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.