Thinking-Christianly

Christians rightly celebrate the truth that God offers forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. The Bible teaches that moral failure does not require us to earn pardon from God. (See Titus 3:5.) The clear promise is that if we acknowledge our wrongdoing and ask for God’s pardon, he will grant it. (See 1 John 1:9.)

Unfortunately, there is a tendency to presume on God’s generosity. We can reason that we may violate his moral commands with impunity because he will forgive us in the future when we repent and seek reconciliation. The New Testament argues that the availability of pardon does not justify the decision to disobey. In Romans 6:1-2, for example, Paul rails against those who maintain that an increase in sin produces an increase in God’s demonstration of grace, and is therefore a good thing. Even so, we face the common temptation to rationalize our sinful choices on the grounds that we can confess in the future and find forgiveness.

Forgiveness relates to true moral guilt. It does not assure us that our relationship with God will not be damaged by our sinful choice. Choices have consequences, even in the way we relate to God himself. This principle is reflected in 1 Chronicles 17:13, where God speaks with David. He describes the kingdom that he will establish through David and his descendents. God expresses the possibilities for generations of blessing through David and his posterity. In the course of this revelation, God says, “I will be his [Solomon's] father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you [Saul].”

This is a chilling statement. It reminds us that Saul’s once-intimate relationship with God was damaged to the point that God permanently withdrew his lovingkindness from Saul. Something changed in Saul’s relationship with God that would never be regained during the remainder of his natural life. He lost the kingdom, but I suspect something deeper is in mind here. At some point Saul reached a place where God’s chesed (goodness, kindness) was no longer available to him. It was gone for good.

I don’t know at what moment this change took place, but it is a warning to me about rationalizing my own rebellion in light of God’s promise of forgiveness. The forgiveness is real, but it does not guarantee that the relationship will remain the same. It can change. And that change can put me in a place that is not as desirable as where I might be right now.

When I was young, I remember a toy that was called a “Magic 8-Ball.” You would ask it a yes-no question and turn it upside down. The message that you saw would magically answer whatever question you had. One of twenty answers would appear. 10 would be affirmative, 5, negative, and 5 non-committal.

Can you imagine guiding your life by using this toy from Mattel? It would be a crazy way to run a business, respond in a relationship, seek vocational guidance, or plan for your financial future.

But I’ve seen people who call themselves Christians adopt guidance tools that made the Magic 8-Ball seem extremely wise in comparison. Instead of turning a toy upside down, some prefer to let the Bible pop open in their lap or on a table. Whatever verse(s) that their eyes or finger gets to first is God’s word for the day. And it’s often read out of context and applied in ways that would have baffled the original audience.

This methodology assumes that the Holy Spirit works in random, non-linear ways. It’s sometimes argued that approaches like this are more Spirit guided since they don’t rely on logic, study, or careful thought.

One of the problems with this kind of approach is that its assumptions are not grounded in scripture. The Bible does not describe the ministry of the Holy Spirit as something antithetical to a careful approach to God’s revelation. In calling the nation to righteous action, God’s invitation in Isaiah 1:18 is: “Come, let us reason together.” The Bereans were commended for examining the scripture daily to see if the verbal teaching of Paul was valid. (See Acts 17:11.) The revival written about in Nehemiah 8 was fueled by a clear process of teaching and expounding on the word of God to the refugees who made their way back to Jerusalem.

This approach assumes that God speaks in sound bites, and that qualities like perseverance, reflection, and patience are no longer needed. It believes that God speaks in the moment, or he is silent. It also presumes that your personal intuition is a direct channel to God.

This kind of thinking is radically modern. It reflect the culture of the self and the notion that truth is privatized, designed for personal consumption only. Confirmation comes in the form of affirmative feelings. Subsequent challenges are to be rebuffed, either because the person with the question lacks faith, or because they are out of touch with the Spirit. In this way, the advocate of this principle insulates themselves from any reality that is external to their own inner world.

In the world of the New Testament, truth was external to the believer. It was objective, concrete, and public. It did not bubble up from the psychological cauldron of any particular mind. It came in the form of histories, prophecies, ethical calls to godliness, and wisdom literature. It challenged all people equally, and did not create a class of spiritual elites who had independent access to God through esoteric means.

In the absence of clear precedents from the Bible itself, this kind of nonsense needs to be labeled as such. It is not loving to retreat into silence and thereby perpetuate a flavor of Christian guidance that treats God’s revelation in such a supernatural way.

The Associated Press reported (5/22/09) that a Wausau, Wisconsin jury convicted Leilani Neumann of second degree reckless homicide. Leilani’s 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, died on March 23, 2008 of complications related to diabetes.

Prosecutors argued that Leilani should have known how seriously ill her daughter was and sought medical testing and diagnoses. She did call 911 when her daughter stopped breathing, but not before. She relied on prayer and surrounded her daughter with friends and business partners who were in prayer as well. In pressing for a conviction, the prosecutors noted, “Religious extremism can be dangerous.”

Most of us would have sought medical attention long before Leilani and her husband did, were it an option. I would have drawn her attention to Paul’s admonition to Timothy look for practical solutions as well as trust God. (See 1 Timothy 5:23.) Even so, the conviction is troubling.

Unlike parents in some parts of the world, Leilani had access, at least theoretically, to medical solutions. Does that obligate one to exercise that option in every case? Apparently not. On the same day AP reported that a 66-year-old woman with terminal cancer became the first person to die under Washington’s assisted suicide law. The tone of that article pictured this event as a good thing. The termination of a pregnancy through abortion on the grounds of convenience is now classified as a legal right.

My argument is not that these scenarios are identical. They most certainly are not. But they underscore the fact that life and death decisions are treated with arbitrary laws where there are no overriding principles that apply in all situations. The absence of universal absolutes makes it difficult to determine the degree of culpability and the appropriate punishment in a culture where some actions are condoned and others are not.

Then there is the faith factor in the prosecutor’s remarks. Had Leilani’s neglect arisen from fear of doctors or a spirit of self-sufficiency or a condition of deep poverty, one wonders if the verdict would have been different. Religious practices, firmly held, are now viewed as aberrant behavior by some. Some even regard religious belief as a form of mental illness. For those who view religion as a dangerous denial of common sense, Leilani’s actions take on a sinister flavor and demand punishment.

It’s one thing to care for children using all means possible. It’s another to punish those who do not use secular solutions exclusively or who dare to believe that the secular worldview is superior. Thankfully, we are not at that place yet. But the association of religious piety with fanaticism and mindless folly adds to the perception that people of faith are universally dangerous.

Madeline’s death was needless and wrong. It should never have happened. But much more will be lost if her tragic death is used as a vehicle to brand those who seriously practice Christianity as misguided and malevolent.

The advent of Jesus Christ brought radical changes to the beliefs of his followers. Jesus declared all foods clean. (See Mark 7:19.) He called himself the “Lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:8) He declared that he was the revelation of the Father to man. (John 14:9) He instructed his followers to think beyond the narrow legalism that characterized the Pharisees of his day. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeatedly corrected the misinterpretations of the religious leaders. He contrasted “You have heard it said…” with “I say to you.” Jesus’ words challenged the manipulative rituals that focused on external methods but neglected the nurture of a living relationship with God.

In our rush to celebrate the freedom we have in Christ from the bondage of legalism, we sometimes pit the teachings of the New Testament against those of the Old Testament. Jesus never does that. He rejects the false dichotomy that puts his teaching against that of the Old Testament.

In Matthew 23 Jesus condemns the artificial practices of the teachers of the law, the scribes, and the Pharisees. One of his criticisms targets what these religious experts give to God. Jesus says, “You give a tenth of your spices…but you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Some interpreters maintain that Jesus is discounting tithing (10% giving) in favor of showing compassion and kindness. We don’t need to be legalistic and consider what we give to God, the argument goes. Instead we should focus on being more loving.

This reasoning creates a false dichotomy by ignoring the next statement Jesus makes. He adds, “You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” For Christ, the issue of giving to God is a both/and proposition. It is not an either/or. Being generous toward God does not stop with giving him 10% of massive crops. It can include giving him 10% of a spice garden, since he is Lord over small things as well as big things. But it doesn’t stop there. Giving the Father what he deserves also means that we mimic his moral character, demonstrating justice, love, and mercy. In context, Jesus does not choose between the two. He calls us to both.

There is a harmony between the directives of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Christ fulfilled some of the prophecies and was the culmination of some of the promises. (See Matthew 5:170 He is the new Adam, the ultimate sacrifice, the great mediator. But portraying his teaching as antagonistic to the directives God gave in the Old Testament era misunderstands his relationship to the law and the prophets.

One of the great temptations in our impersonal culture is to become passive. The more sectors of our society consolidate, the easier it is for individuals to feel overwhelmed by the bigness of everything and to feel powerless to effect any significant change as an individual. And those who would seek power and influence perpetuate this process as they invite us to let them to the thinking and the decision making and. In such circumstances it is understandable that people would drift into increasing passivity. You hear it in our language. You see it in our excuses. You notice reflections of an attitude where individuals are simply cogs in a governmental, political, social, or economic machine.

Some assume that the Christian faith fosters this same spirit of passivity. God is big and sovereign, and we basically sit back as he manipulates our spiritual life on our behalf. But that’s not the picture we see in scripture. In the Bible God calls his people to action. He does not surrender his sovereignty to our initiative or condition his eternal purposes to our actions. But in some way he melds his eternal rule with our active participation.

A small reflection of this occurs at the end of Matthew 17. Jesus and his followers are in Capernaum. The officials in charge of a new two-drachma tax assessment ask Peter if Christ is going to pay the tax, and he affirms that Jesus will pay it. Peter enters the house where Jesus is and before he can say a word Jesus brings up the subject himself. Jesus being the Son of the owner of all things affirms that he is exempt, but makes the concession to pay the tax “that we may not offend them.” (See verse 27.) In fact, he promises to pay not only his tax, but Peter’s as well.

How this tax payment is made is instructive. Jesus will provide the means, but he wants Peter to take initiative as well. Jesus asks Peter to cast out a line. He promises him that he will catch a special fish in whose mouth he will find a four-drachma coin. It’s a picture of how Christ makes provision on the basis of his lordship over the universe. But it’s also a picture of how he invites Peter to take action in order to resolve the issue.

Jesus could have reached down to the ground, pulled out a coin, and handed it to Peter. That would have been the easy way. But it would have made Peter passive in the process. Of all the fish Peter ever caught, it is unlikely that any had coins in their mouths. And the odds of catching a certain fish on a certain day with a certain denomination of money in its mouth are astronomically high. (I’d like to see someone experienced with probability theory try to compute that number!) So Jesus will provide on the condition that Peter takes an act of faith and go fishing. The result of his action will reveal the supernatural power of his Master. But the act in itself is quite ordinary.

I wonder if this is not a microcosm of the kind of partnership that Jesus builds with his followers. He has fantastic resources at his disposal that he is ready to use in order to meet needs and display his glory. But he invites us to step out in faith in very normal tasks and trust him to come through as he promised. This does not produce a passive church, but one which is engaged in the things of Jesus. The kind of faith that acts is the kind of faith that tends to produce the most fruit in the kingdom of Christ.

Neil Dyer’s comments on the last blog on prayer mentions the imprecatory psalms. The English word “imprecate” means to invoke or call down, when speaking to a deity. It is often used in terms of asking for negative consequences. Psalms 7, 35, 55, 58, 59, 69, 79, 109, 137 and 139 include prayers for God’s judgment on the God’s enemies.

Should we pray for people to get what they deserve? Sometimes David seems to do that. In Psalm 35:4-5 David says, “May those who seek my life be disgraced and put to shame; may those who plot my ruin be turned back in dismay. May they be like chaff before the wind, with the angel of the Lord driving them away.”

What are we to say about such inspired words? It’s obvious that these are extreme people. They want David dead. They are actively engaged in his destruction, either politically, militarily, financially, or physically. David does not ask for the power to take vengeance on them personally. In the context of the rest of the Psalm David asks that their fortunes are reversed by God himself, and that these malicious people receive the harm that they seek to inflict on others.

Such language resonates with our yearning for justice. We talk about a situation where the “shoe is on the other foot”—a metaphor for someone experiencing the kind of circumstances they bring to others. We reference the aphorism, “What goes around comes around.” Sometimes we celebrate the change that happens in someone’s life when they face this kind of reversal. They learn a transformational lesson. Likewise, we grieve when someone seems immune to learning no matter what happens to them.

So are God’s children ever to pray in this fashion? I suspect we may, provided that our focus is on God glorifying himself and vindicating his moral absolutes. To use prayer vindictively as a personal weapon is certainly outside the scope of Christian thought. That belongs to the world of witch doctors and occult priests. In contrast, David asks God to vindicate Himself by protecting the righteous and allowing the unrepentant unrighteous to taste the consequences of their evil choices.

Though it is not always mentioned, part of the goal is remedial. The underlying assumption is that such pain can result in understanding that defiance of God is self-destructive. Jacob, Nebuchadnezzar, and Saul enjoyed such reversals. Samson and Jonah apparently did not learn in their afflictions. Though there is no guarantee, we realize from experience that some of the most powerful lessons in life come from the negative consequences our wrong choices bring into our lives. For some, praying that outcome may indeed be a prayer of blessing.

Every now and then you may encounter someone who for some reason proudly makes it their aim to oppose the values and objectives of God in the world. They are not simply indifferent. They actively oppose the promotion of righteousness and those who would seek to honor God the Father and Christ.

We see them from time to time in the pages of scripture. It’s a Pharaoh, a Korah, or an Ahaz. For Nehemiah it was the leaders of the surrounding peoples who did not want to see Judaism thrive in Jerusalem again. Their attitude was much like that of Hamas today, but they were subject to Artaxerxes. The king had authorized Nehemiah’s project, and they could not overtly wipe out the Jews in Jerusalem. So they did all they could to undermine the effort.

There are some in our world who actively work to make Christianity fail. They may attempt to silence Christian thought, penalize those who honor Christ, and mock the God of the Bible. How should a Christ follower respond to this unique type of person? What should we pray?

Here’s what Nehemiah prayed, “Hear us, O our God, for we are despised. Turn their insults back on their own heads. Give them over as plunder in a land of captivity. Do not cover up their guilt or blot out their sins from your sight, for they have thrown insults in the face of the builders.” (Nehemiah 4:4-5) As I look in the pages of the Bible, I find lots of godly men addressing God in similar ways.

At first sight, this prayer does not seem Christian. It doesn’t look loving and kind and gentle. Some would assume that Nehemiah was not enlightened, and that this kind of prayer is flawed and pre-Christian. But I wonder? Is the assumption that we should pray God’s blessing on all people justified? The Bible declares that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. He does not affirm those who choose unrighteousness. So are we sometimes guilty of asking God to do what he has stated he will not do?

I don’t sense vindictiveness in Nehemiah’s prayer. He’s asking God to help those who reject Him to experience the consequences of those choices. Perhaps it’s like Paul, who experienced immediate distress so he might reconsider and find Christ in the long run. This seems similar to Paul’s response to Hymenaeus and Alexander, who rejected the faith that was presented to them. Our adversity to pain and discomfort may say much more about us than it does about God. It may be time to reassess the way we pray so that our intercession more closely mirrors God’s declaration of who he is and how he acts.

Even ten years ago, the following statement, though not universally endorsed, would have raised few eyebrows: “I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” When Carrie Prejean answered this question at the Miss USA pageant, some responded as though she had threatened to assassinate half the members of congress. That response made her an enemy of those who will not tolerate any objections to homosexuality as an approved lifestyle. This issue will likely dog Miss Prejean for the duration of her term.

In an act of moral outrage, Shanna Moakler (Miss USA 1995) resigned as co-executive director of the Miss California USA pageant. Oddly enough, Moakler posed nude for Playboy magazine several years after she was Miss USA. The moral modeling she demands of Miss Prejean as a Miss USA representative apparently does not apply once the title is passed along to another winner.

When the truths of scripture no longer apply to all of life, morality becomes a convenient issue that comes and goes and is shaped by the agenda of the individual. Affirmation of traditional marriage becomes an anti-gay statement. Nude photographs are fine as long as you’re not wearing a crown at the time. Indignation becomes a self-serving tool of manipulation rather than a reaction to a violation of an absolute that holds all of us accountable whenever we fall short.

God put certain realities into place in creation. He speaks of them in the Bible. We have a spiritual component and are not only material beings. We have value because we were created in God’s image. We have problems because we have a broken moral nature that would rather rebel than trust God. We were created with two complimentary genders and designed to build family units along those lines. We can be restored to God only through his initiative in Christ. Of such truths we must be unapologetic, though some in our world would brand them as incendiary statements. We must speak with humility and kindness, but we must not be cowed into silence.

This is not the time for followers of Christ to lose their voice. Like the apostle Paul and the apologists of the first few centuries, we must engage the culture with grace and determination, presenting the truth because we know that truth alone can free us from the lies of the age in which we live.

An article in the Des Moines Register last weekend examined the issue of obesity among public school students. It outlined a solution. The schools in the area now ban foods they regard as unhealthy (such as sugared soft-drinks and fattening snacks) and provide better alternatives on the campus and at lunch. The problem is that an increasing number of students simply go off campus and fill up with the stuff they like. The ‘food police’ are making it more difficult to choose junk food, but as long as the appetite is there, students seem to find a way.

There is a paradox at work here. The same educational experts who assess student behavior and determine to take Coca-cola off the campus are sometimes the same ones who in light of poor student choices decide to bring condoms on campus. It’s odd that they seem to be more concerned about weight gain than the emotional, moral, physical, and psychological fallout from increased sexual activity among our teens.

Both issues need to be addressed. Freedom of choice can lead to unhealthy consequences. But when we choose to limit choices for our teens (and others in our culture) would it not be better to focus restraint in the areas that damage the heart and soul rather than the appearance in the mirror. I’m wonder if some parents would rather have a daughter who is shapely and sexually active than one who is overweight and chaste. That’s not to suggest it’s an either-or issue. But given the superficiality of our time, I would not be surprised at such an attitude on the part of parents and educators. Chubby is an embarrassment. You might find yourself on “The Biggest Looser.” But promiscuity is sanctioned. That could land you a slot on “The Bachelor.”

Healthy cultures produce people who first have moral strength on the inside. Next to that, all the other efforts at influencing the choices of the emerging generations are superficial.

I’m thankful that Christians who live in the United States remind the nation of the need to seek God on the National Day of Prayer. This year’s observance was noted in the media, not because of anything to do with prayer, but because of the fact that President Obama had a more muted response to the event than did his predecessor.

What troubles me more than the attitude of one leader is the way in which the event became commercialized. The official website offers a store where you can obtain essentials such as balloons (25 for $6.49) and theme posters ($5.49 each). I realize there is a need to get the word out in an age where people are bombarded with countless messages, but the trend toward commercialization bothers me—even if the proceeds help the cause.

The tendency to focus on a star-studded lineup (Tony Dungy, Beth Moore, Shirley Dobson, and Darrell Waltrip) is very much a part of the modern marketing approach as well. These are all fine, respectable people. But I wonder if my motivation to participate should grow because they are associated with the event.

Sometimes legitimate enterprises cross the line in the things of God. I certainly don’t have the wisdom to know where that line is in every case. But I often see things in the evangelical movement that raise questions in my mind.

Jesus drew lines at times. Those in the temple who were exchanging foreign currency for officially sanctioned coins used as gifts to God were meeting a simple need. They were performing a service. But Jesus realized their actions angered his Father. He often shunned the kind of notoriety that we would thank God for. He also said, “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” See Matthew 6:6.

When the National Day of Prayer initiatives promote a sincere, personal, intimate dependence on the living God they do a good thing. (I certainly need to improve my interaction with God in prayer.) But like other events on the evangelical calendar, it seems to bring along a baggage that doesn’t always fit the heart of the Bible.

Many wonder why the modern evangelical movement is relatively impotent at times, despite its size. The thinking that makes this commercialization seem necessary might be one factor in the anemic impact of the church. Maybe there is a better way than to mimic methods akin to those Suzanne Somers uses to market the ThighMaster.