I Pray for America

In 1 Timothy 2:1-8, Paul counsels believers to pray for their leaders so that it might go well with them. Remember that when he offered this admonition, the leaders to which he referred were among the worst possible the church might imagine. Emperor worship was required throughout the Roman world, although it could exist alongside other forms of religion. Christians, because they refused to bow to the emperor in addition to Jesus, were being harshly persecuted across the realm, especially in Rome. The application for us is that prayers are not to be offered only for those in power with whom we agree.

During the previous couple election cycles, I have made my opinion clear that certain policies of the Democrat party make their candidates unacceptable to thinking Christians. Support for unlimited abortion and the cause of the LGBTQ community are the two most plainly unbiblical positions that cause me to take my stand. Alignment with anarchist organizations like BLM should be enough to stop anyone from voting for them after the fiery summer of 2020 whether you see it as a violation of the Romans 13 principle or not. The dramatic rise of crime and violence in Democrat controlled cities should be proof enough that stifling the institutions that maintain God-ordained order is a bad idea.

In spite of this policy platform clearly devoid of biblical wisdom, I pray regularly for the Biden-Harris administration. I pray specifically that God may protect our leaders from violence; assassination or a bloody coup does none of us any good. I pray that the Holy Spirit might bring an attitude of restraint and compromise to bear on the most harmful of their policies. I also pray that justice might pour down like rain on the whole government apparatus so that it may accomplish its purpose of maintaining order and fostering true goodness regardless of party affiliation.

I also pray that God will grow the contingent of leaders who see the folly of the worst of the Biden-Harris policies. I pray that the Republicans still in power will find the courage to speak out against blatantly unbiblical policies and all unconstitutional ideas. I pray that more Democrats will come to see that the unbridled application of the progressive agenda is not in the best interest of American citizens. While they are not in the category of “leaders” for whom Paul recommended prayer, I also pray for vast numbers of voters who will turn the tide against the current power structure and return us to a more conservative approach.

I pray that abortion on demand may be stopped. There is no half-way compromise on this issue. Abortion accomplishes the killing of a human being. Killing another human being can only be permitted under the most extreme circumstances. If pregnancy puts the life of the mother at stake, the proper approach should be debated on a case-by-case basis. Under no circumstances should one human life be taken for the convenience of another human life. I pray that adoption may replace abortion as the means to resolve an unwanted pregnancy.

While there is good reason to investigate and improve law enforcement policies and procedures, wholesale deconstruction of the police is not a viable option. I pray that the underlying causes of poverty and criminality will be addressed in a meaningful way. Because of the pandemic of drug use and gang violence (often related to drug distribution), I pray that an army of committed Christians will begin to pray for healing and mount an attack on the darkness that enslaves our inner cities like a cancer. The two-front war on poverty and drugs will not be won by government programs; it must be waged on the spiritual level.

I also pray that people will not misunderstand me or those who are like-minded. We do not hate anyone. I don’t hate gays. In fact, I will openly say that if a non-believing citizen wants to practice homosexual behaviors, it is his right to do so. It is not my wish to apply biblical principles in a theocratic manner. What I will pray is that the LGBTQ movement will stop branding Christian thought as hateful and stop promoting its agenda as the only correct view. Religious freedom means all citizens have the right to believe and practice as they wish. Banning the biblical view of homosexuality and promoting only the gay position is in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Now more than ever we need to follow Paul’s injunction to pray for our leaders, “in order that we may live a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” Tranquility, godliness and dignity are vanishing from American life. The final solution to our difficulties is not a partisan issue, although I have made my bias clear. The real solution to systemic evil begins by understanding where the battle lines are drawn. The centuries-old battle is fought, as the Apostle told the Ephesians, “not against blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness.” For this and for the eternal good of all people, I pray for America.

Related posts: America Held Captive; How Can They Think That? ; Romans 13 Applied; Don't be a Moron; Why I Won't Support Black Lives Matter

Civics Lesson 2021

I have tried to avoid political posts since the 2020 election debacle because the rhetoric became so rancorous and irrational. After the announcements by Senators Hirono and Duckworth yesterday, I have to jump in with a lesson in civics. Senators, like all elected federal officials pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States when they are sworn in. I know that some issues of Constitutional law are debatable, and for that we have a judicial system specifically created for review. Some things are not debatable, having been established and reviewed numerous times. One of these well-supported tenets of our free society is the concept of non-discrimination. The law clearly states, “The laws enforced by EEOC makes [sic] it unlawful for Federal agencies to discriminate against employees and job applicants on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age.”

Senators Hirono and Duckworth have stated unequivocally that they will not vote to confirm any of President Biden’s appointments unless they meet their race and gender-based qualifications. This eliminates all straight, white males from consideration. It is unclear where a black man or straight white woman would stand. The disputing Senators, both of Asian extraction, are mainly concerned with the lack of Asian representation in the Biden appointments so far. Also unclear is whether a representative of the LGBTQ community would pass muster if he or she was not Asian. Whatever their parameters, the Senators are announcing their intention to violate federal non-discrimination law.

Some might argue that the President’s appointments are not covered by the federal employment laws; they are not “employed;” they are appointed. Besides being disingenuous, this flies in the face of federal law  forbidding discrimination in appointments as well. I can understand why the Senators’ Democrat peers have not pointed out the inconsistency, no, the illegality of this situation. What troubles me more is that not even any Republicans have voiced concern as of this writing two days later.

Chapter two of the civics lesson regards the “For the People Act” (HR-1) passed by the House and now being debated in the Senate. In this case, at least the Republicans are standing for Constitutional principles. Regardless of what one thinks of the provisions of the bill, it is blatantly unconstitutional. The US Constitution leaves election procedures and protections in the hands of the states. HR-1 passes unprecedented election control to the federal government. The 50-50 tie in the Senate power structure means that if the bill comes to vote, the tie-breaking vote would be Kamala Harris, and no one doubts which way she will vote if asked.

To prevent this, the Senate Republicans have promised to filibuster to stall the vote. The filibuster is one of the arcane procedural rules developed by the Senators to prevent a minority from being swept aside. A filibuster used to mean the opposing Senator had to continue to talk to have the stall remain in place. In the early 1970’s, the Senate adopted a rule allowing multiple bills to be debated at the same time. This made it possible to announce a “filibuster” on one bill while allowing the Senate to continue to do its business on other matters; actual speechifying on the floor of the Senate was no longer required.

Also in the 1970’s, the Senate devised a way to end the filibuster by invoking cloture. Cloture ends all debate on a bill and requires voting within 30 hours of being invoked. The difficulty with cloture is that it requires three-fifths of the Senators or 60 votes to pass. In other words, 10 Senators would have to cross the aisle and vote with the opposition. You will see pigs flying over the Capitol before that will happen in the HR-1 debate, so the Democrat leadership is trying to remove the 60-vote rule to end debate. They want to force “For the People” on the people even though according to polls there is not wide support among the people for its enactment. These are the same type of shenanigans that brought us the debacle known as The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

Just as Obamacare was challenged numerous times in the courts, HR-1 will face the same trials if the Democrats are successful in getting it through the Senate. It is unlikely that the bill could survive judicial review due in large part to the fact that President Trump was able to fill numerous seats in the justice system with conservative, strict constructionist jurists. One hopes that the clearly partisan, unconstitutional features of HR-1 will cause it to be struck down in its entirety.

The main tenets of HR-1 are not just unconstitutional; they are unthinkable. The bill prohibits states from requiring identification of voters. It greatly expands mail-in ballots, again with no ID required. It approves third-party “ballot harvesting” which opens the door to all manner of fraud. It seriously limits the ability of certain classes of voters to use absentee ballots, effectively removing deployed military citizens from the voting roles. I don’t want a system where anyone can vote regardless of citizenship or residency. I don’t want a system that will foster opportunities for votes to be manufactured out of thin air with no independent review.

The “For the People Act” should be called “For the Democrats Act” because at the moment, Republicans are solidly against almost all of its provisions. The 2020 presidential election was a preview of what future elections will look like if HR-1 is enacted. Many of the HR-1 provisions were tried in the battleground states where Biden-Harris miraculously garnered large batches of questionable ballots in the late-night hours following the election. The failure of Trump’s legal team to lift the veil on those challenged ballots shows how difficult it will be to ever have a transparent election again. If we lose free and fair elections, we lose everything America stands for. If Senators can defy the law and force unconstitutional procedures on the people, “For the People” becomes a statement of tragic irony.

Related posts: America Held Captive

Think About It

When I visited friends recently, I noticed a book by Neil Di Grassi-Tyson sitting on a table. I picked it up and was fascinated to discover that in it Di Grassi answers many of the questions I would like to ask him. Like so many self-proclaimed atheists, Di Grassi firmly believes that anyone who thinks the Bible contains necessary information to understand the universe and those who dwell in it is intellectually stunted. In one of his answers, he tells the questioner that the Bible is a fine piece of work for anyone who wants to let others do their thinking for them. I think that is what one might call a left-handed compliment.

In my opinion, it is Di Grassi who displays intellectual incompetence when he makes a statement like that. I would challenge him to read C. S. Lewis or Francis Schaeffer or R. C. Sproul and maintain that they are not competent thinkers. It is Di Grassi’s failure to think honestly about the claims and positions held by sincere Christian thinkers that weakens his own position. He creates a straw man that he can thrash with his superior intellect. If I were to mimic his tactics, I would declare that all atheists are mentally incompetent and therefore unable to hold a rational discussion. I could discount anything an atheist has to say on the grounds that it must be irrational.

However, Di Grassi and many outspoken atheists are not stupid; in fact, some are very bright. Their problem is either willful ignorance or selective knowledge. They either choose not to investigate the arguments of Christian thinkers at all, or they pick only arguments that they easily dismiss using their arsenal of preconceived notions. By starting with the presumption that a personal, highly intelligent being cannot possibly exist, they eliminate the option of debating whether such a being may have created what they see as the impersonal, accidental universe.

An honest debate with Di Grassi might start with the difficulty surrounding the concept of Darwin’s black box as presented by Michael Behe. Toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin said that further advances in the scientific knowledge of his day could create insurmountable problems for the whole scheme of his evolutionary theory. He knew that individual cells existed, but the science of microscopic investigation in his time was in its infancy. Darwin realized that if a living cell proved to be more complex that he thought, that if he could open the “black box” that was the cell, the complexity itself would rule out the possibility of evolutionary development through natural selection.

This is precisely what has happened. Our ability to peer into the inner workings of living cells has shown them to be incredibly complex. There are biochemical machines within cells that are made of numerous constituent parts that can only operate if all the parts are present and in the correct relationship to one another. Natural selection would insist that each time the parts of the machine came together partially correct but non-functional, the entire structure would be selected out in the next generation. Evolution teaches that only the strong survive; a useless cellular machine would not survive. The probability that all the machine parts could come together in the right order is so highly unlikely as to be impossible.

This type of honest thinking is what has forced many scientists to accept the idea of design. It has become obvious that no amount of time and chance evolution could explain the highly complex structures that make up living cells. The discovery and eventual decoding of DNA has added even more weight to the argument for design. There is no way that the millions of pieces of discreet information that comprise a single chain of DNA could fall into place accidentally. There is intelligence behind the composition of living and non-living things that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. This does not prove that the God of the Bible exists, but it opens the door to believing some form of intelligence is behind the universe as we know it.

There is only one reason I can think of for an intelligent man like Neil Di Grassi-Tyson to flatly deny that a higher power might have been involved in the creation of the universe: the man does not want to give up his independence. To admit that there is something “out there” that is infinitely more intelligent than he is, and consequently that something may have a claim on Di Grassi’s life is an uncomfortable thought for him. If some higher power is making the rules, Di Grassi is no longer the master of his universe. If it can be logically and empirically proven that that higher power is also a personal, moral being, as Francis Schaeffer has done, Di Grassi is in worse trouble. He would be forced to admit that his life is not his own, and he would have to submit to the moral values of another being or suffer the consequences of failure to submit.

Submission to anything other than their own free will is the last thing moderns want to accept. Even Christians struggle with the concept of submitting their lives completely to their Creator. Yet this is the essence of what Christian thinkers have believed for centuries. Thoughtful Christians know the paradox of finding complete freedom in complete submission to God and His Word. Far from letting others do the thinking for them, this opens the universe and all that is beyond to think about. The submission necessary for true Christian thinking is what drives Di Grassi and his fellows to the illogical position* they attempt to defend. They are the ones who refuse to think with an open mind, and they allow an irrational presumption to do their thinking for them.

 

* I call the position of the atheist illogical because it asserts that God does not exist. To make this claim, the atheist is presuming to know everything and thereby concluding that God does not exist within his all-encompassing sphere of knowledge. This is an illogical position because it is not possible for any human being to know everything. The only sustainable argument on this issue is that of the agnostic who says honestly that he does not know whether God exists or not. This leaves the door open to the sincere agnostic thinker to examine the claims of the theist or those who suggest that intelligent design exists in the created realm.

Related articles: I Don’t Believe in God; Do We Really Need God?; Help My Unbelief; Don’t Ask Why

AMAC 2020 Man of the Year

I have been reading a harmony of the Gospels lately to refocus on the question: what would Jesus do (WWJD)? As I was reading a passage in John’s Gospel this morning, I noticed something interesting. When His enemies revealed their supposed reasons for hating Him, He didn’t correct them. One of the things that troubled the Jews was that they traced Jesus back to Galilee where they assumed He was born. They knew the Scripture foretold the Messiah’s birthplace as Bethlehem, David’s city. It would have been a relatively simple thing for Jesus to correct their misunderstanding; perhaps there would even be census records of His birth since the gospel records that as the reason for Joseph and Mary’s trip there. His stepsiblings might have attested to the Bethlehem birth as well, assuming their parents had shared it with them.

Instead of attempting to correct his detractors, Jesus took an entirely different tack: He pointed to His works and the authority behind His words. The Jews in power would have liked to hear what rabbi Jesus had studied under so that they could assess His trustworthiness. Anyone who possessed the kind of in-depth knowledge of the Scripture that Jesus displayed was assumed to have studied under a known teacher. The simple folk didn’t have deep understanding; they relied on their teachers, the scribes and Pharisees to interpret the Scriptures for them. Jesus sailed directly against that current with His challenging teachings. He claimed His authority to do so came directly from God.

I am going to make an analogy that will be upsetting to anyone who does not read very carefully. (Perhaps even some careful readers will choose to be upset.) Let me be clear: I am not making a comparison between two men; I am saying that circumstances the two men faced were strikingly similar. For example, Donald Trump’s detractors tried every possible type of attack against him from the moment he announced his candidacy for President. The early attacks focused on the fact that he had no political experience. He had not been trained, as it were, in the ins and outs of Washington. Trump countered with the explanation that he had proven very successful at running big businesses, and he rightly suggested that there is no bigger business in the United States than the federal government.

The Left discounted Trump’s comparison of government with business, yet when he was ultimately elected in 2016, he proceeded to become the best friend business had had since Ronald Reagan. He secured massive tax relief, rolled back stifling regulations, and the country saw an unprecedented recovery from the Obama recession with increasing employment, new business start-ups and rising personal income. Inflation-adjusted wage growth averaged $3.20 under President Obama’s administration; in three years, Trump’s number was $6.90. His conviction that helping business helped everyone proved correct.

In the same way that Jesus’ detractors tried to keep the people bound under failed religious traditions, Trump’s enemies continued to insist that the only way to improve the lot of the people was with larger, more intrusive government. President Trump denied this flatly; he was “politically incorrect” in many of his published pronouncements while his policies proved to be correct politically and economically. Jesus also used rhetoric that was uncomforting to His enemies, but which carried the ring of truth and results of eternal significance. Both stood up to their detractors and continued to do what they knew was the right thing to do.

Jesus enemies accused Him of not following their interpretation of the Law. He rightly demonstrated that their law had been subjected to so much revision over the years that it no longer represented the will of the Father in Heaven. The Left tried to apply their revisionist view of the Constitution as an attack on President Trump. He steadfastly stuck to the strict constructionist view that most closely follows the intent of the Founding Fathers. President Trump repaired much of the damage that had been done by the previous administration to the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourth Amendments. He also placed judges on the federal courts who would protect our Constitutional rights for years to come.

Jesus was regularly upbraided for His failure to follow accepted social customs. His willingness to associate with prostitutes and other sinners brought loud accusations of His lack of suitability as the Messiah. He was even branded as demon possessed. His enemies could not have imagined a more despicable person. In Trump’s case, some of his behavior prior to taking office was despicable. It is my opinion that since we don’t elect a Messiah but a President, some personal failings can be overlooked if they don’t reflect on the man’s ability to do his job. The hypocrisy of the Left in accusing Trump of things that they regularly let slide in their chosen ones reveals their true intentions. They don’t care how one behaves as long as he is following their playbook. That echoes what the Pharisees thought about Jesus.

One last point of comparison strikes me: Donald Trump took some of the most vitriolic beatings in the press of any President in recent memory. The Left didn’t stop at attacking him personally; they attacked his wife (a most gracious first lady) and his children. The mud slinging and conspiratorial strategies they used throughout Trump’s Presidency were absorbed by the man who only occasionally responded with late-night Tweets or a few speeches he made in his defense. When it came to the most egregious slight of all, the obvious attempts to alter 2020 election results, he stepped down graciously when it became clear that the system was so artfully rigged against him.

I am not trying to make Donald Trump out to be Christ; nor am I suggesting that losing a presidential election is on a par with being crucified. However, metaphorically speaking, President Trump was crucified almost daily for four years. The ridiculous impeachment after he was already out of office shows how hateful his enemies had become. I stand with the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) in their naming of Donald Trump as the 2020 man of the year. If you believe in the sovereignty of God, you may agree with AMAC’s closing statement in the article explaining their choice: “Donald Trump’s role as President of the United States of America is nothing short of God using him for His glory and His good.”

God uses every human being for His purposes, good men and bad. Consider Pharaoh or Caiaphas alongside Moses and Jesus. It is my hope that the “death” of the Trump presidency will have a similar effect on the people of the United States as the death of their Savior had on the Jews. It wasn’t until after Jesus died that some of God’s people realized what they had missed. Donald Trump had many character flaws that disqualify him from full-fledged WWJD alignment to be sure, but his unrelenting efforts to make America great again must be recognized. He was the best ally conservative Christians have had in Washington in many years. I pray that 2022 will bring the first wave of revival to be followed by a tsunami in 2024.

Love and Dependence

Not long ago I wrote a piece titled, “Loving Biblically.” After giving it some thought, I realize that my approach was more in the line of a defense of my recent actions and less than a complete definition. I am not going to retract anything I wrote in the former piece, but I am going to define love in a different way. The muse for this piece is, believe it or not, a cat – my wife’s cat to be precise. You may have read the article I wrote some time ago titled, “For the Love of Cats.” In it I confessed to NOT loving cats, and I felt guilty about it since the Psalm I was reading that day informed me that God loves cats as He does all His creatures. If I am to be more like God, I must love cats.

I was thinking about my failure to love rightly because the aforementioned cat was wandering unleashed around the camper as she often is allowed to do when we are dry camping. Occasionally she will stray a considerable distance from the RV, and we have to go looking for her. Being primarily an indoor cat, I fear she may not have the necessary equipment to find her way home. She once jumped off our sailboat while we were living in a marina and didn’t return for hours. She does have a collar with a phone number on a tag, but that presumes a level of human decency that may or may not exist in a stranger who finds a pretty kitty wandering around. Then too, a fast-moving Chevy would make the collar tag of little import.

Today I began to replay the emotions I experienced during the marina episode. The cat had escaped while I was aboard alone, so I felt responsible. As I sat in the sun today, and the cat wandered while my wife napped, I thought again how I would feel if the animal didn’t return. I confess: I don’t think there would be sadness in my heart over the loss except for the empathy I would have for my wife’s distress. She loves her cat. I sometimes think, given the choice, she might even prefer the cat to me. She is one of those pet people who treat their animals as surrogate children. If I let her, she will refer to herself as Mommy and me as Daddy with regard to the cat. I am uncomfortable with such language.

 I relaxed when the cat strolled back into sight this afternoon, but I began to ask myself what I am missing. I don’t naturally feel love for the cat; I have to jinn up the feeling in order to fulfill my godly intention to be like Jesus. With my wife, as with millions of other pet people, the love is apparently natural. Cats, and to an even greater degree dogs behave in ways that can be interpreted as returning the love of their owners. There is a mutual relationship there that I have never felt for an animal. My wife’s cat can sense this by the way, and she shows me none of the loving behavior. I am fine with that.

As I continued to ruminate, I was somewhat dismayed to realize that I have a similar situation with my human relationships. I was raised in a dysfunctional home by two parents who were themselves raised in homes with difficult emotional environments. I don’t remember my mother or father ever saying they loved me. They probably did at some point, but the fact that I don’t remember even one occasion suggests that it must not have been said frequently. I was nearing forty when I first realized that I am seriously crippled in my ability to have a relationship. At that point I apologized to my wife (then twenty years into the marriage). I confessed to being a jerk and promised to do what I could to make amends.

Thirty years later and approaching our fiftieth wedding anniversary I am still struggling to some extent. The cat I live with knows how to make my wife feel loved. I don’t always do so well. I am wondering if it is the state of utter dependence that comes across as love in a pet. Dogs are particularly helpless, but an indoor, de-clawed cat isn’t much less so. The need for a human to provide food and water is essential; maybe the occasional scratch behind the ear; throw a ball to fetch. Then there are the other needs: I prefer the litter box of a cat to the multiple in-and-out routines with a dog. In either case, need-meeting is the main ingredient.

Is the animal simply trained in some Pavlovian way to “love” the one who cares for it? And if dependence is the essence of animal love, I don’t like the implications for human love. I have seen it. Some men would say if my wife feeds me, does my laundry, and keeps me happy in the bedroom, I love her. If she fails to do these things, I divorce her. If the wife does those things primarily to keep her husband happy, I wonder how far removed that is from simple dependence because if she fails and divorce follows, she loses something too.

This discussion has gone into a dark place, but I know people who live there. Surely, that can’t be love. If we dismiss dependence as the essence of love, we are left with two other possibilities: the hormonal, biological element – making love in modern parlance – and affection which may or may not have a tie to hormones as well. It may be love to say I enjoy being around someone as long as the feeding, laundry and etc. are not the reason for the “enjoyment.” It may be loving to say I “love” spending time with her; I “love” how she makes me laugh; I “love” that she accepts me for who I am. In the case of my wife, I love her because she has stuck with me in spite of my failure to love her properly all these years.

The Genesis account tells us it was good that the animals in the Garden of Eden needed Adam to care for them, but God saw that something was missing. Adam was not complete with just the animals; he needed something more. God met his need with a completer, a woman. God made Eve to fill a need that was lacking in Adam. Paul makes it clear that a man can serve God without marrying, but he also implies that it is critical that the need for a woman is met in a righteous way or treated as a sacrifice for the sake of the gospel.

The concept of love languages (Gary Chapman) seems to be at play here. Find out what the other person needs and fill that need. The problem is that this sounds like feeding dependence again. I do see how this fits the biblical concept of love, agape. Meeting the needs of the loved one is the essence of agape. Caring more for the other than for one’s self is the hallmark of biblical love. The Apostle John said, “This is love: not that we love God, but that He first loved us.” God met our deepest need: salvation, redemption, rescuing us by sending Jesus to live and die for our sakes. We love Jesus because of what He did: we depend on Him to meet our need. Maybe love is dependence.

In my case, my devotion to God is of a practical, intellectual nature. He made me; He owns me; therefore, He has the right to dictate the terms of our relationship. If this sounds cold and calculating, it is. I grew up in a home that lacked the warm and fuzzy side of love; it’s no surprise that my parents took me to a church that was equally lacking. I sang the song, “Jesus Loves Me” throughout my childhood, but the words of the song provide only an intellectual basis for that love: “the Bible tells me so.” Church was all about what the Bible tells me.

I didn’t encounter people who were in love with Jesus until my older sisters introduced me to the charismatic movement in my early twenties. I liked what I was seeing, but my approach was largely analytical. I wanted to know for certain that they were doing what the Bible said we were supposed to do. I still appreciate the fact that charismatics want more than just to know what the Bible says; they want to do what the Bible says. Years of analysis led me to believe they were right on most things, but maybe a little too much emphasis was placed on the emotional aspect of their relationship with Jesus. This conclusion is natural for a man who has little or no emotional relationship with Jesus. For the second time I ask: what am I missing?

There is an enigmatic interchange between Jesus and Peter recorded in the final chapter of the Gospel of John. Jesus and the disciples were hanging out at the beach eating some of the fish they had just caught when Jesus takes Peter aside and asks, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” We get the sense that Peter was taken aback by the question. First, Jesus left behind the pet name He gave the disciple, Peter, and used his legal name, Simon bar Jonah. Jesus also used the formal word for love, agape, in the first question. It may be Jesus was saying, “Are you devoted to Me and the cause of the gospel.” Peter answered with the more personal term, phileo, which implies affection: “You know I like you.” The Greek word Peter used for “know” implies intuitive knowledge. It is interesting to me that Peter took that direction.

Jesus was asking Peter if his level of devotion for His Master rose above his devotion to these things, these men, this life. Peter answered, “You know I like you.” Jesus second question used the formal agape again but without the “more than these.” Peter gave exactly the same answer, “You know I like you.” I think it was at this point that Jesus dug deep because in His third question he reverted to Peter’s term, “Do you like me?” Peter had to be exasperated at this point; he answered by saying that Jesus had intuitive knowledge of all things, and, using a different Greek word, he told Jesus that He had experiential knowledge of Peter’s affection.

If I could paraphrase how Jesus wound up the questioning of Peter it might sound like this: You had better hold onto that warm feeling you have for me because there are some cold, hard things coming your way. When everything dear gets stripped away, cling to that affection; that will be your happy place when life goes down the tubes and things get really ugly. Jesus seems to be putting a premium on the affection although throughout His years of instruction He commanded the agape, the devotion. Nowhere does the Jesus command us to “like” Him, the Father, or anyone. Paul does recommend “brotherly love,” phileo for our brothers, but Jesus had always used agape, the more formal term until this exchange with Peter.

I suspect in Peter’s place I would have said I agape Jesus in response to His agape question. That seems like the appropriate answer to me. If Jesus had then hit me with the phileo question, I may have faltered. This is not to say that I dislike Him or that I have no appreciation for what He has done for me. But when I search my heart for an example of my love for anyone in the phileo sense, I struggle find much at all. Because I was not shown phileo love as a child, I think I may have temporarily lost access to it. I don’t need it; I don’t share it; I don’t have it. There it is, throbbing like a thumb struck with a hammer. I don’t feel love for because I haven’t had or haven’t recognized love from. Cats or people.

This may explain why I enjoy worship immensely, but I seldom get teary-eyed or blubbery about it like so many others. On some occasions, the Holy Spirit has overtaken me to the degree that I have become overwhelmed with an emotional reaction. Perhaps the Spirit is triggering the phileo that is buried inside me. This may also explain why so many orthodox worship services are so devoid of emotion. Is there a lie that we have been told about love and worship lurking here that phileo does not belong there? (For more see “Lies WeHave Been Told”)

When I attended a Bible college that was sponsored by the same group of churches in which I was raised, I was in the midst of my first exposure to the charismatic movement. My professors were more than dismissive of the charismatics; they berated them for their lack of scholarship and excessive emotionalism. One young don even suggested that speaking in tongues was from the devil. And they agreed with the cessationist position that miraculous signs had ceased to be evident in the church when the last Apostle died centuries ago. As I became more familiar with the people my sisters were following, I agreed that their theology had some holes in it, and they did go overboard emotionally sometimes, but I longed for a little of their fervor.

When I wrote “More Than a Feeling” a while back, I admitted that my understanding of agape love needed adjusting. Agape does involve a sense of compassion. I now see that passion is what I have been missing in most of my love relationships, particularly worship. If you have been feeling a bit dry during worship, perhaps you too could use a fuller filling of the Holy Spirit. Raise those hands; move those feet; let the tears come if they will. It seems to me that would be the way to love God with your whole being: spirit, soul and body. Maybe that’s what the ancient Shema was actually trying to elicit from God’s people: “And you shall love Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your might.”

I wonder if it is going too far to ask the Spirit to help me love my wife’s cat.

Forgiveness is a Verb

 I know: forgive is the verb, but I am making a play on the common phrase “love is a verb.” As I am reading through the Gospels, I am reminded that almost every time Jesus exercised His divine power to forgive, He paired it with an action that benefitted the forgiven one. The lame man at the pool of Bethesda, the paralytic lowered through the roof, the woman taken in adultery, the blind beggar and others received forgiveness and something tangible.

This morning’s reading recounted the activities at a banquet at Simon the Pharisee’s house. Most often, we focus on the sinful woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and anointed them with costly oil. It is right that we look here as even Jesus emphasized to Simon the fact that one who is forgiven much loves much. The woman demonstrated her love by humbling herself completely by a tearful washing and by an expensive anointing. Jesus demonstrated forgiveness by removing the stigma of the woman’s former life.

The irony we may overlook is where Simon stood in all of this. Simon the Pharisee, so called by Luke, is Simon the Leper according to Matthew. It is unlikely that people would have gathered at Simon’s house for a banquet if he still had leprosy, so we can assume he was cured, most likely by his esteemed Guest. We don’t know how long Simon suffered with leprosy, but we do know that it is not like the flu or a cold that comes and goes rather quickly. He undoubtedly bore the stigma of his illness for some years. This would have meant no contact with his fellow villagers and especially not his fellow Pharisees. And it meant no access to the temple or synagogue. He was an outcast. So was the sinful woman.

Simon’s Pharisaical understanding would have implied that he too was a sinner because leprosy was considered a curse inflicted for wrongdoing of some kind. As with Jesus’ other cures of leprosy, Simon was delivered not only from the pain and disgrace of the disease; he was also granted reentry into Jewish society if he presented himself to a priest for approval. Throwing a party for his Healer may have stemmed in part from Simon’s gratefulness. Or it may have been a way to bolster his status by entertaining the most popular rabbi the town had ever seen. Look at me, he might have said; Jesus ate here at my table. His failure to perform the expected courtesy of washing his Guest’s feet may suggest that his motivations leaned toward the latter.

In our position as Christ-followers, we too deal in forgiveness; not the forgiveness of sin leading to salvation, but the forgiveness of wrongs committed against us. This is no small matter; more than once Jesus stressed the importance of forgiving as He tied it to our forgiveness by God: “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” I chose the translation using “debts” purposely. Paul counselled the Romans to, “owe no man anything.” Forgiveness is something we owe our brothers precisely because we have been forgiven by our Heavenly Father. Rather than collecting on the debt we imagine is owed to us by the offending brother, we must forgive the debt. Let it go.

The sinful woman at Simon’s banquet demonstrated her respect for Jesus in a dramatic way, and He rewarded what He called her faith. I doubt that she spent the tears and oil in hopes of receiving something in return. She recognized that she owed the Judge her life as payment for her sins; He forgave her debt and gave her back her life. When we forgive someone who has wronged us, we return them to a relationship that is free from indebtedness.

Whereas the woman had preexisting faith (and probably repentance), a number of those who received Jesus forgiveness made no claims to faith; some didn’t even know who He was. This pictures what Paul told the Romans: “While we were still weak, Christ died for the ungodly.” Our forgiveness of others must look like this. We are not to wait until the one who wronged us expresses remorse. Our forgiveness flows from our need to imitate our Lord and to obey His command. This won’t always result in a restored relationship; Jesus forgave those who nailed Him to the cross, but He died, nonetheless.

That is not to say there are no rewards to be had from forgiving regardless of the state of the forgiven. Unforgiveness is, first of all, a sin. Living in a state of continual sin is a curse in itself. Granting forgiveness where it is due relieves the burden of sin. Unforgiveness also causes what the writer of Hebrews calls a “root of bitterness” to grow within us. Bitterness spreads like a cancer into all parts of our being and contaminates every act we attempt, especially our worship. Jesus specifically told believers to, “leave your gift at the alter and go be reconciled.” Withholding forgiveness does nothing to harm the unforgiven; it clearly harms to one who fails to forgive.

Sometimes we are able to do something concrete to demonstrate our forgiveness; sometimes we cannot. Whenever possible, we should do what the law requires – that law being to love as Jesus loved. When the forgiven is unable to respond either through lack of desire or because he is unavailable due to death or other circumstances, we still forgive, and we still derive the benefits of forgiveness. We must not let pride stand in the way of doing what is right. By that I mean that pride can lead us to elevate our position as the wronged party. We should remember David’s words regarding his multiple sins surrounding his affair with Bathsheba: “Against You and You only have I sinned.” The woman and her murdered husband surely had a part in David’s sin, but he rightly recognized that the ultimate party to the affair was God.

Likewise, God is the only person we need to be concerned with when we forgive. The woman at Simon’s banquet may have been embarrassed or ashamed; she was one year’s wages poorer for her expense; she was also relieved of a burden only Jesus could bear. When we forgive others, we give that same gift to someone, albeit on a smaller scale. Whether they receive it or not, we are better for it; the verb forgive is both a passive verb and an active verb. Pause and reflect: who do you need to forgive?

Understanding the TULIP Doctrine

Many Christians today follow the basic teachings of the early reformer, John Calvin, without knowing it or even fully understanding what “Calvinism” entails. John Calvin and Martin Luther were the principal theologians of the Reformation. The Lutheran denomination still exists today, although sometimes in forms far removed from their founding namesake. While there is no denomination identifying with the name Calvin, the Reformed, Presbyterian and many Baptist denominations follow Calvin’s teachings in large part, as do many “Bible” churches.

The remaining denominations and non-denominational groups fall primarily into a contrasting theological camp loosely gathered under what has come to be known as Armenians or semi-Pelagians. The names are drawn from the 16^th century debate between John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius over the nature and degree of human fallenness. The two men picked up the debate that originally raged in the 4^th century between the eminent theologian of the day, Augustine, and his detractor, Pelagius. Augustine and Calvin held that humans were totally without power to seek God or find salvation unless God intervened. Pelagius and Arminius believed that people had the ability to find God using their own resources. The Methodists and a few other denominations follow Arminius; the rest of orthodox Christians fall more or less into the Calvinist camp.

The five basic tenets of Calvinism have long been summarized as the TULIP doctrines, an acronym taken from the major tenets: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of saints. There are those who consider themselves “five-point” Calvinists, meaning they hold firmly to each of the TULIP principles. Others pick and choose among the teaching of Calvin to construct their own brand. I will briefly explain what these tenets have meant historically, and then present my personal interpretation of each.

The “T” for total depravity has historically meant not that humans are as bad as they can possibly be, but that they are fallen from grace in every part of their being. To be totally depraved has been understood to mean that there is nothing worthy of salvation within an unregenerate person. The Arminian position holds that there is a glimmer of goodness in everyone, and they have only to follow it to find God. That seems to be at odds with the Scriptural position that, “there is none righteous; not one.” Calvinists believe the declaration by God that once Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they would “surely die.” This did not refer to physical death, obviously, but to spiritual death which means separation from God. The Apostle Paul echoes this theme often referring to the unregenerate state as being dead. One remains dead until God makes them alive, according to Paul’s understanding. (Ephesians 2:1-6)

The “U” in the TULIP refers to unconditional election. The topic of election is itself worthy of full treatment which I have done briefly in “Election: God’s Choice.” The Calvinist position flows naturally from the previous discussion; if humans have nothing in them to recommend them to God, then election to salvation must be without conditions. God does not require a person to be good to save them; God saves people so they can become good. By contrast, the Armenians believe that God chooses those who use their innate goodness to seek Him. Again, I believe Scripture is clear: “There is no one who seeks after God.”

An issue which overshadows the concept of election is the sovereignty of God. The Calvinist concept of election is one aspect of God’s sovereignty which rubs Armenians the wrong way due to their emphasis on human free will. There is a sense in which the struggle to square the circle of God’s sovereignty and human free will trails all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Adam rebelled against the idea that God had a sovereign right to limit human endeavor. The decision to disobey God’s command goes far beyond the simple eating of forbidden fruit; it strikes at the heart of the relationship between Creator and creature. This human willfulness which constitutes the “original sin” continues to plague people throughout history making them selfish idol worshippers seeking anything but a sovereign God who would trample their independence. The Calvinist position is more likely to counter this aspect of human depravity.

The “L” stands for limited atonement. The argument here is primarily academic, in my opinion. The question is whether Jesus died for the whole world or only for the elect. I say this is academic because His death is only effective for the elect, so to debate whether it would be efficacious for non-elect persons seems moot. I will say, however, that there are numerous passages of Scripture that emphasize God’s love and concern is for the whole world (John 3:16), and that the opportunity to believe and be saved is made available to all.

This brings up another debated topic that is on the fringe of the TULIP principles: does God elect people to salvation and to damnation, a position known as double predestination. I prefer to think based on passages like Romans 2:12-16 and 1 Peter 3:8-10 that the offer of salvation is universal, but the acceptance of the offer is not. Again, we verge into a tangent discussing the difference between God’s foreknowledge and His predestination. I am comfortable thinking that if the Church does its duty to spread the gospel throughout the world, God will be able to sort out the chosen from those not chosen.

The “I” stands for irresistible grace. The point here is that if God uses His unconditional grace to elect someone to salvation, they cannot do otherwise than to be saved. Here again, the Armenians differ in that they believe people can not only resist initial grace unto salvation, but they can fall from grace after having been saved. (More on this under perseverance.) To me this principle falls under the mystery of election. If I follow the first three tenets of the TULIP doctrine, my election by God has nothing to do with my choice, so if God chooses to apply the atonement of Christ to me, I have no say in the matter.

Jesus told Nicodemus that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born from above. (John 3:1-8) He said later that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws him. (John 6:44) Paul told the Corinthians that the unregenerate person cannot begin to grasp spiritual things because they are completely out of his reach. (1Corinthians 2:14) To me, this adds up to the necessity of grace working in the human soul/spirit apart from human agency to accomplish salvation. The Bible is clear that many will not be saved; hell won’t be populated only by the devil and his angels. If I believe that God is not willing that any should perish (1 Peter 3 again), and that He loved the whole world (John 3:16 again), either grace is resistible as Paul seems to argue in Romans 1:18-23, or I am missing a point somewhere else.

The “P” stands for perseverance of saints. Quite simply this means that once God has elected a person to salvation, they will ultimately be saved. This principle has nothing to do with the details of what happens between initial regeneration and final judgment. Some who hold to perseverance have invented the term “backslidden” to describe apparent believers who cease to live as believers. Others will say that people who appear to turn their back on God after claiming to believe were never truly saved to begin with. The New Testament has several dire warnings written to believers that appear to indicate that they may fall away from belief and suffer eternal consequences.

As a realist and a student of the Scriptures, I tend to believe that God’s chosen people will have less than perfect records of obedience. While repentance and obedience are integral to saving faith, failures are apparently not treated as ultimatums. Think of Moses, David, Peter and other icons of the faith who failed miserably yet were lauded as God’s chosen. God knows the weakness of His creatures (that we are dust) and makes allowances stemming from His boundless grace.

This was not intended as an exhaustive treatment of Calvinism by any means. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion fills several volumes. My purpose was to lay out the basics and leave the deeper study to those who want more detail. I was raised in an Armenian denomination and “converted” to Calvinism in my twenties. The intervening forty-something years have only served to strengthen my feeling that I am more of a Calvinist that an Armenian. My parents are probably rolling over in their graves at that statement, but I trust when I see them again with the rest of the elect, we will have no arguments – one way or the other. The only tulips we will care about are the perfect flowers in the perfect garden.