I am convinced that an Article V Convention of States may be our nation’s last hope for preserving liberty and returning an out-of-control federal government to its proper, constitutional place.
As a lover of our Constitution, I can appreciate genuine concerns about the adequacy of procedural safeguards to ensure that this great bulwark of self-governance does not become the victim of some “runaway convention” or leftist conspiracy. The proper response to such genuine concerns is the provision of accurate information. So, to those who have expressed such concerns to me, I have responded by providing historically accurate data which demonstrate that: (a) our current Constitution is decidedly not the product of a “runaway convention,” but is absolutely legitimate; (b) there is no real mystery as to the methodology of an interstate convention, because such conventions were prevalent at the time Article V was drafted; and (c) there are incredibly strong safeguards in place to ensure the demise of any conspiracy to subvert the will of the States that issue the call for restraining federal power.
Of course, at the end of the day, no one can provide the fearful fretters with an ironclad guarantee about any future event. At the end of the day, each of us must choose whether we will take what tools we have been given and use them to repair the damage that ill-conceived, anti-historical interpretations of our Constitution have done to the social compact our forefathers constructed, or whether, instead, we will bury our heads in our hands, insisting that the tools provided in the Constitution itself are dangerous and that there are insufficient competent laborers to perform the commission.
Great men and women will choose the former. They will choose to act.
They will tremble at the gravity and enormity of the task. They will consider carefully the textual provisions of the Constitution that have been perverted to facilitate federal aggrandizement and the alternative textual antidotes that would best clarify—in black and white--the actual intentions of the noble, learned drafters of the original text. They will labor diligently to educate constituents, friends and neighbors so as to foster educated, informed participation and ownership by the people. They will count the cost.
But in the end, great Americans will be driven to action by the conviction that a nation aspiring to be a self-governing people under God cannot also be a nation of people who passively succumb to tyranny because they are afraid of wielding the very weaponry provided to preserve their liberty. They will ascribe to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s view that the right path is the path of Action:
“Daring to do what is right, not what fancy may tell you,
Valiantly grasping occasions, not cravenly doubting—
freedom comes only through deeds, not through thoughts taking wing.
Faint not nor fear, but go out to the storm and the action,
Trusting in God whose commandment you faithfully follow;
Freedom, exultant, will welcome your spirit with joy.”
Showing posts with label Being Salt and Light. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Being Salt and Light. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Truth is Not a Fragile Thing
Tonight in Bridgewater, conservative and liberal elements of my community will gather for an exercise in disciplined listening. We will hear two different pastoral perspectives on "The Church and Same-Sex Marriage." This "encounter" is the first of two on this topic; the next one, tentatively scheduled for next spring, will feature two policy experts discussing public policy considerations surrounding same-sex marriage.
I hope that we can pack the house tonight with folks who are willing to listen in good faith to both positions, and to consider their respective merits and shortcomings.
I say this despite the fact that I have a definite belief as to which position is "true," "good," and "beautiful." I welcome the discussion and the challenge it poses to my worldview, because Truth is not a fragile thing.
I submit that anyone who is committed to the existence of absolute Truth, absolute Values, should welcome every opportunity to discuss their existence. For if they do exist, they cannot ultimately be disproven, nor will their existence be diminished by any person's refusal or failure to acknowledge them. On the other hand, if they do exist, every opportunity to discuss their existence is an opportunity to allow others to see them.
In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis argues that teachers do their students--and, by extension, society at large--a great disservice when they set out to "debunk" the emotion or dismiss its importance. He writes, "For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defense against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head."
In the same way, I think "Christian conservatives" do a great disservice to society when they dismiss liberal, relativist worldviews with an arrogant shaking of the head, as if those who held such worldvivews were a lost cause, not worth the time and effort of engagement. First of all, "we" don't know everything, and not everything is absolute. But beyond that, we serve as poor spokespersons for our own worldview when we walk away from the table. When we behave as if Truth is no better than a spoonful of canned peas, having no real flavor or textural value, but simply demanding digestion as a matter of lukewarm nutritional fact, I wonder if we, ourselves, really understand Truth so well as we think.
Truth is not a fragile thing, nor is it tasteless, nor dependent upon our blind, unthinking, submissive digestion. It is the stuff that both cuts down jungles and irrigates deserts. It is robust, vigorous and vibrant. It is so whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not. It is too great for us to fully or perfectly comprehend and verbalize, and yet enough of it has been revealed--and enough is innately known--to attract our devotion and pursuit.
Let us, who believe that Truth IS, welcome those to the table who believe that it is not. Let us go to THEIR table. Let us hear their best explanations and struggle over them. We may all walk back to our same "corners" in the end, but we will walk back wiser, perhaps questioning some of our assumptions while our brethren question some of theirs. But Truth will shine on, unchanged and unsoiled, and those who truly seek it will find it.
I hope that we can pack the house tonight with folks who are willing to listen in good faith to both positions, and to consider their respective merits and shortcomings.
I say this despite the fact that I have a definite belief as to which position is "true," "good," and "beautiful." I welcome the discussion and the challenge it poses to my worldview, because Truth is not a fragile thing.
I submit that anyone who is committed to the existence of absolute Truth, absolute Values, should welcome every opportunity to discuss their existence. For if they do exist, they cannot ultimately be disproven, nor will their existence be diminished by any person's refusal or failure to acknowledge them. On the other hand, if they do exist, every opportunity to discuss their existence is an opportunity to allow others to see them.
In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis argues that teachers do their students--and, by extension, society at large--a great disservice when they set out to "debunk" the emotion or dismiss its importance. He writes, "For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defense against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head."
In the same way, I think "Christian conservatives" do a great disservice to society when they dismiss liberal, relativist worldviews with an arrogant shaking of the head, as if those who held such worldvivews were a lost cause, not worth the time and effort of engagement. First of all, "we" don't know everything, and not everything is absolute. But beyond that, we serve as poor spokespersons for our own worldview when we walk away from the table. When we behave as if Truth is no better than a spoonful of canned peas, having no real flavor or textural value, but simply demanding digestion as a matter of lukewarm nutritional fact, I wonder if we, ourselves, really understand Truth so well as we think.
Truth is not a fragile thing, nor is it tasteless, nor dependent upon our blind, unthinking, submissive digestion. It is the stuff that both cuts down jungles and irrigates deserts. It is robust, vigorous and vibrant. It is so whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not. It is too great for us to fully or perfectly comprehend and verbalize, and yet enough of it has been revealed--and enough is innately known--to attract our devotion and pursuit.
Let us, who believe that Truth IS, welcome those to the table who believe that it is not. Let us go to THEIR table. Let us hear their best explanations and struggle over them. We may all walk back to our same "corners" in the end, but we will walk back wiser, perhaps questioning some of our assumptions while our brethren question some of theirs. But Truth will shine on, unchanged and unsoiled, and those who truly seek it will find it.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
An Unheeded Plea for Journalistic Truth-Telling
Frankly, I am weary of hearing about “media bias.” It has become too obvious and widespread to remain interesting. And yet, when a news reporter is caught telling an outright falsehood to countless unsuspecting consumers, there is something much more fundamental than media “neutrality” which hangs upon his willingness to make the necessary correction; what is at stake here is basic integrity.
I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.
While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.
Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:
Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.
After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:
“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”
To this, I responded:
“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”
To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”
My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.
Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.
If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?
I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.
While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.
Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:
Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.
After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:
“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”
To this, I responded:
“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”
To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”
My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.
Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.
If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?
Thursday, September 12, 2013
On Being Hated
My last post and Daily News Record "Open Forum" on Martin Luther King, Jr. was shared on VCA's facebook page. Within a 24-hour period, about 1400 people had viewed it, and many of them reacted strongly against it. Here is a sampling of their comments:
"Maybe if your view was not that of an extremist, people would get it."
"Your [sic] nothing more than a bunch of racist. [sic] Judgment is mine says the Lord so who and the hell are you to judge anyone or thing. Your God will own you one day."
"For someone like you, that preaches hate and intolerance, to even reference Dr. King is an obscenity."
"You Christian extremists have no right to discriminate against others and call it 'Religious Freedom'. You hateful, close [sic] minded sheep don't get to redefine marriage for your own purposes."
"You write with the intent to do harm. You write with the intent to destroy. You write with the intent to spread hatred and malice throughout the world. In short, you deserve no respect. You deserve no kindness, and in fact, deserve nothing but to be cast forever into the pits of slime, horned demons and hellfire from whence you have obviously come."
When I read some of these, there is a part of me that screams to the rest of me, “Stop!! Sound the retreat!” I care about being liked, and it is painful to absorb some of these insults, accusations, and general indications of others' desires to see me die in pits of slime!
This may come as a surprise to some, because I do put myself out there on some of the most heated, controversial issues of our time. So yes, in a sense, I am “asking for it.” In a sense we are all "asking for it" when we challenge worldviews that are exalted over what we know to be True.
This time was a little different for me, however. There are plenty of people out there who hate me for my positions on these issues (the pro-life issue, for instance), and I can live with that without losing much sleep. It’s harder for me to live with being hated for being a “racist,” because I am not a racist.
Isn't it just miserable to be misunderstood and wrongly accused? To have our intentions unfairly maligned? But as two different friends, on two separate occasions, have recently reminded me, we are in the service of One who understands us—the good, the bad, and the ugly in us—perfectly.
What to do with that part of us that wants to retreat? It seems perfectly plausible to me. No one is forcing me to speak out or to challenge the hopelessness, confusion, idolatry and futility of the prevailing contemporary worldviews. I could sit here in my perfect health, in my comfortable home, with my healthy, loving family, enjoying all the best that the world has to offer. I could spend the day reading a great classic novel (believe me, this is a constant temptation). But I am simply convinced that God has put me (and YOU!) here to WORK for Him. To point anyone who will listen toward the great Creator. The Inventor of Beauty. The Giver of all wisdom. The Definer of Truth. The Dispenser of Justice. The One who Redeems people like me from the pit.
Every human "good" we observe in this world is but a dim reflection of the One who is the very essence and source of all Goodness. Isn’t it our job to be crying this out in the streets to anyone who will listen--and even to those who will scorn us for it? To be proclaiming that the universal values of mankind--beauty, wisdom, truth, justice, mercy--are but signposts on the pathway toward the Author and Owner of all things “good”?
We will be mocked and insulted, and we will certainly be misunderstood, but we must not be silent.
The Lord of Hosts has been gracious to me, and it is a sweet joy and an honor to do His work. “In [His] service, pain is pleasure, with [His] favor, loss is gain.”
"Maybe if your view was not that of an extremist, people would get it."
"Your [sic] nothing more than a bunch of racist. [sic] Judgment is mine says the Lord so who and the hell are you to judge anyone or thing. Your God will own you one day."
"For someone like you, that preaches hate and intolerance, to even reference Dr. King is an obscenity."
"You Christian extremists have no right to discriminate against others and call it 'Religious Freedom'. You hateful, close [sic] minded sheep don't get to redefine marriage for your own purposes."
"You write with the intent to do harm. You write with the intent to destroy. You write with the intent to spread hatred and malice throughout the world. In short, you deserve no respect. You deserve no kindness, and in fact, deserve nothing but to be cast forever into the pits of slime, horned demons and hellfire from whence you have obviously come."
When I read some of these, there is a part of me that screams to the rest of me, “Stop!! Sound the retreat!” I care about being liked, and it is painful to absorb some of these insults, accusations, and general indications of others' desires to see me die in pits of slime!
This may come as a surprise to some, because I do put myself out there on some of the most heated, controversial issues of our time. So yes, in a sense, I am “asking for it.” In a sense we are all "asking for it" when we challenge worldviews that are exalted over what we know to be True.
This time was a little different for me, however. There are plenty of people out there who hate me for my positions on these issues (the pro-life issue, for instance), and I can live with that without losing much sleep. It’s harder for me to live with being hated for being a “racist,” because I am not a racist.
Isn't it just miserable to be misunderstood and wrongly accused? To have our intentions unfairly maligned? But as two different friends, on two separate occasions, have recently reminded me, we are in the service of One who understands us—the good, the bad, and the ugly in us—perfectly.
What to do with that part of us that wants to retreat? It seems perfectly plausible to me. No one is forcing me to speak out or to challenge the hopelessness, confusion, idolatry and futility of the prevailing contemporary worldviews. I could sit here in my perfect health, in my comfortable home, with my healthy, loving family, enjoying all the best that the world has to offer. I could spend the day reading a great classic novel (believe me, this is a constant temptation). But I am simply convinced that God has put me (and YOU!) here to WORK for Him. To point anyone who will listen toward the great Creator. The Inventor of Beauty. The Giver of all wisdom. The Definer of Truth. The Dispenser of Justice. The One who Redeems people like me from the pit.
Every human "good" we observe in this world is but a dim reflection of the One who is the very essence and source of all Goodness. Isn’t it our job to be crying this out in the streets to anyone who will listen--and even to those who will scorn us for it? To be proclaiming that the universal values of mankind--beauty, wisdom, truth, justice, mercy--are but signposts on the pathway toward the Author and Owner of all things “good”?
We will be mocked and insulted, and we will certainly be misunderstood, but we must not be silent.
The Lord of Hosts has been gracious to me, and it is a sweet joy and an honor to do His work. “In [His] service, pain is pleasure, with [His] favor, loss is gain.”
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
A Tilted Gospel
If you follow my blog, you know that quite a controversy has been stirred up in Harrisonburg about the opening of "The Tilted Kilt" here in town. A couple of weeks ago, following on the heels of two separate Op-Eds raising a variety of concerns about the business, an ad appeared on the back page of the newspaper. It stated:
The River Church WELCOMES THE TILTED KILT TO HARRISONBURG. We know that The Tilted Kilt has come under some fire from people who claim to speak on behalf of people of faith, but we at The River Church want to stand firm in support of business and job growth in our community. While some may pray that the restaurant fail, we believe prayer is best suited to matters of love, hope, healing and peace. ... If you are interested in a church where love and tolerance reigns as it did for Jesus, check us out! All our [sic] welcome!
Now first of all, just to be clear on the facts, my Op-Ed did not mention the word "pray" or "prayer." It did not, in fact, even mention Jesus or Christianity, but focused on the various types of harms that businesses like TK pose to various members of the community and their relationships.
But the clear implication of The River Church's advertisement is that my condemnation of the TK business model (exploiting women's bodies for profit, appealing to men's sexual appetite, damaging relationships) is directly at odds with the "love and tolerance" of Jesus. Unfortunately, this isn't a novel idea, but one that plagues the Body of Christ at every turn. Many Christians and churches have been cowed into silent retreat from the moral debates raging in our society by this stinging accusation that our rejection of certain systems, laws, lifestyles or ideas as "wrong" is a message of judgment and therefore unloving and not Christ-like.
To be sure, Jesus was loving, and He welcomed even the most notorious of sinners to His side. But He never shrugged His shoulders at their sin. His message to the woman caught in adultery was not, "Go, your sin doesn't matter." It was, "Go, and sin no more." He knew all along that her sin, and mine, would cost His life.
The idea of "tough love" sounds trite, but real love is tough. In fact, it is impossible for one to really love another while condoning the other's sin, because all of God's laws have been given to us for our good. And certainly love does not affirm sin as a virtue! A Christian welcoming a business built upon lust into her community is like a mother welcoming a sexual predator into her daughter's bedroom.
How can we, having been rescued from the hopeless existence of a life apart from God, remain silent as friends and neighbors gorge themselves on the counterfeit pleasures of a darkened world? How can we, having been rescued from the quicksand of our sin, tell others who are sinking that they are on solid ground?
When I attended Elkton Pride Day some time ago, I had a long conversation with a Unitarian Universalist minister. I was seeking to understand how he reconciled his views on homosexuality with the Bible. At one point I asked him, "How do you believe people can be saved?" He responded that basically, we just do the best we can to be good. Our conversation came to an end then, as I simply explained that this was a message of condemnation to me, because I know that I am not good. Even the "good" that I try to do is tainted by sinful motives and pride.
And this, essentially is my point. The message of "I'm o.k., you're o.k.," is candy-coated poison. I'm not o.k., and you're not o.k., and that is why Jesus was tortured and killed. But because He took our punishment, there is hope for us, and something so much more, so much better, than the rubbish this world is peddling.
I know a place, a wonderful place
Where accused and condemned
Find mercy and grace
Where the wrongs we have done
And the wrongs done to us
Were nailed there with Him
There on the cross.
-Vineyard
The River Church WELCOMES THE TILTED KILT TO HARRISONBURG. We know that The Tilted Kilt has come under some fire from people who claim to speak on behalf of people of faith, but we at The River Church want to stand firm in support of business and job growth in our community. While some may pray that the restaurant fail, we believe prayer is best suited to matters of love, hope, healing and peace. ... If you are interested in a church where love and tolerance reigns as it did for Jesus, check us out! All our [sic] welcome!
Now first of all, just to be clear on the facts, my Op-Ed did not mention the word "pray" or "prayer." It did not, in fact, even mention Jesus or Christianity, but focused on the various types of harms that businesses like TK pose to various members of the community and their relationships.
But the clear implication of The River Church's advertisement is that my condemnation of the TK business model (exploiting women's bodies for profit, appealing to men's sexual appetite, damaging relationships) is directly at odds with the "love and tolerance" of Jesus. Unfortunately, this isn't a novel idea, but one that plagues the Body of Christ at every turn. Many Christians and churches have been cowed into silent retreat from the moral debates raging in our society by this stinging accusation that our rejection of certain systems, laws, lifestyles or ideas as "wrong" is a message of judgment and therefore unloving and not Christ-like.
To be sure, Jesus was loving, and He welcomed even the most notorious of sinners to His side. But He never shrugged His shoulders at their sin. His message to the woman caught in adultery was not, "Go, your sin doesn't matter." It was, "Go, and sin no more." He knew all along that her sin, and mine, would cost His life.
The idea of "tough love" sounds trite, but real love is tough. In fact, it is impossible for one to really love another while condoning the other's sin, because all of God's laws have been given to us for our good. And certainly love does not affirm sin as a virtue! A Christian welcoming a business built upon lust into her community is like a mother welcoming a sexual predator into her daughter's bedroom.
How can we, having been rescued from the hopeless existence of a life apart from God, remain silent as friends and neighbors gorge themselves on the counterfeit pleasures of a darkened world? How can we, having been rescued from the quicksand of our sin, tell others who are sinking that they are on solid ground?
When I attended Elkton Pride Day some time ago, I had a long conversation with a Unitarian Universalist minister. I was seeking to understand how he reconciled his views on homosexuality with the Bible. At one point I asked him, "How do you believe people can be saved?" He responded that basically, we just do the best we can to be good. Our conversation came to an end then, as I simply explained that this was a message of condemnation to me, because I know that I am not good. Even the "good" that I try to do is tainted by sinful motives and pride.
And this, essentially is my point. The message of "I'm o.k., you're o.k.," is candy-coated poison. I'm not o.k., and you're not o.k., and that is why Jesus was tortured and killed. But because He took our punishment, there is hope for us, and something so much more, so much better, than the rubbish this world is peddling.
I know a place, a wonderful place
Where accused and condemned
Find mercy and grace
Where the wrongs we have done
And the wrongs done to us
Were nailed there with Him
There on the cross.
-Vineyard
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
An Arrow
Sunday night as I was praying for Nathan and tucking him into bed, it struck me that there is an unresolvable tension between living for this world and living for the Kingdom. My realization may have been triggered by Pastor O'Dowd's sermon Sunday morning, which focused, in part, on living out Kingdom values.
My nightly prayer for my kids always involves asking God to use them to build His Kingdom. Whenever I pray this, there is always a nagging thought in the back of my mind: What if God wants to "use" them in a way that is...well...dangerous?
And that brings the issue to the fore. Am I living more for my comfort, pleasure and peace in this world, or am I living as a disciple of One whose end was the cross?
It is so easy, so natural to get caught up in our daily to-do lists that we simply lose a heavenly perspective. I believe that unless we consciously battle this tendency, our focus will become fixed upon what we will make for dinner, how we will earn the next promotion, what kind of car we will buy, which sports our children will play, what we will wear to the next social engagement, where we will go for our next vacation, and on and on. This stuff becomes our life, and God's Kingdom remains a very nice, yet abstract idea that enjoys our full mental assent but commands none of our actual energy or time.
If we really believe what we say we believe, wouldn't a life lived out to the end in this way be something of a failure?
The sheer verbalization of this thought frightens me. I do want a peaceful, comfortable life. But I pray that it will be my desire to be an arrow that is not simply carried about safely in a quiver, but is shot into the battle by a worthy and loving Master.
Am I a soldier of the cross,
A follower of the Lamb,
And shall I fear to own His cause,
Or blush to speak His Name?
Must I be carried to the skies
On flowery beds of ease,
While others fought to win the prize,
And sailed through bloody seas?
Are there no foes for me to face?
Must I not stem the flood?
Is this vile world a friend to grace,
To help me on to God?
Sure I must fight if I would reign;
Increase my courage, Lord.
I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain,
Supported by Thy Word.
Thy saints in all this glorious war
Shall conquer, though they die;
They see the triumph from afar,
By faith’s discerning eye.
When that illustrious day shall rise,
And all Thy armies shine
In robes of victory through the skies,
The glory shall be Thine.
--Isaac Watts
My nightly prayer for my kids always involves asking God to use them to build His Kingdom. Whenever I pray this, there is always a nagging thought in the back of my mind: What if God wants to "use" them in a way that is...well...dangerous?
And that brings the issue to the fore. Am I living more for my comfort, pleasure and peace in this world, or am I living as a disciple of One whose end was the cross?
It is so easy, so natural to get caught up in our daily to-do lists that we simply lose a heavenly perspective. I believe that unless we consciously battle this tendency, our focus will become fixed upon what we will make for dinner, how we will earn the next promotion, what kind of car we will buy, which sports our children will play, what we will wear to the next social engagement, where we will go for our next vacation, and on and on. This stuff becomes our life, and God's Kingdom remains a very nice, yet abstract idea that enjoys our full mental assent but commands none of our actual energy or time.
If we really believe what we say we believe, wouldn't a life lived out to the end in this way be something of a failure?
The sheer verbalization of this thought frightens me. I do want a peaceful, comfortable life. But I pray that it will be my desire to be an arrow that is not simply carried about safely in a quiver, but is shot into the battle by a worthy and loving Master.
Am I a soldier of the cross,
A follower of the Lamb,
And shall I fear to own His cause,
Or blush to speak His Name?
Must I be carried to the skies
On flowery beds of ease,
While others fought to win the prize,
And sailed through bloody seas?
Are there no foes for me to face?
Must I not stem the flood?
Is this vile world a friend to grace,
To help me on to God?
Sure I must fight if I would reign;
Increase my courage, Lord.
I’ll bear the toil, endure the pain,
Supported by Thy Word.
Thy saints in all this glorious war
Shall conquer, though they die;
They see the triumph from afar,
By faith’s discerning eye.
When that illustrious day shall rise,
And all Thy armies shine
In robes of victory through the skies,
The glory shall be Thine.
--Isaac Watts
Sunday, January 6, 2013
A Bit From a Sermon
I love Sunday. This is partly because it is the one day of the week when I feel absolutely justified in just enjoying my family, relaxing, and often exploring nature. But the other reason is because--I confess--I love to hear a good sermon. Now I know that the sermon is not preached for my enjoyment, and I would not have it be so for anything. But my heart rejoices when the Holy Spirit uses one of my pastors or Sunday school teachers to make that one point that I so needed to hear, or to explain a Scripture text to me in a way that never would have occurred to me.
Today at my church, Pastor David O'Dowd referred to Francis Schaeffer. Now I'm already a big Francis Schaeffer fan. He was a mentor to my boss, John Whitehead, and I am currently reading through "How Should We Then Live" with a group of friends from church. Pastor O'Dowd was discussing the fact that over 30 years ago, Schaeffer was already warning us that in the post-Christian era, religious faith would be acceptable as long as it was "privately engaging but publicly irrelevant."
Isn't that what we're dealing with today?
I abhor the way many elected officials and some organizations are unapologetic in taking this stance. You know what I mean: they are outraged that Christians would actually try to live out their faith consistently and publicly, branding this as "trying to force religious beliefs on the rest of us."
But friends, isn't it worse that we actually allow our faith to be "publicly irrelevant" at times? When we are so busy with our jobs, our families, our familiar church circles, that we have no time or energy left to be a light in the dark places all around us in our community, state, nation, and world? While there is a sense in which we certainly can be a light by faithfully caring for our families and church body, isn't our calling broader than that?
Today at my church, Pastor David O'Dowd referred to Francis Schaeffer. Now I'm already a big Francis Schaeffer fan. He was a mentor to my boss, John Whitehead, and I am currently reading through "How Should We Then Live" with a group of friends from church. Pastor O'Dowd was discussing the fact that over 30 years ago, Schaeffer was already warning us that in the post-Christian era, religious faith would be acceptable as long as it was "privately engaging but publicly irrelevant."
Isn't that what we're dealing with today?
I abhor the way many elected officials and some organizations are unapologetic in taking this stance. You know what I mean: they are outraged that Christians would actually try to live out their faith consistently and publicly, branding this as "trying to force religious beliefs on the rest of us."
But friends, isn't it worse that we actually allow our faith to be "publicly irrelevant" at times? When we are so busy with our jobs, our families, our familiar church circles, that we have no time or energy left to be a light in the dark places all around us in our community, state, nation, and world? While there is a sense in which we certainly can be a light by faithfully caring for our families and church body, isn't our calling broader than that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)