Thinking-Christianly

One of the presumptions that we sometimes entertain is that God would be more popular and more respected if he routinely performed public miracles. If he really wants men and women to believe in him, some argue, he ought to demonstrate his power in miraculous acts of kindness and benevolence. Then, the argument goes, people would see him for who he is and give him the respect and obedience he expects of them.

The notion that miracles would impress us so that we would believe in and follow God overlooks the blindness of the human heart. In Psalm 78 the psalmist reflects on the rescue of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt. He recounts how God brought this multitude of people into a desert void of food and water. They should have perished within weeks, but God kept them alive for 40 years. Though their numbers increased he provided water and food daily for all who needed it. There was no starvation and no dehydration. And this entire generation began their trip walking through a river that killed their enemies moments later.

Assuming that the biblical account is accurate, one would guess that all who experienced such a deliverance and such provision over decades would be impressed by God’s power and care and become devoted to him. But miracles do not necessarily move the human heart to respect or obey God. Psalm 78:32 states, “In spite of all this; they kept on sinning; in spite of his wonders, they did not believe.”

Some of those who experienced this rescue may have considered the action of the water of the Red Sea to be a fortunate coincidence. The provision of nourishment through the manna would have been more difficult to understand apart from God. But perhaps after days and weeks and months, some came to regard it as a local phenomenon that operated automatically without divine intervention or origin. And what of the water that satisfied the thirst of millions? Maybe this provision was due to the unique skills of Moses and Aaron in detecting water sources that were not obvious to others.

There are always ways of thinking that do not require the engagement of a personal God in the affairs of men. It is natural for us to look for explanations that revolve around known or unknown mechanisms of cause and effect in a closed system, because that is how we are trained to think in the modern world. Miracles, whether present or past, can be attributed to forces beyond our grasp rather than to God. If God were to become a showman to demonstrate his power, we might be more likely to believe in his existence, but that would not necessarily produce affection or loyalty. In the end our disbelief is not centered so much on the absence of miracles as it is on our addiction to autonomy—our desire to be rulers of our own life and reside at the center of our own universe.

Our culture tends to encourage people to vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ God as if he were running for high political office. We measure his character by the circumstances of our lives rather than by his self-revelation in scripture. If our circumstances are favorable, we give him a good rating. He scores points for a loving family, a decent income, physical health, good friends, and allowing only minor struggles in our life. But God scores poorly if we find ourselves out of work, immersed in grief at the loss of someone we love, unhappy in a relationship or stressed by a hostile work environment. If we dwell on our circumstances enough, we may conclude that God is malevolent or that he’s essentially unkind and owes us an apology for the way he’s managed some of the affairs of our life.

Such concerns are not foreign to the Bible. The prophet Habakkuk asks, “Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds.” (Habakkuk 1:3) Jeremiah asks, “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease?” (Jeremiah 12:1)

Even though we are reminded about the folly of quarreling with our maker (Isaiah 45:9), we seem bent on doing so as a race. One of the problems we overlook with this kind of thinking is that we who hold a subjective relative standard are seeking to judge an absolute standard. And that approach will never work.

For example, a neighbor faults God because they lost their father in death at age 50. They reason that that age is too young to die. So what is the appropriate age? Is it 51, 71, 91? Does it depend on their father’s medical condition? If he has Alzheimer’s at age 88, would God be justified at ending his life on the day of the diagnosis? A week later? A year later? At what stage of disability would his passing be acceptable? How should God respond if one sibling wants dad to pass on to the next life and another does not want that to happen? If God acts or fails to act he will be regarded as wrong by someone in that hypothetical situation.

Our standards for what makes God just or fair vary in time and from person to person. One person faults God for circumstances that cause them to downsize to a 7 year old car. Another celebrates when they can afford a bus ticket. The same rain that makes for less than perfect pictures for a wedding means significant income for a nearby farmer. The earthquake in Philippi that opened the prison doors for Paul may also have allowed some true criminals to escape, as well as doing damage to a lot of nearby property.

This kind of thinking puts God in a no-win situation because it enthrones my subjective preferences as the ultimate standard to which he must be accountable. Unchecked, our expectations and demands can leave us bitter, skeptical, and perpetually dissatisfied with God. And as long as these personal values become the measure we apply to God, they will guarantee that we will never seriously take on the role of a created being and look at God through a completely different lens. Wearing the garments of victimhood, we accuse God of divine malfeasance.

Our self-centeredness blinds us to the mercy that allows us to exist as his creatures in the world he made. We do not begin to measure up to him on a moral or intellectual level. We routinely lie, mislead, and deceive one another. We are boastful, jealous, and unkind. We do damage to others by what we say and what we fail to say. We become addicted to things we know are wrong for us. We trade ethics and principles for money or acceptance. We lie to ourselves and to others. It is only by his grace that we can show such indifference, defiance and disrespect to him and continue to draw a breath.

One of the greatest tokens of God’s kindness is his ability to take our upside down thinking and turn it around so that we see reality clearly. When he takes the puzzle of life and orients the pieces around himself, everything fits. It does not mean all our questions are answered, but it does mean that we have a way of looking at life that fits his role as God and our role as moral beings created in his image.

The English language once contained references to characters in the plays of Shakespeare or allusions to the gods of ancient Greek and Roman mythology. It’s impossible to fully understand the poetry of Edgar Allen Poe, for example, without cross-referencing the mythical figures of the ancient world. Such images were part of the thought patterns that once shaped Western life.

One of the forces that quietly shapes our language today is the premise of evolution. When we see cause and effect in the world or change over time we speak of things as “evolving.” Everywhere you turn you run into the idea that the world is millions of years old. This assumption crops up in movie dialogue, in commercials, and in casual conversations with others. A speaker may not even be aware of their thought processes when they speak of a million year old rock. A speaker may describe the development of an idea or her growth as a parent as “evolving.” Such statements may not be consciously attempting to express a world view about creation. They are simply reacting to life using the thought forms of the day.

In some ways, the discussion of origins begs the question. The core issue is not whether the world is extremely old or relatively young. The core issue is whether something is there as opposed to nothing. One could theoretically concede that the universe is very, very old. But that does not address the question of where this very old universe came from. The commonly held assumption that all matter and energy originated in some kind of big bang does not answer the question. It only makes us ask, what was there before the big bang? What existed a million or billion years before that event?

The questions lead us back to either an unsatisfying infinite regression or to a creator. If all energy somehow began trillions of years ago, why has it not dissipated by now? Stars burn out. We know of no mechanism that creates energy from nothing. If the universe were astronomically old, it would be cold and lifeless by now.

The Christian has an answer for these kinds of questions because God has spoken. Psalm 33:8-9 states, “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere him. For he spoke and it came to be; he commanded and it stood firm.” God created the realities of matter and energy and life as a product of his own thought. He created atoms and energy and eventually man for his own pleasure and purpose. And because he is the designer, all of the reality that we experience can have meaning, because it is related to a personal God who shaped it for a reason.

Much has been said lately about the drafts of healthcare legislation pending in the congress. Like much legislation, the 1,000 plus page proposals contain mountains of details. It’s not the kind of material one picks up to read. It refers to other legislation and government codes. It is replete with terminology that is unfamiliar to most of us. It outlines a course of action with significant consequences for us. We are told to believe in the interpretation of other people as to what it really says, and persuaded that we do not need contact with the document. We are called to have faith in the people who tell us what it says and what it means and to change our behavior according to what they say.

This situation is parallel to the perspective most nominally spiritual people have about the Bible. Like the pending legislation, it is a large document. It contains a vocabulary that includes uncommon words. It refers to places you have to find on an ancient map. It speaks of ancient history that you need to become familiar with in order to understand the thrust of its arguments. It speaks of purpose and direction and moral choices you and I are enjoined to embrace.

Instead of reading the Bible for themselves, many rely on the voices of others who claim to accurately represent its contents. Like legislators, religious leaders in our culture see different, even opposing things, in the same document. They each call you to trust in their understanding of what the Bible says and embrace their perspective as the true and faithful one. And they call you and me to action based on their confidence in their own assessment of what the Bible actually says.

Literate Americans can either seek to understand either document on the basis of personal investigation and study, or they can take the lazy approach and ask someone else to do their thinking for them. The challenge with this approach is that we have to decide who to trust. And human nature will drift toward trusting the person who tells me what I want to hear, rather than what is actually represented in the document.

The best approach—especially when it comes to the text of the Bible—is that we determine to investigate it ourselves. God did not encrypt life-transforming truth into mysterious ciphers in the Bible. He offers you and me consistent teaching about the reality that surrounds us, his character, and the quality of life we can enjoy in relationship with him. Some texts require more thought and study than others. (Peter even acknowledged that some of Paul’s letters “contain some things that are hard to understand.” See 2 Peter 3:16.) Despite the challenge, the practice of personal study of the Bible offers clarity that the cacophony of conflicting human opinions can never bring. Wise and trustworthy teachers can augment what we learn, but when we make them the pillars of our knowledge of God, we drift into a second-hand faith that can be as dangerous as embracing a massive piece of legislation we know nothing about.

News reports state that one of the features of proposed health legislation is the requirement that American senior citizens undergo regular counseling as they age and approach death. Though the proposal is receiving some attention because of the cost and its relationship to the bureaucracy, there is another assumption inherent in this idea that will get less attention.

The role of these counselors in some ways replaces the role of clergy in other generations. Instead of looking at aging and end of life issues through a Christian perspective, the government will naturally take a secular approach. To be consistent, such an approach must say nothing about a life beyond this one. A secular perspective believes that the end of life is really the end of everything. One wonders how this can bring any comfort to those who are aging. A more problematic issue is the value of life as one ages. What is there to prevent counselors from advocating euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide as the way to end life with dignity and save the taxpayer additional funding of those no longer deemed productive enough to consume resources?

The supplanting of a Christian perspective with a secular one is connected with another assumption. That assumption is that God (if he exists) is disengaged with human life. It believes that men, not God, make history. We are accountable only to ourselves. God does not punish, reward, or interact with us in any meaningful way.

The myth of God’s indifference seems compelling to those who have a short view of history. Our defiance or obedience seems to have no spiritual consequences when measured in the moment. Fire does not fall from heaven. Prophets do not confront us at our businesses. Some conclude that God is therefore indifferent.

The historical narrative of the Old Testament repeatedly teaches that God shapes the course of nations and cultures according to their response to his moral demands. Even Old Testament Jews thought otherwise, and factored God out of their thinking. But he doesn’t go away that easily. Through Zephaniah, God said, “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps and punish those who are complacent, who are like wine left on its dregs, who think, ‘The LORD will do nothing, either good or bad.’” (See Zephaniah 1:12.)

Instead of measuring God’s response in terms of immediate results and concluding he is indifferent, it is wiser to study the Old Testament narrative to better understand that our choices have personal and cultural consequences. When we mistake his patience for indifference, we blind ourselves to the critical lessons of biblical history that will come back to haunt us as individuals and as a culture.

The pages of the Bible show us what God has done in history. He delivered the Jews from bondage in Egypt. He sent a flood to destroy all but Noah and his family. He allowed Israel’s enemies to conquer them when they rejected his rule over them and broke the covenant they had made. He sent a messiah to the earth to offer forgiveness through Jesus atoning death and resurrection.

Sometimes the Bible gives us glimpses of what God could have done. He could have destroyed all the Jews in the exodus because of their rebellion, and built a nation around Moses. (See Exodus 32:10.) One text where God discloses an option he did not take relates to potential punishments on a wayward Israel. Amos is the prophet to the northern kingdom. God gives him two frightening pictures at the beginning of chapter 7. The first is of a dual plague of locusts, which strips the vegetation of the land. Amos cries out at the vision of such devastation, and God tells him, “This will not happen.” Then God shows his prophet a vision of fire that scorches the land and dries up available water. Again Amos is aghast at the possibility and God responds by saying, “This will not happen either.”

This sets the scene for a third vision in which God shows Amos that any judgment that comes is not capricious, but based on a simple, unchanging standard. It is not so much about what will happen as it is about why.

The image the prophet sees is a plumb line. It’s a tool so simple any elementary school child in the world can construct one out of a string and some weight. It is trans-cultural. It does not vary with ethnicity, age, personal wealth, or position. It always measures the same regardless of location. It’s objective, visible, and simple to apply.

All these characteristics also describe the moral decrees of God in scripture. They reflect the plumb line of his expectations against which all of us are measured. We may attempt to justify our deviation from the standard, but his moral gravity does not change. We may find some of the ceremonial regulations that applied to the theocracy of Israel difficult to understand, but his moral truths reflect both a simplicity and a clarity that the laws of our government seldom match.

Part of modern man’s aversion to the Bible is not because of problems with the transmission of the text or the ambiguity of its moral teaching. This discomfort is more often related to the fact that the Bible drops a plumb line in places in our lives where we don’t want to measure our behavior or attitudes against those of God. We’d like to pretend we can create a personal law of gravity that makes our construction look true and safe.

The good news for the Christ-follower is that we don’t have to spend countless hours improving on what God has said about his moral expectations. The themes permeate the text of the Bible. We see what happens when people and nations choose to disregard them. We learn about the benefit of trusting and obeying him. And in this setting we discover where we stand. And we face the choice of what were to do when we measure ourselves relative to the plumb line of God’s truth.

Our culture trains us to detest hardship. Difficulty is viewed as wholly undesirable. We are told that we deserve comfort, success, and tranquility. Anything that robs us of these realities is our enemy. It is something to be eradicated from our lives because it blocks what we are entitled to in this life.

This antipathy toward difficulty and aversion to hardship shapes our goals when trials come. Because of our aversion, we focus on eliminating the difficulty as soon as possible in order to experience the tranquility we feel life owes us. We terminate a troubling marriage with the solution of divorce. We buy temporary relief from financial pressures by turning to credit cards. We complain long and often about anything that adds stress to our lives. Our number one objective is to eliminate the tension, the challenge, or the adversity that interrupts our pursuit of a serene and peaceful existence.

Such artificial expectations rob us of great opportunities to learn from God. The Bible reminds us that God is at work behind the afflictions and difficulties of life. He orchestrates many of these afflictions in order to turn our hearts back to him, according to Amos. Amos writes to a nation that is morally adrift, disconnected from God. In chapter four we see a theme that reoccurs as the prophet describes how God seeks to call the nation back to himself through adversity. Verse 6 mentions a shortage of food, verse 7 a drought, verse 9 crop diseases and insect damage, verse 10 speaks of plagues, and verse 11 implies destruction by some kind of natural disaster. As we look at these challenges, God describes the purpose behind them. In verses 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 God adds, “yet you have not returned to me.”

God’s objective in this situation is to prompt his people to stop and think theologically. They are to reflect on their adversity and ask the question, “Is this related to my indifference, disobedience, or rejection of God?” God wants them to realize that living with the consequences of their own selfishness and irreligious attitudes is less desirable than repenting and living as obedient servants of God.

The diaries of many of the Puritans who settled the New World reflect this perspective. They had the wisdom to look at adversity and ask, “Is this linked to a rebellious attitude to God?” While it is true that not all affliction is the by product of our unholy choices (See John 9:2.), it is also false to assume that affliction is never the consequence of defying God. God is not afraid to let us see by experience that life apart from his rule is not as fulfilling as life submitted to his Lordship. Viewing adversity as an opportunity to reflect on our fidelity to God is a good approach to take if we are to experience the kind of life God intends for his people.

One of the realities of modern life in America is that we have an abundance of lawyers and legal issues to deal with. Advertisements attract more lawsuits by declaring, “Have you been injured? You may be entitled to a Cash Award!” A woman sued the makers of Captain Crunch Crunchberries.  She claimed she’d been eating the cereal for four years under the assumption that the Crunch berries are in fact real berries. News outlets report similar “offenses” so frequently that we are seldom surprised at what will trigger litigation.

The erosion of the Christian influence in a culture leads to a breakdown of character. People are less inhibited about lying, being deceitful, and manipulating circumstances in order to gain some perceived edge over others. They falsely assume they are not accountable for their behavior to a sovereign God, and the restraints give way to duplicity. As the trust between individuals lessens, the reliance on external means, such as court systems, increases.

The Old Testament prophet Hosea captures this reality with great clarity. He writes, “The make many promises, take false oaths and make agreements; therefore lawsuits spring up like poisonous weeds in a plowed field.” (See Hosea 10:4.) This graphic word picture describes the attempt of a decaying culture to restrain the evil actions of a populace that is no longer worried about offending God. Unfortunately, the weeds that crop up in this field are not of value. They may restrain some of the injustice, but no amount of litigation can create the trust that becomes scarce when God is no longer feared and judgment is dismissed as mythology.

Because of the fallen heart of man, litigation is a social necessity. The Pentateuch’s legal texts demonstrates that reality. But the mushrooming of litigation that we see today is not the sign of a society becoming more just, but of one becoming more unfriendly to the practice of truth in human relationships.

These are tough times for Christian bookstores. They face the challenge of competing with on-line discounters and the pressure that comes from a slumping economy. Yesterday I went to a Christian bookstore I’d never visited before. It was part of a national chain. I looked to see what titles offered substantive, thoughtful reflections on the teachings of the Bible and the essence of Christianity.

The books on the bestseller shelf reflected another agenda. Most of them were fiction. One or two were in the category of self-help. As I moved on I noticed that these two categories comprised most of the offerings in the store. Fiction, mostly aimed at women, was everywhere. There were lots of offerings linked to marriage and family. This perhaps reflects our desire to succeed in the key relationships of life. Two areas of self-help that seemed prominent related to financial management and sex. Given the fact that these are two of the greatest sources of conflict in marriage today, it’s not surprising that they receive substantial attention.

I noticed some of the traditional titles that seem to be reprinted continually. Tozer, Swindoll, Lewis, MacDowell, and Lucado were represented. Titles like the Five Love Languages, and books by counselors like Minrith and Rosenberg were on display.

There were different flavors of Strong’s Concordance, Halley’s Bible Handbook, and Henrietta Mears’ What the Bible is All About. Other reference titles were slim, except for Warren Wiersbie’s brief commentaries and a few good bible dictionaries, notably Nelson’s New Bible Dictionary, edited by Ronald F. Youngblood, F.F. Bruce, R.K. Harrison. Of the authors who tend to wrestle with doctrinal issues, there were some works by MacArthur and Piper and a reprint from J. I. Packer.

Two surprises stood out. One was a Michael Horton’s Christless Christianity, which argues that we are replacing authentic Christianity with that which is “trivial, sentimental, affirming, and irrelevant.” Another was N.T. Wright’s Justification.

Overall, the titles on display reflected the appetites of the evangelical church today. The fiction reminds us that we want to be entertained. The self-help and counseling books reflect our desire to be fixed—to repair the broken components of our own lives and our relationships. On the positive side, it reflects a desire to manage our families, our relationships, our money, and our resources wisely. But self-improvement tends to overtake the charge to adore and worship God. The inventory suggests that training ourselves to think clearly about God is a marginal concern compared to other things. These observations are admittedly skewed, since many Christians obtain a host of titles through other sources. But it does suggest that we have plenty of room in our spiritual growth to get more serious about God and more God-centered in the way we approach the Christian faith.

The death of Michael Jackson reveals that the most unlikely people are theologians. Most of us have some concept—no matter how vague—about what will happen after death. It seems like many who spoke in front of a camera had some kind of strong opinion about Mr. Jackson and his current status.

I didn’t hear many in the media warmly embrace the notion that when we die it all ends. They were reluctant to conclude that we simply cease to exist. Tough secular materialism would lead a person to that logical conclusion if existence is comprised of only matter and energy; it is not very comforting when you describe the death of someone.

Some advocated a kind of ethereal existence after death. They asserted that Michael Jackson’s spirit would live in some way with his friends, his followers, and others in the music industry. He would perhaps inspire, motivate, and guide the creative forces in the music world. Exactly how this happens was never explained, but it remains a common assumption in our culture today. Is someone’s spirit localized or omnipresent? Can the spirit of someone who has died influence people in different places at once. If so, how does this occur? Can others communicate with this spirit? Does this possibility include the influence of people who were evil or malevolent while on earth?

Another common assumption that surfaced was that Michael Jackson is in some sense in heaven. It’s a purified environment built around the glory of the individual. It’s a place where Michael Jackson’s skills and abilities can flourish, uncontaminated by the injustice and folly of the world in which we live. It is an environment where the human being, in all his glory, is at center state. God watches on the sidelines, perhaps amazed, at the unleashed potential that is now realized the afterlife. This is not a heaven that is the presence of God and his glory.

Without a biblical foundation, ideas about a potential afterlife are often a mixture of speculation and wishful thinking. They are not too far removed from the idea that we can each create our own eternal destiny that is customized to our tastes and preferences.

It’s striking that today’s reality is filled with factors we cannot change—gravity, the principles of thermodynamics, and general truths about cause and effect. We can’t spend the same dollar twice. We can’t stuff ourselves with calories, not exercise, and also lose weight. We won’t add to our savings if we consistently spend more than we make. Yet when it comes to reflecting on potential realities after this life, anything goes.

Those who take the bible seriously have something stronger than speculation with which to answer questions about eternity. The writer of Hebrews noted that we face a single death (as opposed to reincarnation), followed by judgment. (See Hebrews 9:27.) Jesus spoke of two ultimate conditions—eternal life and eternal punishment. (See Matthew 25:46.) If he is who he claimed to be, Christ’s words should at least frame the discussion about life beyond this one. Those who are Christ followers have the advantage of building their choices upon revealed truth rather than speculation.