The Nicodemus Problem

The third chapter of John’s Gospel begins, “Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

Nicodemus took Jesus literally; Jesus tried to correct his thinking. Nicodemus was not alone in his literal thinking; most of his colleagues in the Sanhedrin were struggling with the same problem. They were looking for a Messiah/King of a literal sort; Jesus did not fit their interpretation. They wanted a King David in armor slashing his way through the Roman legions to Jewish victory and independence. They completely missed the “Suffering Servant” Messiah of Isaiah and others.

Misunderstanding what it means to take the Scripture literally may still cause more problems today than simple disbelief. A person who says he doesn’t believe the Bible is true or that he doesn’t believe in God at all is easier to deal with in some ways than the believer who confuses the word “literal” with the word “true.” Every word in the Bible is true, but not every word is meant to be taken literally. When Jesus said that people should pluck out an eye if it caused them to sin, he did not mean it literally. When Isaiah said the Messiah would be a shoot out of the root of Jesse, he did not mean that either Jesse or Jesus were vegetable rather than animal. Certain types of literary expression demand non-literal interpretation.

The most obvious contemporary expression of this situation concerns the book of Revelation. Almost all of the “difficulties” in interpretation disappear if one takes into account that “revelation” is a translation of the Greek word αποκαλυψις, transliterated as “apocolupsis.” The word means “revelation,” and it is the name of a peculiar type of literature used by prophets in the Scripture. While apocalyptic literature is intended to “reveal” something true, it often does so in obscure ways. Ironically, the truth being revealed is often hidden in highly symbolic or figurative language. John used this type of language throughout the book of Revelation.

Almost everyone recognizes that the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the rest are full of images, symbols and figures of speech. Few people expect literal fulfillment of the picture language, but look instead for real-life representations of the figures. One simple example may serve to illustrate. Daniel chapter 2 describes a statue king Nebuchadnezzar saw in dream. Daniel told him that the statue represented various kingdoms that existed or would exist in the future. The action the king saw was a picture of the political future of his world. No one in the court (or today) expected a literal statue to be crushed by a literal rock. A true reading is a non-literal reading, but still reveals truth.

Nicodemus did not understand that Jesus the Prophet was using figurative language to describe a literal truth. Being “born from above” (aka born again) is a figurative way of saying that one must enter into a new kind of life to become a part of the Kingdom of God, not a second passage through the waters of birth, but a spiritual passage through the “wind” (Greek word: spirit) of belief and obedience. Most people who try to interpret Revelation literally are having the same problem Nicodemus had. Trying to make all those dragons and bowls and trumpets literal taxes belief. Seen as symbols for the normal actions of human beings in political and ecclesiastical history, they make perfect sense. We just need to follow Jesus instead of Nicodemus.

But What Did You Do Today?

I have implemented a new component in my daily devotions. Each day of the month I read a different Bible benediction as a prayer. I have people on my prayer list for whom I often have no specific requests, so I pray the daily benediction for them. Today’s verse was from Galatians 6:18, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers.” It got me thinking what it would mean to have grace “with your spirit.” My prayers often dwell on physical things: health, finances, emotional well-being. What would a prayer for “grace… with your spirit” look like? Here is where the thought led me.

Your body has an expiration date. It may be days, years or decades in the future, but it will expire sometime. You feed and water and dress your body with care every day. You spend hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands to keep your body in working condition. Most of us consider a properly functioning body to be of great importance, perhaps of greatest importance. Still, even unbelievers have a sense that their life is more than a body. With Hamlet they ask, “What dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil.”

If you believe the Bible’s description of what it means to be human, you know that the body is simply a temporary vessel in which the real, true, lasting person exists. Technical differences in theology aside, all believers expect to enjoy an existence that transcends the mere mortal one we know now. Some believe that we will get a new, glorified body and live on a renewed Eden-like earth. Others think that our existence after we shuffle off the mortal is so new, so different from what we know now that it cannot be adequately described. Whatever the case, it remains that the physical body we now inhabit will be superseded by a most excellent replacement.

 Along with this, the Bible makes it clear that there will be continuity between this life and the next. The New Testament is full of admonitions to live this life in view of the one that is to come. Our ultimate destination is predicated on our machinations here and now. Jesus taught us to “store up treasures in Heaven” that would await us when we die. When Jesus was about to depart this earth, He told His disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them to be with him. John said that we don’t know precisely what our form will be in that place, but that we will be like Jesus, “for we shall see him as he is.”

There is nothing wrong with trying to live a healthy life. The believer’s body is, after all, “the temple of the Holy Spirit,” and we should not consciously demean or destroy it. Paul also said physical exercise is good, but it is even more important to exercise godliness because it holds promise for the next life. So go to the gym; eat healthy; watch your weight. Just don’t forget that those things only maintain a temporary temple. This body has an expiration date, whether it’s three score and ten, or some other unknown number.

The real question here is what have you done today  for the real you – the one that’s going to last forever somewhere in some form based on something you are doing right now. Did you eat today; sleep last night; get that twenty minutes of cardio? Fine. What did you do for the real you? The strength to bench press 350 pounds will not be sufficient to lift your weight of regret if you get to the expiration date without having done the simple things to strengthen your eternal spirit.

Enjoy your time at Gold’s gym or the Golden Corral; just remember: it will be short compared to eternity. And may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

Leading a Horse to Water: Introduction

I am writing a book which I intend to publish in serial fashion here on my blog. What you have in this post is the chapter titles and the introduction. The first post of each chapter will be in the nature of a rough draft. I would love to have readers' comments, criticisms and suggestions on each post. If you would like to be certain to see each chapter as it is posted, please leave a comment to that effect and I will put you on an email list to see that you are kept up to date. If you would rather stay somewhat anonymous, you may find the posts by searching "Leading a Horse to Water" in the blog labels and making comments on the blog itself.

Leading a Horse to Water: The Great Commission in the 21^st Century

Alternate title

Leading a Horse to Water: Making Disciples in the 21^st Century

Introduction

Inviting pagans to church is not the best strategy; after leading the horse to water…

                Unbelievers won’t get anything if it’s real church

                Believers won’t get anything if it’s all evangelism

                Doing a little of both shortchanges everybody… and it has failed

Chapter One: Matthew 28:19-20

The Great Commission: Make Disciples

What is a disciple

How to make one follow

                Offer something they want/like

                                Deo Gloria: make God look good

Chapter Two: John 13:34-35

Do the obvious thing: love one another

                Do the less obvious thing: love the “enemy”

Chapter Three: 1 Corinthians 9:22

Package the Gospel for atheists and agnostics

                Philosophy 101: what works

                                Avoiding nihilism and utilitarianism

                Guarding against syncretism

Chapter Four: Matthew 9:17

New wine for new agers: God as ET

                Reading the enemy’s playbook: the sci-fi gospel

                What does it mean to be “extra-terrestrial”?

Chapter Five: Matthew 10:16

What not to do

                Don’t be so earthly-minded you’re no heavenly good     

Don’t promise wealth and health

                Don’t promise happiness

                Don’t expect holiness

                Don’t use church language

                Don’t be ostentatious

                

Chapter Six: Ephesians 2:10

epilogue: it’s all God’s doing ultimately

                “Not by [our] works, lest any should boast”

                “I do what I see my Father doing”

Introduction

I attend a pretty good little church. Actually, it’s not little; it’s on the high side of average statistically. We run about 100 on any given Sunday. According to the Christian pollster George Barna, the average Protestant church size in America is 89 adults. 60% of protestant churches have less than 100 adults in attendance. And anyway, size is not the most important statistic about a church.

I am very happy with just about everything we do as a congregation: we have vital praise and worship times; we hear Bible sermons every week; we have several Bible study opportunities going on all the time; we pray openly for one another; we help each other out as needs arise; we collect enough money to maintain church operations and make significant contributions to a number of local and foreign ministries. So far, that’s the portrait of a healthy church.

However, as I look over the group that gathers under our local banner each week, I discover that almost all of the attendees are refugees from churches elsewhere in the area. I am quite certain that less than ten percent were brought to Christ through the ministry of our church; possibly less than five percent. I assume that the majority attend my church because they, like the founders of this body, were not happy in their previous church. This may be fine; I believe in different strokes for different folks. No one church will be perfect for all believers. That too is healthy.

What is not healthy is the lack of new converts. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament makes one realize that evangelism, sharing the Gospel, reaching the lost is a major focus of the church. If new people are not being added to the church, an important purpose of the church is not being fulfilled. Because I know many of the people I share my Sundays with, I am certain that they would agree with what I have said. I am also certain that many of them would respond as one did recently when I expressed my dismay about our lack of new converts: we need to invite more people to church. That may be one answer, but I don’t think it is the best answer.

The idea of inviting people to “church” to convert them to Christ leads ultimately to the question: what is the Sunday service for. The answer is debatable. Some believe that Gospel proclamation or evangelism, is the primary purpose of the Sunday church meeting. Others believe that teaching the Scriptures primarily to believers is what it’s all about. Not a few modern churches attempt to balance both of these elements in every meeting, particularly on Sunday morning.

This confusion over the purpose of Sunday meetings may explain at least in part why the church has not experienced significant growth in the last couple generations. It may also explain why young people are not staying connected to any church when they reach adulthood. The bottom line of a study done by Lifeway recently seems to indicate that irrelevance played a role in the decision of young people to leave church. Young people don’t think church has anything for them. Although what’s-in-it-for-me may be a selfish motive, it is legitimate to ask the purpose of attending Sunday church. If the leaders are confused about purpose, is it any wonder the attenders are too?

The answer to the confusion may be to choose to be either fish or fowl. If the leadership of a local body believes that evangelism is the main reason to hold services on Sunday morning, they should swing whole-heartedly for that fence. Make everything about Sunday attractive to non-believers (more on this later). This is basically what the “seeker friendly” churches have been trying to do for the last couple decades. While this is a worthy goal, current research suggests the tactic has not been an unmitigated success. Perhaps the tactic needs rethinking.

If on the other hand, a church decides that Sunday morning is for believers, then they must find another path than the Sunday morning service to appeal to the unbelievers. Assuming good Bible teaching is part of the service, sooner or later the congregation will come to the realization that a significant command of Jesus is being ignored for all practical purposes. I am not suggesting that solid preaching of the Word cannot bring some unbelievers to repentance; nor am I disregarding the important work of the Holy Spirit in conversion (more on that in the last chapter). But delving into the intricate beauty of the Word of God will be lost on all but a few unchurched listeners. “Pearls before swine” may be an apt analogy. The challenge is to determine how to reach the not-swine.

The authors of Simple Church, xxx, have researched successful churches and found what they believe is the key to success: in a word, focus. According to xxx, growing, vital churches have one main goal, and every program they offer leads directly to that goal. Although the churches studied by xxx use different language, I will summarize what they are doing by calling it what the Bible calls it: discipleship. Successful churches are successful because they are making disciples. My purpose in this book is to offer suggestions to help less-than-successful churches become successful in this truly biblical sense. I will not answer the question of which type of Sunday meeting is best; perhaps either will work if done properly.

Because I believe that all the best ideas come from the Scripture itself (what a concept), the suggestions I will make rely primarily on at least one specific passage of Scripture. Hence what you hold in your hand is a series of exegetical sermons on the topic of church growth. Someone is saying at this point, “Oh goody! As if we haven’t had anything like that before.” I say with all humility that there are countless other books available which do what I am proposing, and they have been written by Christians with far more serious qualifications than I. However, I am a unique person with a unique way of looking at things (as are all persons), so I will nonetheless undertake this challenge. Besides, God seems to be prompting me to do this. Whether it is just for me or for others too is for you to decide.

The first chapter will explore just what Jesus was asking of His followers when he commanded them to “make disciples.” If we don’t know what the task at hand is, it is pretty hard to know if we are doing it. There is probably nothing startlingly unique in my exposition, but I feel it is necessary to lay the correct foundation for what follows. Subsequent chapters will offer conceptual understanding and practical applications of some very specific things which I believe flesh out the command: make disciples

                If you follow me to the end of this literary journey, you will find me saying in the last chapter that nothing we do, no matter how brilliant – how biblical, will result in anything eternal if the Holy Spirit is not in it. Some have heard this before and concluded that if it is “all God” anyway, there’s no use troubling ourselves about evangelism. Wrong. It is one of the great mysteries of God’s purpose that He does, in fact, want our participation in this greatest of endeavors. It is my prayer that this little book may contribute in some small way to that purpose. Having read it, I pray readers will be better able to fulfill Jesus’ last command to us all: make disciples.

(Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.)

How Could a Christian Vote for Hillary?

After the recent election, a friend asked me if I could help her understand how any Christian could have voted for Hillary Clinton. What were they thinking? She wondered why they aligned with the Hollywood elite. She wondered what's wrong. I suspect there may be some others who are asking the same questions, so I am posting my response.

First let me say honestly that I don't know how anyone who is a committed follower of Christ could have voted for Hillary. But I know some did. The obvious answer to the question of what's wrong is sin; sinful humans don't make perfect decisions. I know that's not very satisfying, so I will suggest some things that may have influenced their behavior.

1. You want to understand what they were thinking. I suggest they did not think. People vote for a variety of reasons, and for some, thinking is not part of the process. 

2. Some Christians think that socialism is a more biblical type of government than our free market capitalism. I disagree heartily. I wrote about this in detail during an earlier election; follow the link if you want more on that.

3. I suspect that some Christians were so disgusted by the media portrayal of Trump that they voted for Hillary in protest. We believers often forget that God can use broken people... good thing since we are all broken.

4. Your comment about the Hollywood elite also hints at a possible reason people voted for Hillary: as a culture, we are way too impressed by what our icons (another word for idols) think and do. If God is not the center of one's life and thought, those replacement icons from sports or entertainment hold great power.

5. To be political about it, it might be that Trump simply did not put enough detail into how he would "make America great again" to convince folks to vote for him. I know that does not explain how a Christian could choose Hillary instead, but it may have played a part.

6. To be sexist about it, some women may have voted for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Wrong reason, but powerful among a certain group of women.

7. Maybe they really like Obama; he is so likable.... Hillary said she would be a third term of Obama's policies. Some Christians would be OK with that.

8. Maybe some are beneficiaries of the programs Hillary supports and fear losing the benefits.

9. If you didn't read my blog, Seeking Signs on Election Night, check it out; that too may give you some peace about our crazy situation.

Having said all that, none of those explanations is nearly enough to outweigh the negatives Hillary carries in my opinion. With the decades of scandals, her status as a pathological liar, the dozens of mysterious deaths of people who crossed the Clintons, the pitiful record as Secretary of State (think Benghazi, Iran, etc.), and if nothing else, her support of infanticide, I cannot imagine that anyone who claims to be Christian could vote for her. 

But some did. They may be just as confused about how any Christian could vote for Trump. This is the beauty and the danger of participatory democracy. One can never be certain that those who vote will see things the same way we do. But I stand by what I have said before: as believers, we have to vote. We won't always have the same feelings as our brothers and sisters about the outcome, but it is our responsibility to learn what we can about the candidates and then vote. After the election, it is our responsibility to get along with our brothers and sisters... even if they voted for Hillary.

Veteran’s Day 2016

I believe today is one of the most important national holidays we observe in America. Because of a lost sense of history in our culture, many citizens of this great country do not realize how uniquely blessed we are. The American experiment, as some have called it, was truly a new thing when it was undertaken in the 18^th century. Not since the days of ancient Athens or perhaps the Roman republic had it been suggested that “we the people” should play such a large part in their own government.

It should be noted that the British system at the time of the American Revolution was nominally democratic, but the monarchy still kept a tight hold on the reins of power; Parliament’s role was primarily advisory in nature, and it was strongly influenced by the upper house, the House of Lords, which was populated by the monarch’s peers. The people’s house, the House of Commons, could not unilaterally propose or enact policy. Thus the “democracy” was essentially a plutocracy, the rule of the rich and powerful. Against this, the Patriots revolted.

Beginning on a fateful April morning in 1776, a “shot heard around the world” created the first American veterans. Throughout most of the following decade, men who were largely militia, rather than professional soldiers, fought the most powerful army on earth at the time and won America’s independence from Britain. The 19^th century is peppered with conflicts, small and large, wherein American citizens took up arms to defend the American way. Most people don’t need to be reminded how the 20^th century looked: two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and most recently, the Middle East. Each of these wars involved ordinary citizens who stood up for their country, and many laid down their lives in the greatest sacrifice. These are our veterans.

Sadly, the treatment of our veterans has a depressing history. Revolutionary War soldiers often went unpaid, and veterans’ benefits were few. Civil War vets had to fight an often losing battle to receive the benefits they had been promised. The GI Bill and housing benefits offered to WWII vets is one bright spot in an otherwise grim picture, but no one should be ignorant of the pitiful plight of our veterans today.  Mismanagement and outright malfeasance plague a system that is itself not sufficient to repay our veterans for what they have bought us.

The Presidential election of 2016 has put Republicans in control of all three branches of government. Philosophically, Republicans favor improving military and veteran benefits. I would like to suggest the we the people who wish to honor and respect our veterans properly press our representatives in the federal government to put their money where their mouths are. Pardon me: they need to put OUR money where OUR mouths are. Let’s really go to bat for our veterans and demand more equitable treatment for them. They have put their lives on the line for our freedom; let’s not squander the opportunity we have to repay them. Romans 13:7 says, “pay… honor to whom honor is owed.” If that’s not our vets, I don’t know who it might be.

Seeking Signs on Election Night

I have been casting about lately, looking for some sign that God is still active in human affairs. When you study Isaiah, as my Sunday School class just did, you can’t help but be impressed with the level of God’s working in history. I’m not referring to “religious” history, because Isaiah’s record makes it crystal clear that God directs all of human endeavor, not just that of his “chosen” people. Granted, the context of Isaiah reveals how God dealt with other people as they related to Israel, but the fact remains: the fate of entire nations rested squarely in the almighty hands of the Creator of the universe.

Having recently finished Almost a Miracle, by John E. Ferling, I am fresh from the thought that the success of the American Revolution and subsequent founding of this nation was either a case of multiple serendipities or divine intervention. The same conclusion can be drawn from events in more recent history such as weather “coincidences” at Dunkirk and D-day and countless more. The problem with all of these is that we don’t have an Isaiah predicting them hundreds of years in advance so we can read later how clearly they were God’s orchestration.

Jump to my present-day search for signs. A report on WND by Garth Kant points to a “coincidence” that occurred during the evening of our recent Presidential election. Kant reports the observation by former US Representative Michele Bachmann that at precisely the time when millions of Christians began to pray very specifically about the election, the tide turned. Clinton had appeared to be winning handily as the first returns came in; then a sudden, dramatic shift occurred in the post-election polls: Trump began rising as Clinton fell precipitously. That dual trend never changed. Significantly, the graphic you see here was created by the New York Times, not WND or Fox News.

Christians who are repulsed by the thought that God may have chosen Trump need to remember that the “apple of God’s eye,” David, was an adulterer and murderer. Cyrus the Persian who released the Jews from Babylonian captivity was a pagan. Peter insisted that the Jewish rulers who crucified their Messiah were doing God’s work. The ruler Paul declared to be “ordained by God” was the tyrant Nero. God doesn’t need perfect people to do his work; he doesn’t even need willing people. As the Psalmist once observed, “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the heathens; I will be exalted in the earth!” End of line.

In light of all this, I ask myself if I am being too critical or cynical or just blind. I wish I could jump for joy with Bachmann and say, “Look what God did with our prayers.” I may be overthinking this, but I think if Trump was God’s man for this hour, Trump would have won whether we prayed or not. I cannot convince myself that America is God’s chosen nation. Theologically, I can’t conceive of any nation being chosen. According to Peter, the holy nation is believers, not Americans. “But you [believers] are… a holy nation, a people for his own possession.... Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people.”

So here is the irony. God will accomplish His purpose with or without us. Yet if we wish to be “God’s people” (aka believers), we must attempt to align ourselves with his purpose. Jesus said His followers would keep His commandments out of love. He also said that he counted certain ones as his “family” because they did the will of His Father. The only way we can know the commandments of Jesus or the will of His Father is to study God’s Word. And then pray.

I think C.S. Lewis summed up the need to pray best when he said, “I pray because I can’t help myself. I pray because I’m helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time – waking and sleeping. It doesn’t change God – it changes me.” I don’t know whether Trump won because people prayed, but I am encouraged that people prayed. We should keep on praying. I should keep on praying, not to change election results, but to change my heart. That’s the sign I should be looking for.

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.

Understanding the Book of Job -- Finally

Each time I have studied Job in the past, I have come away with more questions than answers. Thanks to the men in my Bible study, one of whom curiously suggested we study Job, I think I finally have some answers. There are still plenty of mysteries in Job, but I can say with some confidence that there is a valuable lesson in the story of Job for believers today.

Before I get to the lesson, take a look at some of the remaining mysteries. The book opens with an unexplained gathering in some heavenly dimension. Verse six says, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” Everybody pretty much agrees that “sons of God” are angels. The interesting thing to me is that on a specific day they, “came to present themselves.” Was this a head count to see if more had joined the enemy? Was it some sort of performance review? This concept has long fascinated me, to the point that I have written a novel imagining what angels actually do with their time and how they interact with humans. (Shameless Promotion.)

The second half of verse six is equally curious: “and Satan also came among them.” We know from what follows that Satan had already broken faith with the rest of the heavenly host and had been banished to earth. What amazes me is that he still had access to the throne. God seems to casually ask him what he’s been up to, and Satan answers that he has been roaming around earth (seeking whom he may devour?).

What God does next is the real mind boggler: “Have you considered my servant Job?” God seems to be setting Job up like a golf ball on a tee… like a clay pigeon in the sling. I imagine a little bit of sour grapes whine in Satan’s voice when he protests that God has, “put a hedge around him and his house and… blessed the work of his hands?” Then God paves the way for the rest of the story by offering to drop the hedge, at least partially. It is comforting to think that God hedges his children against the enemy, but not so much that he voluntarily removes the hedge. This is where the weeds get thick and deep.

As almost everyone knows, the story goes that Job is subjected to terrible loss, financial and emotional, and after a second audience with God, Satan is released to pester Job physically. In the midst of his misery, Job’s friends give him their counsel; it sounds very much like what people might say today: Job has obviously offended God in some major way to deserve such harsh punishment. This thinking was still prevalent in Jesus’ day, evidenced by his disciples asking what sin was responsible for the man being born blind. We still wonder. Were the 92,000 people killed by the volcano in Indonesia in 1815 especially wicked? Did the thousands killed in Japan in the 2011 tsunami offend God particularly? Or the earthquake victims in Mexico… or the famine in Africa… and so on?

Job does what humans always seem to do: he protests his innocence, or more accurately, he proclaims his righteousness. When God finally speaks in the end, His response is quite shocking. He tells Job that even if he were perfectly righteous, he ain’t all that. To paraphrase, God said, “No matter how wonderful you think you are, this is not about you. As the one-and-only Majestic Creator, Sovereign of the Universe, I can do as I please without reference to you or your friends.” Job’s attempt to put himself on an argumentative plane with God was utterly demolished. “Does the clay say to the Potter, ‘What are you making?’”

Humans seem to be hard-wired to desire “fair” treatment. It’s not fair that babies die; it’s not fair that nice people get cancer; it’s not fair that some are rich while others are poor. It’s not fair that Job was made to suffer so terribly. Of course, we like that fact that Job was twice blessed after he walked through his trial, but if we think the lesson is there, we are right back with Job’s friends.

It’s not about Job getting his just reward; it’s about God getting his point across… to the angels (one of whom is called Satan.) Paul told the Ephesians that the mystery of the ages was being revealed through the church, “to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.” My take-away from Job, nay, the entire Biblical sweep is that God is doing something with this time-space continuum we call human history that is larger than the universe itself. Regarding “uneducated and unstable” false teachers, Peter says that they boldly and willfully blaspheme angels. Jude echoes this enigmatic idea hinting at the involvement of celestial beings who occasionally appear in Scripture, but are seldom explained.

Apart from the mystery of angelic correlations, one thing is clear to me (with thanks due to my Bible study partners). Not Job, nor Joseph, nor the man born blind can sue for fair treatment. Of the man born blind Jesus said, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” The Master’s next sentence is the real kicker: “We must work the works of him who sent me.” Note my italics; Paul picks this up when he tells the Ephesians, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

God has a work for each of us. It may be in the dust with Job, in the pit with Joseph or on a throne with Solomon. We don’t get to choose. To borrow from Tennyson, “[Ours] not to reason why / [ours] but to do and die.” That is the correct wording: “do and die.” Taking up our cross to follow Jesus (as he commanded) presumes a pending death; that’s what crosses are for.

Paradoxical though it may be, this is the way to life: death. Death to self, death to the old man, and yes, death itself may be required. We, like Job, have no grounds on which to ask why. We must ask what, where and when. The “where and when” is here and now. The “what” will be revealed when we open the door before us with our spiritual eyes and ears open. May we be found humble and ready as God’s servant Isaiah saying, “Here I am; [use] me.”

A Timely New Book Worth Reading

I have been anxiously awaiting the publication of a new book, Resurrecting the Idea of a Christian Society by R. R. Reno. It became available this week, and I was so struck by Reno’s introduction to the book, that I am excerpting it here. I quite literally could not say it better myself.

“Today’s progressivism is waging a war on the weak. Putting an end to that war is the most important social justice issue of our time….

“We also need to recover solidarity, limited government, and a sense of the transcendent. These are natural goods that one finds in many cultures. Christian societies do not have a monopoly on them. But ours has been a Christian history, and it is by a renewal of Christian influence that we are most likely to restore theses humanizing qualities to our society.

“Serving those most in need and contributing to that restoration of American society requires us to speak clearly, honestly, and forcefully. Being a serious Christian does not automatically make one a social or religious “conservative,” but the logic of faith runs counter to the cult of freedom. The freedom for which Christ makes us free is quite different from the freedom championed by modern liberal culture….

“This does not mean “establishing” Christianity but speaking up in the public square as Christians. We need to say, out loud and with confidence, that we’re best off when we live under the authority of the permanence of marriage, accept the duties of patriotism, and affirm the supernatural claims the church makes on our souls. We’re “judgmental” not to sustain the preeminence of Christianity in American society… but because we seek to promote the wellbeing of our neighbors, especially the weakest and most vulnerable….

“Today’s poverty is spiritual and moral. What’s needed is the stability and permanence of moral truth, as well as a renewed sense of the possibility of a faith that brings us into the everlasting household of God….

“There is much talk among Christians these days about a pessimistic withdrawal from public life. The current of culture seems to be running against us. We need to be realistic about the challenges posed by the present age, and we certainly need to repair our communities of faith. There can be no Christian society without vital churches. But let’s not sell the public potency of Christianity short. The renewal of our society as a whole is possible, even today, even in a hyper-individualistic society like America.

“America is full of people who sense the poverty of our postmodern paganism. Our nation is still capable of caring for the weak and vulnerable. Most Americans want everyone to flourish – together. And they don’t want to be swallowed by the administrative-therapeutic state, ruled by a remote meritocratic elite. They want their children to seek higher things, the surest way to escape the cult of freedom that makes them servants of today’s materialist hearth gods.

“Our fellow citizens recognize the seriousness of our faith – loyalty to God, no less! They intuit that we can contribute something solid, enduring, and reliable to public life. It’s not going to be easy. But America is demoralized right now. Anti-establishment politicians win widespread support. A wave of populism is demolishing longstanding political coalitions. Polls reveal a dwindling of trust in mainstream institutions. Universities are terrorized by political correctness. Secular progressivism rules our culture more by default than because of widespread conviction. What seems like an all-powerful secular consensus actually churns with dissatisfaction.

“Which is why, in this time and in this place, a relatively small number of Christians can inspire and reinvigorate the public imaginations of the disoriented majority. We can renew our society by restoring our voices as Christian citizens.

“Resurrecting the idea of a Christian society is possible, but by no means inevitable. The United States is a great nation. I’m a proud patriot. But America is a nation of men, not the city of God. Yes, we may fail to restore the Christian leaven in American public life. It is also true that there will be a time when America is no more. Yet the Gospel endures. Let us therefore take up our political tasks with cheerfulness, even if the odds are against us. We are called to do what we are able, not to succeed. Let’s do our best, trusting in God’s providence and confident in his final victory.”

Amen and thank you, Professor Reno.

Vote Anyway

With the ascension of Donald Trump as the presumed Republican nominee for President, many Christians are talking about staying home on Election Day this November. Enough believers had an adverse reaction to Mitt Romney that Barak Obama won re-election in 2012 (my opinion). I admitted my own reservations about Romney (See http://whammonline.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-not-mitt.html), but I concluded that the value of electing the lesser of two evils precluded staying home. I’d like to lobby for that again.

No one who is even slightly familiar with Donald Trump would argue that he is a wholesome Christian candidate. Some may even question the legitimacy of his faith; that is for God to judge, not me. Regardless of where the Donald will spend eternity, we must take part in deciding where he spends the next four years. There are good reasons to want him in the White House in spite of his religious attitudes, or his lack of them.

First of all, while believers may not like Trump’s soft position on some important issues, he comes out as better than either alternative currently vying for the Presidency on the Democrat ticket. It is possible that a Trump administration may be able to throttle back the quickening slide into socialism that President Obama and the rest of the progressives have been orchestrating for the last seven years. I say “quickening slide” because we started down the path to a social democracy early in the 20^th century. It is only recently that wide majorities have begun to believe that they are entitled to government handouts. This broadening support for socialist policies has emboldened progressives to push their ideas more aggressively.

For example, national health care has long been on the progressive wish list. Karen S. Palmer has written an excellent history of the push for national health care in America’s past. She notes that Europe instituted socialized medicine in the nineteenth century, long before the US. Her list of reasons why America was slow to follow a similar course is revealing. She says efforts to socialize health care in America failed in the last century due to, “ideological differences, anti-communism, anti-socialism… the entrepreneurial character of American medicine, a tradition of American voluntarism… and the association of public programs with charity, dependence, personal failure and the almshouses of years gone by.”

Some may be wondering why I suggest that Christians should be opposed to socialist policies, since so many think that socialism is more closely aligned with biblical teachings than free-market capitalism. First of all, that is not a correct interpretation of the Bible position on social welfare in my opinion. Second, history proves that, in practice people have not fared better under socialism. (For a more complete treatment of this see my post, “Obama isn’t the Problem.”) Also, if you study Palmer’s explanation of why socialized health care failed, you will see a list of decidedly conservative, and may I say Christian, positions. The biblical model promotes private industry and personal charity, not government giveaways and legislated morality.

There are other aspects of the progressive or socialist agenda that should worry Christians: the wholesale approval of the murder of the unborn, the forced acceptance of “alternative lifestyles”, the implicit infringement of the Christian religion alongside widening acceptance of Islamic practice, the attitude that collectivism is valued over individualism. These differences (and more) should be motivation enough to get out and vote in November. Donald Trump is certainly far from the ideal candidate, but he is closer than anyone the Democrats are likely to offer as an option. If Christians stay home in large numbers this election cycle because they don’t like the Donald, the victory of the opposition will be almost certain. I maintain that a “None of the Above” choice next November is short-sighted and serves to undermine the traditional values upon which our republic was founded.

Weakday Christians

Sunday after Sunday people sit in churches listening to messages from God. At least some churches deliver divine words; I am not concerned with all those churches that gave up preaching the truth years ago. In churches all across America the true message of the Bible is presented on a weekly basis, or perhaps I should say a weakly basis. The warning from James chapter one should haunt those people (like me) who listen to the Word every Sunday and then live like pagans the rest of the week. “Do not merely listen to the word and so deceive yourselves,” James says, “Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

I fear that many people sincerely believe they have done enough to call themselves Christians once they leave church Sunday morning. However, James cautions that listening to the Word but not living it is a useless practice, a wasted effort. Only those who, “continue in [the Word]… will be blessed in what they do.” (1:25) Some of the blame for this rampant self-deception can be placed on those who preach: how many men who get paid to stand in the pulpit every Sunday dare to accuse their flock of failure.

Failing to make the grade by James’ standard is not entirely, or even mostly the preachers’ fault. Every believer has the responsibility to know the Word and to do what he or she knows. No one gets to heaven on the preacher’s say-so. We are supposed to work the Word into every fiber of our being. Someone has quipped that most believers get just enough Bible in them to be inoculated against it. Instead of being vaccinated, we should be infected so that God’s Word seeps out of every pore of our lives like a Spirit-fed fever.

Paul told the Ephesians to avoid getting drunk with wine, but instead to be filled with the Spirit. It’s not stretching the metaphor to suggest that in much the same way that alcohol “takes over” a person, so the Spirit is supposed to be in control of a believer. While it is entirely possible and expected that the Holy Spirit can work in mysterious ways to accomplish God’s purpose through believers, He most frequently uses the Word for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) The result of the teaching, etcetera is to lead believers into right action (righteousness).

None of what has been said should be misconstrued to mean salvation is by works. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that belief in Jesus Christ is what saves. However, if you read a bit further in the book of James you will hear him testify that the only faith that saves is a faith that works. This sounds very much like an application of Jesus’ words to his disciples, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Someone once asked if you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence for a conviction? I fear I may be acquitted; that’s not good.

I belong to a too large club of believers: Sunday strong and weekday weak. As I write this, I am unsure of exactly what I should do differently. I’m not a bad person, generally, but I have a nagging feeling I’m not in line for the, “Well done, good and faithful servant” commendation either. So this is a challenge, as much for myself as anyone who might read this. What more can I do to strengthen my weak-day faith? Not tomorrow or next semester, but now, as soon as I post this and shut down the computer. And you?