A Land in Ruins

The weather makes news again; headlines as far away as the UK shout, "Worst Storm Outbreak for 40 Years." The UK Mail Online asks "Is this the American Tsunami," perhaps referring to the devastation in Japan, or for those with longer memories, the Indonesian event of 2004. Chris Matthews of MSNBC made another historical reference when discussing President Obama's planned trip to view the storm ravaged town of Tuscaloosa. Matthews lauded Obama's quick response as compared to President Bush's tardy visit to New Orleans after Katrina. One wonders if the Dems will ever tire of making comparisons with "W."

My question is whether we really want a Presidential response to a natural disaster. Certainly, the country's top executive must register compassion for hurting citizens. But as part of this compassion our modern leaders seem to think government action is required; it is definitely expected -- by Matthews et al. anyway. After hearing the horror stories and seeing the pictures of FEMA villages and discovering the massive fraud which resulted from federal involvement after Katrina, I question the wisdom of delegating disaster relief to Uncle Sam.

It may be an unfair comparison, but it is nonetheless interesting to note that the Mississippi victims of Katrina are mostly back on their feet now, while much of New Orleans remains largely in ruins. Perhaps it is coincidence that Mississippi got by with much less federal aid, while New Orleans depended almost entirely upon FEMA and other Washington based efforts. The Democrat run political apparatus in Louisiana must also shoulder it share of blame. It may also be a coincidence that the Mississippi political machine was headed by Republican Haley Barbour.

What Chris Matthews and many liberals do not understand is something Karl Rove pointed out to a radio audience recently: “People don’t understand the federal government is not in charge of these things, and the basis on which they can take charge is very unusual.” Explaining that things went so badly in Louisiana because of the incompetence of Democrat state and city officials, Rove suggested that Bush should have invoked an 1807 law that gives the federal government the right to take over states. “It was a mistake. We should have used the legal authority to declare the state an insurgent, taken the political heat of pushing out the state’s governor and overruling the African-American mayor of New Orleans.”

Though I respect Rove's political savvy, I disagree with his premise. The federal government should not be involved with local politics at all -- not in bad times or good times. Shocking as it may sound, I do not think any government should be expected to pick up after anyone's personal disaster except to make sure the public roadways are passable, municipal services are provided, and civil order is maintained. This is what limited government means to me. Unfortunately there is a near majority of my fellow citizens who think that government services should be unlimited. Our current national fiscal disaster is the result of this insatiable appetite for public largess.

All people of moral character, but Christians especially know the meaning of charity. Those who have, help those who have less. Natural disasters provide living demonstrations of this principle. Glenn Beck used his national soapbox for this good purpose last week. He is organizing private assistance for the victims of the recent tornadoes. Think what you will of his alarmist rhetoric and Mormon theology, he understands what is needed in this desperate hour. We the people, not least people of faith, must take back our country. If we don't do something soon, wild weather may be the least of our worries.

True Lies

I am tired of being lied to. I just scanned my spam blocker's contents and found two I thought were not spam. One had UPS in the address and the other something about Mail Delivery; both had suspicious looking links in the text and multiple recipients even though they were supposedly personal information. I dumped them both back into Spamland without opening them.

Truth bending advertisers have been tricking gullibles into questionable purchases since advertising was born, I imagine. Fliers circulated in 17th century Britain lured adventurers with promise of untold wealth to be had in "Virginia," the generic name for the New World of North America. The history of Plymouth or Jamestown reports the scoop on that story. Early American snakeoil salesmen promised elixirs that would cure everything from gout to shyness. Some were herbal potions with potential healing effects, but many were little more than colored water with a shot of liquor for taste.

Today claims are shouted from all around us, from late night TV to endless email spam blasts. The ones that upset me the most, though, come from advertising driven by politics. One should not be surprised; again, history is replete with examples of less-than-truthful politicians. If one examines the root of the word, there is no surprise. A dietitian specializes in diet; an optician specializes in eyes; a politician specializes in the "polis," the people. They know how to work the crowd, con the mark and fleece the pilgrims.

Even knowing this, I still hate being lied to. There are too many examples to count, but I will offer three. George H.W. Bush emphatically declared in his presidential campaign that he would propose, "No new taxes! Read my lips," he famously said. We all know how that played out. Then there is Clinton's infamous, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Right. Today it is Obama decrying the partisan spirit in politics, saying repeatedly that he dislikes party rancor. Yet he is the one who insults Republican Congressman Paul Ryan who is sitting on the front row of his budget speech. He is the one who insinuates that Republicans want to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. He is the one who brands Tea Party members as radical extremists. Etcetera ad nauseum.

Finally on my list of peevish liars are the atheists who claim to know there is no god. This cannot be true, logically, and I suspect Christopher Hitchens and the gang are intelligent enough to realize this. But they promulgate the lie regardless. They may think there is no god, and for that position I would say, "Bon chance." But to categorically exclude the possibility that a god exists is arrogant foolishness. The ground for many atheists belief is in fact their disbelief in the miraculous. They cannot imagine a being of higher intellect and power than their own inflated ego, so they deny such a being can exist. One wonders if worms slithering across wet sidewalks deny the existence of boot-shod feet.

I am thinking about miracles and truth just now because it is Resurrection Sunday. Many people, sadly even some who call themselves Christians (only God knows,) do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. The philosopher known as Apostle Paul body slams that idea by asserting that without the resurrection of Jesus, there is no Christianity. Sine qua non. Christ Jesus' return from the grave is the miracle of Truth in the flesh, or is it the truth of a fleshed out miracle? However you conceive it, because He died, I live; because He lives, I will never die. And I will always hate the lie.

Shameless Promotion

I am going to take this opportunity to do something entirely selfish with this blog. If many people take my suggestion, they and their friends may spend an enjoyable hour or two, but honestly, my motive is self-promoting. Please forgive me if I am violating the non-commercial nature of the blogoshpere, but if we are not free to do something harmlessly personal, we are not truly free, are we.

Many of you know I published a novel several years ago, but had no success finding a major house to market it for me. Everyone who has reported reading it has told me they enjoyed it. They may have simply been being nice to me, but I don't think so because so many of my friends have been perfectly willing to tell me what a jerk I can be, so I suspect my novel may actually be a good read.

My novel defies exact description. It is an action, romance, fantasy, historical story about a Biblical character who has always fascinated me. (Actually, many Bible characters fascinate me.) Imagine how busy the host of heaven must have been when God chose a simple man to build an escape vehicle for the salvation of the human race. Wings of Mentridar follows the human and the angelic stories as they intertwine in this cosmic struggle. The search for and protection of wives for the chosen one’s sons provide drama and adventure, while the race to get the ark done and all aboard before the rain begins brings a compelling sense of urgency.

I have tried not to imagine anything which the Bible narrative would exclude as impossible, but naturally, to tell a novel length story about Noah, I had to do considerable inventing. Then there is the part about the angels. I often wonder what they do all day long as our helpers in another dimension. This is where the real fantasy comes in. If you know me at all, you know I have a pretty wild imagination; I put it to good use dreaming up activities and weapons and such for the angelic host to occupy themselves. If you know Frank Peretti's Darkness series, it is something like that, only not as scary.

So here is my shamelessly personal "friend request." Buy a copy of Wings of Mentridar and read it. Then tell me what you think. Better yet, post a comment on Amazon.com. If is is any good, encourage your friends to buy it too. It can be found in Muskegon at Hages for a discount price. It is available from Amazon.com or CBD in their discounted marketplace. I have a few copies left I can hand deliver for ten bucks or ship for fourteen.

I am not being entirely mercenary, honestly. People have found Wings to be an uplifting and encouraging read. My goal in writing it was to introduce people to the fact that God is working in our lives every day in ways we cannot imagine -- except I tried to imagine in Noah's case. There is a "message" to be found in the story. I have been frustrated that the message is not getting shared. I am shamelessly asking for your help. End of line.

Answering Rob Bell #6

I have waited a couple weeks to make this final response to Rob Bell’s Love Wins because I wanted to let the pot simmer and listen to my inner voices (yes, I hear voices; I vainly hope sometimes to hear the voice of Reason or Prudence.) Looking over my previous answers, I find nothing I would change.

What I have to say of Bell’s position finally may be too esoteric or arcane for the average reader here, but I think it bears saying. If I were to consider the idea that God may in fact choose to redeem all humans at some point, I would not argue, as Bell has, that the Creator’s actions are unfair and therefore unlikely or unattractive. I would propose that in the attempt to wrap our finite human minds around the infinite purpose of God we may leave room for an age in the distant future when perhaps God intends some final conclusion which is not explicitly described in our written revelation. It would be foolish, even arrogant to conclude that Scripture contains a complete exposition of everything that God can or must do.

This argument, that God may have plans which are not enumerated in the written record of his dealings with humans, is similar to the one we have when we debate whether there can be intelligent life in other places in the vast universe we know as the creation. I do not believe it violates what we do know of God to suggest that there may be other creatures with which he has other arrangements. I think of the space trilogy of C.S. Lewis in which he imagines other sentient beings on planets in our solar system. We know enough now that Lewis did not know to doubt the possibility he raises, but we can apply his idea similarly to other planets in other systems. What God has revealed to be true of Earth is not proved false if there are other beings elsewhere for whom he has different plans.

Likewise, if God has plans beyond the ages which are spoken of in Scripture, those plans do not abrogate what he has said of the ages he does detail. I get this opinion somewhat from the fact that the Greek language does not have one word often translated as “eternity” as many versions of the Bible do. While Bell hints at this fact in Love Wins, he fails to mention that there are two constructions in the Greek which refer to the long distant future. As Bell says, “unto the ages” is a proper literal translation for what our English renders as “eternal.” The second construction, missed by Bell, is “unto the ages of the ages.” If I were going to argue for an ultimate restoration of all humans, I would try to find reason for it in this construction. The question could be asked whether God is withholding something beyond the revealed plan for sometime in these distant ages.

This line of thought reminds me of the folksy argument reported among flees about who owns the dog they live on, or better, who owns the master of the dog. Our minds are far too small in comparison with the infinite mind of God to begin to draw firm conclusions about what he may or may not do beyond what he has said he will do. I do think we are safe in assuming that he will never, in any age, violate his divine character. The Bible seems to indicate that both love and justice dwell in complete perfection in the character of the Almighty. The Bible also seems pretty clear that both love and justice “win” in the end. Bell does not like the rules by which God plays, and to satisfy his human desire for fairness, he proposes to re-write the rules. What more can be said except to repeat that Rob Bell does not get to write the rules. God wins playing by his own rules. Deal with it.

Answering Rob Bell #5

One of the major premises in Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, is that it always has been God’s purpose to reconcile all creation to himself. On page 98 he says, “God has a purpose, something God is doing in the world, something that has never changed, something that involves everybody…. Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants?” Again, Bell has committed a logical fallacy by presenting a question with a faulty premise. It works like this: God wants everyone saved; God always gets what he wants; therefore, everyone will be saved.

Bell argues throughout the next several pages that history proves the minor premise, that God gets what God wants. The problem is that the major premise, God wants everyone saved, is never proved. Bell implies that the only way God can be glorified, vindicated is by meeting Bell’s standard of reconciliation. Bell quotes verse after verse to show that all the earth will see the salvation of the Lord; all the nations will know that God is Lord; every knee will bow. The mistake Bell makes is to assume that seeing, knowing and bowing must absolutely involve partaking in the benefits of the salvation of God.

We must understand that in ancient cultures, vanquished foes bowed before their conquerors; they did not afterward step into wealth and comfort. Most often, they entered into slavery or enforced servitude of some kind. They paid homage, but they proceeded to live with the punishment they had earned by losing the war. The vanquished became reconciled to their new masters in the sense that they stopped fighting them; they bowed to them. Sometimes they were summarily executed after bowing. Seldom did they enter into a life of ease.

The idea of subjecting defeated foes to slavery or slaughter is not politically correct in this century, but it was the way of the ancient world; it still is in much of the third world today. It certainly is in the parts ruled by radical Muslims. Bell errs by applying his delicate modern sensibilities to the God of the ages. Changing the analogy, Bell assumes that when a criminal goes before a judge, the only way to be reconciled is if the judge sets him free. This need not be true. The law and the judge are proved right when the criminal becomes reconciled to his punishment, even though it may be the death penalty. Justice is served, we say. Restoration takes place: civil society is restored when criminals are removed.

In the ages to come, truth will be vindicated; God will be proved righteous, his justice exercised. All the earth, all peoples will see this. This will bring glory to God. The fact that Rob Bell does not like the way God has chosen to do things does not make God wrong, it makes Bell wrong. He is wrong to assume that he knows God’s purpose for creating humans in the first place. He makes the mistake Isaiah points out: “Will the clay say to the potter, ‘Why have you done this?’” (Isaiah 29:16) He would do well to consider God’s question of Job, “Were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4)

Rob Bell is remaking God in Rob Bell’s image. And even though Bell says his god-image is all about love, by ignoring the revealed biblical character of God, Bell diminishes the value of the love he so desperately wants to “win.” If everyone eventually ends up in a state of eternal bliss, then the God of the Old Testament is a spiteful ogre. The entire story from the Flood onward reveals a holy, jealous God. His “reward” for those he loves is only meaningful if there is a contrasting group of those who spurn his love and miss the reward. I am reminded of youth sports today where every child gets a trophy, win or lose. This is the mindset Bell applies to our eternal “trophy.” It renders the prize meaningless and the love valueless. Continuing the sports analogy, Bell’s love “wins” only when measured by his own rules. Measured by a Bible standard, Bell’s love loses.

Answering Rob Bell #4

One of the frustrating features of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, is that he often presents a series of hypothetical questions which he does not answer. Besides being frustrating, this technique leaves important assumptions unquestioned and possible clarification unexplored. Some questions have no answers because they cannot properly be asked. The classic example is to ask a man if he has stopped beating his wife. The only answer an innocent man can make is to attack the premise of the question by asserting that he never beat his wife in the first place. Bell builds trains of thought by linking assumptions car after car with no examination of the premises.

In one example, Bell finishes a series of questions by declaring that God cannot be glorified by eternal punishment (page 108.) To understand why this statement is simply untrue, one must first understand what glory is and how God gets it. Glory is the establishment or vindication of that which is right, true or perfect. God’s character, as revealed in Scripture, is comprised not only of love, but also holiness and justice. For his character to be established, vindicated, glorified he must be perfect in all aspects. In other words, he must be true to his holiness and justice as well as his love.

The writer of Hebrews quotes the wisdom of Proverbs saying, “The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” (12:6 ESV) The word “chastises” is the Greek word “scourges,” which means to whip or flog. Pain is intended. God does this to “every son whom he receives.” He does it out of love. I will grant that in today’s PC atmosphere, this sounds horrendous. God would be on trial for child abuse if that were possible. Yet this is who he is; to deny it is to deny who God is. Glory redounds to God when he exercises his loving discipline.

The same can be said for God’s justice. The Old Testament abounds with examples of God’s justice spoken of as his glory, as does Revelation in the New Testament. I would commend Isaiah 45 to anyone who wants a clear example. In this chapter, God announces that he will use Cyrus the Persian to execute his judgment upon wayward Israel. Verse seven of the KJV has God say, “I make peace and create evil.” The ESV softens those acts of God to “well-being” and “calamity.” Whatever they mean, they do not portend pleasant circumstances for God’s chosen people. Years ago, one of my sisters, then a devotee of the prosperity gospel, told me that she had to accede that that verse was in the Bible, but she steadfastly refused to believe it. Rob Bell and his many bedfellows apparently are closing their eyes to the truth in similar fashion.

It may be beyond our finite minds’ capabilities to truly understand the paradox of God’s loving justice. I like Hank Hanegraaff’s formulation: there are certain things about God that I apprehend (know to be true) but will never comprehend (fully understand.) The Bible proclaims and history proves that the human condition on earth, in this age will be plagued by disaster, hatred and injustice. It seems reasonable then that God will only be vindicated, glorified in an age to come. For his entire being to be glorified, all aspects of his character must be included. Justice must be served. God chooses how that will work out, not Rob Bell. God’s answer to Pastor Bell might be found in Isaiah 45:20, “I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right.”

Answering Rob Bell #3

I mentioned previously that Bell’s most egregious error lies in the field of hermaneutics, the interpretation of Scripture. If you have been following my installments, we have come to a perfect example with his treatment of the renewal/restoration of everything.

A fundamental tenet of honest interpretation is that one must not contradict or violate clearly taught principles when interpreting less clear passages. The words renewed, restored or reconciled as found in the passages Bell quotes for support (Matthew 19; Acts 3; Colossians 1) must be defined carefully. Each of these words in the original language, as in English, has the prefix meaning “again” or “back to,” as in “back to” the original state. Whether one believes in a literal Edenic new creation on this terrestrial ball, or some form of new which is not material but spiritual, it is not inherent in the language that all creatures who ever lived and all states of the earth will partake in the newness. Those things extant at the time of the renewal will be made new or restored to their original state. Nothing is implied about souls or states which previously existed. To claim they partake in the renewal is to go beyond the plain meaning of the words.

Likewise the words “everything” and “everybody” must be discriminated. Each of the passages Bell cites refers to the state of being in Christ or under Christ’s rule and authority. Therefore it is correct to say that “everybody” in Christ will enjoy the blessings of union with him throughout the ages. Sadly, the Bible is quite clear that there will be those not found in Christ, but who will nonetheless reluctantly acknowledge him: “Every knee shall bow…” says Paul in Philippians 2, giving no indication that every knee afterward unbends to find a welcome in heaven. Note also that Paul says this bowing of every knee is, “to the glory of God,” contrary to Bell’s assertion that “never-ending punishment doesn’t [glorify God]” (page 108.)

Continuing on this line of thinking, I find it significant that Bell does not consider the impact of Romans ninth chapter in Love Wins. No surprise; two things there soundly rebut his core argument. First, Paul asks, “What if God… has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory – even us whom he has called?” (Romans 9:22-23) This seems to say that vessels chosen for destruction do in fact contribute to his glory. It also says that some are called, chosen while others are not.

This idea of election is carried from earlier in the chapter where Paul has asserted that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was entirely unilateral, sovereign (verse 11.) This point is made by Paul to underscore his claim that, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Elsewhere in Love Wins, Bell has declared that when Paul says all Israel shall be saved, Paul intends universal salvation. Quite the contrary, this is another biblical statement that only those in the family of faith, those in Christ will be saved. Paul echoes this again in verse twenty-seven quoting Isaiah: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved.” This is the opposite of what Bell tries to make out.

Several interesting questions are raised in what was just presented. What is glory and how does God get it: can bad things glorify God? What is God’s purpose in election? Why did God make us in the first place? Unlike Bell, who throughout Love Wins asks questions, then answers with more questions, I will attempt to answer the ones I ask in later installments. In the meantime, I recommend the book to anyone who enjoys a good debate. It presents an attractive answer to some hard questions that have been dancing around the church since Jesus died. I just think they are dancing to the wrong tune.