Graff Paper

A study in servanthood - Philippians 2, Part 1

2008-01-20T18:26:00.001-06:00

A quick glance at Philippians 2 reveals a fantastic Christological study, as well as a great definition of what true servanthood means. There's much to say, so for this part, we'll just focus on the general layout of the chapter.

For the purpose of this study, we'll focus on Philippians 2, vs. 1-13.

first, let's take a bird's-eye view of the passage. Inspection yields that the passage breaks easily into three parts:

Part 1 (vs. 1 - 4) - Paul encourages the Philippians to be servants to one another.

Part 2 (vs. 5 - 11) - Paul cites Jesus as an example of servant hood.

Part 3 (vs. 12 & 13) - Paul concludes with admonishing the Philippians to "work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling"

Having broken down the passage into three distinct parts, we can focus on the second part, as it is the key to understanding everything else Paul is saying.

In Part 2, Paul provides Jesus as the example of servanthood in who He was and how He came to earth to provide us a way to God. There are some interesting actions to note:

1. Jesus "did not regard equality with God something to be grasped." (verse 6)

2. Jesus "made himself nothing" and "took the form of a servant" (verse 7)

3. Jesus "humbled Himself and became obedient unto death." (verse 8)

Each verse highlights a component of the servanthood which Christ modeled: Attitude, Being, and Conduct (the ABC's of Servanthood, if you will).

In Verse 6, Jesus displays His servant-like attitude - He "did not regard equality with God something to be grasped". The Greek behind the word "grasped" literally means something which is seized by force. In common use, the word typically implied theft. But in this context, it would probably be best to render the phrase, Jesus "did not regard equality with God something to be seized by force." In other words, even though Jesus was God in the flesh, He did not consider His status as God to be something to be held on to at all costs. He was the Supreme Authority, the Ruler of the Universe. Yet when He was challenged He did not assert His authority (see Mark 4, Matthew 26:50-54; Matthew 27:11-14). Jesus had a servant's attitude - He gave up what was rightfully His for the good of others.

In verse 7, Jesus displays His nature (or identity) as a servant. That is He "made Himself nothing" and "took the form of a servant". It is interesting to note that the word for "form" in the Greek is "morphoo". "Morphoo" is defined as "the essential expression" of something. For example, the essential expression of a song is in it's sound. whether you are enthralled or repulsed by it is a product of your experiences, both past and present, but the song is what it is, nonetheless. The essential expression of a sunset is in it's appearance - the colors and the light that is present as the sun goes down is the sum total of a sunset.
In the same way, if you had met Jesus while He walked the earth, you would have experienced a servant - more exactly, a devoted slave. That was His essential expression. It's also interesting to note that he was previously in the "form of God" - that is, to have stood in Jesus' presence in Heaven,. you'd not have experienced a servant, but the Ruler of the Universe - God Himself. In His being, through and through, Jesus was a servant to the bone - He did not pretend to be something He was not.

In verse 8, Jesus displays His servant-like conduct. Here he "became obedient unto death". It is interesting to note that first He was "obedient" - just like a servant. But more so, He "became obedient", implying a level of obedience to which He had not previously attained - obedience unto death. Thus, this third component is not revealed in merely serving turkey at the homeless shelter at Thanksgiving, but finding yourself in increasingly challenging situations where you function as a servant.

More later.

Culture & Cinema: The Chicken or the Egg?

2007-12-02T19:07:00.001-06:00

I was recently watching a promo for a new movie about Bob Dylan's life. In it, I learned that several actors play the music icon throughout the many years of his life. Interstingly, one of the actors is black. But what tops that is another who's female.

Kate Blanchett plays Bob Dylan for a portion of the film. While I can appreciate the thespian expertise required for a woman to convincingly play a man under the scrutiny of a close-up movie camera (and not the forgiveness of a distant stage), it gave me reason to pause and consider just what is taking place. Of course, it's not uncommon for actors of one gender to portray those of another. Barbara Striesand played a woman fronting as a man in Yentl several years ago. Tootsie comes to my mind as a hallmark movie that paraded cross-dressing in comedic fashion before the cameras. And, more recently, there's "Mrs. Doubtfire" and the "Big Mama" movies.

But in each of these cases, the cross-dressing (or transgender?) aspect was explained otherwise. Yentl's motives were for the sake of an education traditionally denied to women in Jewish culture (and she fell in love with a man while pursuing that education). Tootsie did it to find work in acting. And Mrs. Doubrfire and Big Mama weren't really treading that heavily upon gender identity grounds.

But, of course, we're not talking about women playing men (or men playing women) as a part of a movie plot. We're talking about a woman cast as a man in a movie.

Yet even that is hardly unheard of. In the more timely productions of Shakespeare's works, men often played women on stage - for a lack of female actors. And the role of Peter Pan in productions of the Lost Boys has had a traditionally female cast. In the case of Dylan, perhaps the plausible explanation comes from the example of Peter Pan - that just as a female actor best represented a pre-pubescent boy so also Blanchett was an excellent choice to represent the physical stature of Dylan in the time of his life she portrays, even though he's a fully-grown adult.

But this is a day where cross-dressing and trans-genderism are fast becoming pivotal issues. Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed into law a bill that requires school faculty (from primary grades through high school) to recognize a student's "gender identity". That is, if a boy decides he's a girl, then the schools must recognize him as such - to the end that he may have access to girl's bathrooms and locker rooms. We'll see how this plays out in the courts and the local PTA meetings.

The role of Dylan played by Kate Blanchett is hardly scandalous, but given the current consciousness of trans-gendered behavior, it is interesting to note the level at which the issue is addressed in this movie. It's not like Brokeback Mountain, where the homosexual lifestyle was openly portrayed and promoted (indeed, homosexuality was the entire premise of the movie). In Dylan, the issue of trans-genderism (or cross-dressing) is not the issue. Yet the issue can hardly be ignored when it is communicated on the more subtle level of the casting of a female actor in the role of a mature adult man.

On a purely artistic / professional level, I don't doubt Ms. Blanchett's performance will prove to be convincing and entertaining (in fact, it's already recieved such recognition). And, if one so chooses, I imagine nothing further need be assumed by it. Yet I cannot help but notice that the novelty of this little gender-bender stands as a reminder of the popular idea that one's gender is purely a matter of their own choosing.

As I recall, it used to be that the culture influenced the cinema - that which took place in real life was reflected in the movies. Yet I suspect that we are now witnessing the cinema influencing the culture. If a woman can be convincingly cast as a man for a role in which there were, no doubt many male actors who could have convincingly played the part, does this not constitute (in at least some small way), the further normalizing of transgenderism in America on a level that Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Big Mama do not?

It appears to me to be a classic case of the chicken and the egg: the media which was intended to reflect the reality about us is also interpreting it to us...

Just my thoughts.

Ethics and Moarlity, pt III

2007-11-07T18:08:00.000-06:00

In the last portion of this study, I discussed our need for a moral authority with which to enforce our own moral code. However, the problem that presents itself to us is: How dow we determine which moral authority is the best?

There are two essential tests for a moral authority:

1. The moral authority must always rule in favor of our best intersets (not based on what we think is right or what is best for something else, but what truly is right and best for us)

2. The moral authority must act consistently with the code which it enforces.

The tests come out of a simple understanding of reality. If we are to submit to an authority for whatever purpose, we must know that this authority acts with the best interests of ourselves (or the cause to which we are committed) at all times. As anyone knows, if someone does not trust an authority, they will not submit to it. Second, it is hard to accept the authority of a person or governing system which does not operate consistently with the code which it is designed to enforce. For example, a government which denies the freedom of speech to certain members of society hardly has the authority to enforce the ideal of freedom of speech for all.

Thus, these two tests must be clearly passed if one is to consider an authority worthy of enforcing a moral code.

Look at some of the systems examined in the previous installment. Some consider nature their moral authority. In one sense, that means whatever is best for planet earth is best for us (it is, after all, our environment). So, if Mother Nature is our moral authority, we can say "she" is consistent with an environmentalist's moral code, but does that mean "she" has the environmentalist's best interests at heart? Of course not. Mother Nature has no one's interests at heart. In the most real sense, "Mother Nature" is nothing more than the collective of natural laws which, from an evolutionary standpoint, has no particular purpose or goal, certainly not the continued survival of society or mankind.

You can look at all the other authorities one may choose and find that while they may satisfy one (or in a limited way) both of these tests, one cannot take the moral codes that are dictated by world religions, environmentalism, or capitalism, and apply them dogmatically and absolutely to every facet of human existence. In some way, every one of these will fall short somehow, somewhere.

But how does Christianity measure up? That is, not the instituion of Christian religion, but the God who stands at it's core? If we are to hold up the God of Christianity to these tests, how does He fare?

See Deuteronomy 7:7,8:

"7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt."

The Bible tells us that God chose Israel not on the basis of any one person's merit, but simply because He loved them. Here the doctrine of undeserved love immediately separates Christianity (and really, the heart of Judaism) from every other world religion. The love of God is determined by who He is, not what we've done. This means that by default, and without question, God has mankind's best intersets always at heart. By extension we see this passed on to Christians in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...")

But is God consistent with the moral code the Bible proposes?

Some would say, "No" and piont to the scenes of violence God condones in the Old Testament (and even some of the judgments in the New Testament) and claim God is capricious and uncaring. But one need only consider the fact that if God made all of Creation, He has a right to do what He pleases. And if God is the author of Creation, then He also establishes it's laws and penalties. So the question remains, is God consistent with the moral code the Bible presents?

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23).

The Bible tells us that death is precisely what we deserve, so if one is to say that God is not consistent with His own moral code, it is because He is too loving and gracious (because He has not given us what we deserve), not capricious and unkind (because He has merely passed due judgement on some in history past). Yet even then He remains consistent, for 1 John 4 tells us that God is love and John 14:6 tells us that God (in the form of Jesus Christ) is the truth.

This exposes yet another astounding uniqueness of the Christian faith: God is neither above nor subject to His moral code, He *is* His moral code. He is not above it in that He may disregard it as it suits His purposes (that's caprice), nor is He subject to it, that the Law itself becomes God (that's impotence). Rather, He is the Law - thoroughly consistent and faithful to His moral code (to Himself) in every respect.

"if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself" (2 Tim. 2:13).

In this way, the Christian God establishes His moral authority on the basis that our best interests are always at His heart and that He remains entirely consistent and faithful to the code He enforces, for the code He enforces is the very character of God.

An Unpublished Editorial

2007-10-01T20:35:00.001-05:00

Shortly after the shootings at Virginia Tech, I wrote an editorial. It was perhaps the most personally significant piece I've ever written and I worked long and hard to make my point in 400 words or less.

But I never submitted it for publication.

I got to the door of the newspaper office with editorial in hand and suddenly stopped. For some inexplicable reason, I turned around, got in my truck and drove away. Perhaps I just felt it would be wrong to editorialize such a tragedy. Perhaps I was afraid of taking flak for it. For whatever reason, it remains unpublished. I post it here for the interest of whomever browses by.

--------------------------

In 1960, psychologist and president of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Hobart Mowrer, published an article in American Psychologist entitled, "Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils". He wrote,

"[We] psychologists have looked upon ... sin and moral accountability as a great incubus, and have acclaimed our liberation from it as epic-making. But at length we have discovered that to be free [is] to have the excuse of being sick rather than being sinful ... In becoming amoral, ethically neutral, and free, we have cut the very roots of our being ... and with neurotics themselves, we find ourselves asking, "Who am I?", "What is my deepest destiny?" and, "What does living really mean?"

Strangely, the many articles regarding the Virginia Tech shootings protray the killer, Cho Seung-Hui, as a man who was "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." Yet rarely, if ever, is Cho described as "evil". To the point, one AP article made mention of "the horror of [Cho's] ... unspeakable acts", but was most concerned with Cho's mental health, as if he couldn't help but do what he did. I'm not saying Cho was not mentally ill. But, as one psychologist put it, he "is not a person who fell through the cracks. He's a person who crawled into the cracks."

I cannot presume to know the mind of Cho Seung-Hui, but this I do know: Good men do not commit evil deeds. We cannot consider Cho's deeds evil without considering Cho evil for committing them - whether he could have helped it or not. I do not say this to garner hatred for Cho, but to recognize the legitimacy of the lost lives and the grief bore by their family and friends. To fail to recognize the evil that lived within Cho is to devalue the lives that were taken that day.

In Dr. Mowrer's own words, to deny the evil bent of human nature is to "cut the very roots of our being." For, we find life's meaning not in its pleasure, but in its pain; and no greater pain can be inflicted upon the soul than the pain suffered from the loss of a relationship. If we cannot see the evil in that, where, then, shall we see it?

Ethics and Morality pt II

2007-09-19T19:31:00.000-05:00

The question posed by the moderator (see previous post) was:

"How do we enforce a uniform moral code without appealing to theism?"

His question assumes two things:

1. We have a need for a uniform moral code.
2. In order to enforce such a cod, a universal authority is required.

This echoes what we see taking place in the book of Judges. In Judges 17:6 we find:

"In those days, there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

In ancient cultures, the king was the law. To the point, our nomenclature for our measurement system testifies to this. The "foot" is an English standard unit that is approximately the length of a foot. But the foot was at one time the length of one particular foot: the foot of the ruling monarch. In cultures of antiquity, the king was, by virtue of his authority, the law.

Even in contemporary American culture, we recognize the need for a uniform moral code. Everyone, after all, knows the difference between right and wrong - and most everyone will concede that there is a difference. The Bible echoes this very idea in Romans 2:14,15:

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

Thus we are left in pluralistic American society with the following dilemma: We recognize the need for a uniform moral code, but we have many options for an authority with which to enforce the code. Some options may include:

Religious beliefs
Social values
Individual values
Environmental concerns
Political preferences

We can use one or all of these as a basis for our own moral preferences, but someone who determines right and worng strictly by what is harmful to the environment will have a vastly different moral code than one who determines right and wrong according to their favorite party line.

So how can we judge between these moral authorities in an effort to choose the one that's best for us?

Stay tuned for my next post...

Ethics and Moral Authority

2007-09-03T19:59:00.000-05:00

I had a most interesting experience a couple weeks ago...

As a state employee, under the direction of our most ethical governor, Rod Blagojevich, I was required to attend the 2nd Annual Illinois State Government Ethics Seminar at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. It proved to be the expected litany of case studies and "What-do-I-do-if-this-happens?" scenarios. Nothing particularly relevant to most state employees.

However, the afternoon session opened with a panel of ethics "experts" (read: lawyers who deal with ethical/legal issues), one of which included Scott Turow, a well-know author of severl best-selling law / thriller novels, as well as a member of the Illinois Ethics Commission.

Anyway, the moderator opened by first asking the question: "What is ethics?"

Illinois' Chief Ethics Officer began by giving her blaise response:

"Ethics is about doing what's right and being fair to people."

However, one particular individual, whom I remember his first name being Matthew, gave a most intelligent answer. He pointed out that ethics carries both a legal and moral component. Case in point, slavery was considered legal for many years in the United States, but that hardly made it moral. Matthew also went on to point out that American law (especially at the foundation of American government) was based largely on the Bible and the idea that God established these laws; therefore, we are to obey them.

I was surprised. I hadn't anticipated such an advanced argument from a panel of lawyers. The moderator didn't challenge Matthew's arguments, but followed his logic with the question:

"So how do we enforce a moral code without appealing to theism?"

I was astounded. Never could a more relevant or pointed question have been asked in an environment that, by nature, was hardly given to asking such questions. This was, after all, a room full of lawyers and engineers employed by the State of Illinois government.

What's fascinating is that while the moderator asked the question quite clearly, it went unanswered. I'm certain if the moderator had given consideration to his question, he'd never have asked it. But the answers forthcoming amounted to little more than, "Well, we know what's right and we have the law and we just have to make the best ethical decisions we can with what we have."

But the question wasn't "How do we make ethical decisions at all?" but "How do we make ethical decisions without appealing to an authoritative higher power?"

The question was ignored and discussion moved on to the more mundane details of case studies and government employee benefits.

So how do we approach this question? I believe the silence of the panel tells the truth: there is no solvent answer. Yet exploring what lies behind the question, I believe, can prove to be most instructive.

Stay tuned for the next post.

Back in the saddle again...

2007-08-06T19:34:00.000-05:00

Ok, I've actually had a request or two to keep this thing up - not like desperate pleas, just curious wonderings, "So, when are you going to post again?" and the like. I don't portend to be some great blogger in that, but the requests got me tihnkin' - this thing's the only way I can catalog the lessons I've done. Thus, I've decided to resume posting my lessons online - hoping that it will one day pay off. I may not post regularly, but I will try to do so from time to time when I have something to post.

Anyway, I had the pleasure of giving my first sermon a few weeks ago (July 1) and there are a few thoughts from it I'd like to note. The material for my sermon came largely from the lessons I posted previously under the titles, "Vengeance is Mine" Part I & Part II.

The text dealt with Amos 1:11,12 and how Edom pursued his brother (Israel) with a sword - with a vengeance. The key point to my sermon came with the quote of John Stott's (which graces the top of this blog),

"Envy is the reverse side of a coin called vanity. No one is ever envious of others who is not first proud of himself."

When Haman ruefully considered the souring effect Mordecai the Jew had on his enjoyment of the good things in life (see Esther 5:9-14), he gives us a perfect model of exactly what John Stott is describing. In the same breath that he boasts about his life (verses 9-12), he declares his envy for Mordecai's worship (v. 13). Haman envied Moredcai's worship because he was first proud of himself - hence the need to hang Mordecai 80 feet in the air.

Thus Haman's life tells us in no uncertain terms that pride lies at the heart of vengeance. Nine times out of ten, when we get after someone for wronging us, it is not because they have actually wronged us, but rather, because they have injured our pride.

But more than that, Amos 1:11, 12 tells us that Edom was not just vengeful, but vengeful toward their brother. If you look at Jesus' own condemnation of hatred in Matthew 5:21,22, he condemns hatred as murder, but qualifies it specifically as hatred for one's brother.

All of this tells us that God values our relationships over our behavior. If you look at the first tenet of the Westminster Shorter Chatechism, it tells us that the purpose of man "is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." What does the word "enjoy" mean, but to partake in a relationship with Him? And that for an eternity?

Look also at the Creation account. In Genesis 2:18, God says, "It is not good for the man to be alone..." It is interesting to note that this is the only aspect of His creation that God specifically said was "not good" - and it had to do with our relationship (or lack thereof) with another human.

It seems there is clear evidence from Scripture that the reason we exist is twofold: to relate to God, and to relate to one another. So what does this have to do with pride and vengeance?

Permit me to define my terms:

Pride is guaged by our degree of concern for ourselves.
Relationships are guaged by our degree of concern for one another.

You see, pride and healthy relationships are mutually exclusive concepts. One must be sacrificed if the other is to remain.

This, I believe, lies at the heart of the Christian doctrine of salvation. I have heard some tell me that when they die, they'll "talk it (their life) over with God". But this is tantamount to saying,

"I'm right. I know I'm right. And in the end, I'm sure God will understand that I was right all along and, really, He was wrong to expect me to have faith in an intolerant, outdated system of belief."

In other words, such people value their pride over a relationship with God.

I've posted my sermon in five segments in WMA format. It's not streaming audio, so you have to download each one and each file is about 8 MB in size (about 7 minutes each). It's not a perfect sermon, but it was decent enough I'm not ashamed to post it.

The Heart of Vengeance:

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

Parting is Such Sweet Sorrow

2007-02-01T20:36:00.000-06:00

I suppose if you have read this blog regularly, you've long since realized I've not been regular at keeping it up - not for nearly two months.

Unfortunately, due to the demands of personal matters - a new house to renovate foremost among them, I have little time to devote to blogging. If I find the time, I will post on occasion, but my days of regular updates have certainly reached their end.

For those of you who have read regularly (of which I imagine there's only a few), thank you.

- Graffy

Drinking and the Bible

2006-12-03T13:00:00.000-06:00

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

2006-11-29T17:47:00.000-06:00

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

2006-11-19T14:20:00.000-06:00

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

2006-11-11T18:45:00.000-06:00

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

2006-11-07T09:25:00.000-06:00

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

2006-11-05T14:57:00.000-06:00

[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

2006-10-31T16:18:00.000-06:00

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

2006-10-30T16:16:00.000-06:00

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

2006-10-25T06:34:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-23T16:03:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-18T20:16:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-16T19:40:00.000-05:00

[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

2006-10-14T07:11:00.001-05:00

[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

2006-10-09T13:03:00.000-05:00

[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

2006-10-04T19:34:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-27T18:53:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-27T17:06:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-23T20:53:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-09-18T19:53:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-13T17:28:00.000-05:00

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:

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

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

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

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

2006-09-10T09:32:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-09-06T19:09:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-02T12:09:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-08-27T07:25:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-08-26T12:09:00.000-05:00

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

David the Drifter

2006-08-19T10:48:00.000-05:00

One evening about two years ago my wife (then, my fiance) and I were enjoying a movie at my house. Our movie was interrupted by the doorbell, rung by my next door neighbor. He'd just stopped by to let us know that he and his family were going on vacation for the next two weeks and could I pretty please watch the house for him? I agreed and then he added:

"Ummm... I don't know if you noticed, but there's this guy that's sitting at the corner of the intersection. He doesn't look dangerous, but I think he's a homeless guy. Just so you know." and with that he thanked me and left.

I relayed the information to Nikki and then we both peeked out a window to see what we could see. Sure enough, there was a silhoutte of a man sitting under the streetlight near a fire hydrant at the intersection. We watched him for a while as he sat there and did absolutely nothing. Then we finished watching our movie. Shortly there after, Nikki went home.

As soon as she left, I peered out the window again at the homeless guy inhabiting the southeast corner of the intersection near my house. I watched him for a while not sure what to think and wondering what I should do. Finally, a sense of cowardice came over me and I chastised myself for peeking out my window at a homeless guy, as if he's some sort of social unmentionable (which was probably what several others on my street were doing or had already done). Rebuked my my own conscience, I did what seemed the logical thing: I went out and spoke to the guy.

It was really kind of funny... and sad. When I approached him, I said the only thing I could think to say:

"Ya know, I don't really have much I can offer, but if you'd like some ramen noodles or something, I'd be happy to give ya something to eat."

Perhaps you've never done something like this before. Maybe you've done it several times. In either case, I don't blame you if you're chuckling at me. Anyway, he didn't hear a word I'd said because he was dead asleep, though he slept sitting up (which led me to presume he was awake). When he didn't respond and I realized he was unconscious, I took the opportunity to look at him in the glow of the street light. He was an older man with leathery and darkly-tanned skin that looked as though it was going to drip off his bones. He had a sleeping bag and an overstuffed backpack at his side that he reclined against. He looked like, well, a homeless guy.

Anyway, I cleared my throat. He woke up and I repeated my offer. He gruffly replied, "No. I got this from Pizza Hut," as he gestured to a foil-wrapped package. He went on, "but I probably won't eat it cuz I bet it's poisoned. They've done that to me before."

I said, "Oh," and sat down on the grass between him and the fire hydrant. I asked him a couple of questions and he proceeded to regale me with his life's story. Few of the details stick in my memory, but I do remember the general course his life took. He told the story backwards. He talked about the things he'd done in the last few decades, back to the battles he'd been involved in during World War II. But that was nothing compared to what he'd done in the first World War. At this point, I had a sneaking suspicion that life on the streets had taken a toll on his mind. My suspicions were confirmed when he went on to describe things he'd done back in the 1870's. Near the end of our conversation (which had taken some 40 minutes) he had worked back to the life and times of Jesus Christ, describing Jesus' disciples as hypocrites and anti-Christs because they wrote things into the Bible that Jesus never said (he knew because he was one of the disciples himself.) Between you me and the fire hydrant, you might say I gained some insights into the homeless I'd never considered before.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to laugh at this situation, funny as some of it turned out to be. In reality, I sat and listened to him talk because I really had no idea what to say. I thought about the fact that at one time in his life, he must have been as sane and normal as anyone else, but life as a drifter had taken it's toll on him. I prayed for him as he told me about the life he'd created in his mind. I wish I could have done something about it, but what?

Anyway, I have omitted one element in this tale thus far: the police officer who wouldn't go away. Early in the homeless man's recounting of his colorful past, a police officer in a patrol car had pulled up to the curb to see if everything was all right. I waved him on but he kept checking back every twenty minutes or so. On his third visit, he finally stopped, got out, and said,

"David, you have to move on. We've had several complaints. People don't want you sleeping here tonight."

David replied, "Well, where am I gonna go?"

The officer said, "Just go down by the Abraham Lincoln cabin along the riverfront. You can sleep there tonight."

David looked at the cop and grumbled, "You know those gangsters are just going to bother me again."

The officer replied, "They're on the north side, David. You're on the south. They won't bother you."

David leaned over and picked up his belongings, insisting all the while that they would. Then he headed west toward the small park that was home to a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, still talking to himself.

As soon as David was out of ear shot, I looked at the cop and asked, "So where did he come from?"

I was told that David migrated from the county to the north - he'd been picked up there for loitering and being a nuisance. He got a night in jail and they sent him on his way, ending up in Dixon eventually. I asked the cop if Dixon offered anything for people in his situation. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "Nope. We have to keep pushing them around town until they decide to leave or get arrested." It seemed like a frustrating thing to have to deal with, and the cop communicated as much in his response to me. I finally bade the officer a good night, crossed the street to my house and went to bed.

I saw David a few more times that week - once on my way to work (I stopped and spoke to him briefly) and then at a convenience store where he seemed to just stand around inside and watch the TV on the wall. Eventually, I heard a report that he'd been arrested for loitering in a business in Dixon and refusing to leave. After that, I neither saw him or heard of him again.

Since then, I've wondered from time to time just how significant homelessness is in Dixon. Honestly, the issue of poverty and homelessness in my community is something that's been in the back of my mind since I met David, though I've no clear idea on what to do about it. However, I do stand ready to support someone who does have a vision of what to do about it, as long as it doesn't amount to staring out our windows at them and calling the police...

- Graffy

Celebrity Spirituality

2006-08-16T21:06:00.000-05:00

Pardon the goofed fonts. Blogger's HTML editor, it seems, leaves much to be desired. I might have to start writing these things off-line....

Anyway, this was a fun one. My wife had the idea of using pictures of popular celebrites and then finding quotes they made about their spiritual beliefs. It made for intriguing research. Anyway, all of the quotes (except the one from Tom Hanks) I found in the book What Hollywood Believes by Ray Comfort. It's a fascinating read. Anyway, on to our celebrity montage...

Howard Stern

"I don’t think there’s any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and praying to a rock"

Britney Spears

“If you can’t have fun, why do what you’re doing? [But] my priorities have changed a little bit, too. My family, my God, and my boyfriend: That’s my life. … I don’t want to be scared. I can’t walk on pins and needles. So I just have to pray. I just have to pray every night.”

Mr. T

"[My father] was praying. He was getting the sermon ready for Sunday. He wasn’t beating my mother or drinking, he was praying. And that’s something special. He taught me to pray. He taught me to have faith…”

Jim Carrey

“We’ve always tried to humanize him in some way. He’s probably just a shaft of light in a doorway or something like that…”

Johnny Cash

"How well I have learned that there is no fence to sit on between heaven and hell. There is a deep, wide gulf, a chasm, and in that chasm is no place for any man."

Bono

“I often wonder if religion is the enemy of God. It’s almost like religion is what happens when the Spirit has left the building. God’s Spirit moves through us at a pace that can never be constricted by any one religious paradigm.”

Pamela Anderson

“Well, I believe in God. I definitely believe that He is the reason that I’ve gotten through everything that I have. And I go to church. My kids go to Sunday school. And it’s definitely a part of my life.”

Marilyn Manson

“Initially I was drawn to the darker side of life. But it’s really just human nature. I started to learn that everything that’s considered a sin is what makes you a human being. All the seven deadly sins are man’s true nature.”

Alice Cooper

“My life is dedicated to follow Christ.”

How informed do you suppose Jim Carrey's view on God is?

What do you suppose motivates Howard Stern's view on religion? Is it accurate?

Is Britney Spears' expression of faith legitimate or reasonable considering how she's lived her life in the public eye? How about Pamela Anderson's or Bono's?

Finally, consider Marilyn Manson's statement. Is it accurate?

The key verse for this study is Romans 12:2:

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..."

There's four words that we need to focus on:

1. Conform - to "fashion oneself according to" or to "make yourself look like"

2. World - an "age". Not just any period of time, but a specific era. (Think the "60's" or the "80's")

3. Transform - Literally to "metamorphose". The word means simply, "change". As it is used in the New Teastament, it means a transformation from the inside-out. (Many thanks to Ron for pointing that out to me...)

4. Renewing - Being made new in a "fresh" sense, not a young sense.

Thus, Paul is essentially telling his "brethren" (cf. Romans 12:1):

"Do not adopt the popular ideas of the age. Rather be changed by the freshness of your mind."

God is constantly at work in the Christian. There is never a day that He's not pointing out something that needs work, showing someone who needs compassion, etc. It's those convictions that renew the Christian mind - it's what keeps the Christian "fresh". It's also known as the process of sanctification. It's a process that repeats itself as often as necessary and it's a process that cannot be overlooked.

Why?

Because if a Christian ceases to act upon their convictions, they get stale. When they get stale, God doesn't seem to work in their lives, their relationship with Him suffers, and eventually they may go looking elsewhere (i.e. to the popular social and political ideas of the current age) for guidance.

And from what I can see, the current age doesn't offer much for guidance...

Have a great week.

- Graffy

A view from across the pond...

2006-08-12T16:56:00.000-05:00

I noticed this article linked from the Conservative Musing's weblog. I've seen the "freedom isn't free" line passed around so much that, even though I agree with it, I tend to ignore it for the most part. But in this case, the author is expressing it from a European viewpoint, which made me look at our country in a way I typically don't...

Enjoy!

- Graffy

A family update...

2006-08-09T17:57:00.000-05:00

Just a little update on the family...

Micah, born just over two months ago, is a (sometimes) happy and generally healthy baby boy. His last checkup weighed him in at some 12.5 pounds and 25 inches. He's long and leggy. I keep hearing he's going to be a basketball player. We shall see.

Bit by bit, he grows more interesting to watch - smiles are more common, so is responding to your voice. Hand - eye coordination is impressive (he frequently stabs his eyes with his fingers). I suppose this is nothing compared to the full range of experiences I'm yet due for, but as a new dad, I'm fascinated.

We're greatly enamored with the baby boy, but not so much that my wife wants another... at least, not yet...

Democans and Republicrats

2006-08-06T17:02:00.000-05:00

This is one of the few editorial cartoons that I've actually enjoyed recently...

For those of you who don't know, the guy in the upper left is current Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. The guy in the lower right is former Illinois governor (and recent felon) George Ryan.

These days, the habit of labelling has become so predominant in the media, you can't really discuss politics until you've effectively labelled every element involed - "conservative", "liberal", "fundamentalist", etc. As if the label somehow encompasses the entirety of the ideology or person being discussed. Recent politics in the state of Illinois has reminded me that labels aren't all they're cracked up to be. Consider the above editorial morphing a very liberal Democrat into an old-school, fat-cat Republican.

It reminds me of the joke that's been floating around - that the courts have finished with George Ryan's trial just in time to start Rod Blagojevich's (who, incidentally, has already spent some $700,000 in attorney's fees from his campaign fund to deal with investigations into his office's hiring practices).

Too often, we're quick to take a label, assign one particular viewpoint to it, and create a mental effigy of what that label means to us, and then apply it with a blanket equality to whomever we think fits that bill. Lately, I've been reminding myself that although my views may be deemed largely "conservative" that hardly makes me a dyed-in-the-wool, party-line-voting Republican. To tell the truth, I'm no more fond of the Republican candidate for this fall's election for governor than I am the Democratic candidate. Ultimately, I consider the character of the candidate central to my voting interests. The latest governor has shown me exactly why.

One example has occurred in the midst of clear ethics violations that Governor Blagojevich has committed (and simply refuses to comment on). That is, in spite his behavior, he has required all state employees (of which I am one) to take an annual "ethics exam" so we know what the State of Illinois considers to be right and wrong. If we refuse to take it, we do so upon pain of dismissal.

Another example occured in 2004 when a member of my church attended the Utica memorial service (Utica is a small town in Illinois struck by a devastating tornado). He related to us later that at the service, Governor Blagojevich gave a speech likening the hardships of the people of Utica to the sufferings of the Bible character, Job. While this is not an uncommon analogy, Governor Blagojevich added a new twist to the story - he related how God caused Job's sufferings. Our church member waited patiently to greet the Governor afterwards and as he shook Blagojevich's hand, he took the opportunity to correct him. He pointed out that in the book of Job, it's quite clear that Satan caused Job's sufferings - not God. Unfazed by his theological faux pas, the Governor looked at him, shrugged his shoulders and said, "Whatever." Of course my friend was flabbergasted - God, Satan... same difference? But really, why wouldn't Governor Blagojevich care, unless, of course, he didn't believe any of it was true in the first place? Personally, I take no offense at a heathen revealing his ignorance of the Bible, but I do take offense when he presumes to be Christian by preaching it.

We had a sermon this Sunday by the only evangelical lobbyist in Springfield - Rev. Bob VandenBosch. He made an interesting point - of the 177 General Assembly members , only 10 would admit publicly that they are Christian. His point was that Christians can't play the "religion and politics don't mix" card and say that they shouldn't get involved. I'm not going to expound upon the argument, only to say that I agree with him. But as I listened to it, in my head, I started reciting all the arguments non-believers throw at Christians who are in politics. Most of them boil down to a conspiracy to "install some sort of Christian theocracy", as if requiring adherence to any sort of clearly-defined moral code demands unmitigated worship and adoration of the God who created it.

Our Founding Fathers set up America as a Republic - not a Democracy. In fact, they (Washington, Adams, Jefferson) characterized Democracy as "Very bad government" and "lunacy". We're a government that operates on the basis of a law - not the whimsy of the governed. While the people have a voice (and a considerable one at that), it is not the absolute voice. That means everyone, from the Supreme Court judge to the state governor, is required to respect the law and this demands some sort of moral rigidity in the life of the U.S. citizen.

In the political scene today, morals have made a comeback, but to make the idea more P.C., they're called "values" - it's not a matter of what's right or wrong, just what's important to you. "Morals" are reserved for the "right-wing fundamentalists", right? (there I go with the labels again).

But the point is, this nation is toast without morals. We must have a consistent and (largely) unchanging set of rules governing what's right and wrong, not just reflecting what ideas are popular (that's the difference between a Republic and a Democracy). Political candidates who refuse to recognize this (or agree with it but go and do otherwise) are no better than heathens presuming to be Christians in my view. To that end, my vote goes to the moral candidate - Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

- Graffy

What's In Your Heart? (Part II)

2006-07-31T20:52:00.000-05:00

Ok, so he's the Capitol One Viking guy. Still, I like it.

To pick up where I left off... two weeks ago... I believe my last big point was that our deeds do not make us who we are, but merely reveal what's already within us. That was essentially Paul's point in Romans 3 when he said,

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Thus, God gives us His law not to make us perfect, but to reveal to us our inadequacy. (If I might digress, you can compare that idea to one of the tenets of Islam - that a perfect society will result if it obeys Sha'riah - Islamic holy law). Anyway, to drive this point of "revealing what lies within" home with a little more clarity, let's begin with James 1:2-7 & 12:

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord;
...
Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

James makes some simple observations that shouldn't strain the exegetical skills too greatly:

1. The testing of faith produces perseverance
2. Perseverance perfects us that we might not lack anything
3. If anything is lacking, it's wisdom
4. Wisdom is freely given by God, but only if it's requested in faith.

The concept of perseverance is literally in the Greek, "cheerful (or hopeful) endurance." It's a command to have an attitude of thriving (not just surviving) the hard times. So how does that work?

Look at how James qualifies faith. He says that perseverance in faith is to perfect us - that we not be lacking in anything. But if we lack in something, it's likely wisdom - which God will freely give. Of course, we have to ask in faith. In other words, faith and God's wisdom go hand-in-hand. You don't get one without the other.

For a better picture of what God's wisdom is all about, go to Proverbs 18:4:

The words of a man's mouth are deep waters,
but the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.

This is a description of two kinds of wisdom, Man's and Gods. We can understand the difference between these wisdoms by examining the visual image the proverb provides. That is, man's wisdom is like "deep water" (not necesarily an ocean - think more of a well or deep pool). Comparatively, God's wisdom is a "bubblnig brook". So what are the primary differences?

1. Water depth - Man's wisdom is deep. God's wisdom is shallow. Sounds a little odd, doesn't it? Yet consider the deep waters of a well. Darkness, murkiness, and a general lack of clarity characterize such water. By comparison, a brook is typically clear. It's shallow depth lets you see the bottom easily. The point? There's nothing hidden or vague in God's wisdom. The intellectual component is more often an issue of common sense.

2. Water velocity - Well waters don't flow. Brooks do. Simply put, God's wisdom moves - it requires or encourages action on the part of him who posesses it.

As an engineer, I have studied how water flows in channels. One of the primary principles that governs water flow is known as Bernoulli's Principle. In one form, it states that the depth of water is inversely proportional to the velocity of the water. In simpler terms: the deeper the water, the slower it flows.

By the contrast in his Proverb, Solomon was basically laying out Bernoulli's primary principle of hydraulic engineering several millennia before Bernoulli was born. But what that means to the everyday Christian is this: If you can't figure out how to deal with a sin issue in your life, it's likely because you don't really want to deal with it.

Thus, when the Godly thing to do when dealing with sin is the one thing we don't want to do, we try to think of another way... and think... and think some more. Soon, we suffer "paralysis by analysis" and we think so long that we never do anything. Hence, "the words of a man's mouth are deep (and stagnant) waters". Yet Jesus told us to cut off our hands or gouge out our eyes if they cause us to sin. While some would actually debate whether Christ meant that to be taken literally, it certainly doesn't present the idea to sit and give lots and lots of thought about what to do with your sin, does it? He was being dramatically clear - get radical and stop at nothing in combatting the sin in your life.

So how does getting radical with the sin in your life bring about God's wisdom?

Look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The important question to ask here is: Why is the message of the cross (which Paul later qualifies as "God's wisdom") foolishness to the perishing?

The answer lies in human nature - and the cross which seeks to destroy it. After all, it would be utter foolishness to destroy what so many in this world love so dearly, wouldn't it? Yet that's precisely the purpose of the cross - and the testing of our faith that James refers to.

Let me illustrate:

One of my favorite recording artists is Eric Clapton. In the 1970's, Clapton suffered a powerful addiction to heroin. He was discussing this addiciton in an interview and pointed out during the worst of it, he honestly believed he didn't have a problem with heroin - until he tried to quit. That is, as long as he fed his addiction, he was blissfully unaware of his enslavement. Only until he resisted his desire did his desire show him how truly powerful and far-reaching it was in his life.

That's what God's wisdom is all about. It moves us in a direction oopposite of our human nature. And when it does that, we start to see ourselves for what we really are - we see the sin in our lives for what it is and we understand how powerful it can be. Now, I'm not saying that by taking up an ascetic, monk-like lifestyle and obeying all of God's moral edicts we somehow become like Him. The Pharisees made that mistake in Matthew 15 and I've even heard radical Muslim terrorists say similar things. What I am saying is that when we respond to God's conviction about the way we live our lives and seek to correct it - not because we're afraid of getting caught, but because we truly want to be like God (remember the "cheerful endurance" James mentioned) - we see clearly the sins that enslave us - and others.

If you read Proverbs 20:5, you'll see this idea reflected in the "man of understanding". That is, a "man of understanding " is one who popsesses God's wisdom. Such people know the motives of other people's hearts because they have seen (and dealt with) those same motives in their own.

So... What's in your heart?

- Graffy

What's in your heart?

2006-07-15T12:58:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a while since my last post, but things have been busy - filling in for a friend and teaching his adult Sunday School class can get a bit tricky, especially when fresh material isn't coming quickly to mind...

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"

There's more going on in this passage than meets the eye. When Jesus' disciples are challenged for not practicing handwashing before eating, Jesus responds by pointing out a hypocrisy among the Pharisees. Specifically, the Pharisees have permitted people to give offerings to God that could have, instead been given to support thier parents. The Pharisees believed this was a good thing - after all, God is bigger than our parents. However, they overlooked the point that God said, "Honor your father and mother - that it may go well with you" (see Exodus 20). Thus, for whatever reason, the Pharisees were actually breaking God's law in a show of religious piety.

But what's really interesting in this passage is that Jesus isn't just defending his disciples by turning the attention on the Pharisees' hypocrisy; he was actually pointing out that his disciples didn't even need a defense. The reason? No where in the law of Moses (which the Pharisees charged Jesus' disciples with breaking) is there a command to wash one's hands before eating. The only handwashing command to be found deals with purification rituals priests go through before offering sacrifices. While not that washing your hands before a meal may be a bad idea, it's not a law of God. Rather, it's a "rule taught by men".

So where did the Pharisees over-zealous sense of religious piety come from?

Turn to Leviticus 11:42-45:

'Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable. Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean.
'For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth.
For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

The first paragraph provides us some context. If you know anything about Leviticus, you probably know it's the least interesting read in the Bible, since it consists largely of the several hundred laws that God gave to Israel through Moses. In this particular instance (about halfway through), God is going into detail about what creatures are clean and unclean. Then in the middle of all of this lawmaking, God commands Israel, "Consecrate yourselves ... and be holy, for I am holy." Then He repeats Himself, "thus you shall be holy for I am holy." (One does well to remember that when something is repeated in the Bible, it's usually because it's important. )

God gives Israel two commands regarding what to do with His law:

Consecrate yourselves (an external act)
Be holy (an internal state of being)

To consecrate oneself is to set oneself apart (by ceremonial cleansing, prayer, fasting, etc.) for the purpose of performing a sacred ritual. The Pharisees were skilled at consecrating themselves - in fact, that's what the word, "Pharisee" means: "separate one". They did this because they honestly believed that by acting holy and consecrating themselves with God's law, they would eventually be holy or be like God.

Case in point: I am a seven-week-old father of a son (there's a way of putting it, eh?). I know I have many new experiences in child-rearing yet ahead of me and one that I anticipate with a mixture of excitement and fear is when my toddler son starts to mimic the things that I do. That means when I get up to go to work in the morning, he might pretend to do the same. Certain mannerisms and habits that I have, he'll mimic. Why? Because he wants to be "just like dad". (I find it funny that we all do this as children, but when we've grown up, we bemoan the fact that we really are just like our parents...)

But no matter how perfectly my son mimics what I do in an effort to be just like me, he can't accomplish it - not just by doing what I do. Why? Because in order for my son to be like me, he needs a lot more maturity - and that takes time. Eventually, I expect my son really will be like me, and if he's smart, he'll be greater than me. (I admit, there's a lot of areas where I'm not as mature as I could or should be...)

But can we say the same about God? If we act like Him long enough, will we eventually be like Him?

There's this tension throughout the Old Testament about God's Law. Moses says, "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out." (Deuteronomy 27:26). Contrast that with what Solomon says in Ecclesiates 7:20, "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins." (His father, David, stated it a bit more dramatically in Psalm 14:2 & 3.)

Clearly, there is a very big difference between acting like God and being like God. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that being like God takes, well, an act of God. Case in point: Only one man is reputed to have led a sinless life - Jesus of Nazareth (Hebrews 4:15). Yet did Jesus somehow become God by obeying the law? Or did he obey the law because He already was God?

That's what the Pharisees missed. The purpose of the law wasn't to make Israel holy. It was merely to show them that they could never measure up to God's standard. Thus, trying to obey God's law to the letter doesn't make a person holy - it only makes them aware of how sinful they are. Paul said exactly that in Romans 3:20.

This is Jesus' point back in Matthew 15. When he talks about what makes us clean and unclean in vs. 10 & 11, he expounds in vs. 17-20:

"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

Very simply, then, our deeds do not define us, they reveal us.

Have a great week (or maybe two...)

- Graffy

Plagues, Schmagues...

2006-07-11T20:19:00.000-05:00

I'm getting a bit more blog- savvy - check out the new links at right. Bible Gateway is a *great* reference for looking up Scripture if you don't have a Bible handy...

Anyway, everyone's at camp this week, so here's an oldie but a goodie..

Some time ago, I came across a Christian speaker arguing that the first three plagues Moses and Aaron performed to convince Pharoah to let Israel go were merely natural phenomena / tricks of light. I suspect the reason he was arguing this point was that for the first three miracles, Pharoah's magicians kept pace. The argument itself states that the first plague, turning the Nile into blood, was caused by a volcanic eruption. The second plague, the frogs jumping onto the land, was the result of the Nile being uninhabitable from the first plague. After that, the magicians couldn't keep up, so the speaker stopped arguing his case. Granted, it does seem odd that a bunch of pagan magicians could do as a product of their art what Aaron and Moses could only do with special dispensation of the Almighty, but I feel that hardly justifies the view this speaker took.

When examining the text of Exodus, the author (Moses) was clear that the entire Nile was turned to blood, not colored red by clay or volcanic eruption. (The word used for "blood" in Hebrew means "blood", not "reddish hue"). In addition, the plague of the frogs was significant. John MacArthur points out that in Egyptian culture, frogs were sacred - their presence indicated the Nile had receded and the land was fertile for crops. Thus, there's a sense of irony in turning what's sacred into a plague. Most important is the fact that the magicians were not able to undo what God had done through Moses and Aaron - they could only duplicate it and even then, imperfectly. The events recorded in Exodus 7:12 & 8:8 symoblize this very point.

Simply put, the factuality of the ten plagues is foregone from the standpoint of Scripture. Thus, by focusing on what really are minor details, the real point of the passage is compltely missed.

So what is really the point of the ten plagues? God says it from the get-go:

"You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharoah that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land. But I will harden Pharoah's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt."
(Exodus 7:2,3; emphasis mine)

It's pretty simple. God intended to harden Pharoah's heart by using His signs and miracles to eventually free Israel. In fact, the harder Pharoah's heart grew, the more God had an opportunity to prove that He was God and Pharoah was not. Incidentally, just in case one thinks God was being unfair by intentionally hardening Pharoah's heart to make an example of him, look at the words that come from the man's own lips in Exodus 5:2

"Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and besides, I will not let Israel go."

Pharoah wanted nothing to do with God. Whether or not God loved Pharoah and wanted him to share eternity with Him, Pharoah's will was not in agreement - and we all know you can't force someone to love someone else. But just in case it still seems unfair, examine the process by which Pharoah's heart was hardened. In no case did God forcibly deny Pharoah the chance to believe. In Exodus 7:11-13, 22 & 23, and 8:7-15 we see that Pharoah hardened his heart when he saw his magicians doing what Moses and Aaron were doing by God. In other words, Pharoah saw the miracles - the evidence that Moses' and Aaron's God was much bigger than his or his magicians' gods. Yet no miracle could convince him and make him an honest believer in God for the simple fact that he stated beforehand he didn't want to believe. Thus, all he needed was the least bit of proof to question the Sovereignty of Moses' and Aaron's God and he would continue comfortably in his disbelief, which God gave him in his mages' spellmaking. By the way, God *did* give Pharoah a clear chance to believe:

...Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff, and struck the dust of the earth, and there were gnats on man and beast. All dust of the earth became gnats through all the land of Egypt. The magicians tried with their secret arts to bring forth gnats, but they could not; so there were gnats on man and beast. Then the magicians said to Pharoah, "This is the finger of God." But Pharoah's heart was hardened and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said.

(Exodus 8:17-19; emphasis mine)

I find it interesting that God made believers out of Pharoah's magicians by the third miracle and yet Pharoah remained obstinate. I also find it interesting that Pharoah was soundly convinced of his position after only three miracles when the following eight went unanswered by his court of mages. The only way Pharoah could have maintained his position were if he simply didn't want to believe in the first place. After all, even when he did concede to Moses that God was God and he was not (see Exodus9:27,28), he always changed his mind (Exodus 9:35), showing that he was never truly convinced in the first place.

The point (if it isn't clear already) is that we can easily cement ourselves in our own wills. God can't make us love Him and if we choose not to, it may be that nothing will convince us otherwise. That's not always true, but the general precept is backed up by Jesus when He tells the story of the rich man and the beggar in Luke 16:19-31. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his living relatives of the impending doom. Abraham's response is quite clear:

"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."

I say all of this just to serve as a reminder of how it is a Christian comes to put their trust in Christ. An honest athiest / agnostic may say they do not believe for lack of evidence, claiming that they would take faith if only God would show Himself more tangibly. Yet in so doing, they would have removed the very need to have any faith at all - we have faith in what we cannot see, not what we see clearly before us. Besides, if you look at the history of Israel, you'll see that even when God was present among Israel and their fathers, He still required them to work with Him on faith. Nevermind the numerous times when the entire assembly of Isreal did see God visibly manifested among them, and yet rebelled against Him. You'll forgive me if I sound harsh in my perspective, but to disregard God on the grounds of insufficient evidence is simply not valid. The Bible is quite clear that even ample evidence will not make a believer out of someone who is not willing to adopt faith as the primary means of communion with God.

Until next week.

- Graffy

What Makes It Real?

2006-07-05T20:46:00.000-05:00

Suppose you ran into a missionary who has, for the first time, visited your church. You engage him in conversation and he tells you about how he got his start as a missionary. He says that after he became a Christian, he just went into the mission field. He had no church to support him so he supported himself by making a variety of things. He tells you that he preached the gospel and started churches in hundreds of small villages all over the world for seventeen years. After regaling you with his adventures, you think he must have some real insights into Scripture, so so you ask him to expound on his favorite verse. He tells you he's never read the Bible.

A Christian who's been a missionary and founding churches for seventeen years and has never read the Bible?

It's happened before. Check out Galatians 1 & 2:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither recieved it from man, not was I taught it, but I recieved it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
...
But when God ... was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immesdiately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas and stayed wiuth him fifteen days.
...
Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles...
...
[S]eeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised ... and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

(Galatians 1:11,12,15-18; 2:1,2,7-9)

Paul was adamant about one major point: The gospel message he preached was not taught to him by anyone. He did not learn it from the disciples in Jerusalem. In fact, he took seventeen years before he actually submitted what he was preaching for review to the disciples in Jerusalem. And what was their reaction? They gave him the "right hand of fellowship". They not only affirmed that what Paul preached was the same gospel they preached, but they gave him all of their support.

Paul was absolutely certain of the truth of his gospel. Evidence of that is found in Galatians 1:8:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

The testimony in Galatians stands as objective proof for many reasons. First, Paul's behavior backed up his convictions. He was convinced God gave him his gospel, therefore he didn't need to consult with other Christians about it - and he didn't. Nor could he have learned it from the other apostles' writings since many of Paul's own letters predate the four gospels by several years. Second, Paul set the message above himself. He cursed himself if he preached anything other than what he'd originally taught. If he were trying to start his own following or religion, he'd certainly have left his options open to changing his message. Third, if Paul had simply been making the message up, why did he ever submit it to the apostles in Jerusalem? And why would they fully endorse him unless what he preached was exactly what they preached? In addition to that, how can Paul have such a vast amount of unique material that no other apostle preached and yet remain true to the central message? Unless, of course, Paul and the other apostles were all getting their information from the same source...

My conclusion is simply this: Paul was absolutely convinced he'd met the risen Christ. He was absolutely convinced that the gospel message he had was the truth and he was absolutely convinced that it was not to be changed - by him or anyone else. People may not accept Paul's convictions as their own, but they cannot say that Paul didn't really believe what he said he believed.

There's many things that make my faith real to me, but it's the testimony of the Bible's authors - the extraordinary uniform testimony - that stands as reasonable objective proof for the faith.

- Graffy

Heaven & Hell

2006-06-23T09:05:00.000-05:00

A friend once posed a question about the Apocalypse of Peter - an apocryphal book supposedly written by Peter detailing the rewards of the faithful in heaven and the punishments of the damned in hell. What's interesting about the book is that at the end, the author is told that the damned may be prayed into heaven by the righteous - an idea which challenges the finality of heaven and hell. In addition, the book was widely read and quoted among Christians in the early church. So why is it not a part of our Bible? Here's three quick points regarding problems with the Apocalypse of Peter:

1. Only two manuscripts of this book exist. One manuscript completely omits the "praying the damned into heaven" segment. Thus, the fact that the two copies don't agree on this theological concept makes it questionable, at best.

2. The book goes into extraordinary detail about what heaven and hell are like. In contrast, most descriptions of the hereafter in the Bible are made in only very general terms. For this reason, the subject matter of the Apocalypse of Peter is very enticing (after all, who doesn't want to know more about heaven and hell?) and was probably widely read because it was popular. The unique depictions of heaven and hell also raise questions about the book's authenticity.

3. Whether or not early Christians considered it scriptural does matter - but even that must be taken with a grain of salt. Very simply, theology wasn't a great issue for early believers. While churches today split on matters of doctrine, churches then typically split on matters of discipline. That is, they were more concerned about how a Christian ought to behave than what a Christian ought to believe. Considering the content of the Apocalypse of Peter is largely behavior-focused, it appears to have been written specifically for a 2nd Century Christian viewpoint.

Apopcrypha aside, what exactly does the Bible say about heaven and hell?

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
(John 3:19-21 - NIV)

Jesus says clearly that men are judged by hiding from the Light - in other words, men judge themselves by refusing to leave the darkness. The implication of these verses is that Judgement Day is not going to be so much God chasing down errant sinners and throwing them into hell, but rather God simply giving men what they have already chosen beforehand - either an eternity of the darkness they spent their lives hiding in or an eternity of the Light they spent their lives seeking out.

A good illustration of what I mean can be found in Mark Cahill's book, "The One Thing You Can't Do In Heaven". In it, Cahill, a personal friend of Charles Barkley, describes a conversation he had with Barkley's brother, Darryl. During the conversation, Darryl told Cahill that he had recently suffered a heart attack during which he had a near-death experience. Darryl said that during the near-death experience, he remembered floating out of his body, watching momentarily from above as paramedics worked on him and eventually departing toward the "light at the end of the tunnel". Interestingly, he came to find that the "light" was not heaven - it was hell. Darryl was convinced of what he saw and openly admitted to Cahill that he believed he would go to hell when he died. Yet when Cahill pressed Darryl about doing something to correct his fate, Darryl refused. Why? According to Cahill, Darryl simply didn't want to change his lifestyle.

Why would a man who is absolutely certain that hell exists and that he is destined for it do absolutely nothing to save his own soul? The only logical explanation that occurs to me is that for as much as Darryl Barkley does not care to go to hell, he cares even less to seek out God.

Strangely enough, the Bible documents this same idea in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. There, as the rich man is tormented in hell, he begs Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to convince his remaining family to repent before it's too late. Abraham responds, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone rises from the dead."

It seems that heaven and hell are a "canonizing" of who we are for all eterninty - a permanent casting of ourselves either as children of light or darkness. At the risk of getting too philosophical, if we are ultimately "canonized" or cast in our free will, then it could very well be that those who are consigned to hell either cannot or will not change their minds about their destination, no matter how much they don't want to be there.

I admit it is specualtion and perhaps it's best left that way. The finality and nature of heaven and hell remain difficult topics to fully grasp, though many have tried through the years to put a perspective on it. For further reading, I would recommend C.S. Lewis' book, "The Great Divorce". His insightful views of human nature lend themselves well to the topic at hand and provide some helpful perspectives.

As a parting thought, I'd like to leave you with a quote from C.H. Spurgeon:

If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned or unprayed for.

- Graffy

Repent!

2006-06-11T20:54:00.001-05:00

Those whom I love I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

(Rev. 3:19 – NASB)

What does the word “repent” mean to you? Is it that ecstatic moment when someone finally “sees the light”? Perhaps it’s something reserved for penitent monks. Maybe the word makes you think of some of the more ugly caricatures of Christianity. Whatever the word means to you, it’s something every Christian has heard often enough but not so many really understand. In fact, a review of how the word “repent” is used in the Bible would probably only confuse the matter. To see what I mean, grab a King James Bible and turn to Genesis 6:6:

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Did you know that in the Old Testament, the majority of the time that repentance is mentioned, it’s God who’s doing the repenting?

This is another one of those verses that can worry Christians. After all, what does this mean? Is God somehow not perfect or sovereign? Is He prone to making mistakes? Really, issues like this are usually easily resolved by simply observing the three C’s of biblical interpretation:

Context.
Context.
Context.

In this case, the problem occurs when we read the New Testament concept of repentance into an Old Testament occurrence. In reality, the Old Testament uses two different Hebrew words for “repent”. One is largely reserved for God regretting or choosing to change His actions (like in Genesis 6:6). The other is reserved for Israel turning from sin and back to God (like in Ezekiel 14:6). To illustrate, when a Christian repents of their sin, a sign they’ve truly repented is that they no longer commit that sin. So in the case of Genesis 6:6, when God repented of making humankind, He should have quit making humankind, right?

In other translations, the verse is better rendered, “God regretted making man”. God didn’t make a mistake, but He took a risk when He gave us a free will. His repentance reflected the risk He took, not the inherent morality of His creating man. I find it especially interesting that when God repented of making man, rather than destroying mankind, He redeemed it. That's something you can't do with sin.

Now let’s take a closer look at the New Testament concept of repentance.

And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’

And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’

(Luke 13:6-9 – NASB)

Parables are loose allegories. That is, the parable demonstrates a spiritual truth, though not every element necessarily means something. Here’s some questions to ponder:

Who is the vineyard owner?
Who is the vineyard-keeper?
Who or what does the tree represent?
Who or what does the fertilizer represent?

If you’ve followed closely, there should be one big point about repentance that comes out of all of this: True repentance (which leads to salvation) bears good fruit. It's inevitable. However, there seems to be a common misconception that if a Christian repents, God will somehow magically change their lifestyle, habits, and / or behaviors. I won't say that deson't happen, but it's fairly obvious that is not a common reality for most of us. Review the key verse of this study, Revelation 3:19:

Those whom I love I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

The first half of that verse is a warning. The second half is a command. Jesus warns that a Christian will inevitably be convicted of sinful behavior (reproved) and may eventually be made to pay for it (disciplined). Thus, Christians are to “be zealous and repent”.

So, how does one repent zealously (or earnestly)? Does that mean just being really, really, really, really, really sorry for what you’ve done and promising God (cross your heart and hope to die) that you’ll never do it again?

Let me give you an example of what I think it means:

A couple years ago, I changed jobs at my place of employment. It was a big transition for me. One of the things that made the transition especially difficult was one of my new coworkers. I can honestly say that I’ve never met someone with whom I had a serious “personality conflict”. Nevertheless, this was the case with my new coworker - everything he said or did drove me nuts. To make matters worse, I did little to hide my distaste for him and it led to an inevitable (and embarrassing) argument arbitrated by our boss.

It finally sunk in that these things happened because I simply refused to give any ground. Granted, my coworker could have done the same, but in my opinion, the first to recognize the need for compromise is obligated to do it. Anyway, from that point on, I swore I would do what I could to make things run as smoothly as possible. But that was only the first step.

You see, once I “repented” of my bad attitude and realized I needed to do what I could to keep things running smoothly, grinning and bearing my coworker’s abrasive personality wasn’t enough. I had to be aggressive (or zealous) about my repentance. Rather than simply being nice to the guy when he spoke to me, I went out of my way to talk to him. I got to know him more as a person than an annoying coworker and in the end, not only did I actually like my coworker (in spite of his faults), but I even earned the opportunity to witness to him. But it was hard work. Not only did I have to put my pride aside, but I had to go out of my way to be friendly and sociable – not something I’m given to do even with people I like!

The very heart of repentance was summed up succinctly in a lecture by Ravi Zacharias:

Be ruthless with your sin.

Repentance begins an all-out, cut-throat, take-no-prisoners war. Either you master your sin, or it will master you - be it a critical attitude or an addiction to pornography. But don't think that by losing a battle with your sin that you've lost the war. The greater experience in this area says that mastering your sin actually involves avoiding battles, rather than gritting your teeth and trying to win them. In the case of my coworker, by going out of my way to be kind to him, my attitude eventually changed and I won the war simply because I no longer had to battle with the urge to argue with him. In a sense, I won the war by default - no contest.

Remember, this is not about just rejecting sins or trying to avoid sinful behavior. Repentance is an aggressive attack on the sins that enslave us. It’s actively counter-acting the poisonous behaviors that not only keep us from intimacy with God, but also from making a positive impact in the world around us.

Until next week.

Graffy

A Week Off... For Real

2006-06-07T18:26:00.000-05:00

Tuesday, June 6th, 2006

Micah Orin Graff was born at 2:29 am. He weighed 9 lbs, 8 ozs, and is 23 1/2 inches long. Labor was complicated by a posterior delivery and no drugs for mom. Tough day.

Both mother and baby are doing well.

See you next week.

- Graffy

A Week Off... Sort of.

2006-05-30T20:05:00.001-05:00

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. ...

[Chorus]
This is what it means to be held. // How it feels when the sacred is torn from your life // And you survive. // This is what it is to be loved. // And to know that the promise was // When everything fell we'd be held.

Natalie Grant, "Held", from the album Awaken

Pesonally, I'm no fan of mushy songs. In my estimation, Natalie Grant's song is all of that. However, when I first heard it, what kept me from turning the dial was how she would answer the unasked question: Why does a good God let bad things happen - to even His own?

Since we took a break from Tuesday night as most attendees are preparing for finals (Good luck, guys!), I thought I'd address an idea that's been on my mind, especially lately.

There's a man who attends our church who came from Chicago. He's Greek in origin and physically, he's built like a rock. I haven't really gotten to know his entire story, but I do know he's had a pretty tough go of things. For example, occupational hazards left him with MS which has progressively worsened. When I first met him, he needed a cane to walk - then two. Now he's confined to a wheelchair. Add to that numerous other health complications, two failed marriages and a daughter who is so rebellious she can't live at home and you have a person who's seen a lot of the bad things life has to offer. He's got a heart of gold though, and he's loved by our congregation - many of whom have gone well out of their way to help him as his health has worsened. It's a tough story, but what made it tougher was the news I recieved via our email prayer chain Sunday. Apparently, his house was broken into and he was severly beaten. Last report was that he was in the hospital and not doing very well. When I read the news I was simply dumbfounded. Of all the people to attack, why a guy bound to a wheelchair?

I've often heard the unbeliever's battle cry (which is often more a criminal accusation than an honest question), that if God were good and really loved us, He'd not let these sorts of things happen. It is a valid question - regardless of what one believes (or their reasons for asking it), and I honestly believe that how a religion or faith answers this question is telling of the essential nature of its dogma.

For example, in Islam, both good and bad come from God. God is not personal, He's not knowable, He does what He wills and there's no rhyme or reason to it - only the knowledge that God sees, knows, and can do everything. Thus, no matter what events befall a faithful Muslim, it is "whatever Allah wills", be it good or bad. Ultimately, there isn't even any guarantee of salvation for the faithful. As a Muslim, maybe God will save you, maybe He won't. There's no way to know for sure

In Buddhism / Hinduism, God is not really real. There is God, but not in any real sense, and the pain and evil one suffers in life is due to the results of past sins. Karma and reincarnation comprise a system of eternal punishment - you spend each life paying for the last. Eternal unforgiveness.

So what sets Christianity apart from other religions on this question?

Francis Schaeffer was a prolific writer and apologist who was stricken with cancer at the end of his life. Asked by a reporter how he felt to be told he's dying of cancer, Schaeffer responded, (to paraphrase), "Why shouldn't I get cancer and die?" He went on to point out that this world is one marred by sin and that his hope was not a happy and healthy life here, but in the hereafter.

Knowing this is what gives us staying power. It seems to be an ongoing phenomenon that unless you're "experienceing God" in some tangible way (from speaking in tongues to getting unexpected checks in exactly needed amounts), then you're missing out. I will readily admit that it's a valid desire, especially in this age, to want to feel something in one's spirituality. But if you ask many well-meaning Christians what makes their faith real to them, you'll likely hear about those mystery checks or those moments of ecstatic emotional sentiment that makes God so real.

I'm not saying that tangible proof of God's blessings in our lives should be disregarded, but it seems to me that many Christians are quick to put the cart before the horse. After all, what would happen when somone has an "off" Sunday and they leave worship feeling empty or unfulfilled or the money gets tight and that mystery check never comes?

I find it often helps to check faith with Scripture. Regarding how we are to love God, Jesus simply stated, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37, NIV)

The idea is fairly simple: Our relationship with God is more than just emotional. In fact, to really study the idea, it is our wills that we use to worship God, not our emotions. Emotinal sentiments are secondary. That is, what gives our faith staying power is not merely knowing what we believe (or experience), but why we believe it.

It's been said that you can learn more by studying your Bible every morning over breakfast than you can in four years of seminary. One great way to strengthen your faith and learn about the Bible is to ask the challenging questions. You know, the ones you think of that don't really seem to have an answer...

Go ahead. Ask the questions you think don't have answers. Then go looking for answers and don't stop until you find them. Not only will the search itself will enrich you greatly, but you may even find you were asking the wrong question.

Philosopher and apologist Ravi Zacharias has made this statement a part of his ministry's mission:

What I believe in my heart must make sense in my mind.

He stated this idea quite succinctly in a forum at Harvard University. During an opportunity to interact with the audience, Zacharias was challeneged with the question, "Should one turn to Christianity because it helps me find happiness / contentment (or deal with pain)?"

His answer: "Absolutely not."

He went on to state,

If it is true, it will help you deal with the issue of pain and suffering. ... It is not true because it helps you deal with pain and suffering.

As an exercise, we can take Dr. Zacahrias' model for religion and apply it to the case of the mother in the song "Held":

Assuming Islam is true and the sovereign God is not good, bad or personal, then the grieving mother should be able to find comfort in a God who may or may not care about her pain but caused it nonetheless.

Assuming Buddhism is true, then the mother should be comforted to know that her child either died because of a sin they committed in a previous life or that she herself committed.

Finally, assuming Christianity is true, the comfort comes in knowing that God does not cause, desire, or take pleasure in her pain, nor does it's presence dimish His presence in her or her child's life, now and hereafter. The pain is not an end in and of itself.

Take your pick, but in my estimation, Dr. Zacharias is right - what I believe in my heart must make sense in my head. Emotion sentiment does not make truth. Rather, knowing the truth is what should determine how we feel.

Have a great week.

We're praying for you, Denny.

Shame, Shame

2006-05-22T17:26:00.000-05:00

Miriam and Aaron began to speak against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. “Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” And the Lord heard this. (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

At once the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “Come out to the Tent of Meeting, all three of you.” So the three of them came out. Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the Tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When both of them stepped forward, he said, “Listen to my words:

“When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams.But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.

When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam – leprous, like snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had leprosy; and he said to Moses, “Please my lord, do not hold against us the sin we have so foolishly committed. Do not let her be like a stillborn infant coming from its mother’s womb with its flesh half eaten away.”

So Moses cried out to the Lord, “O God, please help her!”

The Lord replied to Moses, “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been disgraced for seven days? Confine her outside the camp for seven days; after that she can be brought back.”

So Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on till she was brought back.

(Numbers 12:1-15; NIV)

One of the most powerful emotions we human beings can feel is shame and it can powerfully influence us and create memories we neither enjoy nor forget.

Questions to consider:

Have you ever been publicly humiliated? Can you remember the intensity of that emotion? Was there a time in your past when you were so embarassed that it still affects you today?
Have you ever really embarrassed someone else? Whether or not you felt sorry then, how do you feel about it now? Does your regret of something you've done in the past influence how you see yourself?

Our likes / dislikes are often based on the emotional impact of events in our past. Personally, when I hear someone being loud and obnoxious in a public setting, I get tense - even red-faced. Why? Because I can count more than a few times when I've done that myself - only to later realize how idiotic I was to my firends, family, and the complete strangers around me. On the positive side, whenever I smell coffee, I become more relaxed and conversational. Why? Because some of my favorite conversations have been shared over a cup (or, more often, a pot) of hot coffee. In both cases, a relationship was being affected either negatively or positively. Humans are relational creatures. What makes our happiest or most instensely shameful moments so memorable is how others around us are affected.

While this is a perfectly normal and helpful mechanism for us humans, there are times when it can become unmanageable and even harmful.

Consider the excerpt from Numbers, chapter 12. Moses was publicly embarrassed by his brother and sister before Israel. Miriam and Aaron accused Moses of marrying a woman who was not an Israelite. However, the real issue appears to be one of sibling rivalry - Aaron and Miriam were jealous of Moses' authority as Israel's leader. In any case, as a consequence of their rebellion, God struck Miriam with leprosy. Then Moses begs God for help.

God's response is rather ... odd:

"If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days?"

Yeah. File that one under "Weird Sayings of the Bible"...

Why would any self-respecting dad want to spit in his daughter's face? What weird rule is behind that?

So far as I know, there's no specific command in Scripture for this practice, but there is some context for it. In Deuteronomy chapter 25, we're told that if a man dies without a son and his brother refuses to marry the dead man's widow (and try to concieve a son in the dead man's name), the brother would be brought before the elders of the town and the widow would then spit in his face, disgracing him publicly. (There's actually more to it than that - read Deuteronomy 25:7-10 for a truly unique idea of public disgrace).

Thus, a brother who refused to fulfill his social obligation to carry on his brother's family line and care for his widow was a disgraceful, selfish man - he deserved public contempt because he refused to sacrifice to do the right thing.

So when Miriam and Aaron challeneged Moses, their brother and leader, they were ultimately challenging and publicly humiliating God (who appointed Moses). You might say that God struck Miriam with leprosy to "spit in her face" or publicly shame her for her rude, inconsiderate, and selfish behavior.

But what about Aaron? He got off easy, didn't he?

Not really. Aaron could have talked Miriam out of it. He didn't and as a result, his sister ended up with leprosy. Aaron's response in Numbers 12:11,12 shows he knew his guilt.

Now fastforward ten years. Imagine Aaron, Moses, Miriam and a bunch of other Israelites are all sitting around the campfire reliving the "glory days." (No, this isn't in the Bible...) Everyone's enjoying talking about the good 'ol times till someone laughs and says,

"Hey, Miriam! Remeber that time you and Aaron got after Moses and cheesed off the Almighty and then you got struck with leprosy?"

I bet Miriam would just chuckle and say, "Yeah.. good times..."

Obviously, if she's anything like you and me, she'd feel at least a little embarrassed, so here's the critical question:

Should Miriam feel guilty for what she did ten years later?

(Remember those questions I asked*way* at the beginning of this? Now's a good time to reflect on them...)

What actually happened to Miriam after she was struck with leprosy?

It's fairly obvious that ten years later Miriam no longer had leprosy. Jewish law demanded that anyone suffering leprosy be completely isolated from the main group of people either until the disease was cured or for the rest of their lives. Therefore, there's no way Miriam would have been accepted back into the group if she still had the disease seven days later. So if God struck her with leprosy for insulting Him and then healed her seven days later, do you think He was still upset over her arrogance?

How you answer that question determines how you answer whether or not Miriam should have been ashamed of her behavior ten years later.

You can probably see where I'm going.

Read Psalm 103:12 and look at the imagery that's used in Zechariah 3:1-4. It should be fairly obvious that no Christian should ever feel guilty for a past that God has forgiven them for. That's not the same thing as having no regrets. What I'm talking about is the daily beatings many of us (myself included) tend to give ourselves for things we've done in the past.

In fact, Scripture gives us a good picture of what is and is not acceptable guilt. In Numbers 12, note that Miriam was "shamed" for seven days. It was only temporary. However, in Zechariah ch. 3, Satan is described as an accuser. That is, one of Satan's goals is to consistently remind you of things you've done in the past - no matter if God has forgiven you for them.
So how can you tell the difference between God's conviction and Satan's accusation? Time is a good indicator. If you've confessed and repented of your sin, there's no reason you ought to remain continually ashamed of your past.

My firend Ron once shared with me a story:

Theologian R.C. Sproul was asked by a woman how she could find God's forgiveness for a past sin. She admitted to having begged God for years for forgiveness but never really felt forgiven. Sproul's response was perhaps a bit harsh, but theologically accurate. He said, "The next time you pray, ask God for forgiveness one more time. This time, ask Him to forgive you for your arrogance for refusing to believe he forgave you years ago."

But what if you can't get over it? It may be true that God's forgiven you, but how can you forgive yourself?

We can take an example from Jesus Christ. If you read the account leading to His crucifixion, you'll see that Christ suffered a great deal of public shame and humiliation. Mark 14:60-65 relates the Jews spitting in Jesus' face, for example. Then, in his final moments, Matthew 27:46 tells us Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Jesus was not only rejected by society, but even God turned His back. Since Christ took on the sins of the world (and God cannot bear to have sin in His presence), Jesus literally became something repulsive to God. No Christian, no matter how badly beaten they are by shame and humiliation can say that God has truly abandoned them. So how did Jesus take it?

Hebrews 12:2 tells us:

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

What does that mean to us?

Here's a hint: In the Greek, the word "scorn" (or "despise") means literally, "to think against". Jesus, therefore, "thought against the shame of the cross". He didn't run from it - He "endured the shame", but He did not accept it as defining who He was. Thus, a clue to overcoming the emotional bondage of shame, then, begins with rejecting the lies you tell yourself and accepting the truth of what God says about you as one of His children...

Have a great week!

Graffy

To work or not to work?

2006-05-17T18:23:00.000-05:00

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about - but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Romans 4:2-5 NIV)

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
(James 2:20-24 NIV)

Verses like this stress Christians. After all, here's two apostles making apparently contradictory views of salvation. Paul says we're saved by faith - deeds are useless. James says faith is useless without deeds. So which is it?

Paul and James believed the same gospel and shared largely the same theology (Galatians 2:7-10) which means we need to better understand each author's viewpoint.

Look at the book of Romans. Paul constantly refers to the "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" or the "Law" (the Law of Moses). That is, he is speaking mostly from a Jewish context. So, when Paul talks about how works don't save us in Romans Ch. 4, he's referring to obeying the Law of Moses - the 613 laws God handed down on Mt. Sinai. Paul refers to this law in Romans 3:20 by saying "through the law we become conscious of sin".

James, on the other hand, focuses on how a Christian ought to behave and the only law he refers to is a "law of liberty" or a "law that gives freedom" (James 1:25, 2:12)

But is Paul's law that makes us aware of our sinfulness the same law that James calls the "law of liberty"?

Since James and Paul believed the same things about salvation, we must assume that they were either referring to two different laws, or to the same law, but in two completely different contexts.

A key to solving the riddle can be found in the book of Ezekiel:

I will spinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; ... I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
(Ezekiel 36:25-27)

The key actions in Ezekiel 36 are performed by God: I will sprinkle / remove / put / move... which makes the salvation process pretty much entirely God's job - not man's. Therefore, Paul's idea that works are useless to earn God's favor is absolutely right.

However, that doesn't mean a saved person is free from the law - note that in the second part God says, "I will ... move you to follow my decrees and ... keep my laws." In other words, works still matter, but not until after salvation.

The engineer in me finds it useful to talk about these ideas with some simple equations (I'm grateful to my friend, Ron, who supplied me with them):

According to Paul: Faith = Salvation

According to James: Faith + Works = Salvation

According to God: Faith = Salvation + Works

In other words, while it is faith alone that saves an individual, good works / obedience to God's will is a side-effect of salvation. Without good works, there's little reason to think a "Christian" really is saved. Paul was saying that works do not contribute to salvation. James was saying that works are a natural effect of being saved - there's no such thing as a "non-practicing" Christian.

Paul mirrors Ezekiel 36 in Ephesians 2:8-10:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith ... not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Now It's My Turn

2006-05-17T12:39:00.000-05:00

I've sat idly by for a few years watching this blog phenomenon take off and consume countless hours and minds in an immense variety of topics. Having done so, I've developed a good idea of what I think a good blog should (and should not) be.

Now it's my turn.

Intially and indefinitely, I intend to use this blog to post the Bible lessons I have developed for our Tuesday-night group. I'm doing this primarily for three reasons:

1. It helps me clarify my thoughts about the topic and figure out what content to include in the study.

2. Right now, I sit down and write key verses / ideas out on a 3x5 note card - that's fine for the study (it keeps me from commentating excessively), but not good if I ever want to go back and use it again - this is a good way to archive my notes in greater, shall we say, verbosity. :)

3. Some material just doesn't work well for our group but would go well in a blog. I hope others read what I post and enjoy it. I'm not out to start fires or make waves - I have no intention of posting acidic or hostile blogs about anything. Personally, I think such blogging appears to be an immediate indicator that the author really is writing ignorantly about their subject for the sake of an emotional hutzpah. There's something to be said for venting, but it should be saved for private conversations with friends, in my opinion...

Perhaps some of the lessons will be helpful for others leading studies / doing devotionals. In any case, it's primarily a tool for me to maintain ordered and traceable thought patterns.

Incidentally, the last point explains the title - "Graff Paper". Hopefully, this will be a good way to keep my thoughts straight about what I teach.

Until my next post!

Graffy