What Difference Deference?

I heard a sermon today on 1 Corinthians 8 about deference. At least, that's what I heard. Paul's topic with the first century church at Corinth was concerning eating meat sacrificed to idols. My pastor's focus was on suborning our rights out of love for needs of the larger body. He elicited some suggestions from the folks to modernize the message, which produced a lively list of possibilities: drinking, smoking, dress codes and music preferences all made the list. There are many other contemporary examples.

I was reminded of a time some years ago when I was the administrator of a conservative Christian school. We arranged for the high schoolers to attend a concert by the then popular group, The Imperials. They were tame compared to the alternatives such as Stryper, Petra and White Heart, but apparently I was not discerning enough to realize that they were too "worldly" for Christian young people. I was called on the carpet and eventually relieved of my position because of my irresponsible decision to sponsor such an activity for our Christian young people.

I relate that incident not to elicit sympathy, but to illustrate the nature of the dilemma presented by Paul's admonition to consider the "weaker brother" when making choices which qualify as optional. By "optional" I mean those things which Scripture does not specifically forbid, but which may be forbidden by some in the church. Paul is very clear in his admonition that we not allow anything we do to damage (Paul says, "present a stumbling block" to) the faith of others who might be watching us. This presents (at least) two problems.

First, is how we define "watching." It seems inevitable that I may do something that qualifies as a "stumbling block" without knowing someone is "watching." Perhaps the best course, therefore, is to simply cease doing that thing forever to avoid the chance that someone may witness my actions. Some people infer that from Paul's statement, "I will never eat meat again." I could get into the deep weeds of the subjunctive grammar of the Greek Paul uses, but I think it better simply to say that we should be careful what we do in public because of the principle of the stumbling block.

The second problem is how we define "damage." In this and the parallel passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 14 Paul refers to actions that cause another Christian to sin. Some people try to suggest that an offense is created simply by the observance of one's debatable actions. I think there may be some believers who are too easily "offended" by another Christian's actions. Paul uses a very strong word, saying that our actions may "destroy" another's faith. I understand this to mean that our actions cause a brother (or sister) to commit what would be sin to them because it is not an action taken in faith. If my brother sees me do something he is not in accord with, my reputation may be damaged (destroyed), but unless he takes license from my actions to commit the "sin" himself, I have not caused "offense" in the Pauline sense.

Throughout these passages, Paul calls the one who might stumble the "weaker brother" because he has not attained the maturity to see that the activity in question is not sinful in and of itself. If mature Christians are supposed to refrain from any activity that someone might deem sinful, everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, and liberty effectively loses its meaning. If Jesus had followed this to the extreme, the Gospels would read quite differently; in fact, he may have been able to avoid the Cross altogether.

When we choose alcohol or music or dress or any other cultural subject as our focus, we cloud the true nature of the issue. After all, Protestants continually offend Catholics; Baptists offend Lutherans; Charismatics offend everybody. No one is suggesting that we abandon our faith traditions when they offend those of another faith tradition. It is clear to me that there is a limit beyond which deference is not required. Our love for our brethren must be mitigated by some higher principle.

Here is where I really struggle with this whole concept: what if the thing you wish to do is apparently God's will for you, but someone else would take offense if you do it. Say, dear lady, that you know you should attend church on Sunday, but your husband would be offended if you do. Do you forsake gathering with other believers (a Scriptural command) to avoid offending your husband? Say, kind sir, that you hear God's call to evangelize in taverns. Do you forsake God's call because some would be offended if they saw you enter such establishments? The Brits call this a sticky wicket.

Because of my well established rebellious nature, I am doubtless inclined to err on the side of license rather than deference. I will still maintain, however, that my duty is to my conscience and not my brother's. I cannot control what he thinks, although I must strive to avoid making him think ill. Whenever there is a conflict between deference and doing right, there is no contest. Whenever it is simply a decision about optional behavior, I must allow love to motivate me to deference, but I will not be bullied into deference by a brother who claims offense when he is not tempted to join in my "sin." 

If what I suggest seems a little too nuanced, or worse it sounds like rationalization for my rebellion against undue restriction, perhaps this will serve as a palliative: my rights never extend to the violation of another's rights. Christian love demands that I consider what others may infer or do because of my actions. If nothing else, Paul's message to the Corinthians was to remember the role conscience plays in a believer's life. I must listen to my conscience, and so must we all. If some disagree about deference, that is a difference of conscience, not substance. God grant us the grace to defer to that difference.

The Wonder of Doing Unto Others

I took part in a con game last night. I say "took part in" because on some level I was a willing participant. Last night I entered into a young man's game as a willing mark. I've been hit on before; I once gave a ride and $100 to a man who promised to pay me back. I suspected I would never hear from him again. I was right on two counts: I was right in thinking I was not going to see my money, and I was right to give it to him. Allow me to explain.

Last night, from the moment the young man approached my wife as we returned to our car in the Meijer parking lot, I suspected a scam. At first I thought he was trying to steal a cell phone, as he asked to borrow one to make an urgent call to his mother. My wife, an eternal pessimist in these things, was suspicious of his true motives from the beginning and refused to offer her phone. Because I was a few paces behind her, he turned his plea to me when I approached. My wife, happy to be rescued, suggested that I may be willing to let him use my phone.

I will interject at this point that I hold a Concealed Pistol License (CPL aka CCW) and often go about in public armed with a .38 caliber snub nose revolver. As I handed the young man my phone, I played a scene in my head where he dashed away and I yelled, "Stop. I have a gun and I will use it," after which I fired a shot in the air. No! I would not risk killing a man over a cell phone; I might try frightening him into submission though.

As it was, no gun play was necessary. The young man dialed his "mother" and rewove for her the story he had played on my wife and I. He was out of gas and needed her to run down from Whitehall with some cash so he could buy the fuel needed to get to work in Grand Haven. Already there were so many implausibilities in the con that I was as suspicious as my careful wife. How had he run out of gas? The gas gauge was broken and "Joe" had borrowed the car without refueling. How would gas money help if he was stranded in the Meijer parking lot? A benevolent stranger had previously agreed to run down the street to his apartment and get a gas can the young man could use. Would he like to wait for the gas can in my warm car (the wind chill was below zero last night)? No, he did not want to inconvenience us any more than he already had.

His story got more and more intricate as I offered several alternatives which involved getting him gas but not giving him money. By the time four or five minutes and as many offers and refusals had passed, I was convinced it was a con. Grifters, pan-handlers, scam artists often work large parking lots with stories about desperate need for gas money. Sometimes there is a sick baby in the car; this time it was an amputee "step-father." To check what I could of his story, I drove across the lot to the van where a man was behind the wheel and a handicapped plate adorned the rear bumper. The young man offered to let me look into the van to verify the amputation. I declined.

By this time, my wife was getting impatient with me. We had both determined with at least 90% certainty that we were marks in a simple con. I pulled out my wallet to assure myself that I had the $10 I thought I did and leaned over to explain my actions to my wife. When the young man saw the wallet, he offered to leave me his driver's license as collateral if I wished. I wish now I had accepted; it would be interesting to see what would follow. As it is, I gave him the $10, for which he thanked me profusely, offered God's blessing on me, and headed straight into Meijer, for what I don't know. (My first thought was whiskey for the "step-father.")

After I gave him the money, I asked my wife if she would be willing to invest a few more minutes to see if our suspicions were correct. She assented. We made tracks toward the parking lot exit but turned back at some distance to watch the handicap van. We watched the young man speak to another patron/mark just a moment after we re-parked, after which he got into the van and the lights came on as it backed out of the spot where it had supposedly been stranded. Confirmation. Or perhaps it had not been out of gas after all; perhaps it had other problems that caused it not to start. Right. Then there's the one about the bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

I thought about following the van to its destination just out of curiosity, but we had already spent enough time on the escapade that I missed O'Reilly. O'well. My point in recounting this affair is to repeat the words I said to my wife after we had decided we were party to a con game. "I would rather be taken advantage of than to miss the opportunity to help someone who really needs it." If that makes me a sucker, then so be it. In a different context, Paul said there were times when it is appropriate to become fools for Christ. If I was fooled last night, I pray I was a fool for Christ. The world says I got scammed; I say I let some of God's resources flow from me to another sinner in need of grace.

My only regret after last night is that I did not make my motives more clear to the young man. In the $100 episode I alluded to, the man rode with me for several hours, and I had a chance to share my faith with him and clearly explain that any help he received was coming not from me, but from a God who loves sinners. I was not so clear last night. In any case, there is one "family" of grifters who knows they got $10 from a mark who was onto their game but gave it anyway. I hope that really makes them wonder.

The Truth About the Truth

I wrote recently that it is important to focus on the truth. Quite obviously this is essential in religious matters, and every major religion has its truth documents. Another sphere in which the truth plays an indispensible role is public policy, more commonly called politics, where truth documents are harder to identify. I frequently hear people say that they pay little attention to politics because they are disillusioned with the lack of integrity they see throughout the system. Yet this very lack should be the driving force to seek the truth and elect those who support it.

In America we have a representative republic. This means that we elect others to make judgments for us concerning public policy. The ultimate reason for believers to demand truth from their representatives is survival. In early post-WWII Germany Martin Niemöller famously said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

There are countless examples of “border skirmishes” that mirror the socialist-unionist-Jew progression Niemöller pictured. The anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week allows pro-lifers to see the dramatic results of losing that battle. As of this writing, the casualty count is over 57 million.  Thankfully support for unrestricted abortion is waning, and there is reason to hope that Roe v. Wade may one day be overturned. The reason for that turn-around is often credited to the use of sonograms, a poignant truth document if ever there was one.

Another sphere where freedom is being slowly eroded is economic. Certainly, material wealth is low on the list of concerns for Christ-followers, but economic equality (socialism) is not biblically supported. However, equal opportunity is in line with the overall teaching of Scripture. We should be concerned when government policies drive down opportunity and drive up unemployment essentially limiting opportunity for large numbers of people.

The current administration likes to say that the economy (and hence opportunity) is becoming more healthy under its policies. The truth does not support these assessments. The figures being used to paint an optimistic economic picture are “massaged” to say it kindly. Most media outlets are reporting a drop in unemployment to less than 7%, when in fact, the number of people not working or working part-time but desiring full-time is closer to 20%. The labor participation rate, a truer measure of unemployment, is at its lowest since 1978.

The rising price of stocks is also highlighted as a sign of economic health, but inflation, a drag on true economic health, is the largest contributor to a rising Dow Jones average. This administration does not use realistic means to measure inflation either, creating a double truth-challenge to the overall assessment. (For an excellent article on this see Marotta.) To become properly informed, to learn the truth, believers cannot trust the major news media anymore, as they have become propaganda organs for the administration.

We should also be concerned with the way the our country’s founder’s plan for a separation of powers is being eroded. The executive branch is usurping powers it was never intended to have. The bureaucracy (think IRS scandals), the judiciary (think court stacking) and even the Senate are complicit with this administration in attempting to whittle away the freedoms our founding fathers wrote into the US Constitution. The head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder, has repeatedly gone beyond the stated purpose of his office. President Obama said blatantly last week that he will [mis]use the executive order provision to create law when the appropriate branches do not cooperate with his agenda.

Gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association are sounding the warning that our Second Amendment rights are under attack. While many people who don’t own guns think this issue does not affect them, it must be viewed in light of Niemöller’s perspective. Second Amendment rights are very closely tied to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. If a majority of people stand by and watch Congress and the administration chip away at the Second, there will be no grounds for resistance when the First is attacked more stridently. It is already illegal to preach from parts of Leviticus in certain jurisdictions (the UK , Canada and the US) because to do so would be “hate speech,” a limit on believers’ speech.

The truth is that the traditional American way of life is under attack. We still have the power of the ballot box to combat this attack. To do so, believers must become informed voters. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Believers need to start noticing and doing something to set things right. If we don’t do it soon, we will find ourselves in Niemöller’s predicament with no one to blame but ourselves.

Revolution Part 2: Truth

As I said in my New Year's Revolution, I am resolved to see only beauty from now on. But I realize that if I can truly revolve around my center (God) then other things will also come to pass. One thing that is becoming more true for me as time passes is that I care less and less what other people think. I know this sounds like arrogance to some people, but the truth is that if I stay true to my center, it really doesn't matter what others think. If I am standing on truth, I stand with God. Who cares about anything else?

That can end up being a lonely place to take a stand. I know; I once lost consecutive jobs for being first, too liberal, and then too conservative. My views did not change between jobs. I think I was right in both situations. Someone once said that if people are taking pot shots at you from both the left and the right, you are probably in about the right place. Jesus found himself there most of the time. The conservatives and the liberals of his day were out to get him. In fact, it was a coalition from right and left that finally put him on the Cross.

Again, arrogance echoes throughout the last paragraph. It would be arrogant, except that I am not claiming to be perfect (as Jesus was) but only that I endeavor to stand for what is true. I realize that "truth" is a slippery commodity these days. But it was no less so in Jesus' day. When he claimed to be standing for truth in front of Pilate, the governor asked, "What is truth?" Truth, as an abstract concept, was the holy Grail for philosophers centuries before Christ made his claim. Socrates held truth as the highest virtue, and he sought it for his entire life. Only the post-moderns of today question its existence, let alone its value. But as I said before, I don't really care what the post-moderns think. I stand for truth.

Despite the continued danger of apparent arrogance, I will attempt to answer Pilate's question, to offer a definition of truth as I understand it. First, truth is that which comports with reality. If I say the grass is blue and the sky is green, everyone will recognize the statement is not true; it does not match reality as we know it. If I say time heals all wounds, some might disagree, yet the wisdom of the ages suggests that it is eventually true, whether one finds it true in the present or not. A degree of faith in what is true enters the picture. So does a need to define reality.

The person still suffering hurt experiences a "reality" in which the healing of time is not yet realized. This does not make the truth less true, it just makes a broader definition of reality necessary. So I define reality as the state of all things as described or required by the Word of God. Hence reality is a created universe, a sovereign Creator and a derivative human race. If I want to judge the truth of anything, from molecular biology to astrophysics to interpersonal relationships, I go to the one source of truth in the universe: Scripture. This is not to say truth cannot be discovered in nature or mathematics or the sandbox, but it must be validated by its relationship to revealed truth.

So it is that in the last four years, I have taken about 180 shots at the truth here. I will continue to make the effort, even though some think it arrogant or egotistical. I would say I am doing this with all humility, but to say so would make the statement a lie. So, I will simply say again, I care very little anymore about what other people think. Paul warned against comparing ourselves with others. We should not seek to measure ourselves against anything but Christ. In that comparison, we all fall way, way short, yet with Paul, by grace, we press on toward the goal.

Blessed are the Poor

Today the President announced a new anti-poverty initiative. He chose the unfortunate name of "Promise Zones" to signify areas where the efforts will center. With all the smart people around him, you would think someone would have warned him off using the word "promise" given all the press recently about his record for keeping his promises. Besides the unfortunate nomenclature, there are several problems with another government anti-poverty program.

First, our government has spent trillions of dollars to fight poverty since Lyndon Johnson declared war back in 1964. Sadly, the application of all that tax money has done next to nothing to relieve poverty in the United States. The rate of poverty is still at 15%, virtually unchanged from the 1960's, according to an article in US News and World Report.

Second, why only certain zones were chosen is a mystery. If the policies the President is suggesting are going to lift the people in these areas out of poverty, it would make sense to apply the same principles across the board. There is no question that these are good ideas; they have been proven in actual practice under the name of Enterprise Zones. The idea is to offer tax concession, infrastructure incentives, and reduced regulations to attract investments and private companies into the zones. While it is true there are mixed results from different locations, the success rate compared with government hand-out programs is undeniable.

Third, what we call poverty in the United States would be unimaginable wealth for most of the people in the rest of the world. For 2013, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,550 for a family of four. I am familiar with this demographic. My wife and I maintained a family of five at near "poverty" levels for most of our married life. During that time we always owned a home, had two or more cars, ate well-balanced meals and even had a little left over for vacations and recreation. Both of my daughters went to very expensive private colleges toward which we made substantial financial contributions. In other words, we were not poor in my estimation.

I understand that there are genuinely underprivileged people in America. However, I think the level of privilege to which many aspire may be unrealistic. The use made of food assistance (aka food stamps) is a good example. You seldom see people buying beans and rice with their food stamps; it is more likely to be Coke and potato chips. Then there are the ones who buy hamburger to feed a dog because food stamps cannot be used to buy dog food. These abuses are not rare; they are rampant.

The solution: make assistance personal. The President's idea of relieving some of the government pressures to encourage personal industry is laudable. Give most Americans a way to earn a buck, and they will go to town with it. The best weapon against poverty is a job. But more jobs will be created by government stepping back instead of stepping in. Then the truly needy can be identified by people closest to them, and assistance can be tailored to their personal needs. 

The best vehicle for doing this is the church. The Roman Emperor Julian (332-262) was confounded by the way Christians took care of "not only their own poor, but for ours as well, while those who belong to us look in vain for the help we should render them." I don't have the statistics handy, but I would wager that if each church community took care of its own, the welfare rolls would shrink considerably. And since it is "more blessed to give than to receive," the blessing of the poor would multiply to us all. That is a promise you can count on.

The Valley of the Shadow

My wife and I spent a nearly sleepless night last night. After a trip to the Social Security web site revealed that her retirement benefit award letter was still not available, we called the SSA 800 number for an explanation. A very cold and unsympathetic voice told us that she could not find an application for retirement benefits on her system. On the date which we believed we applied, her records showed an application for disability benefits. She recommended that we make application for retirement benefits (anew).

The situation was baffling because we had already been denied disability benefits (more on that later), and we were filing for standard retirement benefits. We both had clear memories of doing the application online back in October. Stranger still, we spoke by phone with someone at SSA in December because the award letter was not showing up. That SSA employee said that the application was in process and the first benefit check would be issued in January covering November and December.

This morning we bundled ourselves downtown to the SSA office here. At first, Sue, the agent we spoke to, repeated what the agent on the phone had said yesterday. Then she wrinkled her forehead as she peered at her computer monitor; the retirement application suddenly "appeared." She was unable to determine where it had come from or why it was not immediately visible, but the dates and other information confirmed that it was the online form we filed in October. Sue was able to reactivate it and arrange for the January benefit as we had been previously promised. Thank you, Sue.

This story is not presented merely to elicit sympathy. As any regular reader will suspect, there is a point. As retirees with very little savings and minimal pension income, my wife and I will be relying (too) heavily on the good graces of the federal government for the rest of our earthly lives. We are in this unfortunate situation because of many poor choices made throughout the years of our life together. No excuses; it is my fault we are not prepared as we should be. If you are younger than I, take heed.

The other lesson I draw from this has to do with the efficiency of government in general. Much to our relief, the snafu in our records was corrected rather easily; only one night of lost sleep resulted. It could have been much worse. My wife's disability claim is an example; it was denied as virtually all first-time claims are, requiring a lawyer and a lengthy appeal process to proceed further. I am told the SSA routinely denies all first time claims because a fair number of claimants never appeal. Our lawyer has warned us that the appeal we are filing may take up to two years to be adjudicated. Fortunately, we have retirement benefits to collect in the interim; a younger person would not have this option. 

This vignette may be a preview of what we all have in store with national health care. The massive problems that occurred at the roll-out of Obamacare are not going to be unique. Experience suggests that they will be the norm. I am not thrilled at the prospect of my health care being in the hands of a government that can lose a simple online application. Come to think of it, in a couple more years, I will have government health care anyway: Medicare. Oh dear.

Yet even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of government care, I will not fear. It was wrong for my wife and me to be distressed last night. Our trust is not in the federal government; not ultimately. It is so easy to get caught up in the cares of this world, as if they were all that mattered. When you experience the inefficiency of government in a personal, frightening way, it is good to remember that a sovereign God reigns over even that mess. Now that I have my peace back, I think I will take a nap.

New Year's Revolution

The title is not a typo; I am no good at resolutions, so I am making a New Year's revolution this year. (I must admit the idea is not original; it came from a TV commercial.) The Free Dictionary defines revolution as "a turning about on an axis." So I am going to keep my center (God) and spin about it looking left, right, forward and back.  In the end, I suppose I am resolving to be revolutionary (per my definition).

The first thing I see when I look around is beauty. As I type this, a blizzard rages outside my window reducing visibility to just a couple hundred feet. I know it may seem strange, but I see raw beauty in this: the swirling flakes, the fresh white cover, the crispness of the chill. Driving is horrible; flying is impossible, but I love it just the same. (Confession: I love driving in it: the thrill -- the challenge.) Last month it was an ice storm that coated everything with diamonds, or so it seemed. Tens of thousands lost power due to downed branches, so I know it was not beautiful to them, but face it: the world just sparkles after a dose of freezing rain.

If my daughter could read this in real time, she would not agree. She is sitting at the airport waiting for a delayed flight back home after a holiday visit. Given the magnitude of this storm, I fear she may not get out today. It is ironic that her inbound trip last week was similarly delayed when they closed the airport she was to depart from. She admitted after the fact that the delay was a true Godsend because her little one came down with a serious infection which could be treated by the family physician and handled at home instead of while travelling. That was God's beautiful, perfect timing. 

Sylvia Verway at 19

A few weeks ago I stumbled across a photo of my mother as a young woman. I was stunned again by her physical beauty. It made me recall what a truly beautiful woman she was, inside and out. Before I started this post, I was reading a poem by Beth English called "When I was Beautiful." If you take the time to follow that link, you will be rewarded with another view of what true beauty is. The poem made me think of a song Nicole Nordeman had out a few years ago called "River God." Nordeman beautifully expresses the truth that the "River God" often uses apparently unlovely things to create beauty in our lives.

So I have caught myself in a lie. I am making a resolution after all. I resolve to revolve around a God centered point of view to see beauty in everything around me, no matter how ugly it seems. I will not let the distraction of world events or the disappointment by friends or the heart-weight of family situations blind me to the beauty that God constantly displays around me. If you catch me whining this year, reach out and slap me, please. If you do that for me, that will be beautiful too.