It's About Time

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.  (2 Peter 3:8)

The length of our days is seventy years - or eighty, if we have the strength ...   (Psalm 90:10)

In only two verses, we see just how little God is bound by the laws of time, but how restricted we are with the handful of years God gives us. Time is a limited commodity, something like our money and our gifts. A believer needs to feel a burden for using the time he has to God’s glory.

Time is also an element of God’s creation. Eternity past and present are not extensions of time. They are of an altogether different nature. God does not measure time as we do. He is not bound by the linear unfolding of days, weeks, months and years as we are. We cannot determine the things pertaining to the end of time, things that only God understands, by applying our linear grasp of how and when things must occur as we observe “the signs of the times.” 

I’ve thought about this a lot through the years – eternity operating independently of time - but were I to elaborate too much, my musings might start to read more like science fiction ramblings than the devotional thoughts I intend. There is a surely a much more practical approach to our consideration of “time” as we embark upon another New Year. I have attempted to select a few texts to help us to embrace a uniquely Christian perspective of the passage of time – past, present and future.

1) The Christian and the Past

a) Learning from the Past Is Desirable

I remember the days of long ago, I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done.  (Psalm 143:5)

We trust God in our present struggles, because He has always delivered us in our past struggles. Perhaps, discipline was involved.  Maybe there were times when we questioned His presence in some circumstance. As it turned out, He was not only there, but He was actively working all things together to make us more like Christ. We benefit greatly when we reflect upon God's faithfulness in the past - not only through the great events of the Bible but in our own experiences as well.

b) Living in the Past Is Undesirable

Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.  (Ecclesiastes 7:10)

All living in the past accomplishes is misery in the present. We grow to despise the present, which is rather ironic considering that people who dwell in the past almost always exaggerate the “goodness” of the “good ol’ days.”

2) The Christian and the Future

a) Living Towards the Future Is Wise

That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.  (2 Timothy 1:2)

Paul was in prison facing almost certain death. His hope was so secure that he could face the end of his life in a posture of remarkable peace. We trust that God is good to His word regarding matters events in the future. We make choices that help us to prepare for the inevitability of the future, though it is inappropriate to obsess over it.

b) Lining Out the Future Is Futile

Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.”  Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow.  What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.  Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.”  As it is you boast and brag.  All such boasting is evil.  Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4:13-16)

Planning for the future is responsible and godly. Presuming that we can control the future is the height of human folly. To write the script for our lives beyond this present moment is beyond our human capacity. It is too easy to set ourselves up to for disappointment. Strangely enough, some people even blame God for their own failed dreams rather than open their hearts and minds to learn what He is trying to teach them

3) The Christian and the Present

a) As a Christian, You Are Not a Citizen of this Present Moment

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.  (1 John 5:11, 12)

The “eternal” character of the life we enjoy in Christ is more about our union with God than it is mere duration. Without Christ, a life that never ended would eventually become an unspeakably awful thing. Eternal life became ours at the point we became His. There is no more pathetic witness for Christ than that of a so-called believer living in misery as he awaits some far off reward. A current perspective of joy is rooted in the reality of the present fellowship we know with Christ. Saint of God, you already belong to eternity. Let your countenance reflect it.

b) Still, Christian, God Does Not Leave Us in this Present Situation without Cause

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  (1 Peter 3:15)

This is the time and place where you have been called to serve God.  Now is your opportunity to credit a living Savior for the hope that people see in you.  You cannot change the past. You cannot manipulate the future. Any attempt to do either robs God of the best you have to offer to Him right now.

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas

At our house, we squeeze all the mileage out of the Christmas season that we can. Many in the culture lament how the evidences of Christmas seem to appear earlier every year. For some, this is not a lament, just an observation. I like Christmas, most all of it, anytime. I like Christmas trees, Santa Claus and giving gifts. I love all the traditions that warm our hearts and bring smiles to the faces of children. In the midst of all this, I have never had the least bit of difficulty keeping central that precious theological truth at the heart of Christmas, the Incarnation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ. I enjoy the evidences of Christmastime no matter how early they appear.

Did you know that in a sense, Christmas existed in the mind of God as early as the Garden of Eden? The first prophecy pertaining to the coming of Jesus did not emerge from a warm and pleasant circumstance. God was in the process of pronouncing His curse upon the human race and upon His creation because sin had entered into the world. But then again, it was our sin that made Christmas necessary, so the backdrop for the glory of Christmas is anything but beautiful.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."  - Genesis 3:15

Classic theology refers to this single verse as the proto-evangelium; “the First Gospel.” Charles Spurgeon called this verse, “the first gospel sermon that was ever delivered upon the surface of this earth.” In other words, this was the earliest hint of Christmas coming to the world. Satan had won a major battle. He had destroyed, or so he thought, a part of God’s handiwork. He had convinced Eve that God could not be trusted and he tempted her to disobey her Creator. Adam followed suit. Have no doubt that God was angry with Adam and Eve. Interestingly, however, before He pronounced His curse upon them for what they had done, He hinted that a hope of restoration lay ahead.

In spite of their sin, God’s first words were not directed at Adam and Eve, but to the serpent, the tempter, the devil himself. God took it very personally that Satan had introduced sin into His perfect world. The devil had set himself against God, and God told him at the outset of the conflict, “This will not stand! I will repair what you have done.” This was not a veiled prophecy foretelling the coming of Jesus. This was God’s up-front, in-Satan’s-face declaration: “I will win this!”

In a world where sin had taken over, God kept His promise alive. When God called Abraham, He promised to build a great nation from his descendants. But, He also promised to bless the whole world through that same nation. That nation produced Jesus, Who destroyed the work of sin. God entered the world as the seed of a woman, a human being. And, though the cross was a brutal and vile striking at the heel of that seed of woman, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the final triumph over the work of Satan. The head of the snake was crushed. The power of sin and the sting of death were destroyed – and it all began with the birth of a baby.

My kids get more frustrated with me every year, because I never “give them any ideas” for what they can get me for Christmas. I’ll take whatever expression of affection they choose to offer, because a long time ago, I learned that all I really needed for Christmas is a crushed snake, and Jesus has already provided that.

The Perfect Gift

They say you can find anything on the Internet. One year, I was running a little late with my shopping, so I googled the phrase, “the perfect gift,” which yielded 5,850,000 results. That seemed a bit unwieldy, so I refined my search: “the perfect gift for your wife.” That trimmed the results down to a tidy 3,440,000. I didn’t have to look any farther than the Salsa lessons to realize that I was barking up the wrong tree.

A few years ago, I heard a preacher introduce his Christmas message with this question: “Show of hands: how many of you Dads are ‘guilty’ of buying your kids things they want for Christmas rather than things they need?” Apparently, his kids were small, and he tended to gravitate toward those toys and gadgets that would earn him the big “‘Atta boy, Dad!” But, for some reason, his inclination to thrill his kids with something impractical, made him feel guilty.

I did not raise my hand, but it was NOT because I only buy practical gifts. I did not raise my hand because I have never once felt “guilty” over buying impractical ones. I would feel much guiltier if all I could think of to give a child were socks and underwear, no matter how badly they were needed, if I knew something else might light up his or her eyes.

That is not to say that impractical gifts are better gifts than socks and underwear, but neither will I concede that they are lesser gifts. There simply is no such thing as a perfect gift, so we are each compelled to apply our best judgment to selecting various imperfect ones. A perfect gift would have to cover every conceivable criterion behind gift-giving. It would need to be practical AND thrilling. It would need to be extravagant AND precisely what is needed. We give our children the best gifts we can, because we know that there is no such thing as a perfect gift.

I stand corrected. There has been at least one “perfect” gift given in history, and that Gift is the reason we have Christmas.

A Perfect Gift Is Needed AND Wanted. Jesus, the Gift of God, fills a profound human need. Sin estranges a man from his holy Creator. Paul described people in their sinful state as “powerless,” as “enemies of God,” as “darkness” and as “objects of wrath.” Jesus appears within the pages of the Bible as the only remedy for sin. He bluntly declared as much about Himself. His disciples boldly proclaimed it as well. (see John 14:6; Acts 4:12)

Our need for Jesus is profound. Of course, just because a gift is needed, that is not to say it will be wanted. Still, after enough blisters and enough cold, wet days, a thick, warm pair of socks might become the most welcomed gift under any tree, especially if a man lacks the means to secure socks for himself. Likewise, a man needs to be awakened to His need for a Savior before he will yearn for one. There is nothing man can do to rescue himself from the throes of sin, but if he wallows in sin’s mire long enough and if he comes to the end of his own strength, then, the hunger awakened by God for the Gift will become acute. Jesus is every sinner’s greatest need, but He comes to those for whom He is also their greatest desire.

A Perfect Gift Thrills Recipient AND Giver. One cable network annually runs 24 straight hours of A Christmas Story. Ralphie Parker yearns for “an official Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time.” But, is that really a perfect gift? Ralphie’s mother, his school teacher and even the department store Santa Claus warn him, “You’ll shoot your eye out.” On the other hand, Ralphie is mortified when his mother compels him to model the pink rabbit outfit that quirky Aunt Clara has joyously hand-crafted. The air rifle awakens Ralphie's joy, but everyone else's concern. The bunny outfit has brought joy to the giver, but humiliation to the receiver. Neither the Red Ryder air rifle nor the pink bunny outfit quite hit the mark of perfection.

It seems to me that if any gift is to meet the criteria of “perfection”, then, there ought to be some sort of a mutual exhilaration shared by both giver and receiver. God's Gift hits that mark. We stand forgiven because of the Gift, and God was happy to give it.

A Perfect Gift Is Costly AND Free.  It would sound crass to imply that a gift cannot be worthwhile unless it is expensive, but I have not been describing the realm of “worthwhile.” A perfect gift cannot be cheap and devoid of an element of sacrifice on the part of the giver. The free Gift of Jesus was the most precious thing the Father had to give. Jesus, in His essence, God, laid aside all the perks of deity so as to clothe Himself in human flesh. Ultimately, God Incarnate yielded to crucifixion, a kind of death penalty that only depraved minds could have conceived.

… For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.  – 1 Peter 1:18, 19

A Perfect Gift Is Unique AND Universally Available. There are many items that make nice gifts even though they are mass-produced. Take one from the shelf, and twenty just like it are lined up behind it. But again, I am not exploring the realm of merely “nice.” A truly perfect gift must be one-of-a-kind. Jesus is “the only begotten” of the Father. No one else ever knew the mind of the Father or ever made the Father known to us, for He was of the same essence as the Father. Jesus is the only Way to salvation, because He is the only One Who CAN save us. And, yet, His love is indiscriminate. This precious, unique gift is for all who hunger and thirst for it.

A Perfect Gift Is Complete as Is AND Is Constantly Increasing. “The gift that keeps on giving” is a phrase that has been applied to everything from jewelry to financial endowments to anything that remains useful over time or that even increases in value over time. The Gift of God is such a gift. There is nothing lacking in what Jesus provided to redeem us back to our Father, and yet, the longer we serve Him, the more the benefits flow back to us: “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” (Romans 8:32). 

A Perfect Gift Is Indescribable. Paul was urging Christians in Corinth to respond generously to a need in Jerusalem where many Jewish believers had become impoverished. He appealed to the affluent Corinthians on a number of bases. He pointed to the generosity of the Macedonians, a people not nearly so well off as themselves. He taught of spiritual blessings that accompany generosity. But, the Apostle’s final appeal on the matter directed them to God’s generosity. Speaking of the grace that appeared in Jesus, the Gift of God, he wrote: 

… Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!  - 2 Corinthians 9:15

I cannot exhaust a discussion of the perfection and sufficiency of Jesus. I can only make my own meager case for it. In addition to all that I have said already, the gift is beautiful, glorious and majestic. But, when all of our linguistic superlatives inevitably fail to capture the beauty of Christ, let us settle on - and rest in the reality that the Gift of Jesus simply defies description.

Playing the Jesus Card

For these thoughts, my “muse” knows who she is, so thanks. For the rest of you, I am not sure how to get to the biblical point I need to make without first muddling through a particular political argument.

I was texted in the last few days with a request for my thoughts on an article written by one Stephen Mattson for Sojourner Magazine. The title fairly represented the author’s premise, “Social Justice Is a Christian Tradition – Not a Liberal Agenda.” He apparently wanted to make people who are wary of specific social justice movements feel more comfortable in participating with them, even to the point of believing that they are walking in the steps of Jesus for doing so. But, he lost me pretty quickly. The following introduces the article.

       “Many Christians are wary of participating in social justice because of a deep-rooted fear of being labeled “liberal,” “progressive,” or “secular.” They don’t want to be associated with “secular” movements, and are uncomfortable delving into issues that go beyond their cultural comfort zones.

     “But the Bible tells us that Jesus cared deeply about the social causes around him.

     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said,
     ‘Samaritan lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Children’s lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Gentile lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Jewish lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Women’s lives matter.’
     “Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Lepers’ lives matter.’

     “Even though Jesus loves everyone, even to the point of dying for their sins, he went out of his way to intentionally help specific groups of people — the alienated, mistreated, and those facing injustice.

     “So saying 'Black Lives Matter' and participating in a movement seeking justice, positive reform, and empowerment is one of the most Christ-like things we can do.”

Apparently, Mr. Mattson has in his sights those who would specifically dismiss the BLM movement with what he finds to be a cliché: “All lives matter.” But, in doing so, he began by erecting what is, in my experience, a straw man. He identified them with his first words as “Many people …”

I belong to a church, a Bible School class, and the rest of my closest relationships are largely Christian. I cannot think of any of them who have ever shared with me that they avoid joining in particular social causes because they are wary that their buddies will call them “leftists.” Without speaking for them, I could never be a part of Black Lives Matter, not because of any potential scorn from my friends, but because of the plethora of problems I have with the movement’s claims, poster-children, and rhetoric. I’ll save that explanation for anyone who asks. (By the way, I do have friends who are deeply involved in social justice causes they trust.)

I could not help but notice that, according to Mattson, Jesus never collectively said, “All lives matter,” but rather, that individually He spoke to the worth of every specific demographic of the ancient world that came to the author’s mind. In fact, we have no record that Jesus uttered any of these things. Of course, I realize that the author was just using a figure of speech, but what he communicated to me was that Jesus conducted Himself as though all lives mattered.

I hinted that my real agenda for writing was to make a biblical point, not a political one. I guess I have a little issue with a practice I call, “Playing the Jesus Card,” of which the aforementioned article is simply a blatant example. If Jesus conducted Himself according to any mantra, it was not that these or those lives mattered. Jesus embodied the ethic of the kingdom of God, and He applied that ethic to everyone He encountered. We have no example of Him ever zeroing-in on some specific social justice cause that in any way might confuse us in our understanding that His all-consuming passion was to advance the kingdom of His Father.

There is such a thing as a religious right AND a religious left, and I do not get the sense that either group is particularly interested in the precise and accurate treatment of the scriptures so as to advance the invisible kingdom of God that Jesus disclosed to His earliest disciples. Rather, the use of the Bible and the example of Jesus is played like a card to steer emotion and/or guilt. I take issue when any party represents the Bible as saying something it simply does not say, whether that misrepresentation comes from the political right or the political left. 

Every time I go to work or return home, I pass a church sign that has taken playing the Jesus card to absurd extremes. When folks were up in arms about immigrant children being separated at the southern border from the adults accompanying them, the sign said, “Let the little children come to me.” Really? I never knew that verse was about immigration. Currently the sign says, “Listen to women. Jesus did.” I had to wonder if this literary wizard understood that Jesus was a loyal Jew Who gave a high place to the Law of Moses. I suspect that He would have listened to a woman AND supported the concept of due process and corroborating witnesses, not as the United States constitution emphasizes it, but as YAHWEH, through Moses, commanded it. The stupidest slogan to date was posted several months ago: “God’s bathrooms are for everyone.” I guess the church was arguing that God is okay with the tearing down of gender distinctions.” (Actually, I did not and still do know what to say to that one except, perhaps, “Repent, or at least keep your head low in a lightning storm.”)

The only reason that any of these nonsensical misuses of the Name of God or Jesus can work is rampant biblical illiteracy among the people of God, which exposes them as fodder for emotional demagoguery because they are simply unarmed in the battle for discernment.

The Bible is not simply a book of ancient documents to be used as frivolously and carelessly as needed for some political hack to score points. It is the living, active, God-breathed Book of God that expresses the Incarnate Word of God. When it is abused to manipulate the minds of people rather than to enlighten them to the mind of God, the abusers themselves are one day going to have to answer, regardless of whether they tilt right or left in their politics.

Every Christian’s walk with Jesus should inform their walk in this world. I take no issue with those who feel led toward some work they believe in because they think it honors Jesus. But, if anyone attempts to play the Jesus card so as to coerce another into seeing things his or her way, I can only recommend to that person, “Be very sure that you are being accurate with God’s Word.” Paul spoke of “rightly dividing the word of truth,” because there must be many ways to twist it to one’s own ends.

On Hasty Judgments

(I assembled these thoughts in the middle of the past week and chose not to post them until after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process was resolved one way or the other.) 

The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.  – Proverbs 18:17

Could the author of the Proverbs be suggesting that we are prone to gullibility? Is it fair of him to imply that we are easily persuaded by information when we only have one-half of the story? This is an indictment against hasty judgments, which are as evil as corruption itself. After all, one tale is compelling until another tale rebuffs it. Without two sides to a story, we are poor arbiters.

If the process currently going on to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court seems to be teaching us anything, it is how knee-jerk many of us can be when it comes to arriving at beliefs without being privy to first-hand facts. “I believe him!” “I believe her!” In the Senate, trust or distrust for the candidate or his accuser almost always follows party lines, even as a final week of investigation is underway. A few votes are up in the air, but those are certainly going to be driven more by political considerations than by any new clarity of information.

I know what I am inclined to believe. Anyone who knows me well probably knows what I am inclined to believe. But, I am not writing today to support my position or to attack the other one. On the contrary, I think it would be of value for each of us to consider how we arrive at such strong, immovable positions, even in the midst of uncertainty.

Recently, a friend posted a comment reflecting a certainty that Russia “had something” on Trump. I asked what the evidence was. The party did not appear to want to defend the premise other than to say, “That’s my opinion!” That got me to thinking about how loosely we use the term “opinion.” Opinions are judgments about qualitative matters. “I like deep, dark hues of green better than I like bright, loud hues!” “I think a good brisket makes for better Bar-B-Q than any piece of chicken or pork!” Those are my opinions, and no one can disprove them empirically any more than I can prove them.  But, if I assert that the Russians have “the goods” on the President, that is not really the domain for opinion. They either do or they do not. My opinion might one day earn me a reputation as a psychic, but it might also find me to be a slanderer. Facts, if they come to light, will make that determination.

Regarding matters that require factual and not qualitative judgments, why are our opinions so strong, when, logically, they are not even appropriate? We really do not KNOW anything without facts.  Against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh process, a loved-one asked me, “Why do ____________ ALWAYS believe the _______? My reflexive response might have been, “Why do _______________ ALWAYS believe the _________? (Feel free to insert the word-sets “conservatives/man” or “liberals/woman” as you see fit. That is not the point.) I did not answer according to my reflex because I knew that both statements were certainly over-the-top generalizations. Still, the passions run high as people of every ilk bite into a position and lock-down on it like pit-bulls.

The acrimony over this immediate matter distresses me as it does many, but I learned something about myself when I went to pray about it. I learned that I could not quite bring myself to articulate a prayer that my party would be vindicated. Something inside of me knew that to do so was tantamount to asking God to side with my useless opinion. I could pray for a speedy resolution to the matter. I could pray for reliable facts to come out. I could pray for light upon the issue. I could pray for the authentic victim to be vindicated. But, to pray for my preferred outcome, when I cannot know all of the facts, seemed a little reckless. God is omnipotent. God is sovereign. I am neither. Entering His presence reminds me of that.

No one seems to be latching onto a position in this current matter because of empirically established data. We are shaped by our experiences, politics, biases, ideologies, distrusts, fears, judicial values – anything and everything but knowledge, and these others things are only a recipe for hasty and uninformed judgments.

It is in gut-wrenching times like these that we do not look for support and solace in the companionship of those who agree with us, speaking similar words without knowledge. There very well may be something quite sinister being played out before our eyes. Nevertheless, peace comes only from believing and trusting that God is directing the course of nations, utilizing and steering the vices as well as the virtues of those in charge, or so they think.

Pursuing Messiah's Kingdom without the Messiah

It is too easy nowadays to poke fun at the United Nations, and I hope these thoughts of mine will not come across as merely that. I am no fan of the organization, but, if “once-upon-a-time,” the nations of the world believed that they could get together and work for world peace, that was a noble objective. In the meantime, and in my opinion, politics, alliances and agendas have undermined this presumably worthy cause of the U.N.’s original visionaries. Still, if it remains in the hearts of die-hard supporters and ambassadors to work for global peace, then, I can commend their sentiments without holding out much confidence in their prospects for success.

I am not making a political observation so much as a theological one. Global peace is outside of the wheelhouse of any assembly of nations. When Jesus said, “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars …”, it would not be because He is in any way fond of war, but because He knows the hearts of men and the mindsets of nations. Peace is not in our sinful natures. Fallen nations cannot work together to bring about a peace that ensures equivalent dignity for every people group of the world. In fact, it may very well be the height of hubris for any of them to believe that they can.

This hubris is evidenced by the presence of an outside wall at the U.N. inscribed with these words: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks …” The U.N. also displays a bronze statue depicting a man beating his sword into a plowshare. The statue is captioned, “Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares.” The words on the wall are attributed to the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, but they could just as easily have been attributed to another prophet, Micah. Both spokesmen for JEHOVAH uttered this prophecy (Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3). Neither prophet had in mind anything that the nations of the world could bring to pass by their own deliberations.

The prophets are speaking of the reign of Messiah. Some Christians think of a millennial reign of Christ on the earth when they hear these words. Some think of the final state of things at the end of time. Some hear these as language describing a peace that is won as the world is won for Christ. I am not aware of any group that thinks of the work of the U.N. This absurd appropriation of a biblical quotation simply demonstrates the arrogance of the nations of the world. They are united in a belief that they can somehow bring about the peace that describes the reign of Messiah while barring Messiah Himself from the endeavor. They are using the words of the one true God, even though it would run contrary to the beliefs of most of the nations to even acknowledge said God as the ONE God above ALL gods.

There is also, within the U.N. building, a prayer/meditation chapel accessible to the members, if anyone is in the mood to pray or meditate about anything. Upon entering this room, one will encounter a six-and-one-half-ton, rectangular block of iron ore, polished on top and illumined by a spotlight. The designer of the room described it as “a meeting of the light, of the sky, and the earth … it is the altar to the God of all …” I take that as an “all roads lead to this one god” kind of sentiment where one can pray to one’s own choice of deity or simply meditate in the presence of no deity at all. Across from this big black block is a mural of interlocking geometric patterns. This allegedly is a symbol of the essential oneness of god, not the triune unity of the God of the Bible, but again, this idea that “we all worship god in our own way.”

It is true that God is One, but His oneness is in and of Himself, not a unity of anyone’s and everyone’s notions of god. That is as absurd as the notion that the nations of the world can come together to forge some version of utopia by their own efforts, not that the U.N. has ever shown any capacity for doing that in the entirety of its existence. If anyone thinks that men, coupled with a little contribution from this and that worldview, can ever secure tranquil coexistence among the nations and faith practices of the planet, he is hopelessly naïve. Enduring peace can only be secured by Heaven’s Prince of Peace.

Believers in America tend to get worked up when Christian symbols and scriptural language are removed from public settings. If any effort was made to remove the slogan or the statue about which I have written from the grounds of the United Nations, I would probably just shrug my shoulders. After all, it was far-fetched to think that they ever belonged there in the first place.

If Everything Is Awesome, Nothing Is

A few years ago, Linda and I attended a Sight & Sound production, a local but nationally known theater that presents biblical dramas. Before the show started, I was standing in line waiting to pay for my Twizzlers. The fellow in front of me was paying for three or four different snacks when the nice young lady behind the counter asked him, “Would you like a bag for that?”

The customer excitedly answered, “That would be AWESOME!”

Something welled up within me that was dying to say, “Awesome? Are you kidding me? It’s really not!” I restrained myself. In the meantime, I thought of many adjectives that could appropriately have been applied to the scenario. “Awesome” was not one of them. As for the bag itself, I thought of “convenient,” “utilitarian,” even “downright handy.” As for the offer of a bag, I thought of “courteous,” but more likely, presuming the young lady’s training for her job, I suspected “obligatory” was the best fit. Nothing about the offer to place a few snacks in a bag awakened a sense of awe in me. Allow me to make my case:

1852 - Francis Wolle patents in the United States, and later in France and England, a machine that he devised for making paper bags.

1870 - Margaret Knight invents a device to cut, fold and paste paper bag bottoms, essentially, making her the “mother of the modern grocery bag.”

1883 - Charles Stilwell is awarded a patent for making a square-bottom paper bag with pleated sides that folds flat.

1912 – Walter Duebner invents a reinforced paper sack with a corded handle, the prototype of the shopping bag.

Early 1960’s - Swedish engineer Sten Gustaf Thulin invents the first lightweight plastic shopping bag.

There is much more information that could be shared on this matter of bags, but I am guessing that most readers found even these pivotal historical landmarks in the history of “bag-ology” to be mundane … at best.

Now, I realize that for as long as there have been youngsters and curmudgeons, the latter have always chaffed a bit at the language of the former. Even I recognize that there may be a certain “You kids get off my lawn” flavor to this particular rant. That said, “awesome” once referred to that which gave rise to a sense of wonder, amazement, fear, terror and/or trepidation.

It is probably a lost cause. I suspect that the specific word “awesome” has been diluted beyond recovery to the point that it may one day join the likes of cool, groovy, gnarly, rad, dope and badd (with two d’s, which apparently was a synonym for good) upon history’s ash heap of discarded slang.

Still, in defense of cranky geezers everywhere, allow me to pose one observation and one question:

The Observation: If “awesome” can be applied to everything, including snack items in a bag, then, eventually it cannot mean anything.

The Question: What words do you reserve for those times when, as a believer you reflect upon God … 

    … to praise Him for His creative might?
    … to contemplate His redemptive works in the past?
    … to bask in the reality of His unfathomable and yet, tender mercies?
    … to consider His unnerving holiness?
    … to rest in His unmerited grace?

If “awesome” is indeed lost to the ages as a meaningful descriptor, then, at least try to reserve some good adjectives for your Creator, Redeemer and King.

1The LORD reigns, let the nations tremble;
he sits enthroned between the cherubim,
let the earth shake.
2Great is the LORD in Zion;
he is exalted over all the nations.
3Let them praise your great and AWESOME name –
he is holy.   – Psalm 99:1-3

The Grace Coma

The fact that the title of Charles Swindoll’s 1990 release, The Grace Awakening, prompted the title for these little thoughts of mine should in no way be construed as a swipe at that author. I love Swindoll’s writings. I always have. The aforementioned book, regularly reprinted, calls believers to not simply believe the doctrines of grace, but to also live according to the power of grace. From time to time, we need such reminders. The “practical religion” dimension of Christianity all too easily descends into a pattern of lists for holy living. Such lists (law) are imposed by one Christian or leadership entity onto others, culminating in believers descending into a spiritual morass of constant striving and moral failing.

However, a number of folks in the past have also said things to this effect, “Wherever grace is preached accurately, someone is going to find a way to twist it.” In fact, Peter may have been the first. Speaking of the Lord’s patience, which leads to our salvation:

… ¹⁵And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, ¹⁶as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.  – 2 Peter 3:15, 16

Is it far-fetched to suggest that the pendulum has swung a bit on this matter of grace (as falsely embraced) and law? While we will always need warnings against trying to secure God’s favor by our own meritorious deeds, I don’t get the sense that too many Christians are trying to do that these days. In many quarters of Christendom, the legalist has been effectively marginalized, and rightly so. But, are modern notions of grace that have pushed aside legalism the same as that grace of which Paul (or, for that matter, Swindoll) wrote?

Grace, improperly understood, leads to license. By grace, we are saved, but saved from what? We are saved from the wrath of God. We are saved from the eternal punishment of our sins. We are saved from the current power of sin over our lives. More and more, I am not so sure that the modern church even acknowledges these things as dangers. 

Grace reminds us that we are free from the law and from the horrors that accompany all attempts to merit God’s favor. We need to be awakened to these truths often. On the other hand, counterfeit grace, cheap grace, easy believism … label it as you wish … is pandemic in this current church age and it renders believers comatose to important themes such as the holiness of God, the heinousness of sin, the depravity of an unrepentant soul, distinct moral positions as old as Genesis, as well as a plethora of other themes essential to orthodox Christian practice. The notion of mortifying one’s sinful natures, that is, accepting some participatory role in fighting one’s own sinful tendencies, is unheard of in many Christian churches.

God’s love has widely been declared as “unconditional,” apparently meaning, that contrary to what Paul would tell us, God is quite okay with being mocked by believers who refuse to abandon or even resist their sinful ways. Off and on, through the ages, the world has scoffed at biblical morals. Many churches have simply caved-in on such matters, as they affirm open homosexuality, some to the point of performing same-sex marriages. Then, they market their disbelief and compromise as “love.”

At some point, the church replaced its God-given mandate to preach the Gospel and to make disciples for Jesus with its own man-conceived mandate of “growing the church.” Compromising the Gospel becomes inevitable whenever it ceases to be central. Certainly, we need to be awakened to grace whenever we fall into a mindset of works salvation. But, when the doctrine of grace is twisted by “the ignorant and the unstable” or by those who preach to tickle the ears of their hearers, believers must be aroused from the coma that ensues.  A gospel that redefines sin is not the Gospel of Christ. Any grace that dismisses essential attributes of God’s character or of His holy hatred of our sin is not the grace of God revealed in the cross. On the contrary, it entirely misses the entire point of both grace and the cross.

¹What shall we say then? Are we to continue to sin that grace may abound? ²By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?  - Romans 6:1,2

The stupor of twisted grace wholly misses the point of true grace. If the shoe fits, snap out of it!

My Essentials and Nonessentials, NOT Yours!

In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

This motto for Christian peacemakers was a beloved slogan in the church tradition from which I hail. It was so much a part of what we professed to be, that as a youngster, I assumed one of “our guys” must have coined it. When I learned that was not the case, I heard the slogan attributed to a number of different characters in church history. Eventually, it was attributed to Rupertus Meldenius, an otherwise unknown German churchman, based on its earliest appearance in a printed tract, circa 1627.

I have always appreciated the slogan, whoever framed it, but I also learned something about it early on. It is not really very workable where there is no consensus as to what constitutes an essential and what constitutes a nonessential. My church of origin, which was birthed of an historical unity movement, ironically, could be as dogmatic as anyone else over matters that many would deem opinion. In the meantime, it was quite an eye-opener to see our group labelled as a “cult” by others outside the camp who saw some things differently than we did. 

I did not grow up in a denominational setting. When I read the Statement of Faith for the denomination where I eventually landed, I did not agree on every point. However, the specific member church I joined apparently had some flexibility regarding how much detail they had to put into print. The local church’s statement was briefer, and I concluded that there was nothing that constituted an insurmountable obstacle to my involvement there. But, I wonder what I would have done had I been compelled to affirm each of the denomination’s positions, if it meant recanting some of my own?

If any of the specifics had been deal-breakers for me, I would certainly have continued my search for a home church. If any of them would have been presented to me as deal-breakers from the church’s vantage point, I suspect that I would have been sent on my way. But, what now would be my responsibility if I am granted membership in that church, knowing that I differ on a couple of things, here and there, that I regard to be “nonessential”? 1) I would have a responsibility to keep some things to myself unless asked; 2) I would have a responsibility to NEVER undermine that congregation in any of her positions; 3) I would have a responsibility to not attempt to draw adherents to my way of thinking; and, 4) I would have a responsibility, if ever entrusted with a teaching role, to stick only to the plethora of other topics that edify and unite believers.

On one level, these responsibilities are to the local church that has welcomed me into their fellowship. On a more profound level, my responsibility is to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each of Whom calls believers to unity.

When I was recently preparing a lesson on Jeremiah, I listened to an overview of the book online. It was helpful. The speaker provided a good sense of the flow of the book. But, about two-thirds of the way into his presentation, he became very strident about a point of view that differed from his own. On a matter that is nonessential to me, he used language such as “evil,” “hellish,” and “needs to be sent back to the pit from which it came.” Predictably, at some point, he had disabled the comments section.

For the sake of unifying behind ministry efforts, most churches adhere to some particular “systematic theology,” an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. There is more to it than that, but essentially, the discipline leads us to various statements of faith. I suspect that most people are rooted in the systematic theology to which they were first exposed. Some study and change camps. Some study and stay put. Some tend to embrace the system which helps them to best wrap their heads around the mysteries of God. None of the systems are perfect. They all present hard questions. In my own experience, I seem to have settled on the ones that create the least troublesome questions.

Dr. John MacArthur, who no one would ever accuse of being coy regarding his beliefs, was speaking about some of the paradoxes in the Bible when it came to matters of man’s free-will versus God’s sovereignty, predestination versus “whosoever will may come,” man’s responsibility to persevere in his Christian walk versus the inability of man to lose his salvation, whether the Christian’s life is lived by God versus lived by the person himself, etc. MacArthur acknowledged the paradoxes and absolved himself of any responsibility for explaining them. He is in league with most thinking Christians who acknowledge such paradoxes. He defends his own positions capably, but I noticed that the paradoxes he acknowledges reflect the precise questions that would be posed to him in a debate by someone coming from a different point of view.

What intrigues me is that if these paradoxes exist, and members of differing schools of thought all concede that they exist, then, how important can it really be to WIN an argument about Calvinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, and so on? By all means, know what you believe. Cling tenaciously to your systematic theology, whatever that may be. But, if we all acknowledge the paradoxes, surely we can all agree on the need to hold to our beliefs with humility and grace.

We call such things (that have been discussed and written on by full-time thinkers for centuries), “nonessentials.” In other words, we do not typically consign one another to the eternal fires of Hell over our respective positions. Yet, we sometimes debate them with a passion that reflects that it actually matters to us that we win. On the one hand, we say that we accept members of another camp as brothers while, on the other hand, we put forth a very powerful vibe that they are somehow lesser brothers, a vibe people pick up on eventually. I never really beat such doctrinal drums that I can recall, but I have known many who seemed to feel a burden to harangue others to their own views of orthodoxy. It often left me wondering how many people through the years have left churches thinking, “I did not think it mattered, but I guess it did.”

There are times when such debates sharpen us. There are other times when it might be wiser to bite one’s tongue, to put one’s hand over one’s mouth, and to abstain from trying to provide an exhaustive explanation for the unknowable workings of God.

The Final Word on Christians and Tattoos

Just kidding. The headline is a hook, a shameless piece of click-bait. Honestly, I have no idea what the final word on tattoos and Christians ought to be, but I am intrigued by the debate. In a church I served for many years, a high-school Sunday School class would hear from a teacher, “Tattoos are forbidden for a Christian,” only to come up upstairs and be compelled to interact with a couple of fellows whose arms were covered with them.

The debate springs from the Hebraic law, specifically, Leviticus 19:28:

“… You shall not make any cuts on your body or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.”

I have read the thoughts of many as to whether or not the marks left on the body referenced in this verse were really tattooing as we know it, since the word “tattoo” did not exist until much later. For that reason, one could argue whether the word “tattoo” is even a good rendering of the original Hebrew. Of course, that argument could apply to any translation of any ancient text on any given topic into any newer language. In any event, it seems that driving home some definitive conclusion by pursuing a linguistic and/or legalistic argument would be a lot of trouble and convince no one on either side of the discussion of anything.

On the other hand, it appears that God might have some tattoos, anthropomorphically speaking:

Can a woman forget her nursing child,

            That she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?

Even these may forget

            Yet I will not forget you.

Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands ... - Isaiah 49:15, 17

I process the matter best by thinking about similarly cryptic Hebraic laws that get much less attention than the tattoo ordinance. The ceremonial law of temple and sacrifice was fulfilled by Jesus, securing our redemption. Moral law was perfectly observed by Jesus, which means He accomplished a righteousness that can be imputed to believers. (That does not mean that the definition of morality changed.) But, there are many other laws that protected the Hebrew community in terms of health, law and order, and especially, uniqueness among the nations of the world. These, like food laws, were for national Israel and were never imposed on Christians in the church age.

Were such laws still in force, one could argue that wearing blended fabrics is forbidden to us today (Leviticus 19:19). Working a garden with multiple vegetables planted in it might be condemned (Leviticus 19:19). Goatees could be a no-no (Leviticus 19:27). And, cooking a kid goat in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19) … well, let’s just say that is one thrill that has never really captivated me.

It is likely that some of these laws were given to God’s people because of pagan superstitions and practices that existed among the nations surrounding Israel. In some cases, the restrictions may have simply meant, “Do not practice these things because your neighbors do practice them.” God wanted His people to be unique among the nations of the world.

My best counsel to a believer on the matter of getting a tattoo, piercing, etc., is to ask himself or herself a question that every believer should probably ask of oneself much more often than any of us do, and on many more occasions than any of us do … “Why?” And, I’m not suggesting that I or anyone other than God Himself needs to approve of your answer to that question. It is the discipline of thinking about our actions and desires that is of value. To consider one’s actions against the backdrop of our heavenly Father is NEVER a bad idea.

A tattoo might commemorate a deceased loved one. You would never hear a peep out of me. It might be an expression of unity and unwavering commitment between a husband and a wife. I would never pop-off about something like that. (In fact, a tattoo with a spouse’s name, might provide added incentive to work through hard times together. I understand that ink is harder to remove than a ring.)

On the other hand, if a child wants to get a tattoo or a piercing in direct defiance of a parent, I would feel quite comfortable saying, “That is a horrible reason, and one of which God would never approve.” Someone might be flirting with inscribing something occultic or obscene into his or her flesh. I would actively try to dissuade a believer from doing such a thing. Someone might consider tattoos as artistic expression. I might ask, “Have you ever considered needlepoint or digital photography as an alternative form of expression?” but I would not press the issue. I am not the arbiter in the matter and do not care to be. Someone says, “Everyone gets them these days. It’s no big deal. One in five American adults have one.” That argument sounds like one might be taking his lead from the world or from peers. I would be comfortable observing that such an argument seems to be approaching the context of the strange laws cited in an earlier paragraph. We do not want to do anything simply because the world or our peers pressure us.

Perhaps, you have already detected that I am not really speaking to the issue of tattoos so much as I am speaking to the issue of thinking through how we are exercising our liberty in Christ. I reiterate, and I cannot emphasize it enough; I could not care less what a person decides to do in “most” of these tattoo considerations. If I could just persuade all of us to pause a little more often and ask ourselves, “Why am I doing this?” whatever “this” is, then, I’d be satisfied. The notion of “thinking through” my use of liberty is a useful reminder to myself and not horrible piece of advice for any believer in any circumstance.

That Silly Old Guy with the Coat and Tie

The following are my own musings. I am not attributing one iota of spiritual authority to them. I have no designs on persuading anyone of anything. Think of what follows as “a thinking through” of why I do what I do.

When I was a child and for some time into my adulthood, the go-to excuses for people who did not attend church included, “They just want my money,” or, “The place is filled with hypocrites.” Those were the days when most people were at least a little reticent to bad-mouth God or Jesus. Today, it is much more acceptable, even fashionable, for unbelievers to simply come out of the closet, so to speak, and avow their atheism or agnosticism. For them, there is no reason to make silly excuses for not going to church, for it is regarded as rooted in a fable anyway.

One of those old, well-worn excuses for not going to church still seems to have an impact, albeit in an oddly inverted way. We don’t hear many people dismissing themselves from worship attendance these days with the justification, “It’s just a fashion show.” If there is such a thing as “an attire competition” at church these days, it might be for who can dress down the most and still avoid arrest. At my church, my coat and tie render me a part of a significant minority. I sometimes suspect that I might stick out like a sore thumb … an odd duck.

If dressing-up for church was just my habit or my tradition, I think I could have moved past it by now. After all, I have poked fun at many traditions in my day. For me, the deeper consideration is not what attire is or is not appropriate for church. That would lead to a foolish argument couched in rigid and legalistic terms. On the contrary, I am more impacted by my own understanding of ecclesiology (theology as applied to the nature of the church), worship and, especially, how I see myself standing in Christ’s presence.

Every Christian of every opinion should be enthralled by this sentiment that Jesus shared with His first disciples:

… ¹⁴You are my friends if you do what I command you. ¹⁵No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you …  - John 14:14, 15

I grew up singing, “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.” Jesus calls me His friend. It follows that it is clearly appropriate that I would call Him, “my Friend.” In fact, I might very well do that in certain isolated circumstances. But, for the most part, that does not come to me very naturally. The issue is not fear, at least, not a cowering slavish fear. It is more that I still detect so much distance, in terms of holy character and holy nature, between us. That, I believe, is the fear to which we are called.

So, while I take no issue with anyone who sees the matter differently, I remain more at ease to relate to Christ as Master and Savior and God. That demands, for me, dressing respectfully for a respectful occasion. The authors of the New Testament were undoubtedly more like Jesus on so many levels than I am. They were His friends as am I. But, I cannot help but to notice that none of them refer to Him as such in their various writings. In fact, Paul’s favorite reference to himself in relation to Jesus was “a servant.”

So, when you see some silly old guy with a coat and tie, do not simply presume that he is making a fashion statement. He may not be dressing for a Friend. He may be dressing for a Master. He may be dressing for the Judge of the living and the dead. He may be dressing for the King of kings and the Lord of lords. While it may appear that he is deliberately dressing to be uncomfortable, it may very well be that dressing his best is the only way he feels remotely comfortable … given the occasion.

And, of course, as is so often the case, it could just be that he thinks too much.

Swine, Canine and Other Acquaintances of Mine

I have never been a big fan of rock musicals, which is why I was not moved one way or the other when NBC recently televised an updated production of Jesus Christ Superstar. Still, I read a number of comments from friends of mine who insisted that Alice Cooper, in the role of Herod Antipas, stole the show, so I bit. I found the video for the Herod scene online.

My first impression was: “Wow! That’s not your grandfather’s Alice Cooper,” but we all slow down with age. What I really wanted to see was the nature of the interaction between the Jesus and Herod characters. It seemed fairly accurate. Herod mocked Jesus and asked to see some miracle while Jesus remained completely silent. In the biblical narrative, there is no record that Jesus ever uttered so much as a word to this clownish, vile ruler. I could be overlooking something, but I cannot think of another instance when Jesus did not speak when spoken to. Apparently, in His divine wisdom, our Lord knew that there was nothing useful to say.

This interaction steered my attention to one of the most provocative things Jesus said in a discourse filled with provocative utterances, His Sermon on the Mount:

            “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”  - Matthew 7:6

I don’t know about you, but I find that to be a bit of a head-scratcher in that it raises two difficult questions: 1) Is Jesus saying that there are persons unworthy to hear the gospel? More troublesome is the second question: 2) Is Jesus trusting me to make a judgement about who these characters are that are unworthy to receive the gospel? An affirmative answer to both questions seems inevitable.

There have been times when I have failed to speak about Christ and regretted it. There have been other times when I have failed to speak and was unsure as to whether I should regret it or not. A patsy for guilt and accusation, I am sure I have beaten myself up when it was unnecessary to do so. Was it really essential to say something? Perhaps, it would not have even been appropriate to speak.

If am a witness for Jesus, as every Christian is, but I am not spiritually-gifted as an evangelist per se, I do not believe that I am justifying my cowardice when I confess that I need to recognize a spark of need and/or openness in a person before I engage him or her in a discussion about the gospel. I currently work in a situation where there are many vile, clownish people. They do not wield the authority of a Herod, but they demonstrate a similar spiritual appetite. I have never felt a compulsion to barge into the midst of some profane or obscene discussion in which they are engaged with a message of “Turn or burn!”

Instead, I keep my eyes open for people who seem lonely, estranged from the greater group, and I try to befriend them. I determine to let the abuse that gets thrown around quite often roll off my back, not because I am hard to wound or anger, but because I know that my representation of Christ in that arena depends on my patience and self-control.

I trust God’s mercy on me if I am wrong about any of this, but I am compelled to admit that there are times when I fail to admire the courage of that “in-your-face, confrontational type of evangelist” because I suspect that he is doing more kingdom harm than good. I also have serious reservations about the mindset that the religious right should work overly hard to get their own slate of candidates into office so that our sense of morality can be imposed on others by the force of law. Dare I say that I detect, rightly or wrongly, a lot of pearl-tossing to swine going on.

Understand that I am not professing to be fool-proof in my ability to delineate between swine, canine and persons who might be receptive to Christ. And, let us not react too emotionally to the terms “swine” and “dogs.” I take these metaphors to simply mean that some people are hostile to the topics of sin, repentance and eternity. Their personal demeanors inform me that trying to convince them of the truth may not be the best way to expend my own limited time and energy. But, they may also be God’s project for now. One person may be a swine today and a totally different receptor for truth tomorrow. After all, it is the Holy Spirit that awakens a hunger for God in any of us.

Isaiah prophesied during the reign of four kings. He ceased his preaching ministry before he was executed by a fifth king, the evil Manasseh. Did Isaiah feel no burden to prophesy to that king? Perhaps, Isaiah somehow just understood that this evil royal was not his project. King Manasseh was clearly swine material. But, sometime after Isaiah was dead and gone, God drove Manasseh to repentance. I never thought of that as a failure on Isaiah’s part.

These are tricky thoughts. One could easily use them to justify never speaking out for Christ. But, the flipside of that coin is that casting pearls to swine is a fruitless endeavor. May God bless you as you ferret out solutions whenever you encounter such areas of tension, wondering whether it is best to speak or not to speak.

More than Useless ... Toxic

One of our associate pastors recently spoke on the cost of discipleship from Luke chapter 14. It was an excellent message. I mention it not so that these thoughts should be construed as an amendment, correction, or disagreement. What follows are simply thoughts that sprung forth as I was reflecting further on the topic.

The speaker mentioned that salt, as we think of it, typically does not lose its saltiness. In ancient Palestine, it was gathered from marshes and was filled with impurities. Over time, the impurities overwhelm the salt, and the mixture ceases to have any of the useful properties of salt. It becomes so polluted that it becomes useless. Professed followers of Jesus who will not follow Him are deemed, by the Lord Himself, to be useless to His cause.

No believer should want to be useless to the efforts of the kingdom. But, if that does not adequately get one’s attention, perhaps, that metaphorical left jab could be followed-up with a crushing right hook. Years ago, I preached through the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, where another treatment of this “salt of the earth” metaphor appears. I suspect it is the more familiar treatment of the two.

            “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet … - Matthew 5:13

Luke’s account says:

… It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away.  – Luke 14:35

The Luke account points out the “uselessness” of salt without saltiness to both soil and fertilizer. The additional nuance from Matthew is that it is destructive, that is, toxic. Technically, this salt did have one singular use.  It was thrown away, but not willy-nilly. This sludge was thrown away “to be trampled under people’s feet.” In other words, it was used to treat the paths that cut through the fields from which pilgrims could legally pick grain for their own use on their various journeys from here to there. Farmers could not have people wandering through their fields and off the paths. If I were a farmer, I would want to keep those pathways well-defined. I would look for a product that would destroy all life and potential for life, something more than useless … something toxic. I may run down to my Home Depot and look for something that destroys even the possibility of life.

“What can I do for you, sir?” says the man in the vest.

I answer, “Do you have any of the that toxic sludge that used to be salt?”

Is “useless” versus “toxic” a distinction worth mentioning? If I was told that I was “useless” to some cause, I might not like it. It might hurt my feelings. I might even pout. On the other hand, as a fierce introvert by nature, I might learn to appreciate the incognito status of being of no value. I might just be satisfied that I still get to hang around with “Team Redeemed.”

However, if I am told that I am actually harmful to some cause, I would have to decide, “Do I want to be an ally in this cause or an enemy?” To simply exist as a useless appendage in the Body of Christ is not an option because it is not even a possibility. I will be detrimental to the cause of Christ, not simply irrelevant. I will be a witness to the Gospel, but a damaging one. My choice is rather clear. Do I want to be for Christ or against Him? I will need to examine myself to determine if I am really a man of faith at all.

I have never believed that an arbitrary line can be drawn between faith in Christ and being a disciple of Christ. “Why do you call me “Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46). Our obedience to Christ in this world is not a matter of little significance. The church falls into disrepute when adherents to Christianity rebel against the commands of God. We cannot flirt with how to bend rules without sinning. We must despise every appearance of evil.

The Body of Christ cannot infight over petty matters and advance the Gospel. We cannot enjoy impure entertainments. We cannot harbor rage, bitterness and unforgiveness. We cannot continue to tell tales and spread gossip. We cannot fly off the handle as a means of responding to the things that agitate us. We cannot express ourselves with coarseness and innuendo because we want to be seen as clever, relevant or because we want the world “to take us or leave us as we are.” (If that’s really the way you are, you need to look into repentance and transformation.) We can and should engage in the cultural debates of the age, but with respect – to one another, to leaders and to sinners. In personal crises, we cannot always resort to the same selfish short-cuts that the world may view as appropriate.

To be useful at all to the cause of the Kingdom of Christ, believers must walk as true disciples. Uselessness is not the only risk. Actual toxicity is another. We are to expect the Gospel to be scorned by the world, because followers of Christ who have come out from the world trust in a resurrected Savior and live with an expectation of eternal life. We should expect to be despised in the world, because darkness hates light. Somehow, the Gospel will continue to make strides forward. However, we are not to expect the world to mock the Gospel because its adherents show it to be irrelevant, powerless and non-binding when the chips are down. No one is drawn to that.