Memories, Myths and Mysteries.

I often joke about how bad my memory is, and it is really bad, but I do have some recollection of things that have happened to me. Every healthy mind has the ability to retain ideas, images and impressions of where it has been. These ideas, images and impressions are what we use to navigate through the world around us and to judge validity of things we encounter in the present. Because I remember the pain of touching the glowing hot burner on a stove, I will not believe someone who tells me that touching a hot stove will not hurt. In millions or perhaps billions of tiny ways, my memory shapes who I am and dictates what I believe.

For many thousands of years, humans had no written records of their existence, past or present. They had no written language. We should not imagine that they had no memories. Simple necessity and human nature would have led them to share their memories, share the things they knew to be true. These shared memories became the knowledge base that allowed them to survive and prosper. Fire is hot; tigers eat people; acorns grow into oaks. People learned to trust in a shared knowledge base.

Human nature being what it is, it is natural to suppose that over time, people would embellish memories of their own deeds and those of their cherished ancestors. This is the syndrome we know as the “fish story.” Every time the fisherman tells the tale, the fish gets bigger. This propensity leads to my valiant deeds growing more and more exciting as the telling continues. By the time we are recounting great-great grandfather’s deeds, he has become larger than life. He has become a legend; legends woven into tales become myths. Myths retold over centuries form one of the foundations of culture.

It is probable that the characters in Greek mythology, for example, had once-living human beings as their antecedents. It is certain that the Cyclops and Medusa were drawn from pure fantasy, as were the supernatural powers of Zeus or Poseidon. However, one can easily imagine that there were living men in the shadows of pre-history who grew into the superheroes of mythology. Archeology has granted a glimpse into ancient civilizations about which little is known apart from the myths.

With the ascendance of science and reason over mythology some five hundred years ago, people gradually discounted the reality of myth, although they enjoyed telling the tales as entertainment. A quick scan of the movie guide today attests to the fact that we still enjoy mythology. The problem for Christians is that many moderns lump the Bible in with mythology. They admit that there may have been an Israelite named Moses at some point in history, but he didn’t literally part the Red Sea. Jesus may have walked the dusty roads of first century Palestine, but he couldn’t have literally walked on water.

The enlightened, reasonable mind is going to have trouble with the supernatural in the Bible. It resembles the “fish story” style of mythology. However, there are good reasons to believe what the Bible says is literally true. For one thing, whereas Homer intentionally fabricated much of the Greek “history” he wrote, Luke takes pains to recount in his Gospel only what he could verify from the memories of eye witnesses. The Apostle Paul, who wrote two thirds of the New Testament, lived the history he tells. The last book of the Bible was written when there were people still alive who had either been there, done that, or they were personally acquainted with those who had.

There is another strong defense of the Bible as truth: no sane person is going to die to protect a myth. Only a crazy person would die to preserve the story of Batman. Yet tens of thousands, perhaps millions have died because they believed the Bible was a true story. Of course, there are other reasons to trust the Bible. It has phenomenal internal consistency for a collection of writings gathered over hundreds of years. Archeology and secular historians have confirmed the facts as stated in the Bible in every instance in which they have been challenged. The scientifically verifiable fulfilled prophecies alone testify to the Bible’s veracity.

And then we can go back to shared memory. I have my own personal memories of all the times God has proven Himself and the reality of His Word. My father believed the Bible; his father believed; there were men and women in every preceding generation going all the way back to the writers of the book itself who will attest to its truthfulness. Textual criticism proves that the very words of the Bible, Old Testament and New, have not changed over the centuries. The Bible is not a collection of fish stories; the Bible is the record of a loving Creator redeeming His lost Creation.

Are there mysteries in the Bible? Certainly. Paul refers to one of the most significant ones in Ephesians 3, which was a mystery to everyone in Heaven and on Earth until after the Cross of Calvary: the mystery of human existence. Then there is the mystery of how God can be totally sovereign, yet humans can have complete free will. It is still a mystery what we will be like when we “shuffle off this mortal coil.” I agree with A.W. Tozer that we must make room for mystery. We are not God; we will never know everything God knows. But we can know this: the Bible is true, and it alone holds the key to the life of the ages. No mystery there. And I hope I never forget it.

The Disunited State of America (and the Church)

According to recent surveys, many young people are leaving the church because they say it has nothing to offer them. Although I have heard that reasoning used before, it struck me this morning that there is a fundamental flaw in its logic. The church is not meant to “offer” something; the church is supposed to be a place where believers offer something to God and to their fellow-believers. I think the church in 21^st century America is failing because even the leaders have turned its purpose upside down.

In my daily Psalm this morning I read Asaph’s inspired opinion that the Israelite generation who turned away from God in the Sinai wilderness did so because they were, “a generation that did not make ready its heart, whose spirit was not faithful to God.” (Psalm 78:8 LEB) I don’t want to parse this too intensely, but I think it is instructive that Asaph used two words to describe the inner selves of the faithless Israelites: heart and spirit. The “heart” can be used to mean the soul, the thinking part of a human being. The Israelites were not thinking straight. Because of this mental error, their “spirit” was not faithful. The spirit is that aspect of humans that relates to God. The Israelites mental error led them to a spiritual error.

The same situation is present in our generation: many are incorrectly thinking the church is a place that is supposed to meet their needs; they turn away because they are unfulfilled. The truth is the church is intended to meet others’ needs, other people’s and God’s; not that God actually needs the church (He needs nothing), but He has established it to accomplish His purposes on Earth. The irony is that as we selflessly give ourselves to God and others, we reach a level of fulfillment that no other activity can approach. That is another of the many paradoxes of Christianity akin to saying true freedom is found in complete surrender.

I wrote previously (What is the Church?) about the true purpose of the church, the ecclesia in Bible language. Briefly, the ecclesia is intended to infiltrate and indoctrinate a culture with Heaven’s priorities. It might help our understanding if we thought of church more like a political or military organization rather than a social club. In fact, when Jesus first mentioned church, ecclesia, He said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18); that is military language. If you read His words throughout the Gospels carefully, you will find numerous military analogies.

The problem of wrong thinking leading to serious consequences is evident in many places in our generation. Wrong thinking about the purpose of the family has led to its devaluation and dissolution. Wrong thinking about marriage has led to a scandalous divorce rate, even among believers. Wrong thinking about the human need for community has led to an explosion of social media “friends,” and to a lack of any real friendship among many of the younger generation.

Please excuse my soapbox, but wrong thinking about politics has led many Christians to abandon the field or consider it a lost cause altogether. The thinking in this arena is similar to the mistaken idea about church: government exists to meet my needs. The entitlement mentality is suffocating the very institutions that were meant to help the less fortunate. Multiculturalism, so-called, is fueling one side of the immigration debate to the point of idiocy. Apathy has caused the demise of the one weapon of political power every citizen has: the vote.

In a participatory form of government like ours (representative, not democratic), we the people actually do retain ultimate power: the power to un-elect miscreants, de-fund wasteful programs, and debunk the misguided policies that are causing America as we knew it to implode. Recent surveys indicate that approximately 60% of Americans identify as conservative. A similar number, variously in the 70-80% range, call themselves Christians. If those numbers are correct, I have to ask myself why clearly liberal (or progressive) policies and programs are being heaped upon us. I know the answer to my question: wrong thinking.

As my blog name says, Heaven always matters most, so the problem with the church is paramount. However, Christians are called to pray for their leaders and to give honor where it is due. I believe we dishonor the blessing of participatory government when we relinquish our right to participate. Voting, paying taxes and staying involved at whatever level one is called are the evidences of the honor that is due. And remembering that the church, the ecclesia, is supposed to be a culture-changer brings the two into focus. We have the blessing of freedom in this country. Let’s use our freedom to “do church” in every arena; we have Jesus’ promise that we cannot be overcome.

Why a Casino is Bad for Muskegon

A casino is a bad idea for Muskegon or anywhere else. The most common claim in support of a casino, that a casino would boost the local economy, is only partly correct. According to an article in the Washington Post (hardly a conservative voice), while jobs are created, the increase in employment opportunities is measurable, but not earthshaking. While the data cited in the article are not fresh, one has no reason to suspect that the conditions surrounding a Muskegon casino would be any different.

There is a less obvious down-side to casino jobs. First, many of the jobs will be taken by workers at other jobs, destabilizing the workforce in general. Also, the type of jobs that are created are substantially non-productive. By that I mean that nothing is produced for the benefit of others except entertainment. A factory makes goods that people can use; a restaurant feeds people; an insurance company or bank provides useful financial services. A casino adds nothing to the economy; it merely shifts dollars from gamblers’ pockets to the tribes’ coffers.

Some argue that a casino would generate tax revenue. According to the Washington Post article, “[Indian] Casinos aren't even a particularly good source of tax revenue. [A University of Maryland report] notes that a number of studies have found that Indian casinos cannibalize business at nearby restaurants and bars, and in so doing actually reduce state tax revenue.” Even Uncle Sam gets left out of the take since Indian casinos don’t pay corporate income tax.

Indian casinos do participate in revenue sharing in lieu of paying taxes, but it is not clear that they fully compensate local governments. A report in MLive about the Little River Casino in Manistee found that, “The tribe's forked over $30,479,814 in revenue sharing to Manistee area governments since it opened a casino there in 1999.” This is about $1.8 million per year on average. Sounds like a lot until you consider this: “In Manistee, local revenue sharing board uses the funds to reimburse local units of governments for costs due to the casino -- i.e. law enforcement and emergency services -- and to provide a payment in lieu of property tax revenue. Any additional funds are divided by the local governments and have been used for a variety of projects”

A few people have said that casinos are a benefit to the many underprivileged Native Americans in the associated tribes. An article in a Native American media outlet questions this premise. “The idea that money just flows freely into Indian people’s hands is pure fantasy. Approximately 72 tribes give per capita payments from gaming revenue, ranging from hundreds of dollars annually to many thousands. Very few distribute large sums…. Actually, a 2008 report finds that tribal leaders don’t like to disburse cash, contending ‘large per capita payments lead to citizen dependence on tribal governments, undermine the work ethic, and discourage young citizens from finishing their educations.’”

Even if there are some benefits to a community from a casino, the biggest reason not to have one is social. The Washington Post article concludes, “Casinos also lead to a plethora of social ills, including increased substance abuse, mental illness and suicide, violent crime, auto theft and larceny, and bankruptcy. The latter three all increased by 10 percent in communities that allowed gambling.” Prostitution and sex-trafficking may also increase with the casino’s influence. Although there is little statistical arrest evidence, a survey conducted by UNLV found that, “Those classified as problem gamblers were, on average, … 260% more likely to hire a prostitute…. [and] 17% more likely than the average survey respondent to have paid for sex in the past year.”

As a Christian under a representative-type government, I recognize that I only have one vote when it comes to any policy decision. In the Muskegon casino decision, I don’t think I had any direct say whatsoever. However, as a Christian I do have the responsibility to be salt and light. I am taking this opportunity to say that I believe a casino in Muskegon will spread poison and darkness as opposed to salt and light. If there is anything more that can be done to stop a casino from being built here, I believe we should make every effort to do so. For Heaven’s sake.

I Asked God

I asked for relief from pain, and God said, “I allow the pain so that you will lean closer to me.”

I asked for protection from loss, and God said, “I allow loss so that you will understand how I feel when a lost soul slips into eternity.”

I asked for my desires, and God said, “I provide for your needs; I allow your desires to be unfulfilled so that you might pray more earnestly for the truly needy.”

I asked for prosperity, and God said, “Learn to be content with what you have, and you will come to know true prosperity in your soul.”

I asked how to love my enemies, and God said, “Love them as I do, and forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I asked for peace on earth, and God said, “As much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

I asked why bad things happen, and God said, “Don’t concern yourself with “why” questions; ask “what” questions: what can I learn; what can I do to help; what have I done to stop this?

I asked to know the purpose of my life, and God said, “Live justly, love kindness, and walk humbly in my presence.”

I asked God to change the troublesome people around me, and God said, “You need to change how you see them and love them as I do.”

I asked God to come closer to me, and God said, “If I seem distant, it is not I who moved away.”

Beware of Bowlegged Politicians

And the horse they rode in on. I suspect most of my readers are tired of anything to do with politics at this moment, just having finished the mid-term election cycle with its endless campaign commercials on TV and billboards and yard signs everywhere. In spite of the fatigue, I am going to rant about the sorry state of political “debate” in this country. Again. (See What's Wrong With Politics in America) I saw an evaluation of an interview of a newly minted New York politician that was so shot full of erroneous statements that I nearly became livid.

If the title of this piece has you stumped, it is drawn from the root meaning of the word “prevarication” which literally means bowed legs. Why does the physical condition of bowed legs serve as a metaphor for lying? Dictionary.com lists synonyms: “divergence from the right course, transgression… duplicity, collusion or a stepping out of line.” They also say it meant “to walk crookedly.” I like to think it may come from the idea that a weak set of legs compares to a weak set of facts on which a false stands.

There is no shortage of those who “walk crookedly” in the realm of politics. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Donna Brasile are joined by the newly-minted Democrat representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York. What struck me this time was the utterly ridiculous nature of Ocasio-Cortez’s fabricated facts. The situation was all the more distressing given her college degrees in economics and international relations from Boston University. She is a poster child (age 29) for the working-class-kid-who-wants-to-make-a-difference crowd.

Ocasio-Cortez may also be proof that our higher education system is broken since she obviously has no clue how our economy works despite her degree in economics. If it’s not that, then she is one of the bowlegged politicians. Her story is so appealing, and she is so enthusiastic about her cause that I want her to be genuine. But the only way she can be excused for her stunning misstatements of the facts is to say she is ignorant. That, or she is a liar.

I must pause to say that I am not implying that only women lie or that only Democrats lie. There are plenty of male politicians from both parties who also walk crookedly. However, given the huge Democrat bias in our major news outlets, one supposes that any conservative liar would be treated to days if not weeks of media treatment. You don’t see much of that. True, they tried, “Bush lied; people died.” That charge was proven false when subsequent revelations of fact showed President Bush may have had erroneous intelligence reports, but that he acted truthfully with what he thought was true.

This brings me to the discussion of the essence of truth. Someone has said that perception is reality. This is correct only if one conceives of reality as a personal possession. The reality I possess under this scenario may not be the reality you possess. If one believes in absolute truth, one truth that is true for all, as Christians must, then perception is not reality. By definition, truth is that which comports with reality. That which is true for me must also be true for you. The facts must agree. Experience must prove it. (For more of my take on truth see  “True Lies,” “Liars Figure” and “The Truth about the Truth”)

People like Ocasio-Cortez are apparently disconnected from reality either by choice or by ignorance. The same distinction must have been apparent to Jesus when He reserved His harshest criticism for the hypocrites of His day. (Hypocrisy is a lie with legs; it walks crooked.) He told the Pharisees they were liars born of the father of lies. (John 8:44) Since Jesus was The Truth (John 1:14 and 14:6), lies are especially heinous to Him. Notice that He included liars among the vilest of sinners in one list. (Revelation 22:15)

I’d like to think that I hate lies mostly because I am being conformed into the image of the Truth. I’d also like to think that my fellow-Christians will keep their truth-detectors warmed up as we enter a season of shared power in the US Congress. There will be many more episodes like the shameful one that sparked this rant. As disciples of the One who is Truth, we must take a stand for truth. We must hold our representatives’ feet to the fire. Maybe the heat will un-bow their legs.

Christians are Responsible to be Politically Engaged

Daryl Fulp, a missionary in Guatemala and writer for Church Leaders, wrote an article on election day last week titled, “It’s Not Our ‘Christian Responsibility’ to Be Politically Engaged.” I am going to disagree with Mr. Fulp, so if you have had enough politics for the season (who hasn’t), click elsewhere.

Fulp’s position is that Jesus was apolitical, and he further suggests that the New Testament nowhere encourages political involvement. I will debate each point. First, Fulp’s examples of Jesus’ interaction with the civil systems of His day do not make the author’s point in my opinion. He correctly points out that the first century Jews were expecting (hoping for) a political savior. They hated the Roman occupation and dreamed of a military figure on a white charger delivering them from Rome’s bondage. Fulp is also correct that Jesus declined the role of political savior.

However, Jesus did not teach, as Fulp suggests, that his followers refrain from all political activity. On the contrary, the exact opposite can be inferred from the Scripture passage Fulp recites. Matthew records an incident when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in seditious sentiments in the 22 chapter of his Gospel. They asked if they should pay taxes to Caesar, and Jesus famously said yes. Because Jesus also commanded more spiritual dues as well, Fulp thinks Jesus’ words forbid political activity.

I think the very point Jesus was making was that civil authority is owed their demands. The first century Jews had little or no right to participate in their government, but we do. We have both the duty to pay taxes and the right to enter the process which assigns those taxes. In a participatory government such as ours, part of rendering unto Caesar is giving service time to make the wheels turn. When Paul added to taxes due with, “revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed,” I believe he opened the door to political activity in our generation. It seems disrespectful and dishonoring to decline to participate in a system that is built on citizen participation.

In the last few weeks, the Scripture has been opened to me revealing that Jesus applied political language to the most intimate relationship He had – the Church. I recently posted, “What is the Church” detailing how the very word translated “church” (ecclesia) was a political term in Jesus’ day. I wrote, “In the Greek culture, for several centuries leading up to the coming of Christ, ecclesia referred the council of men who participated in the ruling government. This assembly made the rules that governed the actions of the citizens.”

The ecclesia, as the Romans practiced it and the disciples understood it, was a group of people who left their home culture and entered a conquered region with the express purpose of transforming it into a colony that reflected Roman culture, language and philosophy. The ecclesia took over where the Roman army left off. The army conquered the land; the ecclesia transformed the people. Jesus knew He was about to storm the “Gates of Hell,” and He was telling His disciples that they were going to continue His work.

I believe the purpose of the church, as Jesus instituted it, is to influence a “foreign” culture – the world – with the principles and properties of the “home” culture – heaven. The prayer Jesus once gave as an example says, “Your Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” [Note italics] The church commission is to establish Kingdom culture on earth. If that is not political, I don’t know what political is.

Mr. Fulp may be over-reacting to the over-zealous “Moral Majority” mindset that pervaded evangelical thinking some years ago. There was a false hope, perhaps even an un-Scriptural hope that Christians could take over the US government and make America a Christian nation. Fulp is right that our priority is to make disciples, not to remake government. Fulp is wrong, however, to suggest that Christians should not be involved politically. Any Christian who is moved to become engaged in the process that makes the rules can help influence other rule-makers to lean toward a system that is more, rather than less, conducive to Christian society.

I am blessed to live in a place where state and US legislative districts have Christian lawmakers. With their help, the forces of Lansing and Washington DC have done a few things right recently. Although I held my nose when voting for President Trump (see “Vote Anyway” and “Politics Stinks”), I am pleased to see that his administration has turned back many of the anti-religious-freedom policies of the former administration. Mike Pence had a similar effect during his term as governor of Indiana. Voting for these men was my duty, and it is my pleasure to see that America is more open to Christian activity because of their efforts.

I respect Mr. Fulp’s emphasis on Jesus call to another Kingdom not of this world. However, being a missionary to a politically charged region like Guatemala, Fulp must see that our call is not just to escape from the world, but to transform the world’s culture in any way we can. If escape was what our Heavenly Father had had in mind, I think salvation would have meant instant translation out of this world into Heavenly places. He did not intend that; we are here to bring His Kingdom to Earth. Let’s be about the Father’s business.

Open Letter to Any Woman I Might Meet

I will apologize before I say anything. I am an old-fashioned guy, and I am likely to say something inappropriate when we meet. I tend to say what I am thinking without considering how it might be misunderstood. I have always thought that honesty and openness in relationships were good character traits, but I have been told that sometimes I should be less honest, less open. Apparently, I open my mouth and my thoughts fall out and get me into trouble.

I am bringing this into the open (there’s that openness again) because of a recent occurrence that echoes an earlier discussion I had with my very Millennial daughter. Here’s the back-story. Both of my daughters have worked as servers in restaurants at one time. Their experience caused me to understand the rough conditions servers sometimes have and the low hourly wage they earn. One result of this knowledge is that I tip generously unless my server has apparently ignored me or otherwise provided poor service on his or her part.

The other common result of my familiarity with the challenges of the restaurant work environment is that I am usually very friendly, helpful, courteous, kind, and sometimes humorous with my server. Here is where the problem comes: my very Millennial daughter once accused me of flirting with our waitress. I was not consciously doing so, but my daughter saw it as such. Since my wife was also at the table at the time, I asked her if she agreed with our daughter’s assessment. She did. She agreed that sometimes my “friendliness” might be mistaken for flirting.

If I were to flirt with a waitress, I am not so brassy as to do it in front of my wife and daughter, which was my defense to them: I was not intending anything but to make a little light spot in what could be a heavy day for the poor waitress. My two daughters’ experiences taught me that there are plenty of customers who will be rude, crude, cheap and downright mean to their server. I don’t want to be that person; I want to do the opposite. The problem is that in today’s over-sexualized, harassment-sensitive society, a kind or complimentary word spoken innocently can be misconstrued.

I think I may have stumbled into the same tar pit in my part-time job in retail the other day. On Halloween, employees were allowed to dress in costumes. One young lady I had not previously met came to work as what I would call a witch or sorceress. Her costume and make-up were really stunning: purple hair, hat and dress right out of some fantasy tale, and a face transformed cosmetically. I complimented her outfit, asking if she was the good witch, Glenda, from the Wizard of Oz. She corrected me saying she was a character from a tale I do not remember.

Fast-forward a couple days and I saw “Glenda” (names changed to protect the innocent) in her regular attire and make-up. I made some comment about how nice she looked without the purple hair and weird face paint. I think she chuckled; I don’t honestly remember, but I walked away wondering if I had just flirted unintentionally. I did not get summoned to the office, nor have I been served with papers naming me in a harassment suit. I think I am safe.

The problem is that now I am especially self-conscious when I pass Glenda on the sales floor or see her in the break room. I ask myself if she is seeing me as that creepy old guy who flirted with her after Halloween. It’s silly, I know. But having spent years walking on eggshells in the academic world where one accusation by a female can destroy a male teacher’s career, I may be the one over-reacting.

It is an especially sad situation when so many people, not just young women, could use a kind word or a compliment. I don’t know how to talk to women anymore; actually, I never did; it’s just more dangerous to be awkward these days. Jesus’ words to his disciples came to mind in this situation: “Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) Linking serpents and women may create a poor allusion, but the point seems to be that I should be careful what I say lest my dove-like intentions are received as the serpent’s hiss.

The easy solution to my dilemma is just to keep my mouth shut. However, there are plenty of other Bible verses that commend words of encouragement, random acts of kindness as some have called it. I can imagine refraining from any comments related to appearance. That’s a no-brainer. If I tell a woman that I am impressed with the way she handled a tough situation, might she think I am building a bridge for a pick-up line? Maybe I am just paranoid. Maybe I have absorbed too much of the sexualization that is everywhere these days.

If I may make a suggestion to women offended by certain male approaches, don’t make a complimentary remark from an old guy into something it may not be. In fact, even if a guy is angling for a date with you, that can be seen as a compliment too; somebody thinks enough of you to want to spend time with you. Lustful leering, catcalls and whistles have always been despised by women, I know. But maybe you could even receive them as clumsy compliments from guys without taste or manners. They’re still compliments. You can’t always control what a guy says to you, but you can control how you receive it. Am I wrong?