Being a Disciple of Jesus Before a Watching World

"Danger, Will Robinson, Danger (Of a Digital Nature)" The robot “B-9” on the Lost in Space TV series was programmed to warn the Robinson family of impending danger. I wonder if in the real future that the Robinsons portrayed the real danger might just be technology itself. For example, is social media a boon or a bane? I recently had a little kerfuffle that caused me to do some thinking about my activity on Facebook. I enjoy keeping up with my distant kids and grandkids on Facebook, and I get daily chuckles from the posts shared by some of my “friends” on the site. I hate to admit it but I also get much of my national and regional news from pages I have “liked.” Admittedly, much of the “news” has to be put through a truth filter since some people post indiscriminately, but a little fact-checking usually weeds out the fluff.

One of the things that peeves me is people who violate the prohibition against posting things that are intended for “personal gain,” also known as advertising. Apparently some users either don’t read the Facebook agreement or choose to ignore it. So, not for the first time, I offended a “friend” by pointing out the indiscretion with a public post. My comment was too strongly worded, and the “friend” took umbrage with my approach. In hindsight I admit that I should have made a private remark instead of making a public comment, but I still feel that inappropriate public actions merit public remonstrance. Maybe, maybe not.

The incident precipitated some thinking about just how much of our lives we are putting in the public spotlight. Indiscriminate posting of our daily activities and unguarded opinions opens up a whole new realm of possible misuses and misunderstandings. Innocent pictures posted from recreation or vacation spots, for example, let a wide swath of users know what our idea of entertainment might be, and that our domicile is currently unattended. One hopes that friends and friends of friends does not include any house burglars and that our activities pass the WWJD test, but how can one be sure? Privacy settings can be adjusted to limit this kind of exposure, but how many users really know what their settings are? The Facebook default settings are pretty wide open.

While it is not generally considered social media, a person’s Internet browsing history also opens a window into the life of the user. Most people know that “cookies” placed on their computer by sites they visit remain as markers to both legitimate and illegitimate inspection. Google is famous (or infamous) for using this kind of data to create customer bases which they share with various other entities. Shop for a vacuum cleaner online and wait to see how many pop-up ads for vacuums begin to appear on your screen.

A few years ago I fell prey to this kind of unwelcome interest. I was working on a project that involved researching the types of families who sent their children to Christian schools. On the radio I heard of an interesting case in California where a single mother was working as an exotic dancer to help pay for her child to attend a Christian school. I learned that an interview of the mother had been printed in (gasp) Playboy magazine, so I searched for it online. I was fascinated (and somewhat appalled) by the mother’s story. Her motivation was pure enough, but her means disgusted me.

Almost immediately after linking to the Playboy article online, I began to receive pop-ups advertising other web sites and products of a prurient nature. Most shocking to me, I began to receive invitations to meet “hot babes” in Muskegon where I lived at the time. I still don’t know how my geographic location was ascertained; I assume it had to do with the browsing history that lay hidden in my computer. There may be another explanation, but in any case, my activity had been observed and recorded by entities with which I had no interest. Or maybe this was all a big coincidence… Right?

A recent Saturday Evening Post article held more disturbing food for thought. The author was imagining life in 2050 with a personal digital assistant implanted in his ear which used every piece of information about the man to help him make decisions, remember names of people he forgot, and generally place the entire digital universe at his disposal. The imaginary device did all this by brain wave communication, also known as mental telepathy. I know we are not there yet, but neuro-digital communication is in its infant stages, and with the relentless shift to a cashless society, stores recording our purchases, much of our correspondence being digital, and big brothers of every kind “reading our mail,” we are not far from every aspect of our lives being on display at some level.

So what has all this to do with heaven? The sermon at my church this Sunday was about being a disciple before a watching world. Pastor reminded us of Peter’s counsel to let our “good works” reveal to unbelievers God’s place in our lives. Paul also admonished us to avoid the appearance of evil. I may have violated that warning with my thoughtless Facebook post and my indiscriminate Internet foray. My intent was innocent enough, but the appearance may not have been blameless. Social media and Internet ministries may be a great way to share our faith, but it might also be a personal back door that lets our cyber neighbors see into our kitchen. What they see cooking there may not be our best dish to pass.

Here's Your Sign

Storming the Gates

I had something of an epiphany the other day. I have debated about sharing it because it is doubtless one of those “revelations” that many readers will answer with a resounding, “Duh! Everybody knows that.” One of the consequences of being a life-long Bible student is that some of the older teachings get shed to make room for additional information. That’s brain science. Or it is possible that I never heard this idea taught quite this way; so here it is.

I am reading Simple Church by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger. The authors’ premise is that churches can be more effective at making disciples with one simple process than with multiple, complex competing programs. I recommend the book, but there is one line of thought that I am really struck by. Rainer and Geiger bring up the question Jesus poses to his disciples in Matthew 16: “Who do you say that I am?” Jesus is pleased when Peter answers, ““You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then comes the idea that struck me anew; Jesus tells the disciples that this proclamation will be the very foundation of His Church, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Rainer and Geiger point out that gates are defensive structures. The “gates of hell” are placed by the enemy around Christ’s Church in order to thwart its growth. The enemy uses his wiles to construct impediments that appear to confine the Church. Anyone who has read C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters is familiar with the concept. Yet Jesus told the original disciples that the enemy’s efforts would be fruitless. Those of us who are modern day disciples have the same promise, echoed by John, “he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”

So if the Church is the victorious force with superior strength, I have to wonder why we come across as such wimps when the enemy is engaged. Perhaps we fear failure. Failure is assured if we sally forth in the flesh instead of in the spirit as Paul counseled the Corinthians. Failure is assured if we have the wrong motives as James warned. Failure is assured if we twist the Scriptures to our own ends as Peter pointed out. Failure is assured if we hide the light under a basket. There are many ways to fail.

There is one sure way to win: The Church must storm the gates. Remember, Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail. What does it mean to “storm the gates?” Sitting in church on Sunday, no matter how good the church is, does not qualify. If the Allied troops had stayed safely aboard their ships on June 6, 1944, Hitler would not have been defeated. If they had simply listened to their leaders telling how big their guns were and how effective their strategies were but never stormed the beaches, the enemy would not have been overcome. Action is required to accomplish just about anything worthwhile. When Jesus described how his disciples should act, he talked about taking up one’s cross daily. He did not recommend sitting around in comfy circles singing songs about him.

Besides largely ignoring the call to action, the Church has done something else that can be illustrated with the gate metaphor: the gate keeps getting moved. To illustrate, when I was in high school, girls who would sleep with a guy were considered tramps – bad girls. If the polling is to be believed, an alarming number of today’s Christian young people are sexually active in high school. Satan has somehow tricked an entire generation into thinking that promiscuity is not that bad. Instead of standing firm on a Biblical principle when “free love” became fashionable in the 1960’s, the Church seems to have moved the boundaries. The same thing can be said of women’s fashion, popular entertainment and a host of other cultural markers.

To continue with the metaphor, the Church seems to have left the light behind and wandered through the gates into enemy territory without realizing they left the truth behind. I don’t mean to suggest that the Amish are right to remain stuck in the 19^th century, but face it: we are fighting battles on ground that already belongs to the enemy. How much sex is acceptable in a TV show or movie? How much cleavage is acceptable in a Christian woman’s style? How bad is homosexual marriage as long as the couple is monogamous?

I am beginning to think that the Church is in a similar position to God’s people who were taken captive to Babylon. We haven’t lost our Temple, but we have lost what it means to be the temple. We haven’t transgressed God’s law by erecting idols, but we have run after the “idols” of our culture. We are not an ethnic people taken captive by a foreign ruler, but we are a chosen people captivated by the enemy of our King.

The often quoted verse from Chronicles spoken to ancient Israel may be appropriate for this generation: “If my people [believers], which are called by my name [Jesus], shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land [church].” At that point, the Church will be in a position to storm the gates of hell and win.

Politics Stinks

Eleven years ago Donald Trump made some disgusting remarks in what he thought was a private conversation. What is even more disgusting is the behavior described by the remarks, involving adultery and fornication, behavior clearly outside of the bounds of Christian sexual mores. I will not attempt to defend or excuse Trump’s conduct; it is as I said, disgusting. However, given the critical importance of the decision voters must make, it may be illuminating to put the whole episode in context.

First of all, the scandal du jour occurred over a decade ago. Trump may or may not be of the same mind today; his wife seems to think he is not. Christians, of all people, understand the concept of life-change; I certainly am not the same man I was ten years ago (much to the joy of my wife and friends). Forgiveness for past sins and hope and prayer for grace to overcome present temptation is a hallmark of true Christian brotherhood.

Secondly, it is hypocritical to judge Trump harshly for behavior which has been glossed over in the past. John F. Kennedy and William J. Clinton were both notorious womanizers, yet they rank among the most popular Presidents of the modern era. While the bloom is certainly off the Nixon rose, it nonetheless shocked many to hear his liberal use of profanity in the famous tapes he secretly recorded. We want to imagine better behavior of our leaders than they seem capable of.

Finally, western society has become so sexualized that the term “acceptable behavior” is being defined down dramatically. I am reading an Agatha Christie novel presently. It is interesting to note what was considered a “short skirt” barely a century ago. One of the characters was derided for showing ankles. Ankles! I cannot watch Dancing with the Stars without feeling that I am being assaulted by soft pornography. If you can believe Hollywood writers, the lives of hospital and law enforcement personnel are awash with intimate rendezvous and adulterous affairs. We should not be surprised when like behavior surfaces in the harsh light of political “opposition research.”

Again, there is no excuse for Donald Trump’s “locker room” language or his possible adulterous activities. However, the realities of what is essentially a two-party political system often force voters to select candidates that are less than ideal. This will not be the first election when Christians have had to turn a blind eye to one candidate or another. It is sad when the best choice is the lesser of two evils, but we must face facts: this is a fallen world; Jesus is not on the ballot.

If all politicians were alike, regardless of their party affiliations, then perhaps voting “none of the above” would be defensible. This simply is not the case. There are stark differences between the Trump vision for America and the Clinton vision. With Trump you have a free-market economic system; with Clinton, a continuation of Obama’s socialistic programs. (If you need more detail on this aspect, read my post from 2012, “Obama isn’t the Problem.” ) With Trump you get what might be called nationalism; with Clinton, multiculturalism. With Trump a return to Constitutional government; with Clinton, more of Obama’s extra-Constitutional Presidential fiats. With Trump a strong national defense that uses bullets and bombs; with Clinton, avoidance of confrontation at all costs. With Trump a defense of the unborn; with Clinton, Roe v. Wade on steroids.

There is more, but I think I have made the point. As I said in “What’s Wrong with Politics in America,” Christians shirk their God-given responsibility when they refuse to vote whatever the reason. I repeat the admonition from James: “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Do the research; vote your conscience; it is required… even if you have to hold your nose to do it.

What’s Wrong with Politics in America

The title is purposely without a question mark; I mean it as a statement. I don’t claim to be all-wise, but I can see what I think is the major flaw in political discussions today. Listen to the candidates or watch the posts on social media and one thing becomes clear: “truth” is being reduced to sound-bite size. I put truth in quotes because what is being sold as truth is, often as not, anything but true.

An article titled, “Do You Know Who Saul Alinsky Is?” by Ellen Cora in the AMAC newsletter reveals a dirty little secret about the Left’s approach to truth. Cora says of Alinsky’s methods, “Instead of using the truth they are taught to avoid rational arguments when getting their points across.” Why should you care what Alinsky said? Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have both proudly admitted their connection with Alinsky. Clinton and Obama each wrote a college paper analyzing Alinsky and putting him in a positive light. It is no wonder they deal with truth so lightly. It is part of their strategy.

Years ago I taught a high school class called Forensics, also known as debate. The word debate has a specific meaning to educators, and I contend that the failure to honestly debate the truth of an opponent’s claims is one of the biggest things wrong with politics today. In a true debate, each side has the opportunity to present a case, and the opposing side then gets the chance to rebut the argument. Rebuttal involves carefully examining each point of the opposition and revealing its weakness, whether that is factual error or faulty assumptions.

The political theater that is called debate today has no resemblance to real debate. The primary debates are totally ludicrous. The actors merely spout their campaign slogans and take the occasional swipe at one of their opponents. One-on-one candidate debates have not been much better for the last few election cycles. Though the stage is less crowded, it merely gives each candidate more time to speechify and toss allegations. Seldom does true debate take place.

Here's how it might look if true debate were happening. Hillary Clinton might say that she intends to create more well-paying jobs in infrastructure improvements and green energy development, a claim she has made repeatedly. In rebuttal, Trump could point out that infrastructure jobs are government jobs, and therefore, would require tax money to fund. Green energy subsidized by government also requires infusion of government dollars, once again drawn from tax payers. In other words, Clinton’s jobs program would either increase the tax burden on people already working, or else it would decrease the funding available in some other government program. This is not job creation; it is government welfare funding a work project.

Hillary could do the same thing with Trump’s arguments. He might present his plan to build a wall across our southern border. Hillary could respond with facts about the historical effectiveness of walls in controlling illegal immigration. It is not likely that she will take that approach. If true to form, she will more likely brand Trump as a racist xenophobe who hates all immigrants. This too is straight from Alinsky’s playbook. In the AMAC article, Cora notes, “Alinsky identified ridicule as a potent weapon. It is hard to counteract — and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” Unfortunately, Trump is well known for his infuriated reactions.

The failure of the candidates to truly debate the issues leaves it up to the voters to ferret out the truth about the candidates’ positions. Luckily, we have many ways to do that. Earlier generations had to rely on a limited number of broadcast or print sources. The advent of cable news and countless Internet news web sites has made finding information simple. The hard part now is knowing whom to trust and how to weigh the information that comes down the cyber pike. Voters must do what the candidates won’t: examine platforms and policy statements and look for weakness, error and outright deception.

As believers blessed with a participatory political system, we have a responsibility to make every effort to get people in office who will champion our values. I am saddened when I hear fellow-believers say they are tired of the campaign hoopla, and they are thinking of not voting at all. Abstaining is lazy, and it violates the admonition of James: “To him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Maybe there won’t be a “Christian” candidate to vote for, but there will almost always be one who is more in line with our values than another.

I recently heard of a sermon titled, "How Would Jesus Vote?" I don't know the answer, but I am quite sure of this: He would want His followers to do everything possible to keep America moored to the Judeo-Christian values that have assured our freedoms thus far. I firmly believe that the mess our country is in now is due in large part to believers who didn’t bother to participate in the last few election cycles. We must not allow America to be torn from its traditional foundations because of our apathy. We have to pay attention, spend some time in research, ignore all the personal opprobrium and then vote. It is my opinion that the biggest thing wrong with politics in America is the apathy of believers. We are the majority; we need to start taking our responsibility seriously.