I have been in Christian circles long enough to see spiritual fads come and go. Someone comes up with a so-called revelation from God or supposedly new insight from the Bible and they push it as if it were the most important thing in the world. Eventually, the whole thing is shown not to be a work of God but a human idea of not much value at all. After a little while everyone forgets it - if we are lucky.
Unfortunately, sometimes these wrong-headed ideas, which have caused some of the church to focus on the wrong thing, become a tradition that hinders the mission of the church which is to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.
Now when I say that these are bad ideas, I am not suggesting that they are evil or spring from some bad motive. They often have good aspects to them and usually come from well-meaning people. Those who promote them use the Bible (incorrectly) to back them up. And often some good is done, but in the final analysis it usually distracts the church from its biblical goals of reconciling the world to God and bringing Him glory.
The focus of this blog is on the idea of Creation Care, specifically the notion that we humans are stewards of God's earth and that polluting or 'hurting' it will offend God. But as we carefully study the Bible we will find the language of stewardship does not apply to our relationship to the earth.
Now the Bible does use the language of stewardship in relation to various things in the Christian's life. We are to be good stewards of our finances (Luke 16), the Word of God (1 Corinthians 4), and of our ministry in the church (Titus 1:7).
But there is other language used for the believer's relationship to other things. One concept that is used is that of 'dominion'. For example, the Christian is to exercise dominion over demons. "In my name, they shall cast out demons". (Mark 16:17) "Resist the Devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)
We find more direct language like this when the Bible describes our relationship to the earth. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26, repeated in v. 28) "You made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; you have put all things under his feet." (Psalm 8:6) This is not the language of stewardship, but of dominion.
Why, then, is the stewardship model used by some to describe our relationship to the earth. Well, one of the passages used is Psalm 24:1, "The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein". This clearly establishes God's ownership of the earth. So the reasoning is that if God owns it and we live on it, then we, not being owners, must be stewards. So if God is owner of it, how can we have dominion over it? Does not ownership imply dominion? If God gave us a kind of dominion, is that dominion not really a kind of stewardship?
Not necessarily. A person can have dominion over something without owning it. A person owning a home and living in it has dominion over it. But if that person leases that home to another, then a kind of dominion, not stewardship, is passed to the person leasing it. That is the kind of dominion that we can exercise over the earth. Not a dominion of ownership, but a dominion based on a lease.
You could say that God gave Adam and Eve a lease on the earth. Some day that lease will run out and the owner will return to take dominion back. Until that time, we have dominion. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth has he given to the children of men." (Psalm 115:16)
At this point, one might complain that if we use the language of dominion then that means that we can simply do as we please and ruin the environment and destroy God's creation. If we use the language of stewardship, then we will take better care of it because we are responsible to God for it.
I reject this reasoning on two grounds.
First, if the Bible uses the language of dominion and not stewardship then we ought to as well since, otherwise, we would be promoting a false concept.
Second, I reject the conclusion that exercising dominion means we will ruin it. If I lease a home does that mean that I would ruin it because I was not a steward? Not at all. I would care for the place because I live in it and I want it nice for myself and my family. I do not want to live in filth.
I want to live in a nice, clean environment. That goes for wherever I am. If I go to work, I want it to be clean as well. But there is a catch. Since the Fall of Man the environment tends to disorder and chaos. I have to work hard to create a good environment and to make a living. But to make a living some pollution is necessary. I certainly believe that God understands that some pollution is necessary when we are producing goods that make our lives better. But we can take reasonable steps to keep from polluting unnecessarily.
I am afraid, though, that this whole 'stewardship/creation care' model is just an attempt to hijack Christianity and use it to promote the radical environmental agenda. I am always suspicious when Christians begin talking like the world. We do not get our agenda from the world but from the Word.
Another point that I think is relevant is the impression given by the advocates of 'creation care' is that we sin if we do not focus on the environment and care for it. I am not implying that we should be careless about the environment; I just think that we need to focus on what God has directly told us to do in His Word and not get into these side issues.
There is no scripture that indicates that God will judge us regarding our care of creation. We will be judged by how we treat our fellow human beings (Matt 25) and by how we fulfill our ministry (1Cor4:4), but never by how we treated the environment. These things are not biblical matters. Rather they come under our dominion and our judgment as to what kind of environment we wish to live in. If we mess it up, then we have to live in our mess. If our rules are too strict then we endanger our means of making a living.
We need to focus on winning people to the Lord, caring for their needs, and discipling them in the faith. Now if caring for their needs to help clean up their environment, then we can address those issues. But it is too easy to get distracted from those things that the Lord has called us to do and to focus on other less important issues.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Wisdom - Conventional or Divine, part 2
There are many ideas in our society that have recently become part of conventional wisdom. Some of them are just human foolishness and wonderful-sounding ideas and things that just seem like they would be good solutions in the real world.
But when we test them in the real world we find out if they are truly practical or if they are not all that they are cracked up to be. In this blog we will discuss the use of ethanol (fuel make from corn) to use in running car engines. Now I must confess that I fell for this one and supported it for some time until it was clearly shown to be a terrible idea.
The basic idea is this: it is better to use renewable resources like corn we can grow rather than the limited resources like oil which must eventually run out. Sounds good, so far. Then we should make an abundant crop like corn to burn in car engines while at the same time making new car engines burn different kinds of fuel - gasoline and ethanol, for example. In the end, all engines will run on ethanol and similar fuels, and we will never run out of fuel. Energy problem solved.
Or not. First of all, to make ethanol from corn, it takes about 3/4 of a gallon of oil or more to make it. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol, far less to make gasoline. Perhaps if we had a lot more nuclear energy we would overcome this, though the same environmentalists who have been touting this, object to nuclear power.
Anyway, even if we took all the corn in the US and made it into fuel, we could only produce enough fuel for 16% of our vehicles. (Remember that we not only use corn for food but for many other things as well, like various kinds of plastics.) We also must keep in mind that the corn we produce feeds much of the world. The poor, especially, rely on it. If too much goes to fuel, then the price will rise and the poor of the world will starve. This happened a couple of years ago when corn prices rose dramatically and poor countries did not get theirs.
Then there is the issue of efficiency. I and others have noticed that when we put 10% ethanol in our gas tanks (notice the sign at most service stations) then our mileage is reduced by more than 10%. So ethanol causes us to use more oil (gasoline) even if we used nuclear power to produce it. It is very wasteful.
So, what sounded like a great idea is really a disaster, and, unfortunately, it has become government policy. Even with the revelation of recent years that this ethanol is a complete debacle, the government is subsidizing it and supporting it.
The auto industry, responding to market forces, is going in the direction of hybrid vehicles, combining big batteries with traditional engines backing them up. We are not seeing too many of the flex-fuel vehicles.
So, knowing this, what has the government done? Stop supporting or subsidizing ethanol? No. It continues its policies because farmers like it. And when a small and powerful constituency benefits from subsidies, then politicians give them what they are now used to getting.
This is why we need to examine conventional wisdom, especially from so-called experts, and why we need for government to keep out of it.
But when we test them in the real world we find out if they are truly practical or if they are not all that they are cracked up to be. In this blog we will discuss the use of ethanol (fuel make from corn) to use in running car engines. Now I must confess that I fell for this one and supported it for some time until it was clearly shown to be a terrible idea.
The basic idea is this: it is better to use renewable resources like corn we can grow rather than the limited resources like oil which must eventually run out. Sounds good, so far. Then we should make an abundant crop like corn to burn in car engines while at the same time making new car engines burn different kinds of fuel - gasoline and ethanol, for example. In the end, all engines will run on ethanol and similar fuels, and we will never run out of fuel. Energy problem solved.
Or not. First of all, to make ethanol from corn, it takes about 3/4 of a gallon of oil or more to make it. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol, far less to make gasoline. Perhaps if we had a lot more nuclear energy we would overcome this, though the same environmentalists who have been touting this, object to nuclear power.
Anyway, even if we took all the corn in the US and made it into fuel, we could only produce enough fuel for 16% of our vehicles. (Remember that we not only use corn for food but for many other things as well, like various kinds of plastics.) We also must keep in mind that the corn we produce feeds much of the world. The poor, especially, rely on it. If too much goes to fuel, then the price will rise and the poor of the world will starve. This happened a couple of years ago when corn prices rose dramatically and poor countries did not get theirs.
Then there is the issue of efficiency. I and others have noticed that when we put 10% ethanol in our gas tanks (notice the sign at most service stations) then our mileage is reduced by more than 10%. So ethanol causes us to use more oil (gasoline) even if we used nuclear power to produce it. It is very wasteful.
So, what sounded like a great idea is really a disaster, and, unfortunately, it has become government policy. Even with the revelation of recent years that this ethanol is a complete debacle, the government is subsidizing it and supporting it.
The auto industry, responding to market forces, is going in the direction of hybrid vehicles, combining big batteries with traditional engines backing them up. We are not seeing too many of the flex-fuel vehicles.
So, knowing this, what has the government done? Stop supporting or subsidizing ethanol? No. It continues its policies because farmers like it. And when a small and powerful constituency benefits from subsidies, then politicians give them what they are now used to getting.
This is why we need to examine conventional wisdom, especially from so-called experts, and why we need for government to keep out of it.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Wisdom - Conventional or Divine, part 1
"Conventional wisdom is a term used to describe ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. The term implies that the ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined and, hence, may be reevaluated upon further examination or as events unfold." (Wikipedia definition)
There are many ideas in our society that have recently become part of conventional wisdom. In the next few posts, I will examine some of these to find if these ideas are the wisdom of God or just human foolishness. I think that we will find is that the opinion of so-called experts and other well-meaning people may not be wise at all. Now I understand that not all will agree with my conclusions, but I hope that they will realize that conventional wisdom is often mere opinion and that there is more than one side to every issue. Let's keep an open mind as we examine some of these things.
The first idea that I want to examine is the notion that it is better for the environment and our wallets if homeowners replace their incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs. We are told that they use 75% less electricity and last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. So, even though fluorescent bulbs cost a lot more, it will save the homeowner money and help the environment by using less energy. Sounds like a win-win situation. And we are assured that there is no down side to this.
But there is a down side. I know about fluorescent bulbs because I used them in my business. I had a bakery and a deli operation. The Health Department required me to put shields over my fluorescent bulbs. The reason: fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and if they are broken they release that mercury in the air. Everyone knows that that is a serious hazard, especially in a place where food is kept.
On the same website where the federal government recommends the use of these bulbs, there is a link containing information about what to do if a fluorescent bulb breaks. Let me summarize: First, clear the room for 15 minutes, especially removing delicate things like children and pets. Turn off central heat or a/c. If the mess is on a hard surface, DO NOT vacuum up. Use sticky tape to clean and then damp rags. Put all cleaning stuff and broken light bulb pieces in a sealed plastic bag and put outside in the trash. If it is carpeting that needs cleaning, then do vacuum but immediately replace the vacuum bag by putting it in a sealed plastic bag. If any stuff gets onto clothing, DO NOT put the clothing in a washing machine because the mercury will get into the washer and contaminate what is washed in it later. And I hope that you remember to wear a mask and gloves to do all this. Shall I go on?
Here's more. While these bulbs are efficient, they actually flicker 60 times per second. Most people cannot see this consciously, but it is not good for your eyes and some people get headaches from it. What is worse is that most autistic people do see the flickering and it is really bad for them.
Will it save money and the environment (outside the home)? That is actually uncertain. There is a lot of evidence that fluorescents do not last any longer that regular bulbs. People do not seem to be experiencing longer usage. They seem to burn out like any other bulb. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that most people do not see a drop in their electric bills. So it is uncertain that the benefits which are touted by the 'experts' really pan out.
No doubt you have guessed my conclusion. Fluorescent bulbs are not a good idea for a home environment. I have no plans to use them even if they would save me money. I consider them an unacceptable risk. I will pay a few more dollars a month to get lighting that is much more safe and easier on the eyes.
I have no objection if someone decides to use these bulbs. But I think that we need to be fully informed and weigh the risks and benefits in a rational way instead of pushing it as if it is necessary to 'save the earth'.
It is important that we carefully examine conventional wisdom to find whether it is wisdom from God or just someone's bad idea. It is too easy to be taken in by so-called experts who are pushing something out of some ideology like what we get in our current environmental movement.
There are many ideas in our society that have recently become part of conventional wisdom. In the next few posts, I will examine some of these to find if these ideas are the wisdom of God or just human foolishness. I think that we will find is that the opinion of so-called experts and other well-meaning people may not be wise at all. Now I understand that not all will agree with my conclusions, but I hope that they will realize that conventional wisdom is often mere opinion and that there is more than one side to every issue. Let's keep an open mind as we examine some of these things.
The first idea that I want to examine is the notion that it is better for the environment and our wallets if homeowners replace their incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs. We are told that they use 75% less electricity and last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. So, even though fluorescent bulbs cost a lot more, it will save the homeowner money and help the environment by using less energy. Sounds like a win-win situation. And we are assured that there is no down side to this.
But there is a down side. I know about fluorescent bulbs because I used them in my business. I had a bakery and a deli operation. The Health Department required me to put shields over my fluorescent bulbs. The reason: fluorescent bulbs contain mercury and if they are broken they release that mercury in the air. Everyone knows that that is a serious hazard, especially in a place where food is kept.
On the same website where the federal government recommends the use of these bulbs, there is a link containing information about what to do if a fluorescent bulb breaks. Let me summarize: First, clear the room for 15 minutes, especially removing delicate things like children and pets. Turn off central heat or a/c. If the mess is on a hard surface, DO NOT vacuum up. Use sticky tape to clean and then damp rags. Put all cleaning stuff and broken light bulb pieces in a sealed plastic bag and put outside in the trash. If it is carpeting that needs cleaning, then do vacuum but immediately replace the vacuum bag by putting it in a sealed plastic bag. If any stuff gets onto clothing, DO NOT put the clothing in a washing machine because the mercury will get into the washer and contaminate what is washed in it later. And I hope that you remember to wear a mask and gloves to do all this. Shall I go on?
Here's more. While these bulbs are efficient, they actually flicker 60 times per second. Most people cannot see this consciously, but it is not good for your eyes and some people get headaches from it. What is worse is that most autistic people do see the flickering and it is really bad for them.
Will it save money and the environment (outside the home)? That is actually uncertain. There is a lot of evidence that fluorescents do not last any longer that regular bulbs. People do not seem to be experiencing longer usage. They seem to burn out like any other bulb. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that most people do not see a drop in their electric bills. So it is uncertain that the benefits which are touted by the 'experts' really pan out.
No doubt you have guessed my conclusion. Fluorescent bulbs are not a good idea for a home environment. I have no plans to use them even if they would save me money. I consider them an unacceptable risk. I will pay a few more dollars a month to get lighting that is much more safe and easier on the eyes.
I have no objection if someone decides to use these bulbs. But I think that we need to be fully informed and weigh the risks and benefits in a rational way instead of pushing it as if it is necessary to 'save the earth'.
It is important that we carefully examine conventional wisdom to find whether it is wisdom from God or just someone's bad idea. It is too easy to be taken in by so-called experts who are pushing something out of some ideology like what we get in our current environmental movement.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Good Meditation
Some years ago, if you mentioned the word 'meditation', some Christians would give you a funny look. The term was popular with New Age types who were referring to transcendental meditation (TM) that was much discussed in the popular culture, and which emanated from Eastern religion. In that kind of meditation, one was supposed to mutter the name of a god over and over. It is pure idolatry and clearly forbidden by the Word of God.
But here I want to talk about the value of Christian meditation and why all Christians can and should practice it. Let's see what the Word has to say about meditation.
"Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful." (Joshua 1:8)
"Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers." (Psalm 1:1-3)
These two passages are very similar. They both teach the godly person that they should meditate on the Law of the Lord. What does 'meditate' mean here? It means to 'mutter' according to my Hebrew Lexicon. In other words, say something over and over (quietly) and continue to think about it. Now that might not sound to us as something that would be very useful, but we read in both these passages about the fruit that such meditation will bring. The passage in Joshua indicates that meditation will help one to be a 'doer of the Word' (like James says) and it will make you a successful believer. Do we not want to be successful in our Christian lives? The passage in psalms says the same thing. Meditation brings success and prosperity in our lives.
What do we meditate on? The Law of the Lord (Torah - the first five books of the OT)? That's what it says, but I think that Christians, who are not under the Law (Torah), should meditate on any part of God's Word, especially the New Testament.
We can meditate on the whole Bible, but we can meditate upon one verse or several verses at a time. What happens when we do this? The Spirit of God begins to reveal the meaning to us and open up our spirits to what God is saying. How is this? Jesus said that His words are spirit and life. As we meditate upon the Word, it becomes a revelation to us. Too much of the time we are trying to figure out in our heads what it means. That's how we get our various theologies and separate into different camps. We can learn much by reading and studying the Bible, but we need to meditate upon the Word and let the Spirit make it a reality in our lives. He is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.
I have known Christians who could barely read and write and yet they had a deep knowledge of God and the Bible because they meditated upon the Word. They were God-taught. I have heard the same insights from them that I have heard from Bible scholars who came to their conclusions after years of study. I appreciate the work of Bible scholars, but I know that the Spirit who lives in me knows the Word far better than they do.
"But the anointing (Holy Spirit) which you have received of Him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him." (1 John 2:27) John is not saying that teachers are unnecessary (he was a teacher of the Word), but that we must rely on the Spirit of Truth to teach us the truth. No teacher can lord it over us.
An Easy and Effective Way to Meditate: Some use meditation extensively and do actually meditate on the Word at every possible moment. I admire that but I found that my mind tended to wander after a minute or two. Recently, however, the Lord led me to read a certain passage once a day for many consecutive days. I do not try to wrest the meaning from it and often I already have a good understanding of it in my head. But whether I understand the passage or not, I just read it over carefully, just once a day, until the Spirit brings me revelation regarding it. I must say that this works wonderfully. It has borne great fruit. Try it. It's easy.
So many Christians do not read their Bibles because they do not understand what they are reading. I encourage you, as a part of your daily devotions, to meditate in this way on the Word. It works.
But here I want to talk about the value of Christian meditation and why all Christians can and should practice it. Let's see what the Word has to say about meditation.
"Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful." (Joshua 1:8)
"Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers." (Psalm 1:1-3)
These two passages are very similar. They both teach the godly person that they should meditate on the Law of the Lord. What does 'meditate' mean here? It means to 'mutter' according to my Hebrew Lexicon. In other words, say something over and over (quietly) and continue to think about it. Now that might not sound to us as something that would be very useful, but we read in both these passages about the fruit that such meditation will bring. The passage in Joshua indicates that meditation will help one to be a 'doer of the Word' (like James says) and it will make you a successful believer. Do we not want to be successful in our Christian lives? The passage in psalms says the same thing. Meditation brings success and prosperity in our lives.
What do we meditate on? The Law of the Lord (Torah - the first five books of the OT)? That's what it says, but I think that Christians, who are not under the Law (Torah), should meditate on any part of God's Word, especially the New Testament.
We can meditate on the whole Bible, but we can meditate upon one verse or several verses at a time. What happens when we do this? The Spirit of God begins to reveal the meaning to us and open up our spirits to what God is saying. How is this? Jesus said that His words are spirit and life. As we meditate upon the Word, it becomes a revelation to us. Too much of the time we are trying to figure out in our heads what it means. That's how we get our various theologies and separate into different camps. We can learn much by reading and studying the Bible, but we need to meditate upon the Word and let the Spirit make it a reality in our lives. He is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.
I have known Christians who could barely read and write and yet they had a deep knowledge of God and the Bible because they meditated upon the Word. They were God-taught. I have heard the same insights from them that I have heard from Bible scholars who came to their conclusions after years of study. I appreciate the work of Bible scholars, but I know that the Spirit who lives in me knows the Word far better than they do.
"But the anointing (Holy Spirit) which you have received of Him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him." (1 John 2:27) John is not saying that teachers are unnecessary (he was a teacher of the Word), but that we must rely on the Spirit of Truth to teach us the truth. No teacher can lord it over us.
An Easy and Effective Way to Meditate: Some use meditation extensively and do actually meditate on the Word at every possible moment. I admire that but I found that my mind tended to wander after a minute or two. Recently, however, the Lord led me to read a certain passage once a day for many consecutive days. I do not try to wrest the meaning from it and often I already have a good understanding of it in my head. But whether I understand the passage or not, I just read it over carefully, just once a day, until the Spirit brings me revelation regarding it. I must say that this works wonderfully. It has borne great fruit. Try it. It's easy.
So many Christians do not read their Bibles because they do not understand what they are reading. I encourage you, as a part of your daily devotions, to meditate in this way on the Word. It works.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Gideon and the 300
I am sure that many of you have seen the movie, The 300, the story of 300 Spartans who defended the pass at Thermopylae against an overwhelming army of Persians in 480 BC. It is based on a historical event and it is considered one of the most remarkable military feats in history. Although the 300 inevitably lost the battle, they allowed the Greek city of Athens to evacuate and be spared from the revenge of the Persians who were defeated by the Athenians at the battle of Marathon. The Persian king, Xerxes (Ahasuerus), who led the Persian army, married Esther after returning from this invasion of Greece.
But I am not focusing on that event, but on another battle recorded in the book of Judges that occurred 700 years or so earlier. It is the story of Gideon and his 300 warriors who defeated an invading army against overwhelming odds. God had called Gideon to raise and lead an army to defeat the Midianites who had invaded Israel. Gideon called on the Israelites to defend their country and 32,000 men showed up. Then God told Gideon to send most of them home.
"The LORD said to Gideon, You have too many men for me to deliver Midian into their hands. In order that Israel may not boast against me that her own strength has saved her, announce now to the people, 'Anyone who trembles with fear may turn back and leave Mount Gilead.' So twenty-two thousand men left, while ten thousand remained. But the LORD said to Gideon, There are still too many men. Take them down to the water, and I will sift them out for you there. If I say, 'This one shall go with you,' he shall go; but if I say, 'This one shall not go with you,' he shall not go. So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, Separate those who lap the water with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink. Three hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got down on their knees to drink. The LORD said to Gideon, With the three hundred men that lapped I will save you and give the Midians into your hands. Let all the other men go, each to his own place." Judges 7:2-7
First, God sent 22,000 home. Then He sent another 10,000 home, leaving only 300. Then those 300 defeated the Midianites in battle. It's a great story, but what lessons can we learn from it?
The first lesson we find in the passage above. If the Israelites had a military advantage, then they could boast of the victory themselves instead of giving God the credit and glory that was due Him. It needed to be obvious that God won the victory.
We must not take credit for the victories that God gives us. How prone we are to say the our faith or works has accomplished some good thing for God. No, it is God Who has done it and we have played a part in it.
Another lesson can derived from this as well. And that is the principle that God does not need everyone to accomplish any particular good work, even as something as big and important as delivering Israel from its oppressors. Now don't get me wrong, God needs all of us to do something for Him. We all have assignments from God. But we all have different assignments. He calls some to do one thing and others to do something else.
But I have noticed something that happens often in the church. Someone deeply cares about some important issue and, perhaps, is called by God to do something about it. They then try to recruit every Christian to fulfill their vision and help them with their ministry. However, not every Christian (or church or ministry) may be called to do that. I have heard time after time, though, that this particular issue is so important and so urgent that everyone needs to pull together to solve this problem. But it is simply not so.
God is the One who solves the problem. It is He who calls whom He wills to do something about it. It is He who gives them the strategy and wisdom and ability to accomplish the task. It is He who gets the glory. He is not going to bless our plan.
Now there are some things that God calls all Christians to do. We are all to pray for those in authority and government. We are to pray for one another. And as we pray about the bad things that we see, God will begin to prepare the way and call some to help Him bring deliverance and change where it is needed.
And God will not just work on one problem, but on all of them. He will call some to one task and others to the rest. He will give the leaders the vision and direction necessary to accomplish the task and He will provide others to help fulfill the vision. Some works will have many workers and some will have a few, but "nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few" (1 Samuel 14:6).
I think that this tendency to recruit everyone to our good cause is the result of our focusing on our meager resources rather than on God and His abundant supply. We focus too much on the problem and not on the solution that God can bring. And we generally would not approach the problem the way that God would. Which one of us would have done what God told Gideon to do? God's ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. So let's do things His way and not our own. Let's get the victory from God and give Him the glory.
But I am not focusing on that event, but on another battle recorded in the book of Judges that occurred 700 years or so earlier. It is the story of Gideon and his 300 warriors who defeated an invading army against overwhelming odds. God had called Gideon to raise and lead an army to defeat the Midianites who had invaded Israel. Gideon called on the Israelites to defend their country and 32,000 men showed up. Then God told Gideon to send most of them home.
"The LORD said to Gideon, You have too many men for me to deliver Midian into their hands. In order that Israel may not boast against me that her own strength has saved her, announce now to the people, 'Anyone who trembles with fear may turn back and leave Mount Gilead.' So twenty-two thousand men left, while ten thousand remained. But the LORD said to Gideon, There are still too many men. Take them down to the water, and I will sift them out for you there. If I say, 'This one shall go with you,' he shall go; but if I say, 'This one shall not go with you,' he shall not go. So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, Separate those who lap the water with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink. Three hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got down on their knees to drink. The LORD said to Gideon, With the three hundred men that lapped I will save you and give the Midians into your hands. Let all the other men go, each to his own place." Judges 7:2-7
First, God sent 22,000 home. Then He sent another 10,000 home, leaving only 300. Then those 300 defeated the Midianites in battle. It's a great story, but what lessons can we learn from it?
The first lesson we find in the passage above. If the Israelites had a military advantage, then they could boast of the victory themselves instead of giving God the credit and glory that was due Him. It needed to be obvious that God won the victory.
We must not take credit for the victories that God gives us. How prone we are to say the our faith or works has accomplished some good thing for God. No, it is God Who has done it and we have played a part in it.
Another lesson can derived from this as well. And that is the principle that God does not need everyone to accomplish any particular good work, even as something as big and important as delivering Israel from its oppressors. Now don't get me wrong, God needs all of us to do something for Him. We all have assignments from God. But we all have different assignments. He calls some to do one thing and others to do something else.
But I have noticed something that happens often in the church. Someone deeply cares about some important issue and, perhaps, is called by God to do something about it. They then try to recruit every Christian to fulfill their vision and help them with their ministry. However, not every Christian (or church or ministry) may be called to do that. I have heard time after time, though, that this particular issue is so important and so urgent that everyone needs to pull together to solve this problem. But it is simply not so.
God is the One who solves the problem. It is He who calls whom He wills to do something about it. It is He who gives them the strategy and wisdom and ability to accomplish the task. It is He who gets the glory. He is not going to bless our plan.
Now there are some things that God calls all Christians to do. We are all to pray for those in authority and government. We are to pray for one another. And as we pray about the bad things that we see, God will begin to prepare the way and call some to help Him bring deliverance and change where it is needed.
And God will not just work on one problem, but on all of them. He will call some to one task and others to the rest. He will give the leaders the vision and direction necessary to accomplish the task and He will provide others to help fulfill the vision. Some works will have many workers and some will have a few, but "nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few" (1 Samuel 14:6).
I think that this tendency to recruit everyone to our good cause is the result of our focusing on our meager resources rather than on God and His abundant supply. We focus too much on the problem and not on the solution that God can bring. And we generally would not approach the problem the way that God would. Which one of us would have done what God told Gideon to do? God's ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. So let's do things His way and not our own. Let's get the victory from God and give Him the glory.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tears in Wineskins
One of the great things about studying the Bible is finding out new things through the study of the customs and culture of the society of the ancient Hebrews. One little tidbit that I found was in Psalms 56:8. It reads, "You Yourself have recorded my wanderings. Put my tears in Your bottle. Are they not in Your records?" In almost every English translation, the middle part of this verse uses the word 'bottle' as a place that God puts our tears.
That's a little blind to us. Why would someone put tears in a bottle? When we dig deeper we find that the Hebrew word translated 'bottle' is actually the Hebrew word for a wineskin. Well, then, why put tears in a wineskin?
To know why this image is used we have to understand one of the ways that wineskins were used. Of course, wineskins were used to hold wine, but scholars tell us that wineskins were also used to hold precious liquids. Wineskins were the best way to preserve various liquids just as pottery jars were used to store just about everything else. (The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in pottery jars.)
If God put our tears in wineskins, it must mean that they are very precious to Him. The psalmist asks God to store his tears as precious things. And He does. Sometimes we think that God is far away when we are suffering, but we must know that He is storing our tears and writing them in his book. They are preserved forever.
So when you read Psalm 56, remember what this meant when it was written. I think the translators used the word 'bottle' because we would be confused by the notion of storing tears in wineskins. But I prefer a very literal translation with explanatory footnotes at the bottom of the page. Then it speaks to us more clearly than trying to translate ancient customs in modern parlance. "Tears in a bottle" just does not do it for me.
That's a little blind to us. Why would someone put tears in a bottle? When we dig deeper we find that the Hebrew word translated 'bottle' is actually the Hebrew word for a wineskin. Well, then, why put tears in a wineskin?
To know why this image is used we have to understand one of the ways that wineskins were used. Of course, wineskins were used to hold wine, but scholars tell us that wineskins were also used to hold precious liquids. Wineskins were the best way to preserve various liquids just as pottery jars were used to store just about everything else. (The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in pottery jars.)
If God put our tears in wineskins, it must mean that they are very precious to Him. The psalmist asks God to store his tears as precious things. And He does. Sometimes we think that God is far away when we are suffering, but we must know that He is storing our tears and writing them in his book. They are preserved forever.
So when you read Psalm 56, remember what this meant when it was written. I think the translators used the word 'bottle' because we would be confused by the notion of storing tears in wineskins. But I prefer a very literal translation with explanatory footnotes at the bottom of the page. Then it speaks to us more clearly than trying to translate ancient customs in modern parlance. "Tears in a bottle" just does not do it for me.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Facts and Interpretation
Usually when Christians think of the word 'interpretation' they think of interpretation of the Bible. For this blog, however, our subject is the interpretation of facts. But, you may say, do facts need interpretation? Aren't they true all by themselves?
The answer to that is both yes and no. A firmly established fact by itself needs no interpretation. But facts do need interpretation when they are used to promote ideas. For example, the US Civil War (1861-1865) is a historical fact which contains many historical facts. But when we discuss the causes of the Civil War, we must interpret those facts.
One of the big controversies regarding the interpretation of facts is regarding the origins of the universe, the earth and mankind. Secular biology interprets the facts of scientific discovery one way (in accordance with the theory of evolution) and the Creation scientists interpret them another way. [For the purposes of this blog, I will use the laymen's term "theory" instead of the scientific term "hypothesis". The correct terminology is 'hypothesis of evolution' not the common term 'theory of evolution'.] And proponents of Intelligent Design interpret them yet a third way. (Let us not confuse Creation Science with Intelligent Design.)
All three of these views of our origins use the same scientific facts, but use them in different ways. Evolutionists claim that the facts support their theory and so do the Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will not, in this blog, talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each view. I only wish to point out that all qualify as science. Now evolution is the reigning view today, but that does not make it more scientific.
Evolutionists often claim that Creation Science is not science and should only be taught in religion classes (if at all) instead of biology class. They say that teaching Creation Science (or Intelligent Design) in biology class alongside evolution would be like teaching in a history class that the Holocaust never took place. And there some who deny that the Holocaust ever did take place. But that is a different thing entirely. The Holocaust deniers are not offering a different interpretation of historical facts but are denying well-established facts. It is a denial of facts that is the problem here. Certainly, we should not teach any form of history that expressly denies these facts. Creation Science and Intelligent Design do not deny facts; they interpret them differently.
Now let's examine some facts that you often hear cited in Christian circles. One of them is the statistic that people in churches are as likely to be divorced as those outside the church. I have heard this statistic for many years and I have no reason to doubt it. But how should we interpret this fact? Well, here is a case where we really need more information. Fortunately, deeper studies have apparently been done that shed more light on this subject. One study that I heard of examined people in churches and not only their marital status, but also their place in the church and their own history in it.
What they found is very interesting. They found that those who had the most longevity in church and were considered to be the most active and committed within the church were far less likely than the general population to have ever been divorced. Those who are more on the margins and are more recent members are far more likely than the general population to be divorced. It seems that people who have been recently divorced often go to church (or return to church) after their divorce.
So it may be that, overall, church members are as likely to be divorced as anyone else, but it is different for different groups within the church.
Now this makes sense to me. I do know some people who are deeply committed to the Lord and are very active in the church who also have been divorced. I do not have a problem with that. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, I have noticed that more of the longtime 'core' members of the churches that I have attended generally are not.
What we need to take from all this is that we should not base our preaching on these kinds of statistics because statistics may give us one impression but further study and analysis leave quite another. I am not saying that statistics are always misleading, or that they should not be used. We just have to be careful with them and realize that they are not the last word and probably should not be the basis of our teaching and preaching.
There is another statistic that I have heard over and over for more than 30 years. And it sounds very plausible. I am sure you have heard it, usually from youth ministers. It goes something like this: "If a person is not saved by age 15 (or 14 or another age in that range) their chances of being saved are very slim". This is quoted to get church people to support youth programs.
You might be surprised by what I am about to say about this statistic. You might guess from my skeptical tone that I am about to tell you that this statistic is not true, but I am not going to do that. It is a true statistic; unfortunately, it is also completely irrelevant. The reason that it is irrelevant is because of what Jesus said. "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." These are sobering words indeed. Jesus is telling us that only a few find eternal life. These words tell us something statistically. They tell us that only a minority will be saved. That means that if a person is not saved by ANY age, chances are they will not be saved at all. In other words, I could say that if a person is not saved by age 6, chances are that they will never be saved. And I could say the same thing about age 86 as well.
So the statistic about those who do not get saved by their teen years probably will not be saved at all is a true, but irrelevant, statistic. Now, as a person who was saved at age 15 I want to say that I am fully in favor of youth groups and of evangelizing teens. I do not, however, think that we should use this phony statistic to bolster our case. It is unnecessary. If God is leading you to work with the youth, then do so. If you want more support then tell others and let God lead them.
Whenever some statistic seems to bolster our beliefs or arguments, Christians tend to accept it with no examination. This is not good. We have often been taken as suckers. We do not really need statistics to back up our biblical perspective or our ministry. Isn't the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit enough for us? We need to lose our skepticism of the promises of God and the prompting of the Holy Spirit and increase our skepticism of statistics. I think we have it backwards sometimes.
In conclusion, the church needs to use facts and statistics very carefully. Even if they back your own view, do not accept them without examination or further analysis. If more or better information is not available, then lay them aside until you can correctly interpret them.
The answer to that is both yes and no. A firmly established fact by itself needs no interpretation. But facts do need interpretation when they are used to promote ideas. For example, the US Civil War (1861-1865) is a historical fact which contains many historical facts. But when we discuss the causes of the Civil War, we must interpret those facts.
One of the big controversies regarding the interpretation of facts is regarding the origins of the universe, the earth and mankind. Secular biology interprets the facts of scientific discovery one way (in accordance with the theory of evolution) and the Creation scientists interpret them another way. [For the purposes of this blog, I will use the laymen's term "theory" instead of the scientific term "hypothesis". The correct terminology is 'hypothesis of evolution' not the common term 'theory of evolution'.] And proponents of Intelligent Design interpret them yet a third way. (Let us not confuse Creation Science with Intelligent Design.)
All three of these views of our origins use the same scientific facts, but use them in different ways. Evolutionists claim that the facts support their theory and so do the Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will not, in this blog, talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each view. I only wish to point out that all qualify as science. Now evolution is the reigning view today, but that does not make it more scientific.
Evolutionists often claim that Creation Science is not science and should only be taught in religion classes (if at all) instead of biology class. They say that teaching Creation Science (or Intelligent Design) in biology class alongside evolution would be like teaching in a history class that the Holocaust never took place. And there some who deny that the Holocaust ever did take place. But that is a different thing entirely. The Holocaust deniers are not offering a different interpretation of historical facts but are denying well-established facts. It is a denial of facts that is the problem here. Certainly, we should not teach any form of history that expressly denies these facts. Creation Science and Intelligent Design do not deny facts; they interpret them differently.
Now let's examine some facts that you often hear cited in Christian circles. One of them is the statistic that people in churches are as likely to be divorced as those outside the church. I have heard this statistic for many years and I have no reason to doubt it. But how should we interpret this fact? Well, here is a case where we really need more information. Fortunately, deeper studies have apparently been done that shed more light on this subject. One study that I heard of examined people in churches and not only their marital status, but also their place in the church and their own history in it.
What they found is very interesting. They found that those who had the most longevity in church and were considered to be the most active and committed within the church were far less likely than the general population to have ever been divorced. Those who are more on the margins and are more recent members are far more likely than the general population to be divorced. It seems that people who have been recently divorced often go to church (or return to church) after their divorce.
So it may be that, overall, church members are as likely to be divorced as anyone else, but it is different for different groups within the church.
Now this makes sense to me. I do know some people who are deeply committed to the Lord and are very active in the church who also have been divorced. I do not have a problem with that. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, I have noticed that more of the longtime 'core' members of the churches that I have attended generally are not.
What we need to take from all this is that we should not base our preaching on these kinds of statistics because statistics may give us one impression but further study and analysis leave quite another. I am not saying that statistics are always misleading, or that they should not be used. We just have to be careful with them and realize that they are not the last word and probably should not be the basis of our teaching and preaching.
There is another statistic that I have heard over and over for more than 30 years. And it sounds very plausible. I am sure you have heard it, usually from youth ministers. It goes something like this: "If a person is not saved by age 15 (or 14 or another age in that range) their chances of being saved are very slim". This is quoted to get church people to support youth programs.
You might be surprised by what I am about to say about this statistic. You might guess from my skeptical tone that I am about to tell you that this statistic is not true, but I am not going to do that. It is a true statistic; unfortunately, it is also completely irrelevant. The reason that it is irrelevant is because of what Jesus said. "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." These are sobering words indeed. Jesus is telling us that only a few find eternal life. These words tell us something statistically. They tell us that only a minority will be saved. That means that if a person is not saved by ANY age, chances are they will not be saved at all. In other words, I could say that if a person is not saved by age 6, chances are that they will never be saved. And I could say the same thing about age 86 as well.
So the statistic about those who do not get saved by their teen years probably will not be saved at all is a true, but irrelevant, statistic. Now, as a person who was saved at age 15 I want to say that I am fully in favor of youth groups and of evangelizing teens. I do not, however, think that we should use this phony statistic to bolster our case. It is unnecessary. If God is leading you to work with the youth, then do so. If you want more support then tell others and let God lead them.
Whenever some statistic seems to bolster our beliefs or arguments, Christians tend to accept it with no examination. This is not good. We have often been taken as suckers. We do not really need statistics to back up our biblical perspective or our ministry. Isn't the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit enough for us? We need to lose our skepticism of the promises of God and the prompting of the Holy Spirit and increase our skepticism of statistics. I think we have it backwards sometimes.
In conclusion, the church needs to use facts and statistics very carefully. Even if they back your own view, do not accept them without examination or further analysis. If more or better information is not available, then lay them aside until you can correctly interpret them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)