Andrew.Sterling.Hanenkamp.com

I’m a pretty avid reader. I’m a terribly slow reader, but I still manage to read between 5 and 10 pages from a novel each night before going to sleep. I usually read another 5 to 10 pages out loud to Terri before going to sleep. I also read lots of news, blogs, tech articles, articles from various evangelicals, fundamentalists, and reformed writers. According to my Google Reader statistics, I’ve blown through about 2,400 headlines in the past 30 days with 63 of them listed as “Shared” which is a pretty good indication of how many of those entries I’ve read carefully, so about 2 a day. I read at least one chapter out of the Bible to Gabe every night, usually one or two picture books to him before bed, and I’m usually studying or searching scripture for something two or three times a day. And I haven’t even covered the amount of reading I do for work with wiki pages, articles shared by coworkers, documentation needed to solve problems, new policies, important email, etc. Reading is pretty important to me.

I really love reading novels, though. I usually wish I could read way more than 10 or 20 pages a night. However, I have one major problem with novels and fiction in general. Movies and TV shows and plays and poetry and whatever else you might mention in the category of “fiction” all have this problem. The problem with fiction is that it’s fictional. Profound, eh? Let’s just talk about novels, though, knowing that the word “novel” could be replaced with any of these other forms of fiction.

What I mean by “fiction has a problem with being fictional” is this: the world in your fiction doesn’t have to have anything to do with the real world. Given that I’m often reading science fiction, it’s really not supposed to. That said, fiction (and science fiction in particular) is almost always a work of exploration in the realm of morals, values, and human nature. What would the human condition be like if dinosaurs walked the earth? What would happen if aliens destroyed the planet? What would happen if people could perform magic? What would be the implication if we developed a truly thinking artificial intelligence? Many books have tackled these questions in various ways. At some point, for these books to be interesting, they must intersect non-fictional reality.

And therein is the problem. It is easy in fiction to present a version of humanity that does not exist. For example, imagine reading a book where a benevolent corporation rules humanity. The company is driven to generate wealth for the upper management, yet it serves all the people, no one is hungry, or sick, or unhappy. Unless there’s some extra reason I should believe this would happen or something dark and sinister lying underneath it, why would you believe that would possible? Why should you? That scenario might make good satire or a setting for some dark dystopia or horror story, but is not believable as a setting for much else.

Similarly, when Star Trek presents a world where mankind has moved past the sins of history: wars and famines and poverty and greed and all that; one must wonder which humanity Gene Roddenberry was talking about. Homo superior sounds about as believable to me as the last scenario involving the corporate oligarchy. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land or even Starship Troopers (not the movie, which barely has any similarity with the book) are similarly unbelievable in his rendering of successful communistic and militaristic libertarian societies, respectively.

I’m also a fan of Orson Scott Card, but the idea that humanity would unite so well under a common cause in Ender’s Game or that a human-built computer would really be successful as the conscience that prevents humanity from destroying itself in nuclear holocaust in the Homecoming series stretches credibility with me. Humanity has not, since the fall of the Tower of Babel, ever united in that way. Having built enough computer programs, the idea of making one capable of being a god that wouldn’t be an epic FAIL within in 6 months of being on it’s own is pretty hilarious.

All of these stories have taken a simplistic view of a system that is basically impossible to understand in a few hundred pages of text. If we were to really consider the full complexity of common systems like how all the people within a cultural area interact and how two cultures near each other meld together into a greater culture (folks in Manhattan, versus folks in Lawrence and Manhattan both being in Kansans, for example), you find a system that is fundamentally beyond human comprehension. No brain is big enough to comprehend enough of the facts involved simultaneously to understand why people work together the way they do. We can only generalize in the most vague of terms. Only great hubris allows a person to say he truly understands basic reality in any meaningful way. It’s not so much that there is no objective truth, but that without simplifying things down, we couldn’t understand even a small segment of objective truth.

Going back to the stories: these are stories that I found entertaining, interesting, and even thought-provoking. Yet, each of them failed to hold true to humanity in some important way. I won’t say I could do better because I know I couldn’t or at least I know I couldn’t on my better days. If I ever write a book, I’ll have to be sure to include in the preface, “I’m going to start by saying, I got this wrong. Humans don’t really work together this way, but they do in my head, mostly. I hate all the flaws in this book, but you have to stop editing the story sooner or later and may this be yet another monument demonstrating that human endeavors are imperfect and incomplete.”

Cheers.

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him [Jesus] to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
— Luke 10:25-37

That is the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This story is interesting on a number levels. First of all, it clearly outlines the prejudices held by society’s upper classes, those in charge of religious practice and local government. During this time, Israel was a Roman territory, so the national and regional government was of Rome. However, the local government was theocratic and generally provided to the Jews through the temple and the synagogue. More interestingly, is how Jesus provides a story that goes against tradition, challenges this prejudice, and promotes a difficult model to emulate. I’m going to describe this and then a couple ways this story is misused.

To start, let’s examine the characters here.

• The Lawyer. By “lawyer” the passage doesn’t mean quite what we’d think of as a lawyer today. This was a scribe. A person educated in the Law of God. The questions he presents are similar to other inquiries. It is likely, since his profession is mentioned, that he was representing the religious leaders in the area. (Luke 18:18-21; Matthew 19:16-22; John 3:1-15)
• Jesus Christ. Our Lord and Savior. He’s being challenged to answer a question the lawyer believes is hard, but Jesus turns the question back on him in some very telling ways.
• Robbers. Not all that important except that they beat and robbed the victim in the story.
• The Man. We know nothing of this man except that he was traveling on the road between Jerusalem to Jericho, which is a somewhat dangerous road about 17 miles long. According to The MarArthur Bible Commentary it was “notorious for being beset with thieves and danger.”
• The Priest. The priests were direct descendants of Aaron, who was the brother of Moses. These were responsible for the details of temple worship, responsible sacrificing animals and grain and such for various reasons. The priests were a special class of individuals.
• The Levite. Aaron and Moses were both descendants from a man named Levi, who was the son of Israel. A Levite would be a person in the same tribe as the priests, but a different clan. Levites were generally responsible for other religious tasks, such as managing the temple treasury, guarding the entrances to the temple, and other services across the country.
• The Samaritan. Samaritans were hated and despised by Israelites. (John 8:48) They mixed worship of Yahweh with idol worship (2 Kings 17:41) and were really the descendants of people resettled there when the king of Assyria conquered Israel a few centuries earlier. (2 Kings 17:24) In general, they had few, if any, dealings with Jews. (John 4:9)First

If you think about it from the perspective of the lawyer: a Samaritan is a descendant of a people who lived on your ancestor’s land after they had been conquered by a foreign king. It might not matter greatly to you if they were just as forcibly resettled as your ancestors were when they were taken away to Assyria and Babylon because they were living in the land promised to you and your ancestors by God. It might not have been easy for the lawyer to agree with Jesus in the end that the Samaritan was obviously the good neighbor here. In fact, since he doesn’t answer directly, but says, “the one who…” it looks very much like he didn’t want to say, “The Samaritan.”

Okay, let’s summarize. A man is beaten and left for dead. Two members of the religious and political upper class walk by without helping him. A member of a despised group comes and helps the man out, nurses him to health, and even pays for his stay in an inn with no hope of repayment. The Samaritan’s not even in the right part of the country, so he’s not in a good position himself, but he helps anyway.

This is proving to be a really peculiar story. But then the real kicker is that Jesus doesn’t even answer the lawyer’s question! The lawyer asked, “Who is my neighbor?” So, we read the story, get right up to verse 36, “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” Prior to reading that, the obvious answer to the lawyer’s question is, “the man who was robbed” is the neighbor he asked about. The Samaritan just looks like color to shame the lawyer, but that’s not the point Jesus makes.

Rather, Jesus asks that question, “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” Jesus’s question is the opposite of the lawyer’s. Not who should I serve, but who was the one who served? It’s a very poignant challenge. It states that a Jew should emulate, of all people, a lousy Samaritan.

So, what do we learn? Lot’s of things. A true follower of God’s Kingdom is one like this Samaritan. His background is questionable, but his actions are righteous. We all sin, but once we have been redeemed by Jesus Christ, we should seek to serve others in need, without regard to what that means to ourselves. This is hard to practice. It is obviously much easier to behave like the priest and the Levite.

But, that’s not all. This service is very, very personal and extremely generous. The Samaritan didn’t just notify the next town that a Jew was on the road needing help, he didn’t just pick him up and help him to the next village, he didn’t just pass him a few coins for the inn. This man “had compassion.” He, personally, cleaned and treated the man’s wounds. He “brought him to an inn and took care of him.” He stayed the night with the man to make sure he was alright and then, before traveling on, payed the innkeeper two denarii, which was 2 day’s wages. Think about how much you earn in two days. Would you give that kind of money to a complete stranger? But he didn’t stop there, “Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.” This is like giving them his credit card and saying, “Just charge that for whatever he needs.”

Going back to what I said before now, following Christ’s suggestion, “You go, and do likewise,” is a very hefty proposition. Serving others in need with such generosity is very difficult. I’d say it’s pretty nearly impossible. I can’t imagine there are many people who come close.

Now, my final point. I hear this parable cheapened and distorted far too often and it grates on my soul. Here are a couple things I hear the term “Good Samaritan” used to describe, which water down the meaning in ways that bother me:

• Good Samaritan Law. It does not strike me as particularly ethical to force ethics on people by law. In any case, it takes a beautiful portrait of what the Samaritan does voluntarily and turns it into an obligation. I say that cheapens this beautiful portrait Christ painted.That’s bothersome.
• Social action. Social action typically implies some sort of detached service, not personal service, at least not for most people. For example, there’s an organization in town (I used to fix their computers) called Kansas Guardianship Program. Their purpose is to help guardians who help people unable to care for themselves pay for the care they give. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist. To call this kind of social action a Good Samaritan program cheapens the story of the Good Samaritan. One of these guardians might be comparable to the Good Samaritan, but a program of social workers who coordinate with these folks and deliver checks are not Good Samaritans. I’m not making any comment regarding KGP, itself, by the way. Just noting that calling them Good Samaritans for doing this would be an exaggeration of what they do professionally and/or a cheapening of the story.

If you want to use the above terms, fine, but realize it’s a misuse.

The real point, however, is that we should each be humbled by this story and realize how we’ve failed to serve others personally when opportunities have presented themselves. We should keep our eyes peeled for the people in need we run across and give of ourselves sacrificially. This isn’t a parable about serving others in the abstract, but of giving up that which is valuable to serve others directly and personally.

Cheers.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

Someone asked me this week why I am “terrified” of government. “Terrified” is certainly too strong a word, but I’d certainly say I’m cautious and wary of government. This passage in 1 Samuel does a marvelous job of explaining why.

For those who may not know, the nation of Israel escaped from the tyranny of Pharaoh and conquered Canaan (modern day Israel) before 1200 BC. The settled the Promised Land at this time and took as their own, as the land God had promised their forefathers. For the following 200 years, the nation of Israel lived in what we’d probably call anarchy today. You can read about this period in your Bible by reading the Book of Judges.

Essentially, Israel was divided up into sections by tribe. During this time, they existed primarily as city-states, where each major city had elders that handled local government and exerted influence over the nearby land and villages. The tribes of Israel warred against one another from time to time, but were mostly allied with one another. Yet, they had no central authority, at least nothing we’d recognize as such today. During times of crisis, God would raise up a “judge” who took leadership over Israel and resolved the crisis. Samson is probably the most infamous of these judges and Samuel the most famous.

After living under this system for a couple hundred years (longer if you look back to the times of Joshua and Moses), the Israelites had had enough. They demanded that God give them a king. Samuel, who was also a prophet, had been judge over Israel shortly before this time and had appointed his sons Joel and Abijah to be judges. Though Samuel had been just, his sons were not and took bribes. (1 Samuel 7)

At this time, the people began demanding a king. “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.’” (1 Samuel 8:4-5) We see that a king was something different from a judge in that what a judge was differs from what the other nations called a king. You can read above to see what many of those differences amounted to, but the gist is that under the judges, the people were closer to the Kingdom of God. (1 Samuel 10:7) A judge merely adjudicates and provides a relatively weak leadership role. More of a consul than a Caesar. A king is permanent, comes with the trappings of royalty, adds bureaucracy, industry, and taxes, and has absolute authority.

When we read on, we find out that this desire displeased not only Samuel, but God. “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.’” (1 Samuel 8:6-9) What follows this paragraph in scripture is the warning given at the top of this post.

Clearly, a king is not what God wanted for his nation, but as God so often does, he lets people have what they want. Not only that, he gives “them up to dishonorable passions.” (Romans 1:26-27)

What does that have to do with today? Everything. While we lack a king over us, our government is still based upon the same kind of sovereignty that kings have. Previously, such sovereignty was philosophically derived from the Divine Right of Kings or simply who possessed the most power in force.

Our government is philosophically based upon the Inalienable Rights of people who use their liberties to choose leaders and, in a sense, our ownership of weapons to provide the force necessary to keep powerful people in check. The Divine Right has transfered from a patriarchal monarchy to the wisdom or folly of the people. We have the awesome responsibility of choosing the people who stand in authority over us. Once they have authority, they can do all the things threatened in 1 Samuel 8:10ff, even make us slaves. We have the brute force option open to us, but, fortunately, we have been and remain very, very reluctant to apply that force.

George Washington put it well in 1797, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant—and a fearful master.” I would not want to do without some form of government. Yet, I prefer to keep that government in a small box, like the gas fire that warms my house in winter.

The government we have has astonishing authority, authority that the nation’s founders warned us against. Samuel warns Israel against the use of this authority and we should heed that warning. We have sacrificed liberty in the name of safety. We have sacrificed happiness in exchange for license. We have sacrificed life for convenience. Soon, I fear, we shall exchange health in the name of compassion.

Were my hope resting upon men and government, I would certainly be terrified. (Proverbs 1:20-33) However, I could only be terrified if I had no hope for myself and my children. “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1)

Cheers.

There are a lot of folks out there who claim they have no religion or that they are atheists or agnostics, but many of them are lying. I’ve found science to be the single most potent false religion of our day and the irony is that most of the followers believe they’ve somehow avoided being a part of organized religion. I’m not here to criticize these folks. You are welcome to pursue any belief system you want. I believe quite strongly in free will, but I do want to point out the difference between the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the pursuit of scientific faith.

Science is the search for useful systems of prediction. In science, you do something 100 times and try to figure out what is common between all the times. Can you predict what will happen on the 101st time based upon what has already happened? This is science. Newton’s science helps us understand what will happen when we throw a basketball or shoot a canon ball: Where will it land? How can I make it go farther? How can I make it go higher? Science helps us find common factors in observed phenomena. This is science as a search for knowledge.

Faith comes in when you decide science can take you one step further, to truth. Truth is what you look for when you try to find meaning to this senselessly unfair life. You have entered the realm of religion when you start trying to fit things together to answer the question: Why?

Science doesn’t do this on it’s own, at least as long as it remains an objective search for predicting the outcomes of experiments or finding likely correlations in those observations. When you start trying to say that science shows us why the world works and has meaning, you’ve created a sacred cow out of science. Now it is your religion. You’ve taken it out of the world of mathematics and logic and statistics and moved it into a world of philosophy, religion, and faith.

Sometimes when I read scientific literature, I am pleased to read about how useful a theory is at correlating and explaining the relationships of things. Other times, I’m disappointed to read how a theory shows us why the universe works. Scientific writing that gives species or rocks or the universe a motive, as if they were gods, is really troublesome. Just because a canon ball fired into the air follows a parabolic trajectory doesn’t mean that the y=ax² is how it works, it just means that the equation happens predict the trajectory.

If you want to believe in science as providing meaning to the universe, feel free. However, realize that you are engaging in a form of faith rather than purely scientific pursuit. Criticizing me for disagreeing with your perception of truth because your truth is based on science and mine is not, is no less dogmatic than my Christian beliefs. Science and religious belief are not orthogonal, but they are not directly correlated either.

Cheers.

This is a phrase used among Christian’s to refer to every person’s need for Jesus Christ in order to fulfill one’s life. Over time, I’ve come to think of this as being a somewhat optimistic metaphor. Yet, it is true. The human soul was meant to be tightly knit with it’s Creator and since no man or woman has that naturally because of our sin, we have a very difficult problem to overcome.

Interestingly, virtually every person alive knows of this need. Some call it “the search for meaning.” Others will say that every person needs some cause “bigger than himself to serve.” Some try to quell it and say that we merely need to become at peace with the universe. Many try to satisfy it or even numb themselves by seeking sex, money, entertainment, food, drink, power, or virtually anything else. Some look to science to explain this need away. Some just look out to something or someone outside themselves and depend upon them to be their hope and fulfill that need. All humans seek a god to worship and the worship that god demands depends purely on what that person thinks his or her god wants.

Where we Christians get a little too optimistic and even a bit idealistic is when we start thinking that all of these people are somehow seeking for God. No, they are not. These people are seeking after whatever will satisfy them. They are seeking to sin against God. They don’t need God. They can invent their own gods. The only man or woman who seeks God is drawn by the Holy Spirit.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. — Romans 8:28-30

You see, in order to seek, you must have first been known by God, predestined by God, and called to Him. Then and only then, do you seek to have your God-shaped hole filled. I think too many Christians believe that they themselves were responsible for their own salvation. That somehow all they needed was the information and then they got to make the decision to come to Christ. Maybe, but that doesn’t sit well with me or my reading of scripture.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. — Ephesians 2:8-10

I read this passage and I am convinced that it fully implies that salvation itself is completely and totally a gift from God to those He has chosen to bestow it upon. It is a gift He gives through many mediums, but a gift nonetheless. Once the Thief has chosen to rob your house, your soul is in His hands.

Some will say, but what about free will? Free will is a difficult concept to master. There are shades of liberty. As John Donne put it, “No man is an island.” He was speaking of death, but really in all things, the will of one man or our God influences, guides, prevents, changes, or manipulates our lives in certain directions we can’t really control. Free will does not indicate that I can do anything I want. If I want to rule the world from the moon, I can’t just do it. I’ll have to somehow conquer or persuade everyone to let me rule and then get to the moon.

Becoming a Christian without God doing all the work is about as difficult as trying to fly to the moon by waving your arms. It cannot be done.

Now, this is all “just” theology. When this theology meets the pavement, you get missions. If I know that men and women only come to Christ when the Spirit draws them, what does that mean for the missionary and evangelist? Not much. You must still share the message, that is our Great Commission. You must still use every form of persuasion and self-sacrifice to reach out and love those that might come to Christ. God uses people to convert people more often than anything else. That medium requires the speech and blood and sweat and life-example of Christians.

The main difference I see is peace. Contentment is the main reward of following this doctrine. God is responsible for growing the harvest and you, the evangelist, are only there to water, to weed, and possibly to gather the harvest when the season is right. If you are serving faithfully in whatever capacity you can, you’ve done your work. Everything else is up to God. If your ministry of evangelism converts none, but you have done the work you can, you have done enough. Even your imperfect service can be brought to God’s glory. That is, in itself, a small miracle given that you are merely a sinner, redeemed and justified, but still a sinner.

Let the Spirit minister through you, but let God take all the glory. Amen.

Cheers.

“Be of good courage, and let us be courageous for our people, and for the cities of our God, and may the Lord do what seems good to him.” — 2 Samuel 10:12

In the middle of 2 Samuel, here is a section covering yet another relatively unremarkable battle (or so it seems to me amongst a long stream of such). Joab, the general of the Israelite army, notes that he’s surrounded. He has the Syrians at his front and the Ammonites at his rear. He arrays his army and the verse above is the sum of the recorded pep-talk and prayer for the oncoming battle. I believe this prayer is a good contrast against which to look at how most people pray (myself included). It is a good example, I think, of how we ought to pray.

Typically, my prayers go like this: “Thank you Lord for saving me from my sin. Thank you for my family, my wife and son. Thank you for all of our blessings that we do not have to worry about what we will eat or wear or where we will live. Please be with my family that is traveling. Please keep us healthy. Please help us follow your will. In Jesus’ name, Amen.” Other than that last bit about following God’s will and possibly the first bit about salvation, I’d argue that most of that prayer was vain. There’s nothing particularly wrong with any of the things I asked for, but that was all easy. So often, what is easy is not what is best.

Joab, on the other hand, sets up his strategy for the coming battle as best as he can and then says to God, “I don’t know what You want to come out of this, but let be according to Your will.” That’s quite a contrast to a prayer that asks God to give me what I think I need or want.

It is easy to thank God for good things. Yet, there are many Christians in Africa or the Middle East or India or China or Indonesia where jail, torture, and death is the reward for belief in Jesus Christ. Can they thank God for these blessings? I know of a church in Russia where the pastor and members pray explicitly for poverty rather than prosperity because they do not want to become soft in their beliefs in exchange for wealth and comfort that doesn’t last. The question is, am I praying as well as I can? Am I being the most faithful Christian in my prayers? I’m not sure I’m even close.

Here’s another superb example of good prayer:

“Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” — Luke 22:42

Jesus prays this prayer in preparation for the torture and crucifixion that would begin that very morning. He knows he’s soon to die and take upon himself the sins of the entire world. The weight of the anxiety made him physically ill. Yet, he still prays for the Father to take it forward even against his own human desire to avoid what was coming. That’s a prayer.

Of course, one can go too far and say that we should never pray for prosperity, but we also know that there are cases where such prayers are proven right. I am primarily cautioning against this kind of selfish prayer since this is sometimes what seems like the only kind of prayer that people around me (and myself) engage in.

Rather, I think the point is summed up in 1 John 5:14-15, “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.”

Before we even ask, we have to know God’s will. Once we know that, everything we ask for according to that knowledge will always be answered. John says that that is our “confidence.” This is not some faint hope or wishful thinking, but something we can know.

Then, the question becomes, how do we know? The first answer is to learn more about God’s will as revealed in the Bible. Study of this book will get you a good deal closer to God and knowledge of His will. The second answer, ironically, is prayer itself. The more one studies his Bible and prays, the more he will know God’s will and the more fruitful will his prayers become.

Unfortunately, I’m not very good at either of these. I pray that God will help me become better and more diligent at both study and especially in prayer. Amen.

Cheers.

When it comes to politics, I believe in a peculiar paradox. I believe there is (and will be one day) a single, objectively true form of government. I believe it will be close to a communist, theocratic monarchy. On the other hand, I live in and believe in improving a form of governance today, a capitalist, democratic republic toward conservative and libertarian practicalities. As such, I sometimes confuse myself and state the ideal when the pragmatic is being discussed and vice-versa. I’m a terrible debater.

The most recent argument that got me into such trouble was when I recently stated that I have no problem with legislating morality. Idealistically, I believe this to be completely true. Pragmatically, the question is not so easy to answer. For example, I believe that voting for Proposition 8 in California was the correct idealistic move to define marriage according to orthodox morality. Yet, it does not really confront the spiritual issues that are at the heart of the matter. As such, Proposition 8 will probably have very little affect addressing the issue other than to make opponents angry.

What effectively took me out of the argument for that moment was my attempt to state that I believe legislating morality is an okay thing to do. The response was (my paraphrase), “The problem is that you either must assume your moral beliefs will always be in control, which is always going to be false, or that legislating other forms of morality is okay.” If I had been more forceful, I should have answered: “First, one day, I’ve been promised that my morality will be perfected and made permanent. Second, I reject the moral equivalence the latter part of your argument suggests as fallacious.” I didn’t, which is why I’m now taking the easy way out and just explaining it here for giggles.

As promised in Philippians 2:11, “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” One day Jesus will take his place as the King of All and provide perfect administration of His government. Until then, we lived in a cursed (Genesis 3:17) and depraved (Romans 3:23) world in which no good cannot be twisted to evil, but for which every evil is ultimately turned to good (Romans 8:28). Until then, no system will work correctly and all are subject to the flaws of human nature. But as long as I have suffrage, I will struggle to decide between that which is morally right and that which is pragmatically achievable.

Cheers.

There are many sects that base their view of the world on the fact that Christ is not God. There are a number of different strategies for attacking Christ’s deity. Some reinterpret the Scriptures to shade the meanings differently than the context indicates, sometimes even going so far as inserting new words into the text. Others use a rational argument that attempts to first oversimplify belief in the trinity to make it seem that Christian’s believe in three Gods (a “straw man” argument, since we believe in a singular God) and then attack it from Scriptures, such as Deuteronomy 6:4, which point out that God is one. Regardless, of the attack, however, I’m not moved by the argument. God is one and Jesus Christ is God.

A passage that does not stand on it’s own, but is what I consider to the be summary passage for Christ’s deity is found in John 1:1-3,14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The book of John is about the Word, who is Jesus Christ. In the words of J.C. Ryle in his commentary on John, “[Jesus] is not merely a created angel, or a being inferior to God the Father, and invested by Him with power to redeem sinners. He is nothing less than perfect God,—equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,—God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds.”

Some have tried to say that it would be more appropriate to translate the passage, “the Word was a God.” According to John MacArthur, this isn’t correct. “The Greek construction emphasizes that the Word had all the essence or attributes of deity, i.e., Jesus the Messiah was fully God.” The MacArthur Bible Commentary refers us to Colossians 2:9, where Paul is attempting to clarify just this point, starting with verse 8: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Jesus Christ is God.

Yet, this is not the end of the story. Jesus Christ also “became flesh and dwelt among us.” God didn’t stand outside the creation after the fall, but entered in to it in order that he might rescue it. In the words of Jesus in John 3:16 and forward: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Jesus Christ is God and came to earth at the pivot point in history. He came to demonstrate what a good religion is, to share the truth about God and the utterly sinful nature of men and women, to minister to those in need, to rebuke those who pretend to good religion, to give his life up on the cross to take away that sin, and to resurrected himself to demonstrate his power over death and sin.

One of the marvels of God is this: You don’t have to accept any of this. It is clear that such a decision is yours to make as you are led to make it. I plead with you to consider belief in Christ as the God-man who can take away your sin very carefully. As Joshua gave a choice to the people of Israel, so we too have a choice: “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve… as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15) The choice to believe is yours to make. I pray that if you are led to believe, that you would pray for true belief and seek out others that believe to help you grow in that belief. If you already believe, I encourage you to cling ever tighter to the faith and I look forward to worshiping beside you in the eternity before us.

Cheers.

The word of 2007 was “surge.” The word of 2008 is “bailout.” I want to say that all this bailing out and buying up of commercial stock and debt by the government is pretty foolish. The U.S. Government is now creating massive budget deficits (i.e. borrowing money) to replace private deficits (borrowed money) created when government run financial institutions (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, established via Carter-era housing legislation) made bad decisions. Essentially we’re throwing good money after bad, which is going to cause big problems in the long run.

The expanded calls to now bailout the U.S. auto industry for making bad decisions in its own industry and the idea that such bailouts should come with new government mandates is an even bigger issue. This is incrementally moving us closer to communism where the central planners pick and choose how everything runs. This means we will get one-size-fits-all solutions that fit no one well. It also creates a single point of failure for decision making where mistakes made by a small core of leaders get to have massive repercussions (see the current mortgage crisis is just such an event).

I believe the U.S. Government’s current fiscal policy is ridiculous and foolish. Looking back through history, bad decisions dealing with debt on a similar scale was a major contributor to the causes of World War II and I don’t doubt that such an event may now loom on the horizon again.

A lot of folks are drawing parallels between President-elect Barack Obama and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Many see this as a positive comparison and, given Obama’s announcement of infrastructure development plans, there certainly seems to be some similarity. Just remember, Roosevelt was a charismatic leader that presided over a 10 year slump in the economy. Some argue that his policies were a good portion of the reason for the length of that slump. His Presidency also ended in world war. I dearly hope that history does not repeat itself in this way, but things aren’t looking good for the home team.

Fortunately, while I don’t relish the thought of hardship, I know my God is sovereign and true and am not worried. There are worse things than economic hard times and war and death one can face. In the words of Jesus recorded in Luke 12:4-5, “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

Cheers.

Life sucks. Reading my previous few rants, one might get the impression that I’m ticked off, gloomy, and upset. You might wonder if I’m depressed or sad that “my side” lost the election or angry that people voted for someone I think is the absolute wrong move. You’d be wrong. I may have strong feelings and opinions on these other subjects, but I’m actually pretty happy. Why am I happy?

I’ve got a good job at the moment and I can say without hesitation that I’m economically better off now than I was 6 months ago, a year ago, or 5 years ago, despite the losses in my 401k/403b and other investments. Of course, I can’t be sure I’ll keep any of it. And who knows what the future holds, but I’m happy anyway.

I have an adorable almost-two-year-old to entertain me. Someday he’s going to grow up into a teenager and probably cause me a large amount of grief (who doesn’t cause their parents grief as a teenager). At some point, Lord willing, he’ll have to start making his own decisions in life and he might choose to do something I find wrong and unthinkable. But, sometimes that’s how things go. A father can only do his best and then his son gets to make his own mind up on how to live.

I have a wife who does wonderful things for me. She cooks and is very diligent at taking care of me. She works very hard and I’m proud of her many accomplishments. Sometimes we disagree and have petty fights and such, but as bad as things could get, I’m not anxious.

If my happiness in life were dependent upon my employment or even my health and ability to provide for my family, I could easily be let down by layoffs, illness, or injury. If my joy was in my wife or son or family or friends or church or coworkers or any other group I take part in, any of them may prove false and betray my trust or simply abandon me. If I were only happy when politics were going my way, during times of peace and prosperity, if the man I elected is doing wonderful things, I should probably despair and die. I have yet to be fully satisfied with the work of any politician I’ve ever voted for, let alone the ones that win that I voted against.

My happiness would go up and down if it depended on these or any number of other things, but I try to keep a certain blessed happiness and laughter close by always. Jesus Christ is the source of my joy. If you want to make me a grim person, you could by ruining all of the things above and work to destroy everything else I hold dear, but I would still hold at my core a fierce optimism because of my love for Jesus Christ and the knowledge that someday, sooner or later, I will be united physically and spiritually with my Lord-Creator. That’s a joy that cannot be taken away.

Cheers.