Drinking and the Bible

I enjoy talking about what the Bible has to say about drinking. Really, if you investigate it closely, there's a lot more than most people would think.

Compare these two verse selections:

This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them."

So I took the cup from the LORD's hand and made all the nations to whom he sent me drink it
...

"Then tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you.' But if they refuse to take the cup from your hand and drink, tell them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: You must drink it! See, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword upon all who live on the earth, declares the LORD Almighty.'

Jeremiah 25:15-17, 27-29

The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.

Revelation 17:4

The common image in the above verses is the cup. In these passages, the cup symbolizes the authority and power of i's bearer.

When Joseph tricked his brothers by hiding his cup in the youngest sibling's bag in Genesis 44, the crime is especially grievous because the supposed theft involved an item that was valued, not for its price so much as it's owner. This is especially obvious in Jeremiah, when God states that even if the nations refused to drink His cup, they will indeed drink, meaning God not only had the right to punish the nations, but also the ability to do so.

Of course, we can't overlook the most important aspect of the cup - that it carried something to the drinker. In the Old Testament, God's wrath is often depicted as a cup filled with wine. The wine is described as mixed or filled with spices - characteristics which imply an enhanced ability to inebriate. Moreover, note what God says about the effect of his wine in Jeremiah 25:16:

When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them."

Note the effect of God's wrath is twofold: those who drink His cup will stagger and go mad.

Each effect is important. To stagger is to physically stumble. To go mad is to lose mental competence. Thus, those who experience God's wrath will suffer both physically and mentally - in much the same way someone who drinks too much alcohol does.

But don't think that the effect of drinking God's wrath leaves the drinker feeling like a frat boy fully-lit on Absolut. Your typical frat-party patron reels and mumbles because he's so drunk he has no control of his body, but it can be rather pleasant (vomiting and hangover aside). But imagine reeling from intense pain and being so mentally distraught you can't speak a clear sentence. Really, what kind of pain and suffering would it take to reduce someone to a babbling vegetable?

Let's jump ahead into the New Testament. Keep the imagery of the cup and wine in your mind as you read the following verses:

"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"
"We can," they answered.

Matthew 20:22

"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Mark 14;36

Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

John 18:11

Understanding the Old Testament imagery and meaning of the cup casts light on Christ's use of the metaphor in the New Testament. Jesus made these references as the time of his death approached, and if we examine Christ's suffering on the cross, we see that He suffered both physical and mental (or spiritual) anguish.

If you look at Christ's last words on the cross, John Stott points out that two of them deal with His physical pain. Namely, "I thirst." The remainder of His words dealt with His spiritual suffering. For example, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?", and "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". These words are the results of Jesus drinking the cup of God's wrath. The physical portion was the most cruel, barbaric, and horrible way a human being could (and still can) possibly die. Yet Christ minimized the focus on His physical pain because the mental / spiritual pain was far greater - the experience of being abandoned by God.

But the cup imagery doesn't stop there:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:26-28

The cup Christ offered to His disciples (and by extension, to us) was a cup of forgiveness. Remember the cup symbolizes authority and power. Christ had the authority to forigve sins (Mark 2:5) and, by His crucifixion, the power to do so.

Now look at Psalm 23:5:

You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.

The cup of the children of God is a cup of blessing. Thus, Christians have the right and ability to bless.

In summary:

1. God gave Christ His cup of wrath.
2. Because Christ willingly drank God's cup, He offered us His cup of forgiveness.
3. If we willingly drink Christ's cup, we can offer a cup of blessing to others.

- Graffy

This Old House

New siding and insulation: $5,000
New roof: $10,000
New windows: $12,000
New HVAC: $15,000

Satisfaction in knowing I'm the new poster child for This Old House: Priceless

I am now the owner of a 3,000 square foot money pit. It has no driveway, a dilapidated garage, a bad roof, 50-year-old faux-brick celotex siding, rotting soffits, termite damage, sagging floors, no air conditioning, smelly carpets, a bathroom with a disgusting shower and a chimney that's caving in, (which, incidentally, is still the only way the furnace flue gases leave the house).

So why'd I buy it?

$31,000 on an auction is all I can say.

Maybe I should apply for an Extreme Makeover...

You Are Who You Are

I couldn't help but notice the following argument in a post on The Beginner's Mind which asserts:

Those folks who risked their lives for the good of others practice their religion in such a way as to reflect that compassion for others. Being religious didn't cause them to help end slavery or further the civil rights movement. I'm not religious and I find common cause with the enemies of slavery and champions of civil rights. Religious beliefs reflect the believer not the other way around, in my opinion. Just as an atheist like myself gladly works for civil rights, a Christian wearing the hood of the KKK would likely have little problem with black slavery.
...
That's what we'd like removed from the public sphere; this notion that true morality and social justice flows from religion and nowhere else. And, yes, this is what conservative Christians believe.

The author presents two ideas in this statement: First, that we are who we are and our beliefs and life choices simply express this - they don't change us into something we were not before. Second, if you are a conservative Christian, you believe those who are not Christian are inherently immoral - incapable of knowing right from wrong.

The first point the author makes is not only wrong, in my opinion, but also irresponsible. He states an idea that has been popular for quite a while now - Eddie Vedder sang about it in a rather bland song of his entitled "Who You Are" on Pearl Jam's "No Code" album. The refrain was "You are who you are". a nice little New Age mantra, perhaps, but not worth an awful lot when you're dealing with social issues of the day. Nevermind the fact that the remainder of the lyrics were, in Eddie Vedder's trademark fashion, mumbled incoherently. Not that it would havea mattered, for it seems the remainder of the lyrics were chosen largely because their rhyme and meter, not for any particular meaning. It's interesting to note that when one of alternative rock's premier bands writes a song about the meaning of humanity, it amounts to a song about nothing...

All of this, of course, is also contrary to what Christianity teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:17:

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

What the author argues is fatalistic and, in my opinion, unsustainable in the face of documentable human behavior. For example, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade publicly repudiated the abortion right for which she so ardently strove in that landmark 1973 case, but she only did so after becoming a Christian. Theodore Weld became a Christian under the preaching of Charles Finney (a man whom he hated) and began the American abolition movement in the early-mid 1800's. In both cases, we see people ultimately behaving contrariwise to who they once were. This raises the question, did they really change? If so, then "You are who you are" loses it's definitive, fatalistic edge and becomes a meaningless mantra not quite worthy of Yogi Berra.

The "You are who you are" philosophy does not admit change. It's a popular lie that is told especially loudly in homosexual circles to keep gays who do not wish to be gay from seeking treatment. The philosophy hinders true social change, and while I'm certain the author wouldn't express it in these extreme terms, if we apply that philosophy everyone, then who can fault John Mark Karr for being addicted to kiddie porn? After all, that's just the way he is, right?

Grotesque humanistic New Age philosophy aside, one issue remains: that conservative Christians believe that morality can only be found in Chistianity. As a conservative Christian, I reject that outright - and always have. Most any Christian who knows their faith well enough knows that is false. We need only cite Romans 1 or, better yet, Romans 5:14,15 to point out that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. After all, why would a non-Christian demand justice for wrongs committed if they had no sense of morality to begin with? While I know some in Christianity may express it in those terms, most would not. From the conservative Christian viewpoint, an atheist civil rights activist who has righted numerous social wrongs in their lifetime has no more claim on heaven than any professing Christian wearing a KKK hood.

Christianity clearly teaches it is not about what you've done or what you know. It's about Who you know and what He's done.

- Graffy

Supernatural Christianity

I've recently been listening to a set of tapes loaned to me by a friend from church. He gave them to me after I gave my "spiritual gifts" lesson in an adult Sunday School class a few weeks ago. Anyway, the album is entitled "The Fourth Wave" by David Pawson.

In this lecture, Pawson approaches the schism in Christianity that has long separated the evangelical and the charismatic Christians. I disagreed with many of Mr. Pawson's assertions, but he raised some interesting points about what brought on the schism and how we may go about reconciling it.

He points out that in these two different perspectives on Christianity, the focus of faith gets shifted according to each group's bias. He gives a tongue-in-cheek example by pointing out that "to the Reformer, the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Scripture. To the Catholic, it's Father, Son and Holy Virgin Mary."

His point was that as Christians, we often ignore the work of the Holy Spirit in the church and substitute Him for an unhealthy infatuation with relics and mysticism, or exegetical dogmatism.

Pawson really got me thinking on this topic. Truly, if God is still present in this world and actively working in our lives, why do we (as evangelicals) tend to limit that action to the ways we apply Scripture to our lives? I'm not saying that most evangelicals believe God doesn't work in any other way, just that we tend to believe it happens largely by reading the Bible.

I think it's a natural tendency to minimize the spiritual aspect of Christianity in it's more "intellectual" cultures. That is, the more we focus on the exegesis and exposition of Scripture, the more we tend to think of the supernatural aspects of Christianity as being past events, not a present reality. That's something which charismatics have rejected outright, and rightly so.

Paul pointed out that our battle is not with the flesh and blood, but "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12)

Paul was explicit that we are at war and the war far exceeds the reality that any of us percieve. While I don't believe every misdeed is a result of demonic attack, I do believe that when we choose to follow God, Satan raises the stakes. We battle not only against our flesh, but inevitably against demonic forces. I don't pretend to know what the spiritual war Paul indicates looks like, though I can clearly point to episodes in my own life when I am certain my struggle was with more than just my own flesh.

When I compound my own experience with that of others, the evidence is too great to ignore. I've listened to friends describe their (sometimes physical) encounters with demonic forces. One pastor in our denomination described performing an exorcism which immediately healed a woman. I cannot (and dare not) discount the supernatural aspect of my faith.

I have long held that the major difference between a charismatic and an evangelical is the charismatic tends to embrace the supernatural with alarming disregard, whereas the evangelical tends to regard the supernatural in terms of disbelief, suspicion, and even fear. Whether we see our faith in charismatic or an evangelical terms, we can neither fully understand or comfortably ignore it's supernatural aspects.

By definition, the supernatural supersedes reality as we know it. Christianity teaches that it defines reality, whether we acknowledge it or not.

- Graffy


"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Weekly Funny

A Baptist pastor was giving his sermon one Sunday morning, his vigorous preaching captivating the audience, leaving them hanging upon his every word. Yet the preacher couldn't help but notice one young man sitting in a vacant pew, just ahead of the balcony, looking as if he were drunk. He slouched in his seat, arms thrown to the sides, with what appeared to be a sneer scrawled on his face.

The young man hadn't gone unnoticed by the other church leaders in the congregation. During the sermon, several had slipped back into the pew to talk to the young man, to encourage him to sit up and pay better attention, but to no avail.

Finally, the preacher could take it no longer. Stopping in the middle of his sermon, he stepped from his pulpit, strode down the aisle, and stood before this irreverent-looking young man.

"Son," said the preacher, "Why don't you sit up and pay attention to the sermon?"

The young man simply rolled his eyes at the preacher and grunted.

Annoyed by the audacious behavior of this unknown congregant, the preacher demanded, "Boy, where are you from?"

The young man gazed at the preacher and said in a very pained voice, "... the balcony..."

Christianity and Politics in America

[This is a little off topic for me, but my curiosity got the better of me...]

I have often heard it said that 85% of America is Christian, an assertion I've always considered it to be bogus.

To be sure, what defines a "Christian" directly influences that percentage. For example, many Muslims consider themselves (by Islamic doctrine) to also be Christian, so who's to say they're wrong? Thus, when someone describes so much of the American population as being Christian it would do well for the reader to very carefully consider the writer's bias.

George Barna, a Christian pollster, compiled some interesting statistics regarding Christianity in America:

• 9% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2006)
  
• 36% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2006)
• Atheists and agnostics comprise 10% of adults nationwide. (2006)
• 10% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2006)

In his classifications, Barna was smart enough to realize it's not what you say that makes you what you are, but what you believe. Thus, when he classified people as "born-again" or "evangelical", he used strict criteria to define them.

To quote the website,

In Barna Research Group studies, born again Christians are not defined on the basis of characterizing themselves as "born again" but based upon their answers to two questions. The first is "have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?" If the respondent says "yes," then they are asked a follow-up question about life after death. One of the seven perspectives a respondent may choose is "when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior." Individuals who answer "yes" to the first question and select this statement as their belief about their own salvation are then categorized as "born again."

Since only 36% of Americans would classify themselves as "born-again", the statement that "85% of Americans are Christian" is clearly false. Truly, if one is to call himself or herself Christian, acceptance of Jesus' death on the cross as a substitute for our sin (made possible by his resurrection) is the qualifying belief that defines one as a Christian. To deny this doctrine is to deny what makes Christianity what it is. Also, Barna's definition of "Evangelical" is a sub-classification of a "Born-Again", that is, an Evangelical meets seven further criteria in addition to the two laid out for a Born-Again.

So where's the rest of the supposed 85%?

Barna classifies more of the U.S. population as being "Notional Christians". Such people may claim to be Christian, but do not believe that they will go to Heaven on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection (because they simply don't believe it happened). 39% of the U.S. population can be classified as Notional Christians, bringing the total "Christian" population to about 75%.

Often, the "85% Christian" statistic is quoted for politial purposes. Politically speaking, however, a profession of faith hardly equates to an alliegance to any one political party. The political breakdowns of the Notional and Born-Again Christians (including Evangelical) shows that 40% of non-Evangelical Born-Agains align themselves with the Democratic Party along with 42% of the Notional Christians.

Thus, for political purposes, if we take 75% (not 85%) of the culture to be "Christian", fully 30% of the American "Christian" population is Democrat. Another 27% may be considered Republican, leaving 43% in the lurch.

Looking at the numbers, it would seem that while religious views have created polarizations in American politics, it hardly divides Americans on public policy like some would claim. Rather, from the religious sphere, we see that the split between Republican and Democrat is nearly equal and the majority of "religious" (again, not necessarily "Christian") people claim no aliegance, though they may have conservative or liberal leanings.

- Graffy

Family Update

Hey.

Whaddya lookin' at?

Micah is now almost 5 months old. At his 4-month checkup, he weighed in at 15 lbs, 8.5 ozs. and 27 inches. He wears 9-12 month-old clothes regularly and he just recently graduated to the next size in diapers. Not sure that's a cause for celebration, though I could see how some people might think so...

In any case, he gets more interesting by the day. He enjoys exporing his vocal chords and grabbing anything that gets within arm's reach. He's taken a keen interest to solid food that mom and dad eat, though the jury's out on when he'll get his first taste.

Beyond that, he's a squeaky, drooly baby boy for whom the cat carries no great affection...

Weekly Funny

In November of 2004, Dr. Ravi Zacharias was invited to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah. He accepted - on the condition that he could choose the topic. They agreed. The speech he gave is, in my opinion, one of the greatest speeches ever given on the supremacy of Christ. In addition, this honor was very unique because the last non-Mormon person to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle was D.L. Moody at the end ofthe 19th century.

What follows is the joke Ravi told to open his speech...

An Englishman had been invited as an honored guest at a society function and as he arrived, he took his appointed position at the head table near the speaker's lectern. After seating himself, he noticed across the table a rather anxious-looking Japanese gentleman. Guessing the Japanese man was suffering cultural anxiety, the Englishman thought it might be a good opportunity to instruct him in the basics of English ettiquette.

He picked up a fork, and, looking at the Japanese gentleman, he pointed to it and said, "This be forkey." He then laid down the fork, picked up the spoon and said, "This be spooney." Continuing in this fashion he introduced each of the table serviceware, referring to them as "knifey, platey," and the like. All the while, the Japanese gentleman observed the Englishman and nodded courtesously after each lesson.

Finally, the time had arrived for the keynote address. Much to the astonishment of the Englishman, the Japanese man rose and took the lectern as the keynote speaker. He then went on to deliver his talk in flawless English.

After completing his speech and returning to his seat, the Japanese man looked straight at the Englishman and asked,

"You likey speechey?"

It's All Greek To Me

Ah, yes. How I miss the heady days of Optimus Prime and the Autobots raging against the evil forces of Megatron and his Decipticons. I miss those guys...

Anyway, I just thought I'd share some of the interesting tidbits that come out of my occasional forays into New Testament Greek.

First, courtesy of my friend Ron, did you know that never in the New Testament does the word "atonement" appear? We often refer to Christ's death on the cross as an "atoning sacrifice". But to atone is an Old Testament word that essentially means to cover over or make up for your sin. The authors of the New Testament never held that view. In the New Testament, Christ's death is a propitiation - it's a complete removal of the sins we bear - not merely a "covering over".

Second, did you know that when Jesus was transfigured on the Mount in Matthew 17, He was really transforned?

In New Testament Greek, there are four words that are used to describe changes people undergo. There are "morphoo" changes and "schema" changes. "Morphoo" changes are changes in form (think metamorphosis) whereas "schema" changes are changes in appearance only (think schematic - a figure or representation, but not the thing itself). Thus the New Testament describes changes in these four terms: Configure, Transfigure, Conform, and Transform.

So how does this apply to New Testament thinking?

In all cases except one, "schema" changes are used in a negative context. Satan "transfigures" himself into an angel of light in 2nd Corinthians and we are not to "configure" ourselves to the present age in Romans 12.

Opposite that are the "morph" changes - changes in actual form, not the appearance of it. These are always positive. In Matthew 17, Jesus was literally "transformed" (not transfigured). Paul exhorts us to be "conformed" to the image of Christ (Romans 8).

It is one thing to be changed in how you look. It is something wholly different to be changed in who you are.

When Satan transfigures himself into an angel of light, he can only "meta-schema" or trans-figure how he looks. However, his change does not reflect who he truly is. No matter how much Satan may disguise himself as an angel of light, it forever remains that - a disguise. He is still a minister darkness. He has been transfigured, but not transformed.

When Christ was changed on the mountain, we say in English that He was transfigured. But really, He was transformed. He literally became something in human form that He was not before. Paul exhorts us to "be transformed" by the renewing of our minds with that same word in Romans 12.

So what makes a transformation more than just a transfiguration? A "transformation" in the positive sense is a complete change, but it is a change that is based upon an underlying reality. Christ was transformed in body to reflect His divine nature and Paul exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds to reflect the nature God has already given us.

To simplify the idea then, to "transfigure" or "configure" is to change how we appear to reflect something apart from ourselves. To "transform" or to "conform" is to change how we appear to reflect what God already says is true about us.

So, there you have it.

Be Ye Transformed.

Weekly Funny

After waving down a taxi, a rather rushed businessman hopped into the back seat and hurriedly gave the driver his destination. The cab driver, a nervous-looking middle-aged man, nodded tentatively at his passenger's orders and and pulled back into traffic. As the trip passed, the businessman grew impatient with his drivers slow driving habits. So, he reached out and grabbed the cab driver's shoulder in an effort to urge him to pick up the pace a little.

No sooner had the passenger's hand touched the driver's shoulder did the driver let out a terrified, blood-curdling scream, slam his foot to the accelerator, and began carreening wildly through traffic. The hair-raising experience came to an abrupt halt as the cab slammed into a building facade on the opposite side of the street.

As the two sat there, somewhat stunned over what had just occurred, the driver looked back at the passenger and said, "Please! Don't EVER do that again!"

The passenger, his impatience long forgotten in the rush of mad fear for his life, looked at his driver apologetically. "Sorry," he stammered.

The driver's expression softened. "It's alright, " he replied. "It's not your fault. This is my first day on the job."

"You see," the driver went on to explain, "I used to drive a hearse..."

Vengeance is Mine, Part II

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the indications of a vengeful spirit, which can be found in Amos 1:11, 12. You can find that original post here. From those verses, we can see the primary indicators of a vengeful spirit are:

Disregarding the relationship with the wrongdoer

Pursuing of the wrongdoer with threats of various kinds

Failing to recognize extenuating circumstances / misunderstandings

Experiencing a burning rage over the wrong committed

Bearing a perpetual grudge against the wrongdoer, regardless of time or severity of wrong

The next logical step would be to study the consequences of a vengeful spirit. Perhaps the best study on this topic the Bible has to offer can be found in the book of Esther, in the incident of Haman's persectution of Mordecai and the Jews. The episode can be found in Esther 3 - 7. At very least, I would recommend reading chapters 3 & 7.

Haman exemplifies what happens to one when they become consumed by a sense of vengeance. We can even reasonably equate his behavior with the outline provided in Amos 1:

Haman experienced a rage over Mordecai's refusal to bow to him that "tore perpetually" (Esther 3:5 & 9:5-13)

Haman bore a grudge and was willing to "keep his anger" for eleven months to see Mordecai hanged (Esther 3:7)

Haman pursued Mordecai with a "sword" (the threat of hanging) (Esther 5:14)

Haman "cast off all compassion" and let his rage rule his will by convincing the king to issue the decree that all Jews be executed (Esther 3:8-11)

Finally, Haman's sense of vengeance caught up with him when Mordecai's relationship to the king was revealed. By "pursuing a brother" Haman sealed his own fate. (Esther 6 & 7)

So what led Haman to these series of "unfortunate events"?

John R. W. Stott once observed:

"Envy is the reverse side of a coin called vanity. Nobody is ever envious of others who is not first proud of himself."

If you examine the narrative, you see that Haman had been exalted by the king. This honor basically required all who were of lesser rank to bow in Haman's presence. It's hard to imagine that Haman would not have been quite proud of this fact. So, when Mordecai refused to bow, Haman's pride took a hit. His ego was bruised and Haman wanted what he believed was rightfully his: Mordecai's worship. That is, Haman envied Mordecai's respect because he first took great pride in his own social status.

Observe Haman's behavior in Esther 5:9-14:

9 Haman went out that day happy and in high spirits. But when he saw Mordecai at the king's gate and observed that he neither rose nor showed fear in his presence, he was filled with rage against Mordecai. 10 Nevertheless, Haman restrained himself and went home.
Calling together his friends and Zeresh, his wife, 11 Haman boasted to them about his vast wealth, his many sons, and all the ways the king had honored him and how he had elevated him above the other nobles and officials. 12 "And that's not all," Haman added. "I'm the only person Queen Esther invited to accompany the king to the banquet she gave. And she has invited me along with the king tomorrow. 13 But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the king's gate."

14 His wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, "Have a gallows built, seventy-five feet high, and ask the king in the morning to have Mordecai hanged on it. Then go with the king to the dinner and be happy." This suggestion delighted Haman, and he had the gallows built.

Haman's pride and envy, then, worked together to fuel his sense of vengeance. If he was not to have Mordecai's worship, then it would be Mordecai's death. It should also not be lost on the reader the excessive height of the gallows which Haman built for Mordecai. By hanging him 75 feet in the air, Haman had intended Mordecai to worship him far more in death than he ever could have in life. No one was going to miss this.

So what came of Haman's sordid pursuit of vengeful glory? Anyone familiar with the story knows, but it's worth examining closely as we can learn a few things about the costs of having (or even associating with) a vengeful spirit.

Haman's sense of vengeance exploited the relationships he had with others. In this case, Haman used his close relationship to the king to obtain the death of every Jew in the kingdom. That is, the king became an unwitting pawn in Haman's plot to kill an entire race of people to whom not only did his queen belong, but also the man who saved his life (Esther 2 & 6).

Not only did Haman abuse and greatly embarass the king with his vengeful ploy, but the whole situation was exposed at a very bad time - when the king was drunk. The king's judgment was impaired and it's certain the wine left him less able to control his feelings. Had the king not been drinking, Haman might have gotten away with his life. However, when the king left and re-entered the palace to find Haman begging his queen for mercy, in his drunken state he misinterpreted Haman's pleadings for an assault, thereby sealing Haman's fate. Haman was hung on the gallows he built for Mordecai, 75 feet in the air. No one, I'm sure, missed it.

Not only should we avoid a vengeful spirit, but the king in Esther teaches us that we should avoid those who do have a vengeful spirit - no matter how close they are to us. Haman abused his close relationship to the king, rendering the king an unwitting pawn in his game of vengeance. The king's rank and influence were nothing more than tools for Haman to use to feed his own pride and satisfy his envy.

There's another great example of this in Matthew 14:1-11 which chronicles the untimely death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herodias. John the Baptist had spoken out against Herod and Herodias. Herod would have killed John for it, but he feared public opinion. Herodias, however, didn't care. Her pride was injured. She envied John the Baptist's respect, and his death was the only thing that would satisfy her envy. As a result, Herod became a pawn to Herodias' vengeful ploy and he ended up risking the one thing he valued more than John's criticism: public opinion.

Haman teaches us that vengeance can leave us with a skewed view of reality, destroy close relationships, and lead us into embarassing situations which we don't see until it is too late to change our minds. The kings in both stories remind us that associating with vengeful people makes us potential pawns in their games. Ultimately, a vengeful spirit is a spirit that honors no one and is not honored by God.

Weekly Funny

[Courtesy of Pastor Jon's blog]

2005 Darwin Award Winners

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim during a hold-up in Long Beach, California, would-be robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it worked..... And now, the honorable mentions:

2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat cutting machine and, after a little hopping around, submitted a claim to his insurance company. The company
expecting negligence, sent out one of its men to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and lost a finger. The chef's claim was approved.

3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his Vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably,
he shot her.

4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies. The deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.

5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer...$15. (If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?)

7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided that he'd just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape.

8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's the lady I stole the purse from."

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun, demanded cash. The clerk turned him down
because he said he couldn't open the cash register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren't available for breakfast . The man, frustrated, walked away.

A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER!
10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for. Police arrived at the scene to find a very
sick man curled up next to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline and plugged his siphon hose into the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined to press charges, saying that it was the best laugh he'd ever had.

World With A View

[This is a speech I presented for my Toastmasters International group Thursday, October 12, 2006. It's one of my better speeches, so I figured I'd catalog it here. It uses the material from one of my previous posts, Enjoy! - Graffy]

Two months is too little. They let him go. They had no // Sudden healing. To think that providence would // Take a child from his mother while she prays // Is appalling. ...

Christian recording artist Natalie Grant recently re-recorded the song "Held". As I heard it played over the airwaves the first time, I must admit, my first reaction was to change the station. Why? Because I just don't care for mushy songs. But these lyrics grabbed my attention and they brought to the forefront of my mind one question and one question only: Why? Why would God take a child from his mother while she fervently prays to Him for his life? (The song is based on a true story, after all.)

But I'm not really interested in dealing with that question, here. Rather, I'd like to explore why anyone would ask that question in the first place. Better yet, how do we understand the things that hapen in our lives, the good and the evil?

Before we can really explore this idea, I must first point out that everyone has a worldview. What is a worldview? Simply, a worldview is a set of beliefs we use to interpret reality. That said, someone might object (if only for the sake of argument) and say, "Wait a minute! I don't have a worldview. I don't interpret reality!"

Yet if this is true, then they obviously don't interpret reality because they believe reality is not meant to be interpreted - it has no meaning. The things which happen to us are meaningless, purposeless and random - life has no point. Such a worldview is known as nihilism - nothing matters. It is a very dangerous and irresponsible wordldview, but it is a worldview nonetheless.

That said, we can know that everyone has a world view. George Bush has a worldview. Osama Bin Laden has a worldview. Everyone here is well-acquainted with both these men's worldviews to know that they are very, very different. In fact, no matter what you may think of our President, I hope I can get at least a grudging agreement here that George Bush's worldview is a morally better one than Osama Bin Laden's.

That brings me to my next point. Not only does everyone have a worldview, but we can judge between worldviews as one being better or worse than another. Of course, when I say this, I'm likely to offend someone's very American pluralistic sensibility. They may raise an objection saying,

"Wait a minute! Don't go judging me. What's true for you is true for you. What's true for me is true for me. I don't judge you and you don't judge me. And besides, can't we all just get along?"

Such an objection, although well-intentioned, implies the idea that all worldviews are equally valid. But if we were to hold to that viewpiont, then we have to include everyone's worldview. In essence, this is saying that Billy Graham's worldview is no better than Adolf Hitler's - they're only different. I'd really like to find someone we could count as sane who would honestly believe that Adolf Hitler's worldview was just as valid as Billy Graham's.

Thus, if everyone has a worldview, and some worldviews are inherently better than others, then we are implying that some worldviews are right and others are wrong. Some are good and others are bad. Yet the moment we assert any one thing is right or good and another is wrong or bad, we are appealing to a greater truth which we use to tell the difference between them. This then, is central to my speech, so please listen carefully:

There is an objective truth which defines reality as we know it (repeat 1x)

Let me close with a comparison to illustrate my point. To do so, I must compare three major world religions, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity, and I will not compare them all favorably. Please understand it is not my wish to denigrate the beliefs of the adherents of any one religion below those of another - I am not speaking about the beliefs of any relgious adherent. I am merely comparing what these religions as institutions teach to their adherents.

Let us return to our mother grieving the loss of her two-month-old son in my introduction. Let us assume this mother is a Buddhist. What worldview does Buddhism teach?

Buddhism teaches the law of karma. That is, through the concept of reincarnation, the sins of one's past life are paid for in their next life. Eventually, through a series of lives, the Buddhist believer can purify themselves, and, having finally lived a perfect life, can attain to Nirvana, where Buddha himself is supposed to reside. Yet there is no guarantee that the faithful will ever reach Nirvana. It is possible that they would spend eternity living each life paying for sins of the last. Thus, Karma is a negative doctrine of unforgiveness and condemnation.

Therefore, if Buddhism is the objective truth which defines reality as we know it, then our Buddhist mother should be greatly comforted to know that her son died because of sins he committed in a previous life and she herself is suffering his loss because of sins she committed in a previous life.

Suppose, then, that our mother is a Muslim. What worldview does Islam teach? Islam teaches that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. But, he's not personal - not knowable. Additionally, in Islam, both good and evil come directly from God. There is never a question of God's will. It is merely, "whatever Allah wills."

Therefore, if Islam is the objective truth which defines reality as we know it, then our Muslim mother should be greatly comforted to know that although Allah knows about her pain, He does not care. And what's more, He caused it.

Finally, let us assume our mother is a Christian. If Christianity is the objective truth which defines reality as we know it, then our Christian mother should be greatly comforted to know that God knows about her loss. He did not want her son to die, He did not cause her son's death, and He is not punishing her for any sin she may have committed by letting him die and not answering her prayers.

He even grieves with her over her loss. He knows her pain. He lost a Son once too, you know. And she should also be comforted to know that God never promised to protect anyone from the pains of a sinful world. Rather, as a the song says,

"the promise was, when everything fell, we'd be held."

Weekly Funny

[Just to keep things interesting, and as a way of cataloguing the anecdotes I hear, I thought I'd post a weekly funny. Enjoy! - Graffy]

A teacher in communist Russia decided to start class one morning by asking her students to consider the many wonders of the communist government and all that it had done for the Russian people. So, she started by asking her students to describe one of the many things that commuism had supplied Russia's citizens to make it a great place to live.

To her dismay, she was met with the dead silence of her students.

Not easily discouraged, the teacher picked on her brightest student, Sergei, and pressed him with the question. Sergei sat and thought for quite sometime. Growing impatient, the teacher insisted, "Come now Sergei, I'm sure you can think of something our glorious government has done to make our lives better."

Finally, Sergei opened his mouth and said, "It's the food, most certainly. There is so much more food now. So much that it could be piled all the way to heaven! To God Himself!"

Taken aback, the teacher admonished her young charge, "Why, Sergei! There is no God!"

To which Sergei merely shrugged his shoulders and said, "There's no food, either."

Pangs of Conscience

It has been my experience that if one wishes to hear the voice of God in their lives, obedience is requisite. I suppose I should qualify that: it is not obedience itself that brings God's voice and direction into our lives, but rather our willful obedience to the "pangs of conscience" that God brings upon us.

I remember a speaker once shared about a speaking engagement he took in Alaska. While there, he was invited by one of his hosts to go sledding. The speaker's host raced in dog sled races across Alaska and was proficient at the sport. After the two had gone out for a short ride and were later relaxing and discussing Alaskan life, the speaker commented to his host,

"Mike, I couldn't help but notice that when you were driving those dogs, you spoke barely above a whisper to command them to go left or right - and they heard you every time. How did you train them to do that?"

The host simply replied, "Jeff, it's because they're doing what they were made to do."

The host knew his dogs had an innate drive to pull that sled as fast and as hard as they could. He knew it was their joy and passion to do the very thing he wanted them to do. They were in tune with their master's voice because his voice made it possible for them to do what they did best more fully. Thus, they were always listening for and anticiapting his next command. Such sensitivity to the master's voice never requires shouting.

When I became a member of the Presbyterian church I was rasied in, I had to learn the Westminster Shorter Chatechism. The first tenet of that Chatechism is, "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." I have come to see it as one of the most succintly and efficiently expressed theological treatises on the purpose of mankind ever written. It states what the Bible echoes from the Genesis through Revelation: We are built to glorify and worship God. And when we do what we are built to do, we thoroughly enjoy it.

Experienceing the presence of God in our lives means doing what He has made us to do. All of reality must be interpreted through our ultimate design: to honor and glorify God with our lives. If we are truly doing what we are meant to do, God doesn't need to shout orders or jerk the reigns of our faith to force us to go in a direction we don't want to go. Balanced on the fulcrum of our conscience, God's whispers lever us upward. With the very least whisper, He can send us catapulting into His will for our lives.

I have, in the last few years, found myself experiencing what I would call an "enhanced conscience". That is, a conscience that gives me a greater sensitivity to right and wrong. Yet I've found that when I respond to the pangs of my more sensitive conscience and grieve the sins I commit (no matter how small or unnoticed the sin may be), the result is not self-abasement, but gratitude.

Conviction from God does not leave the Christian with a lesser view of himself but rather a greater understanding of God's character. Thus, by responding to even the smallest tugs of our conscience over matters so slight that the offended would never know they had been wronged, we grow closer to God. We respond with gratitude for the convictions of our consciences, not because God has revealed to us a little bit more the depth of our depravity, but because He has shown us a little bit more the depth of His holiness.

[Pardon the fluffy devotional with zero Scripture references. It's been a tough week.]

- Graffy

Featured Quotes

I have recently begun putting some of my favorite quotes under the title of my blog. From time to time, I'll feature a different quote and to preserve the previous quotes (for posterity's sake, I suppose), I've dedicated a blog entry to them. Thus, as featured quotes pass from title to obscurity, they shall find their final resting place here. You can always find this blog entry by clicking on the "Past Quotes" link to the right.

Quotes from 2006


"I want deliverance. I need forgiveness for what I have done. But I need also deliverance from what I am." - Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life

"It's not about your theology. It's about your communion" - John MacArthur

Vengeance Is Mine, Part I

As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them. [And he said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went to another village.

Luke 9:51-55 (NIV)

Vengeance is such a personal thing. When we've been slighted, wronged, injured, or insulted, it's natural to demand justice and it's right to want it, but too often the desire to see justice served gives way to a sense of vengeance.

In the story above, Jesus is heading to Jerusalem, and He has to pass through Samaria to get there. The problem is, Samartians and Jews weren't exactly known for their kindness toward one another. The hostility went way back - to about 500 B.C. After Judea's exile into Babylon, the remnant left behind intermarried with Gentiles and became a nation of their own, Samaria. In addition, these Jews developed their own scriptures and worshipped in their own temple. When the orthodox Jews returned from exile 70 yeras later, the hostilities began and remained strong through the day of Jesus. Each group held nothing but bitter animosity for the other, especially the Jews who held their superiority in lineage and religion over their Samaritan cousins. The hostility went to the end that any Jew on pilgrimage to Jerusalem would gladly walk around Samaria rather than through it, should the nation lie in his path.

Thus, it makes some degree of sense that Jesus (a Jewish teacher), on his way to Jerusalem (the Jewish religious center), would get anything but a warm reception on his way through Samaria. Considering the long-standing and deep mutual hostility these nations shared, James' and John's question of Jesus, "Do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" also makes some sense. The Samaritans were the dogs of Jewish culture and they'd just bitten Judea's most powerful rabbi, not to mention God-in-the-flesh.

Jesus' response (omitted in some texts, but useful for purposes of illustration here) is telling of His disciples' attitudes, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of..."

The King James renders it "manner of spirit". Literally translated, Jesus is telling them "You don't know how serious your attitude problem is..."

So how serious is an attitude or spirit of vengeance?

Check out what God has to say in Amos 1:11,12:

11 Thus says the LORD,
"For three transgressions of Edom and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because he pursued his brother with the sword,
While he stifled his compassion;
His anger also tore continually,
And he maintained his fury forever.
12 "So I will send fire upon Teman
And it will consume the citadels of Bozrah."

Here, God is pronouncing judgement upon Edom - the descendants of Jacob's brother, Esau. In verse 11, the reference to "three transgressions and for four" is the concept of a multiplicity of sin, or the idea of sin upon sin - sin begetting itself. God characterizes Edom's sin as one of vengeance and He describes four things that give us a clue of what a vengeful spirit really is.

1. Because he pursued his brother with a sword

First, Edom is pursuing a "brother". In the Hebrew this could mean "kin" or simply a neighbor with a friendly association. In any case, Edom was ignoring their relationship to the wrongdoer and having their vengeance upon them. Thus, the first sign of the vengeful spirit is a disregard for the relationship to the wrongdoer.

Second, Edom is not only pursuing a brother, but they are doing so with a sword. That is, they are using whatever means are at their disposal to effect thier revenge. That makes the second sign of the vengeful spirit is abusiveness. In our context, this may be a verbal threat, lawsuit, or the use of personal power to exact the metaphorical "pound of flesh".

2. While he stifled his compassion

In the King James, this is a "casting off" of compassion. It translates into a willful supression of any compassionate feelings or thoughts for the wrongdoer. Perhaps the wrong incurred was a result of a misunderstanding - a problem the neighbor struggled with that appered offensive to the Edomites. In our context, we may say the third sign of a vengeful spirit is a refusal to acknowledge the wrongdoer's extenuating circumstances or other issues.

3. His anger tore continually

In the Hebrew, the word "tore" means to disassemble or take apart, one piece at a time. Most people probably don't let it go that far, but a person who deals with a lot of anger eventually lets it dominate their life, leaving them bitter and complaining. Piece by piece, it removes their enjoyment of life and leaves them only with their own anger and resentment to give their days meaning. In a less extreme form, this might be the sort of anger that so completely engulfs a person's mind and thoughts that they can think of nothing else, even if the episode lasts only for a short while. To become so enraged that we are left incapable of thinking of anything but the wrong committed against us is to let anger "tear" at our life and those things in it which make it enjoyable and worthwhile. Thus, the fourth sign of a vengeful spirit is an emotional, angry obsession with the past.

4. And he maintained his fury forever

I especially like this one, probably because it typifies so much of the American "Me" culture. In our lawsuit-happy, "hey-you-get-offa-my-cloud" mentality, Self is sacred. If you wrong me, watch out, Vengeance is Mine! Thus, it's not uncommon to encounter people who live their entire lives bearing a grudge against someone who has wronged them, regardless of the severity of the wrong or time elapsed. Probably one of the most popular lies in American culture is, "I can't help the way I feel". Anyone who says this has not only succumbed to a lie, but also willfully given their emotions reign over their decision-making processes.

One of the principal teachings of Christianity is that our emotions must be held in check by our will. In this case, God is explicit: Edom "maintained" or willfully bore a grudge against their brother. They refused to let the grudget die, no matter how much time had passed. Thus, the fith and final sign of a vengeful spirit is a willful permission to let one's emotions dictate the grudges they bear. Significant chemical / mental issues excepted, such people willfully refuse to exercise their ability to control their emotional life.

Finally, verse 12 reminds us that God doesn't honor a vengeful spirit. Rather, He punishes it, sometimes severely. But we'll get into that next week.

- Graffy

Spiritual Gifts, Part II

It's Saturday evening and I haven't got a clue what I'm going to talk about tomorrow for our youth group devotional, much less next Tuesday night's bible study. So I suppose it makes a great deal of sense to be sitting here blogging about last week's lesson, eh? If you're a procrastinator like me, it makes perfect sense. Anyway, on to the lesson...

Last week, I started with Romans 12:3 which introduced the idea of what spiritual gifts mean to the individual believer who posesses them. This week, I'm going to focus on the other half - what they mean to everyone else - which is what Romans 12:4,5 focus on:

Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

The concept of many members, but one body is hardly new. However, I find it interesting that Paul qualifies the idea that "each member belongs to all the others." The point, most simply, is that as a Christian, service is due to other Christians. This imperative pretty much destroys any justification for the "I'm-a-Christian-but-I-don't-believe-in-church" attitude. If you're a Christian, you need to be in a church or at least be accountable to some local body of believers somehow. Period.

So why does it matter?

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 12:7:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

Note that Paul qualifies the gifts of the Spirit as the "manifestation" of the Spirit. That is, our spiritual gifts serve as visible evidence that God is working within the Body of believers. Thus, the first principle regarding corporate expression of our gifts is our gifts testify to the glory of God. It should be readily obvious to believers and non-believers alike that God is at work in a local Body that is effectively using it's spiritual gifts.

But Paul's real point in 1 Corinthians 12:7 is the second principle of the corporate expression of our gifts: Our gifts are intended to serve the common good. God's glory is often revealed in the meeting of material needs. Why else would Jesus tell his disciples that however one treats the poor, they also treat Him? (Matthew 25)

The last principle is potentially arguable, but I believe it is Scripturally sound enough to state outright. Examine 1 Peter 4:10:

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (NASB)

First is Peter's command to "employ" or in the King James, "minister" one's gifts unto other people. He also qualifies Christians as "stewards" or "caretakers" of spiritual gifts. I go into greater detail on this point in the first part of this study on spiritual gifts, but it bears repeating: Spritual gifts from God are tools we must care for, and use for, God's purposes. They are meant to help others and glorify God, not make their posessors look good.

Peter qualifies God's grace as "manifold". "Manifold" means "diverse" but not extremely so. There's another word Peter could have used had he meant "diverse in the extreme". To that end, it would seem there is a limit to the expression of the spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit gives to believers. Nevertheless, I think it is yet reasonable to assume the Bible's lists of spiritual gifts is not exhaustive.

In defense of my view, look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:7:

I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

In context, Paul is referring to his comfort level with his bachelor lifestyle or, more specifically, his ability to deny his sexual desires. The word "continence" used to mean specifically that - the ability to control one's desires (usually, sexual). Paul goes on to recognize that other men have other "gifts". That implies Paul thought of his bachelor lifestyle as a gift. Thus, one may say Paul was endowed with the gift of sexual continence.

Most who have taken a spiritual gift assessment probably know that "sexual continence" isn't considered a spiritual gift. Yet, it would be hard to argue that Paul's gift in this area didn't testify to God's glory or build up the Body.

So there you have it. The three principles for the corporate expression of spiritual gifts are:

• They testify to God's glory.
• They are intended to meet others' needs.
• They are diverse and not necessarily limited to any one list.

Have a great week.

- Graffy

Hey. Stupid.

I was recently following a car that had this bumper sticker attached to it's hindquarters.

Of course, I can appreciate the humor. I chuckled at it. I even cracked up a bit when I went searching for the image on the internet.

But really, why would anyone want to put this on their car? Humor aside, what does this really communicate? Obviously, it means the driver of the car considers himself intellectually superior to whomever is unfortunate enough to be following him (or her). Strangely enough, it's precisely that attitude that lies behind road rage:

Everyone on the road is a blithering idiot. Except me.

We joke about it and poke fun at it, but no matter how dangerously or humorously the feeling is expressed, in every form it is the exact same feeling expressed to varying degrees.

I'm not really meaning to blog about road rage. What the bumper sticker really made me think about was how we tend to think of other people largely (if not purely) in terms of how they affect us and our lives. I know I do this. People can have a profound impact on how I feel by a word, gesture, or action and the impact it has on me is purely the result of how these things strike my current mood.

It's often easy to forget that the people with whom I interact on a daily basis, whether I know them or not, have lives all their own. They have their own issues and concerns. And just as I rarely bother to think about their individual lives in my split-second appraisals of their character and intellect, it should go without saying that they rarely bother to think about me in the same way.

Thus, when someone puts a bumper sticker on their car's butt that asks me, "Did you eat an extra bowl of STUPID this morning?" they're publicly professing that I have a vastly inferior intellect. Naturally, my reaction is one of, "Who does this idiot think he's talking to???" I mean, anyone who puts something like that on their car obviously can't be very intelligent, right? If they think I'm that dumb, they have to obviously be dumber. Or dumberer...

Negative criticism polarizes people. It draws battle lines, forces people to take sides, and defines right and wrong based on a label, not on an argument. Criticism evokes emotional, not intellectual, debates. If you don't believe me, try reading a few blogs on politics. For as many that express genuine concern (or admiration) for the latest political events in government, there are those who laud and lambast our president for his decisions and policies purely because he is a Republican. Such people have no regard for who he is or what he really believes as a person. It's simply a matter of how he has personally pleased or offended them, as if their happiness were all that mattered. There was a time in this country when everyone respected the president, no matter their level of agreement with his decisions and policies. They did this simply because he was the PRESIDENT and they shared a common respect for the office and it's great responsibilities. In times past, conservatives and liberals alike understood that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

I admit, I argue my point from a conservative bias. To be fair, I've seen a good number of critical attacks from the conservative side, as well. Bill Clinton suffered a great deal of character asassination from the conservative camp after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I even recall one particular attack levied by a Christian against Billy Graham because Rev. Graham once described Bill Clinton as a personal friend...

Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't really matter, because conservatives are right and liberals are wrong, anyway.

And if you disagree with me, you obviously had two extra bowls of stupid this morning.

- Graffy

Spiritual Gifts, Part I

For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Romans 12:3 (NASB)

The topic of spiritual gifts has always been surrounded by controversy and confusion among believers. It is not my desire to offer any sort of definitive or authoritative guidance on what is / is not a spiritual gift; rather, I intend to look at what spiritual gifts mean both to the individual believer and to the Body as a whole.

There are four basic ideas that need to be grasped when dealing with spiritual gifts from the individual perspective. Romans 12:3 introduces us to the first:

1. The individual believer posesses a specific amount of a spiritual gift (a "measure of faith")

Paul echoes this idea in Ephesians 4:7 where the word "measure" is used again, this time in reference to the spiritual gifts that God gives believers. The word "measure" in the Greek is "metros" from which we derive "meter" or more aptly, "mete". It communicates the idea of a very specific, exact amount, as opposed to it's antonym, "an abundance". In other words, God has given us an exact amount of faith and the spiritual gifts He gives us is in proportion to that faith. It is not an abundance of faith. It is exactly what we need to serve Him.

2. Natural talent does not make a spiritual gift.

Many people seem to think that just because they enjoy doing a particular thing (or show some proficiency at it), then that must be a spiritual gift. I don't think that's a reasonable way to look at the issue. Note what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:11:

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

The Holy Spirit determines who gets what gifts and just how much of each gift they get. As a result, I tend to question the spiritual gift assessments that many churches use to help believers discover where they fit in the Body of Christ. In fact, some of the spiritual gift tests are based on the Meyers-Briggs Personality test, which, in turn, is based on the work of Carl Jung, a humanist. You'll pardon me if I question the ability of such tests to help us understand our spiritual gifts.

So how do we know what gifts we have? That's something I'll get into later, but if the Holy Spirit gives you a gift, He shouldn't need a man-made test to make it apparent to you that you posess a gift.

3. God expects us to return His gifts in better shape than He's given them.

Examine part of the parable that Jesus relates in Matthew 25:14-20:

"Again, it [the kingdom of God] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey.

The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

Parables are not strict allegories - not every element in them corresponds to one thing, but the story as a whole is intended to relay a spiritual truth.

In this case, we have three significant elements, the master, the slaves, and the talents. The master represents Christ. The slaves are Christians. The talents, then, are the gifts that God has given us.

It's important to note that the master gave each slave talents "according to his ability". "Ability" literally means, "strength of spirit".

On a side note, the definition of "talent" in contemporary English comes to us by way of this allegory. It's an allusion to the ability of the slaves to do what they could to increase the master's profits in this parable.

Though the gifts are material in this parable, that does not necessarily mean that Jesus is talking about the material blessings God gives us. It may be reasonably applied to the gifts that come by the Holy Spirit as well. In either case, part of the moral of the parable is that God rewards us for doing what we can to multiply the gifts he has given us. See Matthew 25:14-30 for the entire story.

4. In order to increase God's gifts, we have to practice them.

Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:14:

Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

He echoes the idea in 2 Timothy 1:6:

For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Paul incidentally records a siginificant aspect of Timothy's ministry in these two letters. It seems Timothy was given a spiritual gift by the "laying on of hands" of Paul and other elders. Judging by the context of 1 Timothy 4:13-16 that the spiritual gift was one of teaching and pastoring. In these verses, Paul exhorts Timothy to "take pains", "be absorbed" "pay close attention ... to your teaching" and "persevere" so that others may see his "progress" or increasng skill in teaching.

In review, it's important for a believer to understand four things about their spiritual gifts:

1. The gifts are given in a specific amount, according to their faith, not in an abundance.


2. The gifts are given according to the will of the Holy Spirit - natural talent carries no weight.


3. God gives us His gifts with the intention that we improve them.


4. In order to improve these gifts, we must devote ourselves to practicing them.

Stay tuned next week for the rest of the story...

- Graffy

Driving Me Crazy

I had a funny experience the other day at work. I had decided to leave my rather stifling cubicle confines and drive to a nearby town to deal with a report concerning misbehaving traffic signals. It was close enough to quitting time that I wouldn't be able to do much when I got there, but it beat sitting at my desk trying to keep my eyes open. So, I hopped in my blue Dodge pickup (the only blue Dodge pickup the State of Illinois seems to own) and I took off down 7th Street toward my destination.

7th Street in Dixon is a very hilly street - especially between my place of employment (the Illinois Department of Transportation) and IL Route 26. Heading away from my office, the road drops considerably into a deep vally and then rises even higher to a peak where sits a Catholic church and a small park.

Anyway, as I was descending into the valley, there was a mini-van in front of me. I'd paid little attention to it, until it's left turn signal started blinking. Normally, when things like this happen, the average driver makes decisions almost subconsciously. You don't really think about what's happening, you just respond because experience has taught you what most drivers will do when they turn on their left turn signals. So I didn't think much about her blinking signal, except, "Where's she going to turn?" There didn't look like a good place for her to make a left turn any time soon, judging by the rate she was slowing down.

Then she did something that caught me by surprise. With her left turn signal still engaged, she swerved to the right and pulled up next to the curb.

"Ok," I thought, "She's getting out of the way of traffic, so I'll just zip past her."

I had no more than laid my foot on the accelerator to speed past her mini-van when she very suddenly pulled directly into my path. Naturally, I hit the brakes. It was close, but I managed to avoid a collision, but not without getting her attention. She then completed her u-turn in front of me, parked her car on the opposite side of the street next to her apartment and leaned out the window to yell at me, "Hey! Didn't you see my turn signal?"

I moved on, not wanting to spark a confrontation. By the time I got to the top of the hill, I was mad. I'd realized that if I were a cop, she'd have had a ticket in hand by now. By the time I got to the signals at Route 26, I'd chewed her out three times in my head, each time telling her that first, what she did was completely illegal, turn signal or not, and second, the next time she decides to do something like that, to pull over and let the traffic go by so no one sees her doing it, much less gets in a wreck with her. And I was still chewing her out as I left Dixon's city limits.

There's a certain sweetness about the bitterness we can bear toward someone who's wronged us. It's almost delectable, being furious at someone who has so clearly wronged you and deserves to be punished for it. Yet that same sweetness that captivates our minds, indulges our emotions, can easily ruin a moment, a day, a week, or even a lifetime. Anger itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but when we fall in love with our anger, it's bound to end up hurting us. I realized as I drove farther down the road that I was becoming infatuated with this sense of having been wronged. In short, I was letting her crazy driving drive me crazy!

One of my favorite artists is Don Chaffer of Waterdeep. A couple years ago he put out an album entitled Whole 'Nother Deal which ranks among the greatest albums I've ever owned - secular or Christian. The third track on this album is a song entitled "On Our Way To Crazy" wherein Chaffer intones the refrain:

"Once we love those things that hurt us, we're on our way to crazy..."

In Deuteronomy 32:35, God states simply, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay". This verse popped into my head and it prompted me to give the whole thing over to God in a quick prayer. I prayed for my attitude and finally let go of the issue.

Yet there remained one problem: no matter how I felt toward this nameless woman, she'd done something wrong. It wasn't simply wrong, it was stupid and dangerous. Her response to me after the incident showed me that she didn't think she'd done anything wrong - which means she'd be likely to do it again.

It seems to me that we often confuse forgiveness with the denial of justice. Many people presume that to forgive someone of their wrong is to deny the service of justice in that case. Rather, the purpose of forgiveness is to ensure that a skewed justice is not being enforced: that the punishment fits the crime and is not skewed or biased by the personal feelings of those wronged. It gets at a central idea that a lot of Christians overlook: Our emotions are secondary to our will and our will is to be held subject to God's will.

In this case, I had cleared myself of any possible ill feelings I may have had at this woman who wronged me. The issue was no longer whether or not I had been wronged, but whether this woman posed a danger to other drivers. Something had to be done about that. As a result of that conviction, I didn't hesitate to get her license plate number as I drove past her minivan parked alongside the road on my way back to the office.

Once I got back to my desk, I called the local police station and reported the incident. The officer on the other end thanked me and said, "We'll go yell at her." Later, I was thinking about that comment. He acted as though I wanted them to "yell" at her. It seems he presumed that I was irate over this situation, just seething and fuming over what had happened, desperate to sick the cops on her and get back at her.

And at one point, I was.

- Graffy

Is The New Testament Reliable?

Call it Apologetics Wednesday, but I thought perhaps I'd briefly treat questions of the accuracy of the Bible (here, the New Testament).

1. How can we know that the original books of the New Testament were anything like what we have in our Bibles today?

When examining the authenticity of an ancient text, it's rare that the original texts still exist. Thus, historians rely on more indirect methods of establishing authenticity, like how many copies of the text exist, and how close the earliest copy is to the original writing.

Compare to two texts of antiquity, Homer's Iliad and the Bible:

Iliad - 643 existing copies; 900 years from original.
Bible - 24,970 existing copies (5,000 of the New Testament); 200 years from original.

In reality, few ancient manuscripts are as well-documented as even the Iliad. Many have only a handful of copies existing (5 to 10) and the earliest copies are dated 1,300 years or more after the original writings.

2. What about the "other" gospels?

There's some 80 or more supposed "gospels" that exist apart from the four in the New Testament. History shows us that Christians in the early centuries of the church believed a wide variety of doctrines that are rejected today by most Christian denominations.

It's important to remember first that the other gospels have late dates - 100 years or more after Christ. Comparatively, most Biblical scholars agree the original New Testament books were written within 65 years after Christ's resurrection.

Also, a majority of those gospels belie a "Gnostic" doctrine. Gnosticism was the chief heresy the early church battled against. As early as 110 A.D., we have church fathers quoting from the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as some of Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews. These quotations indicate they considered those books to be Scripture. These books contain the foundations for the vast majority of Christian doctrinal beliefs, especially Christ's purpose, divinity and resurrection.

3. What about "disputed readings" of the New Testament?

There are parts of the New Testament (esp. the gospels) where the original text is not certain. Evidence of later "editing" has brought into question the original text - what it said or whether it was ever there. A couple points to remember:

i. A disputed reading usually consists of two potential renderings

ii. In no case do disputed or missing readings affect any significant Christian doctrine.

4. What about contradictions?

Contradictions typically arise from misinterpretation. Below is a list of 15 basic principles to consider when interpreting the Biblical text:

1. The unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable

2. Fallible interpretations do not mean fallible revelation

3. Understand the context of the passage

4. Interpret difficult passages in light of clear ones

5. Don't base teaching on obscure passages

6. The Bible is a human book with human characteristics

7. Just becase a report is incomplete does not mean it is false

8. New Testament citations of the Old Testament need not always be exact

9. The Bible does not necessarily approve of all it records

10. The Bible uses non-technical, everyday language

11. The Bible may use round numbers as well as exact numbers

12. Note when the Bible uses different literary devices

13. An error in a copy does not equate to an error in the original

14. General statements don't necessarily mean universal promises

15. Later revelation supercedes previous revelation

There's much more. Most of what I have stated here can be found in Josh McDowell's book, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

- Graffy

Romans 12:1,2 Review Notes

I have recently posted two studies of Romans 12:1 & 2. The first is Celebrity Spirituality and the second is The Pig of God?. Technically, this would be the third part of a three-part series, but for the sake of time, I've simply opted to post a semi-outline of both verses here. Anyway, we begin with our key text:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

The verses break simply into three parts: verse 1, verse 2a, and verse 2b.

Offer your bodies as living sacrifices (v. 1)

1. Sacrifice is "holy"

2. Sacrifice pleases God

3. Sacrifice is a "logical service" (in the original Greek).

4. Sacrifice costs us in various ways (financially, emotionally, physically)

Do not conform to the pattern of this world (v. 2a)

1. Conform - in Greek, to "unite one's appearance"

2. "Pattern of this world" - in Greek, an "age" or time chacterized by popular ideas / beliefs.

3. Literally means, "Do not join your appearance to the popular trends of the day" (Think Bill Clinton or Oprah Winfrey, here)

Be transformed by the renewing of your mind (v. 2a)

1. Transform - in Greek, "metamorphoo" or "change form"

2. Renewing - in Greek, implies a sense of freshness as opposed to youthfulness.

3. Literally means, "See yourself changed by the continual freshness of your mind"

Paul is describing the process of sanctification (not the event). The "change in form" is to mirror the Godly inner nature the Christian already posesses. The "freshness" of mind is the conviction of the Holy Spirit / God's Word.

Test and approve God's will (v. 2b)

1. "Test and approve" ("prove") - in Greek, means to test with the expectation of passing.

2. God's Will - God's desire (not God's sovereign will). God's desire is:

i. That you be sanctified (see v. 2a and 1 Thess. 4:3)

ii. Good - in Greek, "good by nature" (intrinsic goodness) not "good in appearance"

iii. Pleasing - "fully agreeable" (to God)

iv. Perfect - "Complete" - it's all a Christian needs for spiritual and mental well-being.

Darwin the Plagarist?

I was scouting some of my favorite haunts. I found this article on William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent.

The author claims Darwin plagarized the previous work of a scientist (a Creationist, of all things) who figured out what natural selection was and how it worked a couple decades before Darwin did.

Whether or not Darwin plagarized, I was fascinated to discover that the darling of evolution has it's roots in Creation science. But then so does calculus, basic astronomy, and the scientific method (to name a few).

Be forewarned, it's a brainy article.


- Graffy

The Pig of God?

Did you know when Wycliffe Bible Translators translated the New Testament for a tribe in Borneo, Jesus was referred to as "the pig of God" in John 1:29, rather than "the lamb of God"?

More on Wycliffe's interesting translation later...

Read Romans 12:1:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.

Paul gives the command to "offer your bodies as living sacrifices." He describes the living sacrifice as "holy and pleasing to God" (it's something God really wants us to do) and finally points out that "this is your spiritual act of worship".

The NIV translation is actually misleading on the last part. In this case, the King James gets closer to the truth by rendering it, "this is your reasonable service." In the Greek, Paul says it is "your logical service."

In other words, Paul is saying that not only does offering our bodies as living sacrifices please God, it's also a no-brainer. It's a head-smacking, "does-the-word-'duh'-mean-anything-to-you?" idea: if you're a Christian, you are a living sacrifice to God.

But what does it mean to be a sacrifice?

In the Greek, "sacrifice" literally means a thing or person burned by fire as an offering to a god or to God. The idea is simple enough as it is presented, but I'd like to give it a bit more depth. Hal Lindsey wrote this article on the significance of one kind of sacrifice in Jewish culture, the paschal lamb.

This lamb was offered by a Jewish family to atone for sins. The lamb itself was to be without blemish and one from the family's own flock (not purchased or given to them). The process of choosing the lamb began with selecting several lambs that looked to be perfect, and then setting them apart and watching them for a time to spot deficiencies. Once the proper lamb was selected, the family would take it into their house and would care for it as if it were a family pet, so as to prevent anything from happening that might disqualify it as a sacrifice. Of course, in a household with small children, it's easy to see how a lamb like that would become dear to the family - the children especially. Nevertheless, the day would come when they would have to kill it to atone for their sins.

When that day came, the entire family would go to the temple with the lamb in tow. Then, the father of the house would take the lamb to the altar and the priest would examine the lamb, approve it for sacrifice, and hand the father the sacrifical knife. The father would have to kill the lamb since it was a sacrifice for he and his family's sins. He sacrificed the lamb first by rendering it unconscious by compressing two veins in it's neck. Then he would nip those veins with the knife, and bathe his hands in the outpouring of blood. The carcass would then be burned completely. Often, parts of the sacrifices were given to the priests for their food, but not in the case of the paschal lamb.

The lamb was a perfect, but difficult sacrifice - it meant giving up something that was dear to and prized by the entire family. It came at considerable cost and was a vivid way to remind the Israelites just how serious sin was to God. Yet that cost pales in comparison to the price God paid to remove the sins of those who believe in His Son. This is why John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" in John 1:29.

So why did Wycliffe's Bible translators refer to Jesus as the "pig of God" in it's effort to reach a culture?

Quite simply, the native population Wycliffe was trying to reach had never seen sheep, so the "lamb of God" would mean nothing to them. In order to communicate the meaning and purpose of this sacrifice image, they had to use the animal that best fit the Jewish image of the lamb - in this case, the pig. Not surprisngly, this has stood as a rather controversial translation. Nevertheless, it was deemed appropriate for the cultural context.

So how does the concept of a "living sacrifice" apply to the Christian life?

During the course of the last week, I did something I never thought I'd do - I fasted. Fasting is something I always assigned to people whom I believed were more "spiritual" than me. Nevertheless, I was hit with the conviction last Monday that this is something I ought to do. So, I tried it. I went two days without solid food and drank mostly water. On two occasions I had 100% fruit juice to allieviate some light-headedness. Then, after almost 60 hours, I broke my fast. I suppose I had my first true "breakfast" ever last Friday morning!

I can't say that I had some sort of "mountain-top" experience as a result of my fast, but I do feel as though I was closer to God for it. Times I would have spent eating and doing other things to entertain myself were spent in Scripture or in prayer. My hunger pangs reminded me of why I was fasting (to seek God and to draw near to Him) so I used them as opportunities to do just that. As a result, I can see why it is a valued practice among so many even today. While I don't believe fasting is any sort of spiritual "cure-all" for what ails us, some use fasting for a variety of purposes, like these guys from XXXChurch who are doing a 40-day fast as a "movement" to mobilize the church.

While I believe the primary (certainly, the most noble) purpose of fasting in a Christian context is to draw near to God, another benefit was how it reminded me of the consuming nature of pleasure. Case in point, going two days without solid food made the can of Pringles sitting on our kitchen table look like a T-Bone steak to me. I never wanted a potato chip so badly in my life! The experience clearly demonstrated how lust can completely dominate my mind if I permit it.

Ultimately, it has served as a great way of demonstrating just how much of a sacrifice it is to offer our bodies to God as living sacrifices. It is neither convenient nor cheap to sacrifice to God the things we love the most in this life. Yet I believe there is nothing that pleases God more than what we willingly sacrifice out of gratitude and love (not obligation and fear) and it is a natural and inevitable result of being a Christian.

Just some food for thought. :)

- Graffy