The Year IT All Ends

I am going to make a prediction: 2012 will be the year it all ends. I can say this with every ounce of certainty I can dredge out of my bucket. Unless you have been doing a Rip VanWinkle for the last couple decades, you know that new predictions of earth's 2012 doom are surfacing about every news cycle. It is undeniable that something is going to happen on December 21, 2012. A Wikipedia article mentions no less than nine different reasons why 2012 is going to be a significant year. The article includes everything from galactic alignment to magnetic pole reversals.

They missed the fact that many think that the Muslim 12th Imam, an apocalyptic figure, will appear this year. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is firmly convinced that he will be an agent in the revelation of this epic, and he sees the destruction of Israel as one of the major factors. Given the fact that speculation about Iran's immanent nuclear capability can be found in places like the Army strategy briefings and the Council on Foreign Affairs, one must take the otherwise insane rants of this man seriously. Considering the large number of Muslims world wide who sympathize with Ahmadinejad, the number of 2012 doom watchers swells dramatically.

Although they haven't hopped on the 2012 bandwagon as far as I know, dispensationalists like Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson, and Hal Lindsey have been trying to tie Mid East events to a Bible chronology since the 1970's. If Iran does make war on Israel, watch for 24/7 coverage on CBN, hoping to scoop the story of Jesus' landing on the Mount of Olives. If I understand the rapture timeline, there will have to be some very quick construction on the Temple Mount that will also merit CBN coverage if 2012 is to be the year it all comes down. However, if the pre-tribulation rapture scenario is correct, I doubt there will be any cameramen "left behind" at CBN.

I want to add my two cents to the 2012 hype. It has always fascinated me that the magi who visited the young Jesus had learned of his birth (at least in part) by watching the stars. At the risk of offending my fundamental brethren, I must say that I have no problem believing that God might have a way of synchronizing astronomical events with terrestrial ones. Thus Persian magi in the first century or Mayan shamans in the tenth might have seen something in the heavens that accurately revealed the divine timetable.

I would also note, although a far less precise predictor, God seems to have done things on a 2,000 year time table as far as the Biblical record goes. It was approximately 2K from Adam to Abraham and the same from Abraham to Jesus. I can easily imagine it being another similar period from the Incarnation to the end of time. I do not pretend to know God's mind, but what I do know of him reveals a very symmetrical mind. There is also the whole thing about everything coming in threes (ie. three sets of 2000 years.) The problem here is that December 2012 is only going to be 5773 on the Jewish calendar, so that theory might be off by a couple centuries.

I am not being entirely sarcastic when I link Hal Lindsey, Nostradamus and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  with dozens of New Age theorizers. This convergence of prophetic opinion may be a harbinger of the end of the world. Or it may turn out like hundreds (or thousands) of previous predictions of the apocalypse. What I do know with certainty is that it will all end on the winter solstice in 2012. If nothing else changes on that date, at least there will be copious amounts of egg being wiped from countless faces.

What does not change, either now or then, is the admonition that we believers keep oil in our lamps, wicks trimmed in anticipation of the coming of our Bridegroom. My understanding of prophecy tells me that he could come at any time. The other thing the Bible tells us clearly about God is that he loves to surprise those who think they know what's up. Maranatha.

Deer Camp Philosophy

I have just come sadly to the end of another deer season (for me, as I do firearm and black powder, but have yet to tackle archery.) My schedule allowed me to spend more time in the woods this year than has ever been possible. I should say quickly that deer season for me is not typical. Many people picture something I call beer camp rather than deer camp. These intrepid woodsmen spend most of their time inside the cabin swilling suds, leaving the woods and trails open to those of us who actually go looking for deer.

My time Up North is spent sharing a cabin with Wayne, a dear young friend who is only a few years my senior, but who has decades of hunting experience upon which I draw to balance my book-smart methods. When not actively searching for the elusive bucks, we spend our time talking over coffee and the occasional Guinness. By the end of the season we have usually solved all the world’s problems and straightened out the twisted ways of several theological dilemmas. (And yes, we traditionally watch Escanaba in Da Moonlight at some point.)

Our friendship has continued into its third decade at least in part because we find in each other something that is rare: we are both philosophers. We tend to think about things on a level that few other spend (they would say waste) time on. We do not consider ourselves better than others for this trait we share. We do however believe with Socrates that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Some people live apparently fulfilled lives without ever asking the why questions; we find it hard to get through the morning without approaching at least one.

Being a philosopher is different from having a philosophy. Everyone has a particular way of seeing reality, sometimes referred to as a world-view. This is a philosophy. In his book, Learned Optimism, Dr. Martin Seligman suggests that we all have an “explanatory style” to handle what life throws at us. Whatever one calls it, this personal way of seeing the world helps us answer the basic questions of philosophy even if we don’t realize what we are doing.

The philosopher makes the attempt to realize what he is doing, or better, to examine what he is thinking about what he is doing. It is important for all believers to do this on some level. The Bible directs us to be renewing our minds, to think in other-worldly ways, and not to be thoughtlessly pounded into the world’s mold. This entails a reframing of reality. I think it was J.B. Phillips who said that Jesus did not come to introduce a new religion, but a new way of living.

One of the ways Wayne and I passed the time this year was watching the Matrix trilogy (again.) Stop. I know it is not a Christian allegory; it is not Christian anything; rather it is quite Buddhist in its world-view. But (here comes a shocker) there is much in Buddhist thinking that parallels Biblical truth. Truth is truth no matter where you find it. The idea that really struck me this time through the Matrix is that many people are living as if they were mindless functionaries trapped in an artificial construct built by their worst enemy. That is not far from how the Bible describes our predicament.

Unfortunately many believers are guilty of the same stinkin’ thinkin’. Many Christians lead unexamined lives deceived by the old master into thinking what they see is real. The fact is, once we are regenerated, we are supposed to start seeing the temporal world around us as less real than the unseen world which spans eternity. If I could I would give every Christian I know a gift this Christmas: the gift of sight, like a view of what the Matrix really is. Then I would wish them free. That’s what I brought back from deer camp this year.

Christophobia Part 2

There has been less than expected mention of the Rick Perry "I am a Christian..." political ad I commented on in my last post. Pollster Frank Luntz reported today that the ad polled under twenty percent among both Democrats and Republicans; fifty percent is the minimum number for an ad to be considered effective. I wonder if this means that even potential supporters of Governor Perry are uncomfortable with his openly Christian stance. If it is not that, perhaps people just don't like "negative" ads no matter how truthful they may be.

Perry is correct to say that there is a war on Christian values in our society. Objections to people saying Merry Christmas and lawsuits to ban nativity scenes from public property have surfaced again this holiday season. Bill Bennett rightly commented on Fox News yesterday that the only bigotry which is acceptable among the elite in America is that expressed against "believing Christians." (I suspect Bennett's Roman Catholic world-view allows for an oxymoronic non-believing Christian.) He is right; public figures and the media consistently bash what might be called fundamental Christian beliefs and practices while charging with hate crimes anyone who similarly denigrates Muslims, gays, blacks or any other group du jour.

Tim Tebow's streak ending loss on Sunday brought another round of anti-Christian commentary from people who obviously just don't get him. In the verbal run-up to the game last week a Democrat commentator whose name I never heard and don't remember made the quintessential elitist remark. Tebow's celebrated virginity was mentioned in passing and the Dem scoffed dismissively (I paraphrase,) "You know he got some in college; everybody does." It is beyond belief for the secular left in our society to imagine that anyone past puberty is not sexually active.

I have a theory that is not intended to be counter-dismissive or condescending, but it will be received as such by those about whom I theorize. I am of the opinion that there is an innate sense in every human that some things are right and some things are wrong. Sexual promiscuity tears at the heart of what is so clearly the fabric of civil society that it makes even libertines uncomfortable in their deepest hearts. If you want to get a heated discussion going, just bring up pornography, infidelity, teen pregnancy or any other sexual perversion. Believers who claim to practice sexual purity make the impure so uncomfortable they cannot help casting aspersions to assuage their guilt.

As I said before, Perry's ad touched both strings of this harp when he mentioned gays in the military and his Christian faith. Tim Tebow strums the same chord. Sarah Palin got the media salivating with stories of her daughter's pre-marital pregnancy and anything else they could hint about of a sexual nature. Because this subject is bound so deeply with what we are as humans, the Apostle Paul even tells the Corinthians that sexual sin is of a different nature than all other sins. Sexual perversion tinkers with the very core of what it means to be human.

It should be no surprise then that the media and the secular left jump all over any story that brings this up. It is sad to learn from recent polls that sexual sin is not much less prevalent in self-described Christians than in the society as a whole. Perhaps that explains why even conservatives, a group that ostensibly includes "believing Christians," are not responding more favorably to Perry's ad or coming more forcefully to the defense of Tebow or Palin. Perhaps we share the same guilt as the secular observers. Maybe this is a good time to remember Peter's admonition to keep a clear conscience so we can silence the slanderers. It makes for more peaceful sleep too.

Christophobia

Texas Governor Rick Perry is taking a huge risk in his campaign for the Republican nomination for President. He is being entirely transparent about his faith. He is certainly not the first candidate to admit to being a Christian, but the hand he has chosen to play will undoubtedly expose him to mockery and scorn. He has chosen to lay all his cards on the table and reveal what many of us know, but few will say out loud: Christians are not getting a fair shake in America.

The specific gambit to which I refer is a YouTube ad in which the Texas governor takes direct aim at the enemy in this country's culture war. In the ad a Carhartt clad Perry strolls across a sylvan scene and says, "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.

I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message."

One day after the ad first aired, a Google search offered 501 responses by the media. I did not read all 501 offerings, but the main point of concern seems to be that Governor Perry has the audacity to imply that homosexuality is not acceptable to many Christians. I don't think that was his point. I think he was showing the disparity between the freedom of expression two opposing groups enjoy in this country. I think his point was that it is acceptable to admit openly that you are gay, but it is not acceptable to admit openly that you are a Christian. I also think that Perry's message will be completely lost because he dared to use gays as his target for comparison.

I cannot think of another group which has done such a masterful job of elevating the demands of a small minority to the level of national debate as has the homosexual lobby. Because many homosexuals are reluctant to expose themselves, hard data on the prevalence of the lifestyle are difficult to come by. It is instructive to discover that Gallup polling reveals that respondents think twenty percent of the population is gay, whereas most experts place the actual number below ten, many making it less than five. My point is that the homosexual lobby has made Americans think they are a much larger group than they probably are.

I am now going to digress and say something that may shock some of my dear readers. I do not think that homosexuals should be discriminated against. I do not think there is a way to directly apply the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus and Romans to the public square in America. I think homosexuality should be treated the same way smoking is treated. Neither could be considered best practices for Christians. At this time, neither is illegal. There are however compelling public health issues with both. Because tobacco use has been linked to cancer, it is regulated and warnings are required. Homosexuality also carries the risk of increased health problems and shortened life expectancy. It should be treated the same as smoking in public policy. But don't expect that to happen. Remember the lobby.

End of digression. Rick Perry dared to tweak the nose of the homosexual giant. I hope it has the result he desired. I suspect he wanted to make a big splash and re-energize his flagging campaign. He will certainly get plenty of press; I'm not sure it will be the kind that translates into votes in the Iowa caucuses or the South Carolina primary. Even though both of these states have strong conservative Christian voting groups, there are too many Christians who have been frightened by the giant. The cry for tolerance has muted the voice of the majority in this country. We are still a majority, we believers, at least for now.

In his classic book, Your God is Too Small, JB Philips suggests that if God came to earth he would not be well received. He would challenge the status quo and smash the castles built by human arrogance. Perry's recent gamble has pointed out that the God who did come to earth makes many people uncomfortable. Sadly, even people who claim to know and love this God-come-to-earth are frightened into awkward silence. I have not decided whether I think Governor Perry is the ideal Republican nominee, but I sure like his simple, honest, courageous approach to a problem no one is willing to talk openly about. Jesus plainly said the world would hate his true followers. I applaud Rick Perry for his willingness to stand up and take it.

What Would Jesus Undo?

I am in a group of guys reading through the book by Mark Batterson In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day. Unlike many of the books I recommend, this is not some weighty philosophical tome that requires a dictionary as a companion. Batterson's conversational style and real life examples make for easy reading, yet still provide the thoughtful challenges I am looking for.

A couple of things have come to light lately that seem to dovetail with what Batterson is saying. One of the most striking things Batterson says is that our biggest problem is not learning something new; it is unlearning things we shouldn't have learned in the first place. He calls upon the example of Jesus teaching the Jews what their two thousand year old covenant with God was really all about. They had been taught many things by rabbis which were at cross purposes with the intentions of God, and they needed reeducation, unlearning. He likens this to defragmenting a corrupt hard drive on a computer and installing new software to process reality properly.

There are areas in my personal life where I find this concept useful. Batterson suggests that we should collect experiences, not possessions. This is a lesson I wish I had unlearned much earlier than I am unlearning it. I learned to live with the idea that if I could afford the payments, I could own the things I wanted. Judging from the polls revealing Baby Boomer indebtedness, I am not alone in this one. Every once in a while I like to pull out the book by A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God, and reread the chapter, "The Blessedness of Possessing Nothing." Tozer reminds me that it is all too easy for our possessions to become the possessor. I need to learn that.

There are many examples in public life where some unlearning would be healthy. Washington needs to unlearn that they can spend money they don't have. Somewhere along the line the folks in our government have come untethered from the concept of fiscal responsibility. What's worse is that they also seem to continually learn that there are "rights" that are not to be found in any of the country's founding documents. The elephant in the room in every debate over healthcare reform is the assumption that every citizen (and even non-citizens) has the right to medical care. Another unlearning lesson regards unemployment compensation. I wonder if it is really the government's job to pay people not to work for up to two years. Why not three years? Why not for a lifetime?

There are many things in our spiritual lives we need to unlearn too. Christians need to unlearn complacency. We need to unlearn apathy. We need to unlearn that the responsibility stemming from faith begins and ends on Sunday morning. We need to shed the bounded set mentality and embrace a centered set view which better represents the attitude Jesus seemed to have towards reality. Yes, there are boundaries; no I am not advocating wishy-washy, anything goes doctrine. I just think Jesus' approach to the world was far more liberal (dare I apply that word to the Savior) than many evangelicals will admit. A little unlearning would be a good thing for most of us.

The Double, Double Standard

Herman Cain is under attack by the press lately because of allegations of sexual misconduct. The real story is unclear as of this writing, but it looks as though more than one woman accused Cain of harassment when he worked for the National Restaurant Association. Those cases are not in the public record because of settlement deals made at the time. Cain has repeatedly denied that there ever was any sexual harassment.

But the media wants to paint the settlement deals as proof of the allegations. This is not only bad journalism, it is bad legal interpretation. Settlements are often reached between parties when no wrongdoing has been discovered, or sometimes even when the innocence of the accused has been established. Because of our flawed tort system, it is often easier and less expensive to settle a case than to take it to trial. (If we rewrote the law so that the loser in civil suits paid all associated costs, the number of these cases would dwindle. If we made losing attorneys pay everything, they would cease.)

This is bad journalism because it presents a perfect case of ad hominem attack. Make the man look bad and you can discount everything he stands for. This media tactic may also involve another logical fallacy known as a red herring. Because Cain's message is resonating with a growing number of voters, his opponents would like nothing better than to have the focus taken off his popular policy proposals and shifted to something essentially irrelevant.

The irrelevance stems from the media's own admission that a politician's private habits are no concern to voters. Remember their mantra ceaselessly blared during the Lewinsky scandal which embroiled their beloved Bill Clinton: so what if the President was a philanderer, an adulterer; that fact has no bearing on his ability to run the country. Remember how little was made of the fact that media darling Jesse Jackson fathered an illegitimate child and apparently supported child and mother with funds donated to his organization. Other examples abound.

But let a conservative public figure have private problems and suddenly they become the basis for a complete rejection of the person and everything he or she stands for. And this is a good approach for liberals to take since most conservatives who are stained by misconduct generally step out of public life (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin being notable recent exceptions.)

It is precisely this propensity to exit the stage which proves there is no double standard in most conservative circles. Private misdeeds do effect public performance. Someone once said that who you really are shows up best when no one is looking; good character is being good when you don't have to. And good character is essential for anyone seeking to represent in our representative republic. (Note please: we are not a democracy.)

So does that mean that what goes on behind the bleachers in high school and in dorm rooms in college and everywhere there are adults behind closed doors has a bearing on how we judge character? Simple answer: yes. The Bible and most other religious books teach that integrity is more than skin deep. In fact, it comes from within, from the heart. Perhaps this episode with candidate Cain will help to reveal his true heart. It has already revealed the heart of the liberal media -- as if we didn't know that already.

Do What You Can Do

I had a beautiful, albeit short sail last Sunday night. Instead of gloves and windbreakers it was T-shirts and shorts. I had a new sail I traded with a marina mate: one he couldn't use for one I didn't use. The dominant high pressure makes for pretty weather, but not much wind. That made the conditions perfect for my new light air sail. Halfway back across the bay on my second tack the light wind diminished to virtually no wind. Making a sailboat move in those conditions is a challenge I relish. I made it to the marina channel at a peaceful one foot per second -- at the fastest.

I used to dream of circling the globe in my own sailboat. Due to mechanical problems, I didn't even get out of Muskegon Lake this season. But it was a beautiful season even so. There were few days when I wanted to sail but could not due to bad weather. My wife and I enjoyed hours of peaceful relaxation tacking up and down the best sailing lake in Michigan. Each time I sail in October I realize it may be the last of the season. I try not to pre-mourn the lifting of the boat onto the hard. Winter is tough on Michigan sailors.

I have friends who feel similarly about golf. I have tried that, but those who have seen me know that I play not golf, but something between polo and self-flagilation. Then there are my biker friends. We love the (too short) riding season in Michigan. A recent Saturday trip to the Lelanau peninsula on my ancient Gold Wing provided so much eye music it began to hurt. Soon the bikes will sit idle, packed away from the ice and snow.

I could wish for a bigger boat, better golf skills, a newer bike or a longer season. Or I can just enjoy what I have. From the Apostle Paul to Howard Gardner (multiple intelligences) we are encouraged to make the best use of what we are given. Our time, talents and opportunities are gifts to be used as only we can. Failure to take advantage of what we have says to the Giver of all good and perfect gifts that we are not grateful and it reveals implicit disobedience.

I have longed to see one of my works on the best seller list. I have wished I could teach at some popular liberal arts university. I have come to regret many things I did (or didn't do) raising my kids. My wife will testify that I have only recently begun to be anything like the husband she dreamed of decades ago. I have just about come to grips with the idea that the past is past, the future is not promised, and all I have is today. And happiness is wanting what I have, not having what I want.

Jesus looked up the road to Jerusalem on his last trip there and sighed about what he could not do for the people because they wouldn't let him. But he didn't sit down and wallow in depression or self-pity; he walked into the city where his cross awaited. Don't complain about what you can't do with what you don't have. Get up and do what you can with what you have. That is all anyone can ask. That is all God requires.

Is God a Democrat?

This blog is for people who insist that there is no real difference between a Republican and a Democrat: after all, they’re both politicians, one might say. With that reasoning, there is no difference between men and women: after all, they’re both humans. While there are many issues on which both parties can be either uniformly commended or disparaged, there are also core principles which distinguish them. A couple prime examples of how the two major political parties differ have surfaced in recent new cycles.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case against Boeing in South Carolina which began last summer has resurfaced. Simply stated for those who may not be familiar with the case, the NLRB says Boeing cannot build a plant in South Carolina (a right to work state), because the company will be taking jobs from their facility in Washington state (a union plant.) Boeing says strikes at the Washington plant have seriously impaired their ability to serve their customers (I think that is what strikes are supposed to do.) To better serve their customers, Boeing wants to have non-union workers build their airplanes.

Good for Boeing; good for South Carolina; not so good for Washington (the state or the District.) The principle at stake here is that manufacturers should be allowed to make their products wherever they can get the biggest bang for the buck. The federal government has no business telling Boeing (or anyone else) where they can build plants. The free market system dictates that market forces, not the government, determine where and by whom things get made. If in fact there are laws on the books that would prohibit Boeing from building in South Carolina, it is the law that is wrong, not Boeing.

The other case that is hitting the news again is the question of the constitutionality of Obamacare. Specifically, some question the legality of the mandate that citizens must all buy health insurance. They ask what right the federal government has to compel a purchase on no condition other than citizenship. Proponents of Obamacare like to say this is no different than mandated auto insurance; this is a false comparison. A person may choose not to drive a car and escape the mandated insurance. A person would have to renounce citizenship to avoid the Obamacare mandate; these are not comparable. Proponents also maintain that healthcare is a right rather than a privilege. This is also mistaken; healthcare is no more a right than food or shelter. We should assist those who struggle to afford it, but not by mandating that everyone buy it in a federally prescribed manner. (For more on this, see my “Open Letter to Debbie Stabenow.”)

Someone may be asking about now what this has to do with heaven. The Christian world-view does have something to say about politics and economics. Some mistakenly think that the typical Democrat stance on most issues is more Christian: help the poor and needy; restrain greedy capitalists. Actually, the Republican position usually runs closer to a Biblical model. The Bible calls for individual responsibility and wise use of personal resources, not government enforced charity or government redistribution of wealth. Some misunderstand the early church practice of having things “in common” as being akin to communism. This is not at all correct. Even in its most radical forms, Christian charity is based in individual responsibility to manage what God has placed in one’s control. The church redistributes wealth which has been freely contributed by her members, not through compulsion.

None of this should be taken to mean that there are no Democrats who are Christians or that all Republicans are. Neither is the case. The point is that there are differences in the way the parties address issues, and usually the teams line up according to ideology. The Democrat ideology supports greater state or federal control while the Republicans usually lean toward greater individual responsibility. The Democrats are often concerned with equal outcomes whereas Republicans favor equal opportunities. In the end (on election days,) it does not come down to whether the person has a “D” or an “R” after his or her name. It is rather about whether the “P” (for policies) lines up with the G-O-D.

Crisis of Faith 3

I read a good book by Daniel Taylor recently called The Myth of Certainty. Taylor's message is that we are not wrong or weak to have questions about our faith. I recommended the book to the person I am corresponding with in this "Crisis of Faith" series. She asked two very good questions in her last email, so I will answer both as completely as I can while being as brief as possible. First she mentions that her circle of “friends” is all anti-Christian. I told her what I told my youngest daughter (the reflective one in our brood): "Get some Christian friends. If your church doesn’t have a group of young, vibrant people to hang out with, maybe you need a new church too. Have you considered volunteering at some Christian ministry in the area? That is another way to meet people who think Christianly.

"You say you want a position that is 'defensible.' Christianity is, in fact, the most defensible world-view I know. The only 'morons' in the scenario you describe are the ones poking fun at you. The word 'moron' comes from a Greek word meaning to be foolish or to act without knowledge. What your derisive co-workers don’t know is that the Bible has more empirical data supporting its validity than any other ancient text. Jesus’ existence and even his resurrection are better attested to than many commonly accepted events like the assassination of Julius Caesar or Washington crossing the Delaware (and thousands of others.) Your co-workers despise the Bible because it destroys their comfortable presuppositions. They cannot believe the Bible because it reveals their entire world-view as a sham."

(It may be comforting to know that more and more scientific types are finding a Darwinian, evolutionary explanation of the universe to be untenable. Not that they are all becoming Christians, but the last report I heard said a majority of scientists now reject Darwinian evolution in favor of some kind of design theory. That puts Christians in the majority with a possible explanation for the design which science is now finding impossible to explain in evolutionary terms. One author believes that we are witnessing the last generation of people who will try to defend Darwinian evolution.)

"Now for your second issue: does God send 'good people' to hell. No. Categorically, no. Surprised? I can say that with authority because there are no 'good people.' You know that too. 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.' You must have read Romans three. Ever since Adam chose to go his way instead of God’s way, every human born is destined for hell. That is just the way it is. As our federal head, Adam messed it up for the entire race. You may not like the sound of that; it is harsh. I agree. But you said it yourself, 'We [are] mostly just nasty people struggling to contain our irrational, aggressive, selfish natures.' The key word you used is 'selfish.' We have a hard time accepting the fact that there is a God up there who gets to make the rules, not us.

"At this point I am going to tell you something that could get me in a lot of trouble. I think that many Christians have a simplistic view of salvation through Jesus. I believe unequivocally that there is no salvation in any other name but Jesus, just like the Bible says. However, I think God gets pretty creative in how he saves those he wants saved. We just heard last Sunday from a former missionary about a whole Muslim village having a dream about Jesus the night before someone came to preach there. I have heard stories like that all my life. I also think that God saves infants (like all the aborted ones) who never receive Jesus in the typical way. I think God saved every Old Testament saint without their ever saying the name Jesus. Some would say these are exceptions or special cases. I think every person is a special case. Frankly, I think God can save whomever he wishes to save. There will not be one single person in hell by accident because they didn’t get a chance to hear the gospel.

"When you say this sounds 'uncaring and inflexible' you are applying human judgments to God’s actions. That’s your mistake. We can’t judge God by our standards; he judges us by his standards. If reading Taylor gave you the same kind of confidence kick he gave me, you should be able to stand up to your atheist co-workers and give them what-for. Honestly, the ground they stand on is a whole lot shakier than where you stand. Remember the parable about the house on the sand and the house on the rock. Remember you stand on the Rock. Those other guys are on quicksand."

Do This in Remembrance

September 11, 2001, is without a doubt one of the most significant dates in United States history. The loss of life, the suffering, the anxiety of that day is without parallel. Yes, D-day, Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg and Bull Run matched or surpassed the casualty numbers of 9/11, but the immediacy and stunning reality offered by modern media coverage made the events of that September morning garish and dramatic in a way not known before.

When the four hijacked planes had wreaked their havoc on our collective senses, we were driven to our knees in more ways than one. We had the wind knocked out of our arrogance, arrogance bred by an adolescent feeling of invulnerability. Something more than a geopolitical hubris was shattered that day. People who had previously used the name of God only in vain suddenly took it more seriously. Certainly, some still cursed with an added vehemence. But millions of other Americans bent their knees in earnest prayers: prayers for the victims, for the families, for our leaders. And many prayed for understanding: what can this mean.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. It falls on a Sunday and the church I attend will be celebrating the Lord’s Supper. I am struck by the parallels between these two memorials. The shock, the pain, the utter senselessness of the violence must have been predominant in the days immediately following both events. Fear edged in as people wondered if more death and destruction would follow. A strong sense of community and shared suffering flooded the American people on 9/12 as it must have those distraught followers of Christ the day after “Good Friday.” For many there was a foreboding that an era had come to a close, that the future was shrouded by gloom.

When Jesus told his little band at the Last Supper that they would henceforth see the cup and the loaf in a new way, it was like the evening of 9/10/2001. They did not grasp the import; they had no idea what was about to descend upon them. Twenty-four hours later, then especially fifty days later, they began to understand. The horrors of that one awful day would never be forgotten, and the true significance of it was cemented in their hearts and minds by the trauma.

I am not suggesting for a moment that 9/11 has equal historical significance to the day Christ died. I am saying that believers would do well to seek that sense of community, the shared suffering, the renewed sense of purpose that dawned with 9/12. Just as it would do our country good to remember that, it would do the church good to hear, “Do this in remembrance” as a call to that. When we, “Remember his death until he comes again,” let us remember what a traumatic, world-shaking thing it was. If we really believe, we must see that the world still trembles from the effects of that wonderful, terrible day. Although our fear has been replaced by hope, we must never lose the urgency of the drama; we must not forget the eternal significance of the event. That is why we have memorials.

Crisis of Faith 2

It is not unusual for me to be asked why I believe so firmly that I am right about my faith. In answer I will offer a brief explanation why I believe what I do. First to philosophy. I know I am very Western or occidental in this, but I cannot get comfortable with the Eastern (oriental) mystics' concept of a universe without reason and logic. Most of the religions from the East are based on the idea that the world humans experience is meaningless: there is no point trying to figure things out, because there are no answers. The height of human experience in the Eastern way of thinking is to empty the mind of everything -- reason, emotion, memory, everything. This, they say, is the path to true fulfilment. That just doesn't work for me.

After the philosophical reasons come the historical. There is no other figure in history quite like Jesus. There have been many good teachers and other charismatic leaders, even some who claimed to be divine. But none can match Jesus' performance: he came back from the dead to validate his claim of divinity. You don't have to rely on the Bible alone to believe this astounding fact. Many secular sources confirm that people who were Jesus' contemporaries swore to the death (literally) that he was alive. It's hard to argue with an eye witness if you weren't there too. (And no, none of the theories against the resurrection hold water.)

Another historical fact that is just about as miraculous as the resurrection is the Bible itself. Name one other book that can make any of the Bible's claims. Written across a thousand years in 66 books with 40 different authors, the Bible contains one unified message from Genesis to Revelation: God made humans for Himself; they turned away; He is driving history to bring His people back. And you can't ignore the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies; the statistical probability of chance fulfillment is staggering beyond reason. (No, I don't buy the detractors' argument that the prophecies were written after the events and predated. Archaeology soundly rebuts that canard.)

Finally there is the spiritual proof. This one is difficult to present because it is the strongest argument to the individual who experiences it, while being the weakest defense against those who have not. One can point to thousands of transformed lives over the centuries as proof that Christianity "works." Yet doubtless there are Buddhist, Muslim and Zoroastrian conversions which seem to contradict Christianity's exclusive claims. All I can say is that I know that I know that I know that the Spirit of God dwells in me and that He feeds me, leads me and gives me a sense of peace and assurance that is undeniable.

When it all comes down, the choice of a belief system will necessarily involve faith. (That was redundant.) Whether you choose Christianity, Hinduism or Voodoo, you will come to a point where you must give yourself over to faith. The real choice then is whether you will choose to place your self in the hands of Jesus, Vishnu or Satan or whomever. I choose Jesus. It is not a blind choice (like some say, "Blind faith.") It is faith in a set of revealed propositions which satisfy my requirements for a world-view. In other words, it works for me.

Crisis of Faith 1

I was introduced to a young woman recently who is having some doubts about her Christian faith, raising some legitimate questions for which the prepackaged answers are not satisfying. I have decided to publish my answers here since the questions she has are not at all unusual these days. The global marketplace of ideas has made "shopping" for religion much more prevalent than in the days of monolithic belief systems passed on from one generation to the next. Even in the past, however, it was always necessary for each generation to choose to believe or not, because God doesn't have any grandchildren.

The issue which currently troubles this young woman is whether good people who don't believe in Jesus damned to hell? For those of you who read me regularly, you know I dealt with that at length in my series “Answering Rob Bell,” parts 1-6. Before I even get to the point of sharing that argument however, there are more basic issues to settle. The question of God’s judgment cannot be answered without first tackling another more basic one: is the Bible the revealed truth of God or not? Until one settles that question, there can be no ground for debate. Granted, there are different "interpretations" of many Bible passages, but unless two people agree that the Bible is authoritative, they will have no ground on which to base their arguments.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the Bible is unlike any other book known to man; I believe it has the kind of supernatural characteristics that one would expect in a document that claims to be the revelation of a supreme being. Its unaltered longevity, fulfilled prophecies, historical and archaeological accuracy and amazing internal integrity (for a book comprised of 66 volumes written by 44 authors over thousands of years) argue clearly for its divine nature.

Philosophically, I believe that a supposed supreme being who created sentient creatures would logically want to communicate with them in some way. It is also logical to imagine that said being would likely have rules of engagement and standards of acceptable behavior. It would be illogical, if not sadistic to create sentient beings with innate moral sensibilities and then leave them clueless as to the basis for their existence.

Some have proposed that the God of their imagination is just such a sadist, as a poem by Steven Crane suggests that God built the ship of humanity and then sent it rudderless into the sea of fate. This is the position traditionally known as deism and describes the view of many who call themselves agnostics. This point of view is intellectually unsatisfying to me, and has proven depressing to virtually all those who hold to it, many becoming hopeless nihilists or bitter cynics as a result.

I concluded the first response to my friend by saying that if we can agree that the Bible is an authoritative source of truth for determining who we are and how we must live, then we can have a discussion. I will enlarge my response to the original questions in the next installment. If you are interested in following this line, stay tuned.

Rolling Thunder

As I write, thunder is rumbling somewhere over Lake Michigan. I don't like the inconvenience of a sudden rain or the damage lightning can cause, but I love a thunderstorm. When our kids were little we told the usual fairy tales about angels bowling in heaven or dropping pumpkins off their wagons to calm the kids' natural fear of loud noises. Once they grew older, we began to explain thunder as a hint, a metaphor of the awesome power of God.

This opens up all kinds of teaching opportunities. Thunder is loud and scary; God is big and not someone to be trifled with. Lightning can destroy things; God owns the earth and if he wants to break something, it's his right. Thunderstorms seem to pop up out of nowhere (forget our new radar weather forecasts;) God is everywhere and you never know when he will act. If this sounds like a terrible way to introduce kids to God, bear in mind that the Bible constantly instructs us to fear him. I love the line C.S. Lewis puts in the Chronicles of Narnia regarding Aslan, the figure of Christ in the series: "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good."

I think too much of our teaching about God in the church today tries to make him safe. I have previously commented on Rob Bell's outrageous statement that the biblical "story" about hell is not attractive and we need to concoct a better "story." It is common to hear believers trying to downplay the harsh nature of the God of the Old Testament: the Levitical penalty for adultery was stoning both parties; the Canaanites were to be subjected to mass genocide; a crowd who rebelled against Moses was swallowed by an earth quake -- twenty-three thousand of them.

Do I think that we should preach Jonathon Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" every Sunday? No, but I think the required balance is missing. I assigned the Edwards' sermon in a Literature class and got the expected reaction from a couple self-avowed atheists: who would want to believe in a God like that? Mea culpa. I should have had them read another of his works on the grace of God or the fellowship of the saints or anything for balance. The wrath and the love of God must be taken as a whole. Either alone distorts who he is.

People love to talk about the wonder of creation in a starry night sky or how the beauty of a sunset speaks of God's tenderness towards us. These are good analogies, but so is thunder. I believe that much of what is wrong in society today can be traced to a loss of fear of God. We used to speak of parents putting "the fear of God in 'em" to motivate good behavior. Now I hear the (sickening) parental cry, "Stop doing that, Johnny, Okay?" as little Johnny continues to wreak havoc and the parents shrug.

What Johnny needs to hear is a clap of thunder -- and maybe he should experience a little bolt of lightning in the form of a swat on his behind. I think we could all do with a flash of "inspiration" like that occasionally. Without a sense of how big God is and what his rights are over his creation, we all tend to get a little too big for our britches. I say, "Roll thunder, roll."

Waiting for Morning

I just finished an interesting little book by Bruce Catton called Waiting for the Morning Train. The theme of the book is woven from the threads of the author's hometown view of the decline of the lumber era in northern Michigan at the dawn of the twentieth century. What I like best about the book is the way Catt0n places the march of human history in perspective. Beginning with the "Little Ice Age," which buried his beloved peninsula under thousands of feet of glacial ice, then skimming through the early natives and explorers, he sets the stage for his scene in the play.

Most interesting to me was the comparison Catton made between the natives' use of copper and the Europeans' use of lumber. The natives took the copper they found exposed, learned simple smelting techniques and improved their lives with only minor changes to their culture. The Europeans learned better and better ways to take the trees, inventing a subculture along the way, then abandoned everything when the forests ran out. They left behind a scarred landscape and a population without means of support. After depleting the exposed copper, the natives simply went back to their old ways.

It is true that the natives' refusal to change ultimately lead to their near extinction. However, I wonder if there is a lesson in their attitude. I recently heard a colleague refer to information found in books as "real," as compared to that found on Google. She, like me, began teaching back when computers occupied entire rooms and had less computing power than today's wristwatches. I find a curious mix in my generation of those who embrace the digital age and those who curse it.

Dylan Thomas advised that we not "go gentle into that good night." I am wondering about going gentle, or otherwise into the good morning. We chuckle at the Kindle commercial when the "real book" advocate" revels in turning down a literal page. Some say it is the feel, others the smell of "real books" that makes them preferable. A friend recently said that my digital piano would never replace a "real" concert grand. Some folks won't give up their vinyl records. My wife still believes potatoes baked in a conventional oven taste better than those from a microwave. If we draw these lines too hard, we end up where the Amish live: out of phase and out of touch. But again, I wonder if they are all wrong.

We do lose something with each advance in technology. The automobile and the airplane have made the world a smaller place. At the same time, they have brought about the separation of families that once would have occupied adjacent properties. Medical advances allow us to prolong lives far into a stage of dependency which taxes family members and society with new burdens which death once obviated. Instant communication via satellite and cellphone has eliminated thoughtful communication almost entirely. So-called social networking on the Net has replaced old fashioned face to face friendships for many people.

I could go on, but in trying to think Christianly about this, I am double-minded. My good friend and pastor is a world travelling consultant on Internet uses for religious organizations. He can tell story after story of the gospel being spread through digital means. This is accomplished through a medium which is also the largest purveyor of pornographic destruction on the planet. I have a library in my laptop that surpasses the one I used in my Bible college forty years ago, yet I am so busy that I barely have time to read anything. We are witnessing the dawn of a new age. Information is the new currency, and digital distribution and manipulation is the press that prints it.

Just as Catton imagined the ice ages in the cold north wind, we might sense the glacial freeze of our new economy in some unforeseen collapse of the streaming infrastructure on which it flows. In the meantime, I wonder what new day this morning of technology is bringing. And I wonder if we will make the best use of it while waiting for that final morning when we wake up where all things are new -- and real.

Middle East Gang Warfare

Once again President Obama has shown his inestimable skill as a community organizer. His detractors may have been too hasty in condemning his lack of foreign policy experience. I do not claim to know what he really thinks, but it would be understandable if he looks at the troubles in the Middle East as a gang conflict. Since he cut his political teeth on Chicago's south side, one assumes he has experience with gangs. Voila: foreign policy experience.

The President may be onto something. The parallels to gang culture are striking. The typical gang and the factious parties in the Middle East both serve as their societies' organizing forces, much as family does in other places. Both lay claim to certain territory as rightfully theirs. Both usually involve acts of violence to prove one's loyalty and commitment. Both demand ultimate allegiance. Both have aspects of positive community building alongside the dreadful violence that dominates their public face. Both are fatally intolerant of any view but their own. Many think both stem from the boredom and perceived disenfranchisement of impressionable young men.

Perhaps the President's Chicago style approach has been to let the gangs fight it out to see who is the strongest, then work with the winner to create a livable situation. A wait-and-see attitude seems to have characterized his response to Iran, Egypt, Libya and Syria. Maybe his delay was caused by the uncertainty in his "community." US voters are not uniform in what they want in the way of "organization." Then too, many US citizens question the need for any involvement in the Middle East at all.

Whatever the President is thinking, his new stance concerning the conflict with Israel and the Palestinians seems stunningly ignorant. The so-called two state solution cannot work unless one of the parties surrenders claim to the temple mount in Jerusalem. I suspect it will snow in Hades before that happens. Making Israel return to pre-1967 War boundaries as a prerequisite to negotiation asks one "gang" to abandon their corner unilaterally. Netanyahu would be run out of the country if he agreed to that. Finally, it is lunacy to imagine that Hamas will put aside their blood feud with Israel just because they are asked nicely. The President has a better chance for a hole-in-one on a par five than seeing all this come about.

For a fuller explanation of why Obama's approach is fruitless, I invite you to follow the link to my blog from last September. Briefly, one might say peace in the Middle East just isn't in the cards. The roots of the conflict run not centuries, but millennia deep. Believing history has a planned and orchestrated end helps, but it gives few clues as to how to navigate the stormy seas of our generation. One thing does seem certain: whether you believe Israel has a divinely ordained place in history or not, democratic Israel is our ally. Obama's speech this week appears to throw Israel under the bus. You don't have to be John Hagee to know that's just not right.

Diogenes Shrugged

Ayn Rand's classic novel, Atlas Shrugged, is being introduced to a new generation with the release of a movie by the same name this spring. The title comes from a line in the novel where a character asks what sort of advice one should give to the mythological Atlas considering that "the greater [Atlas'] effort, the heavier the [weight of the] world bore down on his shoulders". The response: "To shrug".

I do not share Rand's libertine, anti-religious world-view by any means. However, the world she fictionalized in 1957 is becoming fact in 2011. The collapse of society Ayn Rand predicted in Atlas Shrugged took place because government gradually took control of everything. Doubtless she was influenced by Orwell's 1949 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, which also features a dystopian society brought about by an excess of government. Both authors share worthy cautions, but they misunderstand a significant element of American society as it was originally conceived.

Our nation's founders recognized that the government they envisioned could not exist apart from the moral underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian world-view. Rand and Orwell discount religion as an escape mechanism which harms rather than helps society. They have it exactly backwards. Without a moral compass the engine of commerce will inevitably drive the ship of state onto the rocks. As I said recently in my blog, "True Lies", dishonesty abounds today. Purveyors of false information seem to be multiplying like a cancer eating at the core of our world. Without good information, a republic cannot survive; it will devolve into some form of tyranny.

Allow me to present two more examples of the deceit which infects the decision making process in current national debate. New York's billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is a rabid anti-gun advocate. He recently paid for a national ad campaign which declares that 34 Americans are murdered every day. This is deceptive on a number of levels. First, Bloomberg has the count wrong. FBI statistics for 2010 list 26 murders being reported daily, not 34. Even 26 is slightly overstated because police report as "murders" cases which are subsequently reclassified as other causes of death (negligent homicide, manslaughter, suicide, self-defense, etc.) Second, while any number of murders is tragic, in a population of more than 300 million depraved human beings, that only twenty-some are murdered each day might be considered remarkable. Third, not Bloomberg nor any of his fellow anti-gunners will report that states with liberal gun policies (like Arizona) have lower murder rates than those with draconian laws (like New York.) A 42 page study by eminent researchers concludes that European countries which have tried to eliminate private gun ownership have not seen a decrease in murders. Much to the contrary, Florida State criminologist, Gary Kleck has written that, "civilian ownership and defensive use of guns deter violent crime and reduce burglar-linked injuries."

My second example of public deception involves the link between vaccination and autism. The details on this issue are not yet clear to the public, but I think I know what is coming on this front. Government agencies and pharmaceutical companies have repeatedly claimed that there is no link between autism and vaccination. Yet just days ago a citizen group brought to light the fact that dozens of families with autistic children have been paid large settlements by the federal government's "vaccination court," a body established to protect private companies from lawsuits. Investigative reporter Trace Gallagher of Fox News recently asked, "If there is no cause and effect, why the multi-million dollar rewards?" Why indeed.

Trust is vital in any relationship. This applies double in the relationship between a people and their government. One need not be a Christian or any religious type to want the ninth commandment upheld in public enterprise, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I fear the American experiment will fail at last if we do not rediscover the cost of deception and the value of honesty. Diogenes' search for an honest man might prove fruitless on Madison Avenue or in the halls of Congress these days. Pray he is not forced to shrug.

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.

Answering Rob Bell #2

In my last post I noted that I had read quickly through Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. I made some initial observations at that time which can be found at Answering Rob Bell #1. I have since taken a closer look and there is, as I remarked before, much more to say. What follows is my second installment.

I promised in my first response to identify my differences with Pastor Bell’s interpretation of Scripture. However, there is yet one general matter which I feel needs to be addressed. On pages 106 and 107 Bell says, "There are others who… insist that there must be some kind of ‘second chance’ for those who don’t believe in Jesus in this lifetime…. And then there are others who ask… why limit that chance to a one-off immediately after death?... At the heart of this [second chance] perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence…. And so, beginning with the early church, there is a long tradition of those who believe that God will ultimately restore everything and everybody." To support this perspective, Bell quotes Jesus, Peter and Paul saying everything will be renewed, restored or reconciled (Matthew 19; Acts 3; Colossians 1.) This is not a correct application of these verses, and I will say more on that in my next post.

At this point, because this seems to me to be the central assertion of Bell’s position, I think it must be thoroughly examined. I note that Bell grounds his legitimacy on the opinions of “others.” I will grant that he mentions heavyweights like Clement, Origen and Augustine among the “others.” The precise position of these early church fathers is less clear than Bell asserts, but whatever they believed, they were quite human and therefore fallible. If one is to assail a long held, fundamental belief of the church, Scripture must be the basis for the attack, not the opinions of “others.” After all, many beliefs have followers today who trace their beginnings to the early church: the belief that Jesus is not God, or not man, or not co-eternal with the Father, and so on. One need not take a Dan Brown flight of fiction to find ancient heresy dressed in modern clothes.

Bell tips his hand a few pages later saying, “It’s important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others…. everybody enjoying God’s good world together with no disgrace or shame… is a better story.” No argument here. However this ignores the fact that “stories” can be either true or false. The false stories are called fiction and have many worthy uses. The true stories are called history and must be carefully parsed to learn everything we can about the world we face both now and in ages to come. We ignore the uncomfortable true stories at great peril; they have as much to teach us as the “better stories.”

I would have hoped Pastor Bell could have made a better argument than he has. Saying that many others think this is true and that his version of the story sounds so much better than the old version does not therefore make it true. Sadly, I fear Rob Bell has fallen in with the postmodern philosophers who believe that the truth of what one says is less important than the attractiveness of what one says. The end of this line of thinking will be the abolition of sin altogether; that will make the story even better. It also obviates the need for the cross and cheapens grace immensely. Bonhoeffer would be horrified. I cannot go down that road, nor can I imagine I will be at Mars Hill anytime soon.