blogs.)

I have come back to the realization that I am not supposed to like or understand everything God has done or will do. I must either believe what the Bible reveals about the Creator, or I must join the moderns and invent my own creator. The second option is even more depressing than trying to explain the God Who Annihilates Canaanites to today’s pagans. The Old Testament is bloody; get over it. The New Testament reveals the culmination of the bloody story. As ugly as it sometimes appears, there is beauty in blood as Crystal Lewis sang, “The cross, stained by blood/ The beauty of the cross/ Healing for the lost/ The cross.”

I suppose God could have reinterpreted the redemption story for every new period in human history in an effort to make it easier to explain, perhaps more palatable. But He didn’t. Nor does He need to, really. The idea that God is sovereign and humans must bow to His will is distasteful to pagans in any age, but well depicted by sacrifice in every age. That God should sacrifice His own Son to bring about the final restitution for human failings is outrageous. That is precisely why we must continue to read our Bibles regularly. God’s ways are not our ways, but God’s way is the only way to ultimate peace and eternal satisfaction. I must keep reading to renew my mind lest I be conformed to the world. Eighteen days was about seventeen days too long for me.

The Church Cannot Save the Lost

I had a bit of an epiphany last week which I would like to share. Background: I attend a pretty good little church which is doing many things right. However, the people with whom I share my Sunday mornings are mostly refugees from other churches; very few are new converts brought to Christ through the ministries of our church. My pastor and I have been having an ongoing discussion for several years about how to improve our outreach into the community of lost souls in our neighborhood. We have read several books and considered different programs, but nothing has come of our discussion.

Last week something occured to me as I was meditating and praying about the problem: the church, meaning the corporate body, was not tasked with reaching the lost. After His resurrection, Jesus sent His disciples back to Jerusalem to wait for the Holy Spirit’s coming so that they would become His empowered witnesses (Acts 1:8). He did not say they should go form a body that would win the lost; He said “you,” plural, will be my witnesses. Likewise, the Great Commission is to a plural “you” to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20). The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers Christ gave to the church are supposed to equip the saints (plural) to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12).

While it is true that the actions of the corporate church may attract some unbelievers who eventually become Christ-followers, I think that is a secondary result. The primary purpose of the church is to gather the members of Christ’s body for fellowship, teaching, breaking bread and prayer. (Acts 2:42). I suspect the idea of inviting unbelievers to “church” would have been foreign to first century Christians. In fact, during the early years of the church, meetings had to be kept secret because of violent persecution. The idea of catechism grew out of the practice of the early church teaching seekers the truths of the gospel before they could be considered members.

I think this explains why there is nothing in the New Testament describing programs the church operated to reach the lost. Individuals shared their faith in the context of daily life. This squares with the language of the Great Commission which begins with the word, “going.” It might be translated, “whenever and wherever you go, make disciples.” Once a disciple is “made,” he or she is baptized into a body for continued teaching, fellowship and all the many one-another aspects that flood the New Testament instructions about body life.

I am not opposed to children’s church or VBS or services for the poor and needy. These are legitimate ways a church can program opportunities for the lost to come to Christ. I believe, however, that even in these contexts, it will be individual contact and relationships that ultimately bring the greatest harvest. And I don’t think individual believers should be waiting around for the next program. The “program” that Jesus instituted is for every believer to live out his or her faith in front of a watching world. Those whom the Father is calling to Himself will see the Savior through the lives of His followers.

If you are having a hard time imagining how you would become that kind of disciple-maker, I can recommend a few resources to help. I am just finishing a book called Lead a Horse to Water which you will find on Amazon very soon (Lord willing). Another great book to get you started is God Space by Doug Pollock. Many people have found Tim Stebbins’ Friendship Evangelism by the Book helpful. If you want a more psychological/academic approach, Joseph Aldrich’s Life-style Evangelism is interesting; however, I would only recommend this book to mature believers who are well-grounded in sound doctrine as Aldrich’s assumptions and suggestions can be taken to unbiblical extremes.

You don’t need special training or a degree in evangelism to be a witness for Christ. If you are a believer you have a life to live and a story to tell. You also have a command to obey. If you are not living your life in a way that makes people ask for your story, maybe you need to reconsider your level of obedience. After all, the church cannot save the lost; only you can.

Women's Attire - Again!

A Facebook Friend recently posted a couple links to articles about Christian women’s responsibility to dress modestly. I dealt with the topic previously in a post titled “Debating ‘Christian Cleavage.’” However, the second blog my Friend shared raised my ire to the point where I feel compelled to write again. I think the modesty issue is symptomatic of a larger problem which is evident in Christian circles today.

The root of all misbehavior can be found in the original sin committed in Eden: Adam and Eve wanted to be independent. They did not want to depend on God to order their lives; they wanted to make their own rules. A close cousin of the spirit of independence is found in the cult of individuality that pervades our culture, and the church has not escaped it. While it is true that Christ’s blood saves us individually, we are baptized into a body. It is the corporate inter-dependence that gets lost when individuality reigns.

It is this attitude that allows a woman to write that she no longer feels accountable for the lustful thoughts of men who look at her (Read her entire blog). The discussion of Christian modesty often devolves into the placement of blame on men for lusting. This is not the real issue; men are solely responsible for their thought lives. However, women also have a responsibility to their brothers to avoid things that would lead them into temptation. It is this corporate aspect of an individual’s responsibility that many modern Christian women reject. Their attitude is the opposite of what Paul counseled that we should, “Never act from motives of rivalry or personal vanity, but in humility think more of each other than you do of yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3, Phillips New Testament)

This same “not my fault” argument appeared in the second blog my Friend shared, but it was made worse by the clumsy misinterpretation of Scripture to support the point. Joel Michael Herbert makes several faulty arguments against women dressing modestly before stating that, “The Bible does not breathe a word of such nonsense.” Herbert then picks out one word from 1 Timothy 2:9 that is often cited in this argument. He claims that the word sometimes translated “modesty” has little or no reference to alluring dress but only to expensive attire.

It is true that the context would allow the economic issue to be considered, but it is not explicitly mentioned, and the connotation of all three words Paul chose as qualifiers clearly applies to the sensual nature of a woman’s appearance. The first word (κοσμιω) means “orderly.” To clarify what type of “order” is in view, Paul follows with a word that means “having a sense of shame,” (αιδους) according to Strong’s Greek Concordance. The word might be rendered “bashful,” especially in the presence of men. The final word (σωφροσυνης) means “sober or self-controlled.” One must ask how a sober, bashful woman would order her wardrobe. I think Herbert completely misses the point.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous for Herbert to assert that “modesty” appears only once in the Bible. It may be true that the word he chooses appears only once in the NIV, but a more honest approach to the subject will uncover many more passages that are relevant. Crosswalk, for example, finds seven passages that speak to the issue. (Seven Scripture Verses Your Daughter Needs to Hear About Modesty). Finally, Herbert’s shameful reinterpretation of Jesus’ words on lust in Matthew 5:27–32 borders on sacrilege. To imply that Jesus was being sarcastic or teasing His audience is outrageous. The Master’s use of hyperbole does not give license to assume He was kidding around.

More to the point is the fact that all the defenders of scantily clad Christian women ignore the larger principle of concern for others. It is also important to remember Paul’s comment that while all things might be lawful, not all things are edifying. In other words, it might be lawful to strut your stuff half-naked on the beach, but it is not going to be profitable for anyone else, especially the men who will see you.

It is selfish and immature for a woman to say that her right to dress as she pleases trumps her responsibility to care more for others than for herself and to avoid a behavior that may incite sin. For a man to say the same thing is simply bad advice, or in Herbert’s case, bad theology. This issue is uncannily parallel to the Original Sin. After the First Couple decided to make their own rules, God’s first reaction was to clothe them. It seems that a woman’s desire to be unclothed goes all the way back to a tree in The Garden, a Serpent, and some forbidden fruit. God save us from our non-dependence.

Our Daily Work

One of the biggest “buts” in all of literature comes at the beginning of Ephesians 2:4. Paul has been describing the utter hopelessness of all those who are outside of Christ, using the metaphor of life and death. He says everyone was once metaphorically, symbolically, spiritually dead. Everyone was doing the bidding of the “prince of the power of the air,” the one who works in all the “sons of disobedience” which means everyone – “all mankind.”

“But God,” Paul says, “made us alive together with Christ.” God cancelled the penalty due for disobedience and brought life into that which was once dead. And not just any life, but spiritual, eternal life, according to the Greek word Paul used. As if that were not enough, Paul goes on to say that God has “seated us with him in the heavenly places.” And there we sit, positionally, not yet physically, in the throne room of God. That’s quite a promotion: from death to life, from earth to Heaven.

The natural question is why. Why would God do such an amazing thing? Paul says it’s because God wanted to, “show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Then comes a couple verses that are among the most well-know, often-quoted in all Scripture: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” So through no work of our own, God gave us this marvelous promotion just to show His grace.

Next question: to whom did God want to make this demonstration of His marvelous grace? We have to skip into Chapter three to find the answer. Verse 10 says, “So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.” Throughout the New Testament, “rulers and authorities” is a way of referring to angels, either good or bad angels. Angels are a higher class of created being, created before humans (I believe) for the purpose of doing God’s work. For some reason known only to God, He wanted to show His love and grace in action to a watching group of angels. Et voila, here we are.

Last question: what is it we are supposed to be showing the angels? Bottom line: God’s love for us. Paul says that God abolished the penalty against us through His grace so that He might reconcile us to Himself. Now that we are reconciled, seated in the heavenly places, what are we supposed to do about it? Work. 2:10 says, “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand.” We are supposed to stop doing the works of the prince of the power of the air and start doing the works the Creator of the universe has prepared for us.

Those of you who work for a living probably have at one time or another heard from the boss what you are supposed to do with your workday. It may have been once in a job description, or it may be every day you are told what to do. It’s kind of like that with the Big Boss too. In Ephesians 2:8-10 Paul says we are not saved because we work, but because God worked. He worked out the details of our salvation before we were born… before the Earth was born. Paul then says that we were saved in order to work the works that God planned for each one of us way, way back when He planned our salvation. God has something specific for each one of His chosen to do, something that is part of His ongoing, eternal plan. You have a part in the ongoing, eternal plan of the Creator of the universe. Have you checked in with the Boss today to see what work He has scheduled for you today?

What Does It Mean to be an American?

At first glance it may not seem appropriate to offer this subject under a banner that claims Heaven always matters most. However, if you will stick with me, I think I can show how this issue is very important to those who hold Heaven in high regard. Secondly, I will admit that my answer to the title question relies on traditional meaning rather than proposing what it might mean to be American by some novel, progressive definition. Finally, it is the outlandish protest of the far-left fringe against the Donald Trump presidency that motivates me to write. It seems to me that to claim a duly elected President is “Not My President” is to declaim being an American.

Governed by laws

To be an American means to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the oath taken by those applying for citizenship, those in military service, and all elected federal officials. Those of us born here may never have to take the oath literally, but it is an assumption of citizenship that one agrees with the law of the land. To be governed by law means that there is no higher standard of civic behavior than the Constitution. To refuse the rule of law places one in jeopardy of losing the freedoms granted by the law.

Admittedly, there are at least two opposing views of Constitutional interpretation. The traditionalist view, to which I hold, demands that the founding documents of our nation must be read considering what they meant to the original writers. I believe we must ascertain the intentions of those who initiated this experiment in government by law if we wish to maintain their concept of it. The progressive view of Constitutional interpretation, on the contrary, says that each generation must adapt the words of the founders to whatever circumstances are presently at hand. This fluid view eschews the idea of original intent in favor of dynamic reinterpretation. By this means we have invented rights and protections that would have been not only foreign to the founders, but surely abhorrent to them.

By applying the principle of dynamic interpretation, we often arrive at a curious predicament. The “right” of a woman to murder her unborn child ignores the rights of the child. The “right” of a transgendered person to choose which bathroom he/she prefers ignores the right of a woman to privacy in rest room facilities. The “right” to health insurance which included the forced purchase by all citizens tramples the right to hold property secure from government confiscation. Similar conflicts arise with the “rights” to minimum wage, affordable housing, protection from offending speech and many more.

America is a Republic, not democracy

It was part of the genius of the founders of America to institute republican government rather than a true democracy, although many people today mistakenly call our government a democracy. In a democracy, each citizen votes directly for the rules and regulations that govern society. In our form of government, citizens elect representatives who make law on behalf of those who elected them. While citizens are free to elect whomever they choose, those elected must swear to uphold the Constitution, thus avoiding lawlessness at least in principle. However, as I previously mentioned, this process has brought into question whether the Constitution is in fact being upheld or disregarded.

Another ingenious aspect of our republic is that it limits the ability of a majority to trample the rights of a minority. Without going into great detail, let it simply be said that properly addressed, laws written regarding issues that hold majority support will also protect minorities. This is particularly true of religious minorities which I will address below, but it holds true for other minorities as well. A curious turn of events has taken place with the move to abandon the original intent of the framers of the Constitution: some minorities are now exercising a form of tyranny over the majority. (More on this in Stormy Weather.)

Property rights

One of the principal reasons our forefathers broke from British rule was the practice of taxation without representation. The colonists believed they had the right to determine whether they should be taxed for certain commodities and activities. The British king held that he had the right to impose taxes at will. The inalienable rights to life, liberty and property (as John Locke originally wrote) were central to the colonists’ Declaration of Independence. While it is true that the Constitution does give the federal government the right to tax citizens, the expansion of government beyond its original limited form has brought about new “rights” and the need for additional taxes to provide them. In theory, the American system of government gives citizens the means to restrict the reach of government into their pocketbooks.

Education for all

Another feature of a representative government is the absolute necessity of an educated citizenry. To make intelligent choices regarding representation, the voting population must understand the issues they face. The type of education that makes this understanding possible was traditionally called a liberal education, liberal meaning expansive. By this it was intended that students would be educated in a wide range of subjects and viewpoints. Although education was of paramount importance to the founders, it wasn’t until several generations after the founding of America that the institution of government funded “free” public education became the norm.

It is interesting to note that most of the early supporters of free public education were the ancestors of today’s progressives. And today, the teacher’s unions, one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, agitate for a continuation of their monopolistic enterprise which is failing miserably in its primary task. Not only do American students test embarrassingly low on basic skills, they are also leaving school bereft of any sense of moral values or civic responsibility. One does not have to be religious to understand that absent a moral foundation, a nation of laws will descend into anarchy. Values clarification and indiscriminate tolerance for all opinions as taught in today’s schools will eventually lead to the deconstruction of everything America once stood for. This is not progress; it is regression. If this situation is allowed to continue, life will become, as noted by philosopher Thomas Hobbes, nasty, brutish and short.

Religious freedom for all

Finally, it is ironic to note that the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution is being undermined by the pull of progressive thinking. A lie often told by the progressive left is that the founders of America were not Christian in any real sense. This cannot be maintained if one reads the founding documents they created, the FederalistPapers in which they explained their motives, and the letters of the men themselves. If, as the left claims, some of them were Deists, this still makes them theists, not atheists or anti-theists as many progressives assert. The Founders wanted to protect freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. (For more on this thought, read What Price Freedom.) Many of the early American settlers came explicitly because of government restrictions of their religious views.

To be an American does not mean to be a Christian, but it certainly means citizens have the right to free exercise of their Christianity under the First Amendment. So do Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and any other religious faction that does not prohibit others from exercising their rights. The progressive left, which for all practical purposes is atheistic, is attempting to de-establish Christianity from the public square. Nothing could be more unconstitutional. In a free republic, all citizens have the right to express their views in the public dialogue and the voting booth. A majority of Christians cannot by voting stamp out all other religious practice, but neither can the atheists stamp out all religion.

This is where Heaven begins to matter to this definition of what it means to be American. If Christians want to maintain some semblance of the rule of Heaven on Earth, we must maintain what I have defined as the traditional American condition. For the time being, Christians represent a majority belief in this country. We have a Constitutional right to express that belief. (For a discussion of how this might work, see A Timely New Book.) If progressives are allowed to redefine what it means to be an American, Christians will lose the right to free expression. While I believe the Bible does describe a time at the end of human history when such a state exists, I do not wish to speed its coming. Although the Holy Spirit is the ultimate force restraining evil in the world, the American system of government as originally conceived has been a tool to the same end. I pray we do not allow the enemy to redefine America so that it no longer cooperates in that work.

Why The Shack is Dangerous

“And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14)

Google The Shack and you will see what a heresy in the making looks like. Amazon says it is the Pilgrim’s Progress for this generation. Wikipedia calls The Shack a Christian novel. On his own web site, William Paul Young, the author of The Shack, describes himself as a theologian and recommends another book he wrote, Lies We Believe About God, as a more systematic exposition of his theology. There is no question that Young believes The Shack reveals the truth about God. Sadly, Young is telling an old lie: God loves everybody too much to punish them for their sin.

One expects to find God misrepresented in secular writing and in texts from other religions. In Star Wars, George Lucas, for example, presents the Force as having a dark side/light side, Yin/Yang character as in Eastern mysticism. Lucas confuses the omnipresence of the true God with the pantheism of most Eastern religions. He depersonalizes the God of the Bible making Him an impersonal force. The Lucas movies are fun to watch, and one may even come to understand the biblical view of God better by doing a little comparison and contrast study.

But no one thinks Lucas intended to reveal truth about the God of the Bible. This is precisely what Young thinks he is doing in The Shack; he says so on his web site. The very reason the book was supposedly written makes this clear: he wanted to explain God to his child. This is why The Shack qualifies as heresy, while Star Wars is simply secular fiction. There are a few Christians who have attempted to find a picture of God in Star Wars, but you won’t find it in many church libraries. In contrast, Young’s book probably is on the shelf of whatever church Rob Bell has landed at. Its message would go well with the Schulerism at the Crystal Cathedral. It sells the seeker-friendly message that warm, fuzzy theology peddles.

The people who defend Young’s incorrect theology claim he is simply emphasizing one aspect of God’s character. They claim that God does not love us because we follow His rules, nor does He reject us when we don’t. This is partly true, and it is the “partly” that makes it heretical. God does love us in spite of our sin; that part is true. The whole truth is that our relationship with God is not based on what we have done (or not done) but on Whom we have believed. What The Shack fails to say is that we enter a saving relationship with God through the narrow door of the Cross. Absent the Cross, there is no gospel. Absent the biblical Cross, there is no possible relationship with God.

Young’s treatment of the Cross comes from what is known as universalism. This means that everyone was “saved” when Christ paid the price for sin on the cross. The god figure in The Shack says that there is no need to punish people for their sin; sin itself is its own punishment. Again, this is partly true: “the wages of sin is death,” (Romans 3:23) and sometimes the “death” begins to take its toll in life. Where Young’s theology goes wrong is in denying the need for faith and obedience. Sin does not simply make life on earth a little more difficult, it makes life in heaven impossible. And those who do not go the Cross and surrender everything in faith are doomed to an eternity in hell. That is what the Bible teaches.

If you want to know what good Christian fantasy looks like, read C.S. Lewis’ The Narnia Chronicles.Lewis took great pains to write an allegorical fiction that perfectly mirrors the truth presented in the Scripture. There may be others as good as Lewis, but I am not aware of them. It is the duty of a believer to read anything with a discerning mind to see if it aligns with Scripture, the only infallible guide to truth. When something pretends to be about the God of the Bible, but is not true to Scripture, it is heresy. It is dangerous heresy when it gets as widely circulated as The Shack, and doubly dangerous when it is so close to the truth that even sincere Christians can be fooled. But as I said, the enemy of our souls has eons of practice deceiving God’s elect. Don’t be fooled: The Shack is dangerous.

Stormy Weather[by]

In my post, “Lessons From Detroit,” I mentioned an article by JC Weatherby in which he called evangelical Christians the American Taliban. My first thought was to wonder how any intelligent person could make such a ridiculous comparison. Then I tried to imagine how I look to someone with a progressive ideology concerning gay marriage and abortion and such. Maybe I am more like the Taliban than I originally thought. But wait.

Of course the analogy breaks down in matters of true moral equivalency. There are no sword swinging evangelicals lopping off the heads of infidels as far as I know. Nor does the Bible mandate the establishment of civil government to enforce its policies as does the Koran. Despite the cries of misogyny by Weatherby and his ilk, Christians do not participate in honor killings, female genital mutilation, or virtual imprisonment of women in bourkas and houses. The worst Weatherby can offer by way of explanation of his label is that certain Taliban-like Christians have offered to pray for him. Of course, he is also against the Taliban-like practice of denying women’s reproductive rights by protecting the lives of unborn children.

Weatherby is correct to suggest that the Taliban seeks to impose moral principles on its subjects. But a more apt comparison in American society would be our Constitutional government. Contrary to the often spoken, mistaken assertion that you cannot legislate morality, that is precisely what legislation is for. Laws prescribe, proscribe and punish those who violate certain moral standards. Civil society is impossible without rules; governments are instituted to identify and enforce those rules. Weatherby’s real problem is with the rules.

Weatherby makes another false claim in his piece: he says that the efforts of Christians to form a government patterned after their ideals is unconstitutional. He believes the First Amendment establishment clause prohibits those of any religious faith from voting their beliefs at the ballot box. Nothing could be farther from the intent of the founders of our country. True, once elected, no official may enforce his particular religious beliefs outside of due process. However, if a governing body from local school board to US Congress decides through membership consensus that a religious principle that is held by a majority of his constituency is good for the population in general, they may enact it without fear of violating First Amendment rights. That is not establishment of religion; that is representative government.

The Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment is primary, was intended by the framers of the Constitution to keep a majority from trampling the rights of a minority. They so feared tyranny that they even took steps to thwart the tyranny of a majority over a minority. Hence there could be no majority vote to establish any religion as a national law. This in no way precludes the enactment of moral and civil standards which may be drawn from a religious viewpoint. In fact, the moral basis for government itself is based on rights “endowed by the Creator” on every human being according to our Declaration of Independence. Natural law, which was the underlying principle which informed their world-view, was drawn explicitly from the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. By following that tradition, the founders did not establish religion; they did establish a moral basis for what they considered a civil society.

It is this moral basis established by the founders against which moderns like Weatherby rage. It saddens me to realize that understanding of our form of government is so paltry that large numbers of people toss about phrases like “separation of church and state” with no clear idea what they mean. There was never any intention to separate morals from state. In fact, George Washington stated that without a moral populace, the form of government being created would never work. We are seeing that sad state of affairs today. Having eroded large sections of the moral basis of government, our elected officials no longer share a common understanding of principles that used to make compromise possible. It is now as Weatherby says, us against them.

So a tiny minority of the population now controls the definition of marriage, and a miniscule group of deviants controls who uses what bathroom. Gallup’s most recent polling estimates 3.8% of Americans self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender – 3.8%. Unbelievably, only 0.3% call themselves transgender – three people in a thousand. Yet this tiny minority has mounted a propaganda campaign which has duped over half of the country into redefining marriage. Opening women’s restrooms to men who identify as female has been foisted upon all of us, though it apparently has less support than gay marriage.

As it happens, the number of gays in this country is approximately the same as the number of radical Muslims. With so many people having a complete misunderstanding of what the First Amendment really protects with regard to religion, it is now conceivable that Sharia law will be accepted as an alternative life-style in America. In Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan, it is already de facto done. I doubt even JC Weatherby would be in favor of that. If he thinks the evangelicals as “American Taliban” are bad, wait until he sees the real Taliban taking over his neighborhood.

One uncomfortable principle that makes a civil society possible is the concept that the good of the many outweighs the good of a few. I say it is uncomfortable because minorities represented by people like JC Weatherby might be restricted in who they can marry or which restroom they may use. Government is instituted among men to maintain order. The order is derived from a set of moral principles. Everyone will not agree about every detail of the moral code, but a majority can usually be found. If Weatherby represents a majority of voters in this country, we will be voting to abandon the moral principles on which America was founded. That may make him more comfortable, but it scares me to death.

Lessons From Detroit

God has done it again. He has brought seemingly unrelated things to my awareness and given me an epiphany of sorts. I will explain. 1: Because I am a car nut (have been since age 8), and I call Michigan home, I picked up a book called Detroit: An American Autopsy by Charlie LeDuff. 2: Although I am a political junky, a couple days ago I reached overload with the umpteen-hundredth Facebook post about the anti-Trump fanaticism that borders on psycho-anarchistic. 3: Today I tripped over another Facebook link to an article that calls evangelical Christians “the American Taliban.” I followed the link to the article by JC Weatherby, read it, and my heart sank.

Here’s my message (up front instead of hidden in the last graph): Church, we are failing! If the election results of last November accurately describe the philosophical make-up of America, roughly fifty percent of our neighbors don’t have a clue who we are. I realize that some sincere Christians did vote for Hillary (See my thoughts on that here). But in large part, the people who voted against what we voted for don’t know what we stand for. And for a certainty, JC Weatherby and the rest of the fanatical haters don’t get us.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Jesus promised that those who hated Him would end up hating us too. (John 15:18-21) The thing that kills me is how self-righteously people like Weatherby condemn us without really knowing us. Weatherby claims to know us because he grew up in Christian circles in Atlanta. But like so many angry gay men, what he hates is a caricature of the true Body of Christ. I know, as Jesus promised, we will be rejected; I just wish we were being rejected more intelligent reasons.

Then there’s the radical left crazies who are protesting Trump (Not My President) who don’t have any reason to protest him yet. All of the interviews I have seen of Trump protesters reveal that they have no concrete evidence that President Trump has done or even proposed policies that would harm them. The left-leaning media painted such a biased picture of Trump that the radical left just assumed that his administration would initiate hell-on-earth. So far, not so much. Certainly the lefties (including Christian lefties) will dislike Trump’s conservatism, but that divide has always been tolerated. It was the Democrats who told us in 2008 that elections have consequences.

So how does LeDuff’s Detroit fit into this? The autopsy LeDuff presents is of a city that died because of corruption. No surprise when you think of corruption in the biological sense: Detroit decayed from the inside out. My “epiphany” was that Detroit was a model for everything the progressive left champions. The city abandoned the principles our country was founded on: integrity, morality, frugality, family. In their place they promoted sex, drugs and rock and roll… and profit for the Big Three auto companies. Detroit is not alone; big cities across America are becoming unsafe, unsound and virtually uninhabitable as a direct result of the kind of policies the Trump-haters love.

You don’t have to believe Genesis to realize that the family is the core structure of any society or that moral integrity makes civil society possible. Nor is it xenophobic, homophobic or misogynistic to say that so-called liberal social policies have weakened the family and morality in general. Indiscriminate welfare distributions discourage a healthy work ethic and encourage the multiplication of children born out of wedlock. Any type of sexual behavior which deviates from the time-tested restraints of monogamous man/wife relationships ultimately breaks down the family. Devaluing life by condoning murder for convenience wrecks not only the family, but society itself. These last three statements are sociological observations, not biblical pronouncements. Of course, we know the Bible will prove time and again to contain sage advice on sociological matters. Little wonder since it was written by the Architect of human society.

When I said earlier that the Church is failing, I meant that we have failed to present God as a loving Father who wishes to order society in the best interests of its members. Instead unbelievers see God as a mean tyrant who wants to take away all their fun. And Weatherby can think evangelical Christians are the American Taliban. It will be the subject of another post to discuss how mistaken the Taliban analogy is, but its invention shows the anarchists for who they are. It was the fool who said in his heart, “There is no God.” The haters on the left are not just rejecting the evangelical message (as they perceive it); they are rejecting rules and order. God help us if they get what they want. Detroit will then be, as LeDuff hints, the harbinger of what’s to come for all America.

Liars Figure

Caution: this post may be a bit wonky for some, but the truth sometimes needs a wonky defense.

Mark Twain is credited with saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” It is generally a simple matter to find a statistic that will support one’s cause. Able statisticians can manufacture stats that appear to favor a preferred position. Politicians are notorious for making the numbers bolster their policies. One statistic that has been bandied about during recent years is that of unemployment. Naturally the administration in power wants it to appear that their policies are putting people to work, so lowering the unemployment percentage is a major goal.

The following excerpt from the web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) explains the weakness of using unemployment figures to determine actual unemployment:

“While the UI [unemployment insurance] claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

“In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

o   Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.

o   Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).

o   Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.

o   Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

“Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.” [Italics mine]

The last sentence of the excerpt says it all: in the past decade there have been approximately three times as many unemployed people as the UI figures report. Given the inaccuracies built into the BLS report on unemployment, one must pay careful attention to the kinds of factors mentioned in the excerpt above to properly compare figures from year to year. It can be seen that Barak Obama inherited a 5% unemployment rate in 2008. During his first term, the rate rose to nearly 10%, then began to fall back gradually. By the end of Obama’s second term, the rate had returned to about 5%. (Figures provided by Politifact.)

The Obama administration wanted everyone to think that by 2016 their policies had brought the economy back to the more prosperous state it was in when they took over in 2008. However, if the mitigating factors mentioned by the BLS are considered, far more truly unemployed will be found to have fallen through the cracks in 2016 than in 2008. It is difficult to determine the exact number, but some experts estimate real unemployment is between 15 and 20%.

There is another way to measure the health of the American workforce: it is called the Labor Force Participation Rate. According to the BLS, “The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed.” This number still has some of the inequities built into the BLS system, but it is worth noting that it held nearly steady during the Bush years despite a mini recession caused by the bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting bank failures (something Bush inherited from Clinton) and the attacks of 9/11/2001 followed by another recession in 2008. In 2009 when Obama took over, the rate fell precipitously. It will be interesting to watch what happens to this number during the Trump administration.

There are other trends that can be used to determine the overall health of the economy. During Obama’s tenure personal bankruptcies increased; the number of people in poverty increased; the number of people on food stamps increased dramatically. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of the country’s overall wealth, did rise under Obama, but the rate of increase was the slowest in recent memory.

Perhaps the most troubling economic factor that might be used to evaluate Obama’s legacy is the national debt. There are different ways to measure this; again, statistics can be manipulated to tell almost any story. The simplest measure is to note the $10.6 trillion debt when Obama took over, and the $19.7 trillion debt he leaves. That looks like over $9 trillion in increased debt. Some argue that only the budget deficits year by year should be considered, making Obama’s budget deficit total $6.6 trillion. (Figures from The Balance) By any measure, the national debt increased. This is important because it means the government is spending more than it collects in tax revenue. Even a child can see that this condition cannot be sustained for long. Sooner or later, the system will collapse.

Since this is supposed to be a blog for Christian thinkers, one might wonder why this arcane patter matters. Just this: we live in a country with a participatory type government. Our new President says he wants to return power to the people by reducing government intrusion into private lives. If we are to evaluate this or any administration of government wisely, we need to know how. Statistics are one way to measure success. The goal of a Christian should be to have sufficient wisdom to judge whether a purveyor of statistics is being truthful or not.

Jesus chided his disciples at one point saying, “the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.” Another time when He was sending the disciples into the world, Jesus counselled them to be, “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” As believers we cannot cloister ourselves in holy huddles and watch our economy collapse due to self-destructive policies. We need to make wise choices in the voting booth and then hold our elected officials responsible for their actions in office. This is not our primary responsibility as believers; that would be bringing glory to God. But then maybe using our God-given freedom to wisely choose our leaders would do just that.