Category Archives: God

by

Make No Provision | Part III

Up to this point we’ve been talking about the way in which someone is intentionally stacking the deck against themselves by accommodating dynamics that make it easier to disobey their Heavenly Father.

In “Make No Provision | Part I,” we looked at how the Bible says that you’re not to make any provision for the flesh. In other words, you don’t go out of your way to make it easier to fail.

In “Make No Provision | Part II,” we looked at how a lot of subjectivity and tension can be eliminated by evaluating whether or not the priority is the reputation of one’s Heavenly Father or the reputation of one’s self.

In Part III, we summarize both Parts I and II along with the “Making a Point vs Making an Appeal” post by inspecting the strategy that is often being deployed in conversations such as these and if you’re going to make a difference, while you want to be compelling with your logic and your words, you want to remember that it’s ultimately a spiritual struggle and it’s God and God alone that makes the difference.

Here we go…

It can be both frustrating and confusing when you’re listening to someone defend what you intutively recognize as a sinful concession, yet you can’t quite find the words or connect the biblical dots necessary to formulate a decisive sounding rebuttal because of the way that person can seemingly validate their actions by insisting they’re not “doing” anything wrong.

It becomes even more exasperating when they insert the idea that anyone who would be critical of their behavior is being legalistic and intolerant. This just adds to the challenge of articulating a compelling sounding argument by virtue of the way the substance of your platform is immediately compromised because of how your listening audience is now hearing you as being insensitive and unfair, thus making your opponent look as though they’re being victimized. Once that aspect has been successfully installed into the debate, the conversation is no longer about the defendant’s choices, rather it’s about the plaintiff’s motives and the innocence of the accused is taken for granted.

But however a person wants to justify themselves by insisting that they’re not actually being disobedient, despite the way in which they’re making it easier on themselves to disobey, they’re not really defending their actions as much as they’re trying to distract attention away from them, and instead create the impression that all that needs to be evaluated is a mindset that can’t be classified as corrupted without getting into some subjective territory. 

In that way they’re able to insulate themselves from any condemnation let alone criticism by positioning themselves as a victim of an unfair assessment, either in the context of unnecessarily strict standards or a biased perspective that’s intent on reading something into a situation that isn’t there.

But that line of defense doesn’t really work if the action itself can be objectively categorized as a concession regardless of the intent. Regardless of why you chose to shoot yourself in the foot, that doesn’t change the fact that you pulled the trigger and you are responsible for your actions (Gal 6:7).

James 1 breaks it down like this: Desire -> Temptation -> Sin (Jas 1:13-15). You can think of it as: Thoughts -> Plans -> Actions.

However subjective the “planning” stage may be from a human standpoint, it is nevertheless addressed specifically in Scripture as a place where sin is being committed when you purposely set yourself up to fail (Gen 4:7; Prov 4:23; Matt 25:26-28; Rom 13:14; Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8-9).

Being in the presence of decadence and compromise is sometimes unavoidable. And if you’re going to be salt and light, then you’ve got to interact with some dark characters (Matt 5:13-16; 10:16). But there’s a distinction between the person who’s determined to make a difference as opposed to the person who’s simply making an excuse.

If you’re not actively resisting the devil, then you’re cooperating with him…

…and that’s a sin.

But here’s the thing…

When you’re determined to honor the One Who established the boundary, then you’re not as tempted to test the boundary.

Those who see Scripture and the Christian doctrine as a collection of “rules” are choosing to ignore the Love, the Grace and the Power of the One Who put those rules in place. And because they are resolved to maintain themselves as their own absolute, they will forever process those restrictions as rules that need to be resisted rather than as tools that give them an advantage.

But you first have to get to the place where you see God for Who He is. This is why, regardless if you’re talking to someone that you’re concerned about because of the way they’re seemingly walking too close to the edge, or a person’s whose political convictions or cultural perspectives are leaning towards things that are contrary to what’s biblical – however logical and beneficial the approach you would champion may be – it’s ultimately a spiritual struggle and if real change is going to occur, it has to happen from the inside out (Eph 6:12).

This is why, while it’s important and absolutely necessary to be able to argue effectively and be able to “give a reason for the hope that you have (1 Pet 3:15),” it’s God and God alone Who makes that difference and we need to be sure we’re not just stating the facts, but also staying on our knees and praying for the Real Power and the Real Life to show up and faciliate the Real Change.

by - 2 Comments

The Real Contest

The last two posts may seem perhaps a little out of place when the topic is Politics. But in the end, every Political system is based on the way it configures it’s legislative paradigm according to the way it defines a human being.

From that perspective, there is no such thing as the “separation of church and state,” at least not according to the way in which that phrase is asserted into the political dialogue as a means to suggest that a humanistic approach to government is any less of a “church” than the Christian foundation upon which we are based.

In the end, the struggle isn’t between two political parties or “Conservatives” vs “Liberals.” It’s actually far more profound than votes, bills and petitions. In Truth, it’s the foundation upon which all of those political elements are built.

What you’re getting ready to read is something I wrote in 2017. But it serves as a good way to consolidate the themes of the two previous posts into one main idea.

When you’re debating a person that has a substantial amount of emotional and philosophical capital invested in a particular topic, you don’t make your point by being merely logical. According to Scripture our struggle is not against flesh and blood, therefore it’s a spiritual struggle.

And that’s why things that are so heinous and make no sense can still be embraced as normal because if you are your own absolute, then there is no Standard apart from the one that best lines up with your personal appetites (Phil 3:18-20).

We’ll talk more about this later in the week.

For now, let’s take a look at “The Real Contest!”

I don’t care what side of the political aisle you sit on, praying for your leaders is right out of Scripture:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:1-4)

So, when you’ve got a number of pastors gathering around President Trump to pray for him – that God would give him wisdom and insight –  how is it possible that another pastor would refer to that as “theological malpractice bordering on heresy?“

I’ll tell you how: When your platform is more about your agenda than it is those Absolutes that govern all of mankind, both Republicans and Democrats.

More and more the political tension that we’re seeing is becoming easier to discern as a contest between those that look to Divine Absolutes for the bottom line and those that would have nothing to do with any absolute save the absolute of themselves. 44% of Democrats go as far as to say that they believe church is detrimental to the nation.

If you pop the hood on that statistic, what you have is a scenario where close to half of your political constituency is antagonistic to Christ, grace and the concept of sin. Forget the incalculable love proven on the cross, never mind the Power represented by the empty tomb. Neither of those Realities are considered credible. The only thing that matters from a philosophical standpoint is the priority of self and from a practical perspective the only thing that matters is the acquisition of power.

Perhaps that seems a little harsh, but consider some of the talking points of the Democrat party: Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and the Doctrine of Entitlement. All three of these are antithetical to Scripture. But what makes it even more sinister is that they’re not “topics” as much as they are ultimately “tactics.”

Even Racism, in the way it is touted as a current stain on the fabric of American culture and indicative of our nation’s dark past as an enterprise built on enslavement, theft and cruelty, is more “strategy” than it is “substance.”

But if you can demonstrate the America is built on something sinister, then you can easily segue into what appears to be a viable reason to reconfigure the philosophical paradigm that America is built upon. In other words, if you can retool America’s heritage – if you can redefine morality and redo the foundational impetus of personal responsibility – you can establish a government based entirely on Humanism.

At first brush, perhaps that doesn’t seem like an especially dramatic scenario. But the end result is something truly heinous.

Os Guiness was born in China during WWII. He moved with his family to England and completed his undergraduate work at the University of London and completed his doctorate at Oriel College, Oxford. A sought after speaker and a prolific author, he sums up America’s political status apart from it being founded on a Divine Absolute in his book, “Last Call for Liberty“:

The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.” Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.

He makes a strong argument for the way in which the “pursuit of happiness” unchecked by the responsibility one has to be moral translates to disaster. And while it’s not always obvious, as far as the true essence of why our political climate continues to deteriorate into violent protests and little regard for the rule of law, it is nevertheless the foundational curse upon which their rhetoric is based.

…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.1

If you position yourself beneath the banner of Progressive thought and liberal politics, take a moment and pop the hood on what your party pushes as “compassion” and “equality” and realize it’s nothing more than a ploy to retool morality and redefine true freedom. Your champions are godless, your clergy is heretical and your platform is toxic.

If you want to argue the disaster of socialized medicine, it you want to debate the credibility of perversion, if you want to challenge the rule of law – fine. But if you fail to acknowledge the true source from which this philosophical approach proceeds, you’re either a fool or a fiend. It’s not about politics as much as it the One Who governs the affairs of men. It was that Reality that the Framers based, not only their case for independence, but also for what equated to an entirely new approach to government. Jefferson references this in the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“). Adams mentions it in his commentary on the Constitution (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”). And Benjamin Franklin references this fact in some comments he made recorded by James Madison in the “Records of the Federal Convention of 1787“:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise with his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it.”2 

Regardless of how you want to base your rhetoric on judiciously selected snippets of history in order to create a fictional account of the role Christianity played in our nation’s conception and legislative framework, the volume of evidence that proves your narrative to be false is overwhelming. However you would attempt to assault someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with the spin you put on current events and our nation’s heritage, your perspective is revealed for the poisonous platform that it is when you’re confronted with a comprehensive perspective on the news and history that forces you to think beyond your liberal talking points.

And however you want to present yourselves as the champions of freedom and enlightened thinking by referring to Trump supporters as fascists and racists, your strategy fails miserably once your tactics are exposed, your labels are revealed and your motives are recognized.

The real contest today is not defined in the context of political parties. Rather, it’s a fight between a mindset that seeks to justify its morality by asking “Is it Constitutional?” as opposed to “Is it right?” It’s not whether or not you have the Constitutional right, it’s whether or not you are morally right in doing whatever it is that you’re attempting to justify.

And where do go to determine a behavior’s moral value? Now you have the true essence of the debate. Either God is the Absolute that you default to or you simply default to the absolute of yourself.

That is the real contest.

1. “The Golden Triangle of Freedom”, Os Guiness, http://rzim.org/just-thinking/the-golden-triangle-of-freedom/, accessed October 4, 2017 2. “The Records of the Federal convention of 1787 / ed. by Max Farrand, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911”

2. “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”, James Madison, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000009929227;view=1up;seq=487, accessed October 4, 2017)

by

Make No Provision | Part II

In “Make No Provision Part I,” we looked at how some will push the boundaries that define the difference between right and wrong and justify their actions by saying that unless they’re crossing the line, they’re not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Yet Scripture commands us to be making no provision for that which can lead to a genuine problem (Rom 13:14). So, even if we’re not at that point where Satan is getting ready to hit a home run, if we’ve allowed him to load the bases so all he needs now is a base hit, we are guilty of accommodating the devil rather than resisting him (Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8-9).

And here’s the thing: You’re not playing to win when you’re doing things that make it easier to lose. And when you’re not just contemplating concessions but actually you’re doing things that make those compromises more likely, then you have to ask, “Whose team am I playing for?”

These aren’t just “impure thoughts,” this is you intentionally fumbling the ball and giving the other team a chance to score.

No, not everything is black and white. But, then again, God never has to speculate and since He sees the heart (1 Sam 16:7) and no man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24), you can rest assured that however you may be able to successfully convince another human being that things aren’t as they seem, God has full access to both your actions and your motives and you’re either promoting His Reputation or protecting your own.

Period.

In her article, “The Difference Between Guilt and Conviction,” Jeanne Harrison, a staff writer at Grace Church in Orlando, does a great job of shutting down all the white noise and allowing the  Truth that is central to this whole debate be heard in a way that’s easy to hear and understand…

Here’s the difference between guilt and conviction: guilt is not willing to pay the price of repentance. Guilt wants to make the problem go away as painlessly as possible because guilt’s primary focus is me. What will they think of me? How will the consequences impact me?

Conviction focuses on God. We begin to experience conviction when our hearts are grieved not solely because we might lose our job, or our spouse, or our standing, but because we have broken fellowship with God. In 2 Corinthians 7:10 Paul captures the difference between guilt and conviction by describing two different kinds of sorrow. He writes, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”

The question is, why are you lamenting over your sin? Is it because you fear losing the things of the world—the respect of your boss, the esteem of performing perfectly, the pleasure of sin itself? If so, you are experiencing worldly sorrow. Or are you pained because you have personally grieved God’s heart? This kind of godly sorrow takes us straight to the cross—to repentance, restoration, and life. In order for me to repent, I had to care more about my relationship with God than I did about my reputation.

If your priority is your relationship with Christ, your actions will reflect your priorities (Matt 7:17).

Those who are being either indifferrent or critical of your behavior are subordinate to the One Who died for your sins.

That’s good news to the person who has a clear conscience, but it’s anything but encouraging to the one who has something to hide.

If you or the person you’re listening to defends their actions in a way that demonstrates a greater emphasis being put on their reputation than that of their King, there’s a good chance they’re being disobedient. Not necessarily in the context of an obvious sin, but a sin nevertheless in that if you’re making it easier for Satan to win, then you’re working against your Heavenly Father (Mk 9:38-40).

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | No, God Isn’t Safe, But He Is Good

Daily Verse | Exodus 40:35
Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

Wednesday’s Reading: Leviticus 1-3

The following is adapted from a Facebook post I wrote on January 29, 2017

It’s Wednesday, and if you’re reading through the Bible with me this year, we recently read Exodus 20:18-21. The Israelites are standing at the foot of Mount Sinai and are trembling with fear because of the trumpet blast, the shaking and smoking mountain, the thunder and the lightning—all manifestations of God’s presence—and they are terrified.

It reminds me of the disciples in the presence of Jesus when he calmed the storm on the lake: “They were terrified and asked each other, ‘Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!'” (Mark 4:41). It must be overwhelming to be confronted with a manifestation of transcendent, supra-human power.

What struck me most is Moses’ response: “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

Don’t be afraid, yet fear God? What’s going on?

Believers debate what it means to fear the Lord. Some suggest that fear means reverential awe and deferential respect. Others say that doesn’t go far enough, that it literally means to be scared of God, to be frightened of Him. I think, perhaps, the truth is closer to a combination of both.

We must accept that God is the Supreme Being, the One who spoke everything into existence, the great I AM, with no beginning and no end. Nothing—neither man, beast, nor nature—can successfully oppose his authority or will. God has the power to raise up and to put down, to reward and condemn, to create and destroy.

Remember God’s challenge to Job: “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” (40:2). Or Isaiah 29:16, “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘You did not make me’? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘You know nothing’?”

We don’t have words to describe the perfect power, wrath and justice of God. The writer of Hebrews says, “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31) and Paul said, “God cannot be mocked” (Ephesians 6:7). This is why we must have “the fear of God” in us. 

But we don’t need to be afraid. Why?

Because God is love (1 John 4:8). We don’t have the words to describe the immense love and benevolence that God has toward us. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). God “is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

So we find these two properties held in tension: God’s unimpeachable and invincible authority on one side and his “great love for us” (Ephesians 2:4) on the other.

That is why Moses can say to the Israelites, “Don’t be afraid.” Don’t faint under the demonstration of God’s power; he doesn’t intend to destroy you. You will not die as you fear. But it’s also why he can follow that with “the fear of God will be with you” for the express purpose of keeping the Israelites from sin.

Perhaps the best explanation of this tension is found in C.S. Lewis’s novel, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. In one scene, Susan and Lucy ask Mr. and Mrs. Beaver if Aslan is a man. Mr. Beaver tells them that, no, Aslan is not a man, but a lion, “the great Lion.” Here is the rest of the conversation:

“’Ooh!’ said Susan. ‘I’d thought he was a man. Is he quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.’

“’That you will, dearie, and make no mistake,’ said Mrs. Beaver, ‘if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.’

“’Then he isn’t safe?’ said Lucy.

“’Safe?’ said Mr. Beaver. ‘Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about being safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.’”

There it is: “‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” God isn’t safe. Not by a long shot. But he’s good.

Just don’t take His goodness for granted.

by

Morning Links | 15 Apr 20

Good morning! Your links today include an overturned Kentucky voter ID law veto, Trump defunds WHO, Cuomo disses God, universities consider staying virtual into 2021, and Willow Creek church’s priorities were revealed in a word cloud.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6