Breaking Baptist

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church (in fact, I tell people I was a Southern Baptist nine or ten months before I was born). My husband grew up in an American Baptist church (for my unchurched friends, yes, there is a difference). Over the course of our married life, we've attended an Evangelical Free church, a Methodist church, a Reformed church . . .

But we've always been Baptists at heart, and now we're officially Baptists again. Our family joined Woodland Baptist Church earlier in the summer. And a lot of this feels like coming home. Partly, that's because it's a very traditional church: hymnals, robed choir, Wednesday night dinner and prayer meeting . . . it feels a lot like the church I grew up in.

But we're also coming back to a few things that are Baptist in practice. Such as the monthly business meeting. Baptist congregations are run by the congregation. No bishops and denominational overseers who assign leadership and set rules. No elder boards making decisions on behalf of the congregation. Baptists vote. On everything.

I have "fond" memories of the monthly business meetings at my church. Robert's rules of order. Accepting the minutes from the last meeting. Approving the budget statement for the last month. Acknowledging the change of wording in this and that . . . I move we accept the minutes as revised . . . I second that motion . . . Boring stuff, except when punctuated by the occasional fun controversy. I remember once when a youth leader I respected stood up to protest the amount of money we were spending on lawn maintenance. "I mean, green grass is nice, but it don't save souls!" I thought he had a good point. His motion did not carry.

Another Baptist distinctive: committees. Baptists committee everything to death. Within three days of coming forward to join Woodland -- in fact, about forty minutes before we were officially voted in as members at the monthly business meeting -- we were already invited to be on a committee. In our Welcome to Woodland packet was a printout of the committees and their members: the finance committee, the building and grounds committee, the outreach committee, the personnel committee, the missions committee . . . there is even a Committee on Committees, and no, I am not exaggerating, people. (At my home church, that was called the nominating committee -- same dif.)

And then there was the list of Ministries, which are essentially sub-committees of the committees, in a lot of cases. The prayer ministry, the flower ministry, the kitchen ministry, the ushers and greeters ministry, the handyman ministry. There is no lack of places to plug in.

Yesterday, hubby and I had a meeting with the Young Families and Singles committee to finalize plans for a retreat happening in a couple weeks. (No jokes about that "young families" thing; we questioned whether we still qualified for that label as well, but it seems to be broadly applied.) And while I enjoyed spending time with these people, the meeting reminded me of what I learned as a young person in my home church: running things by committee, while very democratic and safe and fair, is also very inefficient.

I had offered to help two ladies plan a teaching session they are in charge of. They wanted to hang around after the meeting and talk about it in more detail. But here was the thing: I knew what they wanted to do, and being a teacher and a writer, I knew exactly how to set it up. I knew I could whip this out at home on my own in a fourth of the time it would take to talk it through with them -- and if I had something wrong, they could point it out and I could fix it. So, I told them that. They said, "Are you sure?" . . . and I know their concern was that they were dumping all the work on me when they were supposed to be sharing the load, as committees do.

But as I said, the effort to share the load this way in a committee is usually inefficient. God set up the church (and the world, to a degree) as a Body with many parts. Each part is gifted to do particular jobs. If we find the job we are supposed to do and do it, it all works out well. If we try to do jobs we aren't good at, or try to spread the load out in awkward ways, we may look like nice people but we don't work effectively.

The Baptist church is very American in how it runs things. And while I'm quite cognizant of the need to "share the load" (or rather share the power) on a national level to maintain our earthly political liberties, my Baptist heritage has also taught me the advantages of a benevolent, wise dictatorship. Which is good, because the Kingdom that my real citizenship is in is essentially that.

The One About Abortion

This is a long post, and it's a post I don't want to write. I have some friends that I'm pretty sure will tear me up – some politely and gently, some a bit more viciously. But being a believer means doing what God calls you do to even if it gets you torn up, so here I go. Folks, we need to talk about abortion.

I had a friend in high school who worked for many years at George Tiller's clinic. When we re-connected later on Facebook, we had a very civil discussion on the topic. Interestingly enough, she said she usually respected the people who peacefully protested at the clinic (key word, of course: peacefully); they had every right to try to persuade people to agree with their opinion of when life begins, she said.

Because we both agreed that the whole issue really hinges on the question of when, precisely, life begins. If life begins at conception, there is no doubt that abortion is wrong. On the other hand, if life doesn't begin until the fetus leaves the womb, abortion might be legally justified. And if life begins at some vague, arbitrary point in the gestation period . . . which is apparently what most Americans believe these days . . . well, that makes it all awfully fuzzy.

But deciding when a fetus is "alive" is the key to the whole argument. If you believe the fetus is alive, I'm not sure how you can give any justification for ending that life. All the reasons given to justify an abortion immediately cease to apply once the baby leaves the womb and everybody agrees that it is now "alive". Consider:

If the baby is born with some defect or medical condition that wasn't previously detected, nobody argues that it is now, after birth, okay to end that baby's life. If a new mother in a hospital suddenly decides that she isn't qualified or prepared to raise a baby, nobody would argue that it is okay to end that baby's life now, after birth. If a newborn could, in some way, put the life of its mother in danger, nobody would argue that it is okay to just kill the baby to spare the mother, once it's already born. If some terrible tragedy happened in the course of the delivery and that baby will now be a daily reminder to the mother of this trauma in her life, nobody would argue that it is okay to end that baby's life, after its birth, to spare the mother her emotional struggle.  Nobody argues that, because a newborn baby cannot survive independently without the nurturing of another that it is "unviable", and it is okay to allow it to die.

These arguments only apply to fetuses, to babies still in the womb, and they only apply if 1) the fetus is not really "alive" and 2) it is just a part of the mother's body that she can choose what to do with. (And you must believe both, by the way: none of this nonsense about the baby being alive but the mother still has a legal right to choose what to do with it. That's obscene rationalization. Yeah, I'll get crucified for that statement, but that's the truth, people. If you believe that baby is alive, but you think the mother should have a legal right to end its life because "it's her choice" . . . well, I don't know what to do with you.)

Here's the heart of what I want to say: whatever your religious stance, it is hard for me to understand -- based on what we know today, forty-some years after Roe v. Wade -- how you can come to these two beliefs (especially after the 1^st trimester or so) unless you just want them to be true.

I'm not going to rag on Planned Parenthood and what they may or may not be doing that is illegal or immoral. But I do want to focus on something that came out in all those videos. Fetuses that they abort have organs. Intact (before they are mangled by the aborting process), visibly identifiable human organs. Even sexual organs ("It's another boy!" one of the technicians said).

These fetuses have DNA that is distinctly different from their mothers'. I don't know the legal or scientific definitions that apply to all this, but personally, I don't need the law or science to tell me that different DNA is a clear indication of a different human being, not simply a part of a human being growing inside itself.

These fetuses have beating hearts. I heard Chris Christie say the other day that he changed his position on abortion when he heard the heart of his child beating at his wife's OB appointment soon after the first trimester. This is a common story; there are many, many people out there whose feelings about the fetus changed when they heard that early heartbeat or saw that early ultrasound. This is why pro-life clinics try to give pregnant women ultrasounds as early as possible.

(And I don't understand why pro-choice people are so angry about this practice. If they are really about women having a choice, why are they opposed to women having all the available information before making that choice? My friend told me that at Tiller's clinic, they went way out of their way to be sure these women really wanted an abortion – they had no interest in performing procedures that the mother may regret someday. If this is the case with abortion providers, why would they fight the ultrasounds?

Pro-choice people vehemently protest that they are NOT pro-abortion; it's not that they want babies aborted – they just want women to have the choice. If that's true, why would they be pushing the medical route that is most likely to result in an abortion? If they are NOT "pro-abortion," why do they seem to be actively trying to prevent a pregnant woman from having any possible reason to change their mind about the procedure, from making any emotional connection with the fetus?  Why would they pointedly discourage a practice that helps pregnant women recognize and embrace the role of "mother"?  Why would they not rejoice at this? Aren't loving connections between mother and child a positive thing for society overall? Really, I don't understand this.)

Again, I'm afraid to bring this up, because I don't have the knowledge, energy, or time to make the pro-life case to friends who will get riled by my post. And I'm quite sure anyone who wants to can nickpick a million holes in everything I've said here – in everything every pro-life advocate would say. And I'm certainly not denying that there are pregnancy situations where I might wish abortion was okay (my friend described 9-year-old girls who were brought in for abortions after being raped – dear God – no, I would have no idea how to counsel someone in that situation, and that's the truth).

But those extreme situations are extremely rare . . . and arguing the individual points here can shield us from seeing the obvious big picture of what abortion is and how it is happening in our country. Don't focus on defending the trees and miss the layout of the forest – back up and look at this forest we've created. I want to urge my pro-choice friends to really consider what brought you to this position. Listen to your heart. Your gut. To justify abortion, you must believe that there is no life in that fetus. Can you honestly look at those videos, listen to those heartbeats, view those ultrasounds, and believe this is not a life?

If you can, I guess our conversation is done. If you realize that you can't, then God has answered some prayers today.

The Cornelius Decision

So, who else is watching "A.D.", the TV series? I rarely read any comments about it on FB, even from my rabid Christian friends, so I wonder.

It hasn't grabbed me and addicted me (like other shows I'm having to wait until the fall to see again . . . grrr), but it's interesting. Some folks are probably upset about the "extra-biblical" material, angles on the story that were not in the original text. The traveling Ethopian eunuch was involved in a plot against the Romans? James arranged with Caiaphas for the Jesus-followers to be accepted into the temple again? And John the disciple as a black man . . . I understand the desire for ethnic diversity here, but that's really stretching things.

I'm not necessarily bothered by these angles, though. It concerns me a little that the biblically illiterate will watch this and think this is all in the Bible, but because none of it that I've seen yet is contradictory to the important message and spirit of the text, I'm okay with it so far. In fact, as a Bible student and script writer, I'm pretty fascinated by the background stories they are supposing here, based on the sketchy details we are given in the book.

We just caught up yesterday on the episode we missed on vacation. And this was an episode I've been waiting for. From the beginning, when Pilate sent his top centurion out to do some violence and called him Cornelius, I've been waiting for the soldier's conversion -- because I knew this HAD to be that Cornelius. And it was. Great idea to have such a crucial character to the gospel story involved in everything from the start, even though in the Bible he pops up pretty randomly and isn't heard from again.

So, yesterday, Cornelius met Jesus. And he is then immediately called in by Pilate to lead his squadron of soldiers to bring the golden statue of Caligula into the Jewish temple . . . and to kill every Jew that tries to stop them. He's a soldier; he's been given orders, orders he must obey or he will be killed himself. Peter asks him what he will do. Cornelius responds that he will pray that the Holy Spirit shows him what to do. Good answer.

So, Cornelius marches his troops with the offensive statue to the gates of the temple, where he politely asks (there's a change right there) the high priest to step aside so he can fulfill his orders. In answer, Caiaphas offers his throat -- kill me if you must, I won't allow you to desecrate God's temple. Cornelius must decide which master he will obey: his earthly master or his heavenly master. And he must decide in a very public way, with EVERYONE watching. He hesitates.

And in that moment, the mob behind him attacks his squadron, and he is left alone kneeling and praying with his new Christian brothers, while the battle rages without his participation. And his soldiers don't seem to notice.

The episode ended before we found out if there will be consequences for Cornelius not obeying Pilate's orders. I suspect there will be. But isn't it interesting that this episode aired now? An episode that deals with the question of what do I do when doing my job, when obeying governmental authority, goes directly against what I know is God's will?

I'm anxious to see how this will play out in "A.D." I'm even more anxious to see how it will play out in my country.

The Isms

I've been vacationing with the family, so I haven't written for a while. And what I'm going to write about today, I'm a little nervous about, because believe it or not, I don't like controversy. But it's been heavy on my heart, and I feel like I need to say it.

The shooting in Charleston. So terribly sad. But as I joined the online grieving, I was convicted by some of the comments I read. Sentiments along the lines of, "How could this still be happening in our country?" "I thought we had moved past this!" "When will we eradicate racism in our society?"

Sentiments I would have shared in the not-so-distant past, but I don't think I can share today. Because, friends, I don't think we will ever "move past this." I don't think we will ever "eradicate racism." Not really. And so, as much as we need to fight racism, we've really got to focus on a more important task.

I just re-read a book over vacation that I'll be assigning my daughter in English class this fall: The Deadliest Monster. It compares the worldviews of two classic monster stories (which she will also be reading). In Frankenstein, the doctor creates a being who is pure and innocent in its creation; it only becomes a monster when it is treated cruelly by society. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll recognizes within himself a virtuous self and an evil self and tries to isolate the evil self so as to be able to indulge it once in a while without damage to his reputation; however, the evil self, through the indulgence, becomes more and more powerful and eventually takes over.

The question in this book is, which monster do you believe in? Modern society believes in Frankenstein. We are born good -- the only reason we do bad things is because society messes us up. The solution then is to fix society (laws, education, etc.) so that people are never "trained" to do bad things. We need to pass strong hate crime laws, integrate our schools and neighborhoods, and teach our kids that we are all equal. Then we will get past racism. We will eradicate it.

But the reality is that we are not Frankensteins -- we are Jekyll/Hydes. We are not born good -- we are born with an evil self lurking within us. We are born selfish little snits that need to be "trained" to do good. Racism (at least the selfish, prideful seed that becomes racism) is within us from the womb.

There's an old saying that God doesn't have grandchildren, only children. Righteousness is not passed down from generation to generation. It is not a legacy we leave our offspring. Good manners, maybe. Religious traditions, certainly. Moral habits and desires, perhaps. But not righteousness. Righteousness must be re-born in every individual, one at a time. Who was it that said "We are always one generation away from apostasy"? This is truth. One generation.

I long for a day when our world is genuinely color-blind . . . and gender-blind, and class-blind, and blind to every difference between us that doesn't matter. When my friend's dark brown skin is of no more consequence than my other friend's bright red hair. When we stop celebrating women's history month because women's history is just American history.

But the truth is, IF that day were to ever come, there would still be those who find a reason to hate a group of other people and use guns or bombs to kill them. "Racism" may not be the cause, but there will always be an "ism". No matter what laws we pass . . . no matter how we educate . . . there will always be an "ism".

Because God doesn't have grandchildren. Racism is not a result of bad training; it is a result of an unrighteous heart. The re-birthing of righteous hearts: that's what will stop the isms.

Thoughts While Taking Communion Yesterday

This is the body of Christ, broken for you.

Broken for me. Because I'm a sinner, and that's what it took to get me back into a right relationship with God.

And Lord KNOWS, I'm a sinner. These people who go around thinking, "I'm not so sinful -- my good outweighs my bad, so I'm safe on judgment day" . . . seriously? Have they read the Ten Commandments? Do they understand the standards here? Complete submission to God is a formidable challenge, and nothing less than complete submission counts.

I sin all the time. I sin sins that I know are sins even while I'm sinning them. I wake up saying I'm not going to do this, and I still do it. I hate what I do, and I do it anyway. Over and over. There are certain sins that I've stopped doing over the years, but I'm well aware that it wasn't me and my self-control that ended that behavior. It was an act of God. Praise Him.

The body of Christ, broken for me, because I can't take care of this myself. Thank you, Jesus.

And now, at Christmas, I'm happy to be reminded that your whole reason for coming to earth was for this body-breaking moment. Yes, it is good to hear your preaching . . . but most people didn't really listen and don't really listen. Yes, it was beneficial to see your example of righteous living . . . but most people weren't and aren't paying attention. All that was good, but if those were your sole purposes for coming to us, your mission was not very successful. But that wasn't your mission. Your mission was not to instruct my mind, or to inspire my spirit, but to save my soul.

PRAISE YOU. And thank you!

This is the blood of Christ, shed for you.

Shed to establish a new covenant. We've been learning about that in BSF. A covenant -- a commitment with a promise -- but stronger than those words imply.

An unconditional covenant . . . there's nothing I have to do (or can do) to earn the benefits of this covenant, except receive it. Thank you, Lord.

A one-sided covenant . . . God did all the promising. We just enjoy the things promised. Praise you, Jesus!

But I can't receive it unless I believe. Just like I can't "receive" my husband's love unless I believe that he really loves me. As long as I doubt his love, I have my guard up. I don't get to experience the benefits of his love for me without making myself vulnerable. I have to believe, and believe strongly enough to risk getting burned if I'm wrong. "There is no fear in love," James tells us.

And there is no unbelief in the covenant. Only faith. "The righteous shall live by faith." I believe, Lord; help thou my unbelief.

The blood of Christ, shed for me. To make a covenant with me before I even knew Him.

Thank you, Jesus.

Do this in remembrance of me.

Old Testament Law, Justice, and Slavery

Our BSF study this year is about the life of Moses, and it covers the Old Testament books of the law, the complicated parts that everyone gets bogged down with and argues over. I've been particularly looking forward to this study. For one thing, I've always wanted to understand those books better -- to know how to apply them to our modern life. But more than that, I had many friends back in my early years of BSF who said that this particular year of BSF was life-changing for them.

So, last night was our first lesson actually starting to get into the specific laws (Exodus 21-24). And because we're just getting into it, I'm not yet going to claim any grand revelations or insights. But I did find some things interesting . . . and I did get hints of grand revelations and insights that may be to come.

- There are three types of Law given in the Old Testament. The first is the Moral Law, represented by the Ten Commandments. These were described as laws about "how to live as individuals." They are binding upon all people at all times, throughout history and throughout cultures.

-The second type were the civil laws. These were about "how to live as a nation", and they specifically applied to Israel in its theocracy at that time. Many (probably most) people argue that these laws do not directly apply to us today. However, they reveal the character of God, and therefore the principles behind them should be applied today.

- The third type were the ceremonial laws. We haven't read these yet, but they involve the sacrifices and so forth which maintained Israel's relationship with a righteous God. Jesus' sacrifice fulfilled all of these. They do not apply anymore.

- But going back to those civil laws: these are the most controversial because it takes discernment to figure out what to do with these. But again, if you are looking at the principles behind them, a couple things stood out to me.

- There is a whole group of laws that apply to personal injury and property rights (Ex 21:12 - 22:15). Here is where we find the first instance of that old adage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." And what's interesting is that, this does seem to be the first instance of that concept. Like, ever. In ancient times, retaliation was the rule. If somebody did you wrong, you got back, and often in a really big way. This principle was given to ensure that punishment was equal in proportion to the offense, and it was rather revolutionary in that respect, apparently.

In other words, the laws were an attempt to teach the Israelites (and through them, the rest of the world) about Justice, a primary trait of God's. God is just . . . in fact, He is Justice; the only understanding we have of the concept of justice comes to us from where God has inserted Himself into our world and our understanding. On our own human understanding, we only get retaliation. But when we are taught justice, we recognize it as good, because we are made in God's image, although that image has been corrupted.

Now, when Jesus was on earth, he went even further: "You have heard it said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you . . . if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other one, also." Jesus taught mercy and self-sacrifice. Not that justice was now invalid . . . but Jesus' coming was the beginning of the era when we can be indwelled by the Spirit and enabled to do beyond what our human nature allows . . . when we are enabled to be Christ-like.

- Another note: this passage talks about slavery, and I know many are troubled by the fact that the Bible seems to "endorse" slavery. But slavery as discussed in the civil laws given by Moses is a different animal than our modern notion of slavery. First, the law called for the death penalty for anyone who kidnapped and sold any person. Clearly, this type of slavery (which is basically ALL modern or recent forms of slavery) is out of God's will. Hebrews, it seems, took slaves as payments on debts or punishments for crimes -- that kind of thing. Slavery as it happened in the United States, and as it continues around the world today, would have been unacceptable in the ancient Hebrew state.

Second, permanent, involuntary servitude was not allowed among the Hebrews; slaves were to be freed in their seventh year -- and even given a share of the flock and food to be able to start a new life and avoid falling into slavery again.

Third, a slave's family was respected and considered. Families were not torn apart, as often happened in slavery in America.

Fourth -- and this is most telling to me -- slaves were offered the option of choosing to become a permanent slave to their master rather than taking their freedom in the seventh year. And this option was often chosen. Apparently, slavery was not always undesirable. Hebrew slaves were treated well, considered part of the family, were protected by strict laws about their care, and were often quite devoted to their masters. (This particular concept of choosing to become a permanent bondservant is a model of our relationship with God as believers. A topic for another post.)

And again, we see new standards set in the New Testament, after Jesus ushers in the Age of the Holy Spirit, when we are enabled to "be holy as He is holy." In the New Testament book of Philemon, Paul writes to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus, Philemon's slave who ran away and then met Paul and became a Christian. Paul is encouraging Onesimus to return to his master and submit to him . . . but he is also encouraging Philemon (also a Christian) to see his relationship with his slave as changed. "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever -- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."

Paul doesn't call for the elimination of the slave/master relationship -- as practiced in Israel, that institution actually revealed important things about God and about man. But just as Jesus encouraged us to go beyond simple justice to godly mercy, Paul encourages Philemon to go beyond his rights as a slaveowner to a relationship based on brotherhood in Christ.


Just a few things I noted . . . none completely digested and analyzed yet . . . more insights to come as the year progresses, I'm sure.

The Stupidity of Crawling the Fence

A pastor we heard yesterday made an important observation about the Law, specifically the Ten Commandments. Note the words at the beginning of Exodus 20:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

This is what He says before He starts giving them the Law. "I am the Lord your God." Not "I will be the Lord your God once you get your act together and start following these laws," but "I'm your God now -- our relationship is already established. These laws don't create a relationship between us; they maintain that relationship and protect you."

You all know we got a dog in January. Wheatly. Cutest dog ever. Had there not already been a fence around our yard, we probably would have put one up after we brought him home. Not to make Wheatly our dog, but because Wheatly is our dog, and we want to keep it that way.

Say Wheatly got out of the confines of our fence somehow and ended up in the neighbors' yard. They may have called us to say, "Hey, we have your dog." We would not have responded by saying, "Oh, no, that can't be. If he's out of our yard, outside of our fence, he's not our dog. Any dog of ours would be inside of our fence."

No, inside or outside of our fence, we still claim him. He still belongs to us. The fence doesn't make him our dog. The fence allows us to take care of him, to protect him, and to enjoy him -- and allows him to enjoy us, which he does.

This is how the Law works that God gave his people. He didn't give it to us as part of a contract: you do your part by obeying all these commands, and I'll do my part by taking care of you. Our relationship is only intact when we both keep up the contract. Stop obeying the rules, and I'm no longer under obligation to consider you mine. The relationship will be cut off.

No, the relationship came first. The relationship came by His initiation, His invitation, and our acceptance. He loves us and claims us no matter what we do, because we are His and never stop being so. The fence -- the rules -- are not there to establish the relationship but to make the relationship work. To protect us and to keep us in a place where we can actually enjoy each other.

The fence-crawlers, those always looking for a gap where they can get to the other side of the rules . . . they would do much better to relax and realize the joy and peace of living in relationship with the Father. I am the Lord . . . your God. The world outside the fence ain't got nothin' on life with Him.

Just What Gives You the Big Idea that You Should Be Free?

My eldest got tired of listening to talk radio yesterday and pulled out an old Adventures in Odyssey cassette to listen to. Boy, did that send me back! My little ones buckled into their car seats behind me and John Avery Whitaker's soothing voice coming through the speakers. Enjoyed those years.

The tape she picked was the story of a boy who gets bonked on the head and goes back to Revolutionary War time (I never said the stories were realistic -- just fun). He ends up in the middle of the Continental Congress session where they are debating whether or not to declare their independence from Britain. John Dickinson from Pennsylvania is arguing vehemently and eloquently against the idea. When he realizes he can't convince them, he graciously steps down from his position so they can proceed with a united front. (Wikipedia tells me he then joined the Pennsylvania militia. Fascinating man.)

Listening to the story made the girls and I wonder: how exactly did the founding fathers, the leaders
who led our country into making this radical and dangerous move, get this all-consuming passion for "freedom"? I don't think any other country in the world had "freedom" in this way. Where did they get the idea from to begin with, and what made them so convinced they had to have it that they were willing to stake their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor on it? People all over the world lived contented lives under governments that controlled much of their lives -- why did the Americans find this so intolerable?

How Then Shall We Live by Francis Schaeffer compared the American Revolution to the French Revolution . . . but he first compares the Reformation to the Renaissance. He sees them both as reactions to the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. In northern Europe, people reacted by separating from the church and forming the Protestant denominations, based on believers reading the Word for themselves and being accountable to God individually. In southern Europe, people reacted by rejecting the premises of Christianity altogether and celebrating the greatness of man on his own -- the Enlightenment and so forth.

The American Revolution grew out of the Reformation tradition, Schaeffer says, and that's why it succeeded. The French Revolution grew out of Renaissance and Enlightenment thinking, and that's why it failed within a few years and Napoleon took over.

Now, this may be a bit simplistic of a view of things (and I haven't read the book in a while -- I may be simplifying it too much), but I do know that even the founding fathers argued that America needed godly principles to keep it going. "Only a virtuous people is capable of freedom," Ben Franklin said. And John Adams agreed: "Our Constitution is made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We know that the founding fathers were influenced at least some by Enlightenment thinking, and that they were rather mixed and varied in their religious views, some more orthodox than others. But we also know that they all came out of a tradition of Protestantism, and they seemed to operate on a public level as Protestant believers even when their private views were more murky. Am I right in surmising that their passion for "freedom" came from their understanding of their relationship to God? Hmmm.

Listening to Dickinson's arguments made me think a lot of the arguments I hear liberal friends make justifying what conservatives feel is dramatic over-reach of the government. Wouldn't we all love to hear that Constitutional Convention crowd discuss, say, Obamacare? I'd buy tickets for that show.

Killing Ourselves in the Name of Happiness

My daughter was watching an episode of “Sam and Cat” on the Disney channel. Sam and Cat's favorite soft drink, Blue Dog, was declared illegal in the state of California because it had too much sugar in it and "some people drink too much of it." Folks from the Federal Bureau of Interference came to confiscate all the Blue Dog soda out of the store they were in.

The Federal Bureau of Interference. Yes, the producers had a statement to make here.

Interestingly, my daughter thought this was a spoof on Prohibition. Glad to see she's been paying attention in history class. But her dad and I filled her in on the current issues this was about.

Here's the thing, folks. Is there anybody out there who doesn't know that drinking too much pop is bad for you? Really – anyone?

Okay, maybe there are a few clueless folks. Eliminate them from the discussion here. The bulk of us are well aware that drinking too much pop is bad for you. Too much sugar. Leads to obesity and diabetes. Rots your teeth. Messes with your blood sugar. We know this.

So, why do we keep drinking so much pop?

Indeed, why do we continue to consume all the crap out there that's bad for us? Coffee, candy bars, refined sugar, transfats, red dyes, beer . . . how many times do we have to hear this stuff? How many dress sizes do we have to increase . . . how many illnesses do we have do endure . . . how many drugs do we have to be prescribed . . . how many premature deaths of the one we love do we need to witness before we understand that we are literally killing ourselves with the way we eat?

Those aren't really rhetorical questions, either. As I've mentioned before here, I am a hopeless carb and sugar addict. I'm well aware of how bad this is for me, but I continue to eat this way. A few weeks ago in BSF, the teaching leader said something on a completely different topic, but the Lord turned the words around to say to me, in my heart, how many times do you need to hear that all the sugar you eat is keeping you from the life I have for you?

Uh . . five more?

The unfortunate answer is that hearing the truth and knowing the truth doesn't always result in acting on the truth. We eat crap (and smoke, and watch trash on TV, and gossip, and . . . and . . . ) because it makes us feel good. And feeling good has become the purpose of existence in our modern times, the thing that gives meaning to life. A book I'm reading talks about how in past cultures, people found meaning in life through honor, or community, or "leaving a legacy", or even through enduring suffering well. In this age of technological advancement, comfort and happiness is our idol of choice.

Which, as this book discusses, gives us no "spiritual" resources for dealing with the inevitable suffering of life. The only salve our god can give us is escape through more overdose of comfort and happiness . . . and thus we have a nation of addicts.

It's crazy, isn't it? We know that doing this stuff in excess is bad for us. We know that continuing in this path will ruin us.  We know that what gives us pleasure today will eventually take us captive and end all real pleasure in our lives. But we keep doing it.

What pitiful saps we are that we require laws to force us to do what we know will make us truly happy. Sad.

O-Kandt-a-Care

I was determined not to write about Obamacare again. Really, quite determined. I may still live to regret this post.

But one of my biggest frustrations about the whole situation is the Republicans' inability to come up with a viable alternative. Annoys me to death. Stop rallying us against the ACA, and give us something to rally for. So this weekend, when my husband described to me his ideas for how to reform healthcare, I was intrigued. 

Here's his plan. Call it “O-Kandt-a-care”. (Nah, don't call it that.) Don't get too hung up on numbers and particulars here; it's a broad concept with details negotiable at this point.

It starts with the baseline that government will cover any citizen's medical expenses once they exceed $5,000 in a year -- basically universal catastrophic coverage. Nobody will go into bankruptcy from catastrophic or long-term illness or injury, and nobody will die for lack of healthcare in such situations. The government will also fund basic screenings and annual exams to detect such issues before they reach the catastrophic state.

But everyone – for the most part – will still be responsible for finding that first $5,000 a year to pay for their own healthcare needs. Yeah, some folks may have to stretch a bit some years, do some creative budgeting, but if you know up front to plan for that much in a year, you figure out how to do it. And many people will never spend that much (that's why they opt for these "substandard plans" that Obamacare is eliminating).

For those who genuinely don't have $5,000 a year (and there are many that don't), this is where private charity and the goodwill of the people come in. And yes, I realize many of you simply don't trust the goodwill of the people to step up to the plate, but I believe people WILL when the need is clear and limited. Perhaps low-interest medical loans can be offered to those who need them. But between family, friends, churches, charities, and low-interest loans, people should be able to find means to pay for their medical needs up to $5,000 a year – especially when the government is paying for basic screenings and check-ups. 

(Again, don't get hung up on the number -- it's negotiable. And maybe the amount can be adjusted lower for families with lower incomes – a graduated scale, like with income taxes? That's my input there, not part of hubby's idea.)

This also leaves open the possibility that if someone wants to purchase health insurance that gives them a better deal than this (or get it as a benefit from their employer), they are free to do so. A $5,000 upper limit still makes a company plan a desirable benefit, so companies will still choose to offer them. And by all means, let insurance companies offer whatever plans there is a demand for, like a business should work; not everyone wants to pay the money for all the bells and whistles being required now.

Again, details still need to be worked out here. It's not a perfect plan – no plan ever would be. There will be those who fall through the cracks somewhere – there always will be. But nobody is required to purchase anything (something I still can't believe is constitutional). Insurance companies can function as the market allows. People have to take some personal responsibility for themselves and for their neighbors. There is still a safety net. And best of all: it's SIMPLE. No two-thousand-page document is necessary to explain this. It seems to me that this is a better alternative than what we're ending up with now.

Questions will be directed to my husband and may take a little time to get an answer (he's got a "real" job, after all). And they'd better be nice. We're all friends here.  :)

Thinking . . .

We visited yet another church yesterday -- yet another that I think we're not interested in.  But the sermon on the rich young ruler did prompt some interesting thought and discussion over lunch . . .

. . . on sacrificing.  Jesus asked that man to give up all his wealth.  He didn't ask every rich person he met to give up all his wealth.  But this young man apparently needed to do so because his wealth was what was standing in the way of his following Jesus.  And he went away sad, because he wasn't willing to give it up.  So, if I met Jesus face to face and asked him what I needed to do to inherit eternal life, what would he tell me to give up?  What's the thing standing in my way?
 

. . . on our real desires.  The man came to Jesus asking how to inherit eternal life -- he was looking in the right direction.  He had kept the laws all his life -- he was a good man, as his religious society would define it.  We often think of this dude as arrogant and full of himself, but if he was that arrogant and casual about his religion, he wouldn't have come to Jesus asking for more information.  I think he was sincere in his desire to know and do the right thing.  He just didn't like the answer he was given and wouldn't accept it.  His desire for his own way, a way he liked, was stronger than his desire for righteousness.  His desire for a simple program to follow was stronger than his desire for God.


. . . on forgiveness.  Something in our discussion prompted my eldest to remark, "I don't get it.  People say that when you do awful stuff, you can be forgiven -- it's not going to stand in the way of your getting into heaven.  But then people say that if you continue to sin, you won't get into heaven.  Which is it?"  Good question.  I replied that it's a matter of the heart.

There's Person A, who loves God and believes Jesus' death was on her behalf and is grateful for God's forgiveness.  She accepts Christ as her Lord and genuinely strives to do what He wants her to do.  She messes up sometimes, as we all do, and it grieves her when she does because she wants to please her Lord.  And as she grows in her relationship with God, she also grows in holiness.

Then there's Person B, who loves God and believes Jesus' death was on her behalf and is grateful for God's forgiveness.  In fact, she's very grateful, because she sins all the time and doesn't really want to stop sinning.  Her sin doesn't grieve her; she's more grieved at the idea of having to give up the stuff that she enjoys so much.  Deep down, she doesn't really believe that what God has in mind for her is better than this, so she never really trusts Him enough to let go.  So, she doesn't ever really grow in her relationship with God, but she certainly grows in her hypocrisy.

Person A is forgiven.  Person B might not be. Person B is still her own lord.


. . . on knowing what God wants.  As the discussion continues, my eldest got to the question of, "How are we supposed to know what God wants us to do in every situation?"  A timely question -- one hubby and I have dealt with all summer long with all the little decisions we had to make in the course of this move. 

So I shared with her the conviction I had this summer.  The fact is, there are scads of things that we know perfectly well that God wants us to do.  God wants us to pray.  God wants us to know his Word.  God wants us to forgive those who wrong us.  God wants us to actively love our neighbor.  God wants us to help the poor.  God wants us to be actively involved in a church body.  God wants us to rejoice in Him always. And how many of these things are we doing on a regular basis?  How many of these basic, undeniable things are we blowing off, presuming on God's forgiveness?  And then we're annoyed that He doesn't come through in some mighty way to show us His will about what college to go to, or what house to buy?  I think if we would follow through on the basics -- the stuff we KNOW to do -- then our relationship will be solid enough to hear His voice clearly on the rest.

It's kind of like the dad who is willing to buy his daughter whatever expensive, fancy car she wants -- what car does she want him to buy?  Just say the word!  When really, the daughter couldn't care less about a car.  She wants him to sit and talk to her once in a while. 


As I said.  Interesting thought and discussion.

Justice and Mercy

I got a ticket on the way to King's Pointe waterpark last Friday.  The irony is that I was in the middle of an informal driver's ed lesson with my youngest ("A double yellow line means no traffic can pass; when the line is dotted on our side, we can pass;" etc.) when I saw the cop's lights start to flash and he turned around to pull up behind me.

The road had just narrowed from a four-lane highway to a two-lane highway, and I hadn't noticed the speed limit went down from 65 to 55.  That makes 67 in a 55 sound not as bad, right?  In theory, I suppose.  But I was bracing myself for a big ticket.

The policeman was very friendly. He was also very kind and merciful.  When he brought me my ticket, he explained that he wrote that I was driving 60 so the fine would be less.  Now THAT's something I've never experienced before.  I thanked him appreciatively and inched back on the highway slowly and carefully.

"That's was nice of him to write down a lower speed," I commented to my daughter.

"But . . . it was a lie.  Isn't that wrong for him to do?" she asked.  

Sigh.  Well, maybe so.  But I explained that he was being merciful, and mercy is a good thing -- and she seemed satisfied.

But it did gnaw at me a bit, because the truth was, the policeman was probably wrong to do that.  He wasn't being just; he wasn't dealing with me as my transgressions deserved.  Yeah, I know we can start talking about my intentions and my past driving record and the severity of the crime and the obscurity of the speed limit sign, and we can find all sorts of ways to rationalize that I didn't deserve a ticket for 67 in a 55.  But the truth is, that's exactly what I did, and the law prescribes a specific penalty for that, and he did not uphold that law.  Not that I'm complaining, but it's a fact.

We like to think of justice as being a bit squishy when it needs to be applied to us in our transgressions and as rock hard solid when it needs to be applied to us in our victimizations.  But a just judge simply applies the law rightly every time.  I commented quite a while back about a Tim Keller book where he explains a cultural difference in the way we view God in our world.  In the Western world, we are troubled with how a loving God could punish someone severely.  In other parts of the world, they are troubled with how a just God can NOT punish someone severely for great sin they committed.  That wouldn't be just.

And God is both just and loving.  The fullness of both extremes, as I wrote recently.  This dilemma is the meaning behind the cross.  A just God could not allow sin to go unpunished.  A loving God had to provide a way to save his children.

After nearly 45 years of churchy life, it's amazing how much I keep coming to understand about the cross.

Swimming Against the Current

I had a couple friends comment that my last post was appropriate for the day the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions came down.  Truth is, what I wrote was not in response to or in anticipation of the Supreme Court's business -- it was just my heart these days.

But I do have a response to SCOTUS's actions.  I hesitate to write it, however, because someone else already has -- a man named Ed Stetzer in this article here.  There are a few points of his I'd like to elaborate on, though.  Actually more than I can cover in one post, so expect a short series here.

The first concerns this remark he makes:  "We must realize that believing what the Bible says about sexuality will increasingly put us at odds with our culture. Pressure will continue to mount to accept a worldview rooted in cultural acceptance rather than biblical revelation. And we must prepare ourselves for the day when acceptance will not be enough—affirmation may be demanded to be a part of society."  (emphasis mine)

I have friends who insist to me that affirmation will never be demanded.  And I think they probably believe that.  I don't.  I hope I'm wrong -- and if I am, I will gladly admit so and eat my words publicly.  But I fully expect that there will come a day in America when I and others like me who continue to believe that homosexuality is not a way of life blessed by God will be ostracized and persecuted.  I expect businesses to be shut down . . . I expect preachers and other public speakers to be fined or jailed . . . and I absolutely, positively expect to lose friends, maybe even long-time ones.  And I will cry when that happens.

My fear, however, is that THAT fear is what is driving the ever-waning opposition to the gay rights bandwagon -- and what is driving once-opposing people to hop on.  I suspect that an awful lot (maybe even a majority) of the people who complain about the legalization of gay marriage do so not because they have any concern about the welfare of those who engage in the practice.  They do so because they don't want the wind to shift against them.  They don't want their lives to get hard.

As long as Biblical Christianity was the default in America, people like me have been swimming with the current.  From now on, we'll be swimming upstream, against the current, and some of us fighting to stay afloat.  And THAT's what people are afraid of.

So, a word to my complaining friends:  suck it up.  Nobody promised you a rose garden.  Quite the opposite.  "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also", Jesus said.  There are people in other countries right now who are put in jail, who have their homes and businesses burned to the ground, and who are tortured and killed for their faith.  Paul talks about the joy of being considered worthy of suffering for the Lord.  Christian martyrs in ancient Rome went to their deaths joyously singing hymns.  We are WIMPS.

A strong body requires exercise.  A strong mind requires study.  And a strong faith . . . well, it probably requires persecution.  So be it.

More next week . . .

Theocracy

Hubby and I recently had a profound conversation (snicker) about ancient Israel and the Law and the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and so forth . . . because we’re all religious and intellectual like that.

I remarked on how frustrated I get at many Christians pulling out stuff from the Old Testament and God’s relationship to Israel and applying that to America today.  Ancient Israel was a theocracy.  God lived in the tabernacle, God gave them the laws, God spoke and judged through the prophets.  In fact, it was the only genuine theocracy ever, probably – that is, direct rule by God. 

The United States is NOT a theocracy.   It is a democratic republic.  Applying the practices of a theocracy to a democratic republic just doesn’t work.

But this brought us to an interesting question:  what if we had to live in a theocracy?  What if the only nations that existed were all ruled by the heads of religion?  I would love to ask my non-religious friends, what religious theocracy would you choose to live under if you had to live under one?  Do you want the Pope for your Emperor?  Or a Muslim imam?  The Dalai Lama? 

Considering that Christianity is probably the most familiar religious system to most Americans and would perhaps feel the most comfortable, I kind of bet most of my friends would say they’d choose a Christian nation . . . IF that nation was actually legitimately run on actual Christian principles, on the genuine teachings of the Bible and not on the selfish, arrogant Pharisaic rules of sinful men pronounced in the name of Christ.

And there’s the problem with a theocracy, any theocracy.  Apart from that brief moment in history when God lived in a tabernacle among his chosen people, theocracy on earth isn’t really “rule by God”; it is “rule by a bunch of fallible and sinful people who think they know what God wants”.  Even if they legitimately wanted to run a country based on Christian principles, they would be fallible and possibly mistaken in their interpretation of those principles . . . and they would be sinful and subject to being corrupted by their power and warping it all.

Which is why we have a democratic republic where religious freedom is protected.  Until the new heaven and new earth of revelation is here, and “the tabernacle of God is with men” once again, this is the best we can do.

 

"Our Schoolmaster To Bring Us . . ."

School . . .

"School" is a means to force someone into the behaviors that are associated with education.  At school, you are required to devote certain time periods to certain subjects – you are required to listen to someone trying to deciminate information – you are required to read certain books, process certain information by answering questions – you are given deadlines to finish the work by – etc. etc. 

However, school is not education.  Education is something else.

Consider what would happen if one were freed from school.  If one were allowed to pursue education without the rigid requirements of a school setting.  What would you do?  Well, that depends a lot on your nature.  If you are of a “non-educational nature”, you would probably sit around, watch TV, eat a lot, hang out with friends . . . but you’re not likely to do anything that would lead to much education.  Your nature would prevent that.

But if you are of an “educational nature”, you would still end up getting an education – and perhaps a better one than the school could give you, because you would have the freedom to acquire knowledge and information in your own way.  You could focus on material that has meaning for you, which means the information would stick. You can adapt your method to your own learning style – visual, auditory, kinesthetic, left-brain, right-brain, convergent, divergent, morning, afternoon, evening, etc.  You would easily see the application of what you’re learning and, therefore, apply it.  This is REAL education. 

So, is school a bad thing? No, of course not.  There is some learning that happens better in a school environment.  But most importantly, most people would never be interested in being educated if school hasn’t gotten them started.  It reveals to us how much there is out there to learn.

 

Now, bear with me a minute as I articulate for myself a recent insight because in reality, this post is not about education.  This is about the Law, with a capital L, as referred to in the Bible in Romans and Galatians and all.  These verses were unclear to me for years, but there it is.  Law = school.  It forces us into the behaviors that are associated with righteousness, but it doesn’t produce righteousness itself.  It merely reveals how unrighteous we are.  Righteousness comes apart from the law, when we get a new nature – a righteous nature – from God.  Then we have the desire and ability to do the things that genuinely lead to righteousness. 

Not a new or perfect analogy, but you know – I’m a teacher – it spoke to me.  J