We were made in the image of God, and we are designed to reflect God’s character.  If we have been redeemed, we have God’s Spirit within us, using our hands, our feet, and our mouths to accomplish His will.  The Church is the body of Christ, the visible manifestation on the earth of the redeeming work of Christ.  However, if we are “the only Jesus they’ll ever know,” then something is terribly wrong.

Related posts:

1. Following Jesus “Follow Me.” (Matthew 4:19) Jesus says, “Follow Me.” What are...
2. Heaven or Hell, by Choice This tract was written by my grandfather, Laurance W. Long....

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.

“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.

“Huh” said George.

“That dance-it was nice,” said Hazel.

“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself, she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.

“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.

“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel a little envious. “All the things they think up.”

“Um,” said George.

“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. “If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday-just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”

“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.

“Well-maybe make ‘em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”

“Good as anybody else,” said George.

“Who knows better than I do what normal is?” said Hazel.

“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.

“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”

It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling, and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.

“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in a canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck. “Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”

George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.”

“You been so tired lately-kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”

“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”

“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean-you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just sit around.”

“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it-and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”

“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.

“There you are,” said George. The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?”

If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.

“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.

“What would?” said George blankly.

“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?

“Who knows?” said George.

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and Gentlemen.”

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

“That’s all right-” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen,” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me-” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.

“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under-handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen-upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.

The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever born heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H-G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.

Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.

And to offset his good looks, the H-G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle-tooth random.

“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”

There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.

Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.

George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. “My God-” said George, “that must be Harrison!”

The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.

When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.

Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood – in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.

“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

“Even as I stand here” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”

Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.

Harrison’s scrap-iron handicaps crashed to the floor.

Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.

He flung away his rubber-ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.

“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”

A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.

Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all he removed her mask.

She was blindingly beautiful.

“Now-” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.

The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. “Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”

The music began. It was normal at first-cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.

The music began again and was much improved.

Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while-listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.

They shifted their weights to their toes.

Harrison placed his big hands on the girls tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.

And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.

They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.

They leaped like deer on the moon.

The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it.

It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling. They kissed it.

And then, neutraling gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.

It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.

It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.

Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George. But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying” he said to Hazel.

“Yup,” she said.

“What about?” he said.

“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”

“What was it?” he said.

“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.

“Forget sad things,” said George.

“I always do,” said Hazel.

“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a rivetting gun in his head.

“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.

“You can say that again,” said George.

“Gee-” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”

No related posts.

We believe that the Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God.  We affirm that Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses.  We believe that history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true.  In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life).  We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer.  Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research.  We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority.  We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.

The Committee has been unable to come to unanimity over the nature and duration of the creation days.  Nevertheless, our goal has been to enhance the unity, integrity, faithfulness and proclamation of the Church.  Therefore we are presenting a unanimous report with the understanding that the members hold to different exegetical viewpoints.  As to the rest we are at one.  It is our hope and prayer that the Church at large can join us in a principled, Biblical recognition of both the unity and diversity we have regarding this doctrine, and that all are seeking properly to understand biblical revelation.  It is our earnest desire not to see our beloved church divide over this issue.

They go on to provide a brief history and analysis of the varying views that have existed within the Church over time.  For example, here is a summary of their study regarding views that were held from the time of the Early Church up to (and including) the formulation of the Westminster Confession:

• First, it is apparent that there existed in the church prior to the Reformation two broad tendencies in the interpretation of the Genesis days: one more figurative, the other more literal—the Calendar Day view.
• Second, the Calendar Day view was advocated in both the eastern and western parts of the church (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose and Bede), as was the figurative view (Origen, John Scotus Erigena and Augustine).
• Third, the Calendar Day view appears to be the majority view amongst influential commentators. Certainly, it is the only view held by contemporary Reformed theologians that is explicitly articulated in early Christianity.
• Fourth, the issue of the length of the creation days was apparently not taken up in any ecclesiastical council and never became a part of any of the early ecumenical creedal statements.
• Fifth, the Reformers explicitly rejected the Augustinian figurative or allegorical approach to the Genesis days on hermeneutical grounds.
• Sixth, the Westminster Assembly codified this rejection, following Calvin, Perkins and Ussher, in the Westminster Confession.
• Seventh, there is no primary evidence of diversity within the Westminster Assembly on the specific issue of whether the creation days are to be interpreted as calendar days or figurative days.  Such primary witnesses as we have either say nothing (the majority) or else specify that the days are calendar days.

A pdf version of the entire report is available here:
http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.pdf

Related posts:

1. The Flood Not long ago I went through the details of the...
2. Evolution One of the debates between Creationists and Evolutionists is the...

Someone with “low self esteem” suffers from the perception that the world around them does not value them as much as they think they should be valued.  Conversely, someone with “high self esteem” perceives that the world thinks they are really great (and they’re inclined to agree).

Their perception may or may not be accurate.  Sometimes the world really does harbor disdain for others, but sometimes people underestimate the world’s perception of them.  Similarly, the world often elevates some people as heroes, but it’s also common for someone to overestimate how others perceive them.

Both those with “low self esteem” and “high self esteem” actually think somewhat highly of themselves.  The main difference lies in whether they think the world values them sufficiently.

To read more about the problem of high self-worth, read Ronnie Martin’s article at The Gospel Coalition: The Beauty of Low Self-Esteem.

No related posts.

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.  Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.  In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19, NIV)

According to Randy Alcorn:

If you have:

sufficient food,
decent clothes,
live in a house or apartment,
and have a reasonably reliable means of transportation,
you are among the top 15 percent of the world’s wealthy.

If you have:

any money saved,
a hobby that requires some equipment or supplies,
a variety of clothes in your closet,
two cars (in any condition),
and live in your own home,
you are in the top 5 percent of the world’s wealthy.

(Money, Possessions, and Eternity)

Jesus said:

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:23-24, NIV)

Related posts:

1. Generosity vs. Equality Equality eliminates generosity. You can’t be generous unless you have...
2. Credit While a hunter/gatherer or farmer of the past may have...

Do not ascribe to man an ability that God himself does not possess: the ability to do that which is contrary to his character.

God cannot violate His character.  God cannot sin, because He is completely holy.  God cannot lie, because He is the source of all truth (Heb 6:18).  God cannot cease to be who He is (2 Tim 2:13).  All His actions are consistent with His character.

Although we sometimes say that people do things that are “out of character” for them, that is technically not true.  What we mean is that someone has done something that is unusual for them; something that is seemingly inconsistent with the characteristics that they normally display.

A person who makes right choices displays character that has been redeemed by the grace of God.  A person who makes wrong choices displays character that has been marred by the sin nature inherited from Adam. (Luke 6:45)

Even the most righteous man will make wrong choices sometimes.  Those wrong choices are not contrary to his character, but evidence that his character is still flawed.  A wicked man cannot do what is right, unless God intervenes to change his character.

Man has the ability to choose, but he is not “free” to choose that which is contrary to his character.

No related posts.

A:  It depends on what you mean by “higher standard.”

Anyone who is serious about the authority of Scripture would agree that a church elder must satisfy the requirements that Paul lists in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9.

Some churches see these requirements as unique requirements for eldership, requirements that are not necessarily expected of all Christians.  Such churches might allow that there are cases where a Christian may legitimately divorce, but they would say that a divorcee may not be an elder, because an elder must be the “husband of one wife.”  Similarly, some churches acknowledge that, while the Bible warns about the dangers of intoxicating beverages, it does not forbid their consumption.  While acknowledging that the consumption of alcohol is a matter of Christian freedom, they may still require an elder to completely abstain from alcohol, because they believe that this is part of the “higher standard” to which elders are called.

I believe that this is a faulty view of the requirements for an elder.

There are not two different standards for Christian conduct: one for elders, one for everyone else.  All Christians are held to the same standard of conduct.  All Christians are expected to be chaste, hospitable, temperate, gentle, self-controlled, etc.  The standard is perfect conformity to the image of God.

However, no Christian can live up to that perfect standard.  Since no Christian actually meets the standard, should the role of elder be open to any Christian, regardless of how fall short they fall?  No, an elder should meet a “minimum” standard of maturity.  While no Christian is perfect, there is a range of Christian maturity.  The biblical requirements for an elder are a way of saying that an elder must be “this far along” in their sanctification.

So, if by “higher standard” you mean that an elder must meet certain requirements not expected of other Christians, then I say, no, the Bible does not teach that.

But, if by “higher standard” you simply mean a greater degree of conformity to the one high standard of Christian living, then I will agree that the “entrance requirements” for eldership are higher than say, the entrance requirements for church membership.

No related posts.

Benevolent and easy-going Father:
We have occasionally been guilty of errors of judgment.
We have lived under the deprivations of heredity and the disadvantages of environment.
We have sometimes failed to act in accordance with common sense.
We have done the best we could in the circumstances,
And have been careful not to ignore the common standards of decency;
And we are glad to think that we are fairly normal.
Do thou, O Lord, deal lightly with our infrequent lapses.
Be thy own sweet Self with those who admit they are not perfect;
According to the unlimited tolerances which we have a right to expect from thee.
And grant us as an indulgent Parent
That we may hereafter continue to live a harmless and happy life
And keep our self-respect.

from He Sent Leanness, by David Head, referenced in Mark (The NIV Application Commentary), by David Garland.

The original prayer of general confession from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty and most merciful Father,
We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
We have offended against thy holy laws,
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done,
And there is no health in us:
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders;
Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults, restore thou them that are penitent,
According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord:
And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

Related posts:

1. The Who, What, When, Where, Why of Confession What is Confession? Confession, at its core, is a statement...
2. Westminster Confession Several weeks ago I took a look at the Three...

“So it is,” said Mr. Syme.

“Nonsense!” said Gregory, who was very rational when anyone else attempted paradox. “Why do all the clerks and navvies in the railway trains look so sad and tired, so very sad and tired? I will tell you. It is because they know that the train is going right. It is because they know that whatever place they have taken a ticket for that place they will reach. It is because after they have passed Sloane Square they know that the next station must be Victoria, and nothing but Victoria. Oh, their wild rapture! oh, their eyes like stars and their souls again in Eden, if the next station were unaccountably Baker Street!”

“It is you who are unpoetical,” replied the poet Syme. “If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!”

“Must you go?” inquired Gregory sarcastically.

“I tell you,” went on Syme with passion, “that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hairbreadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word ‘Victoria,’ it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed ‘Victoria’; it is the victory of Adam.”

Gregory wagged his heavy, red head with a slow and sad smile.

“And even then,” he said, “we poets always ask the question, ‘And what is Victoria now that you have got there?’ You think Victoria is like the New Jerusalem. We know that the New Jerusalem will only be like Victoria. Yes, the poet will be discontented even in the streets of heaven. The poet is always in revolt.”

“There again,” said Syme irritably, “what is there poetical about being in revolt? You might as well say that it is poetical to be sea-sick. Being sick is a revolt. Both being sick and being rebellious may be the wholesome thing on certain desperate occasions; but I’m hanged if I can see why they are poetical. Revolt in the abstract is—revolting. It’s mere vomiting.”

“It is things going right,” he cried, “that is poetical! Our digestions, for instance, going sacredly and silently right, that is the foundation of all poetry. Yes, the most poetical thing, more poetical than the flowers, more poetical than the stars—the most poetical thing in the world is not being sick.”

from Chapter 1 of The Man Who Was Thursday, by G. K. Chesterton

Download an audio recording of this book from LibriVox.org

No related posts.

Mohler:

Joel Osteen is in the news once again, this time for saying that Mormonism is just another form of Christianity.
…
The main point of concern in Joel’s latest comment is the lack of any biblical standard of judgment and the total abdication of theological responsibility.
…
He doesn’t “get hung up” on doctrinal issues, nor has he “really studied them or thought about them.”

Not to heap criticism on Osteen, but Mohler is right that all Christians need to think deeply about what constitutes Christianity, and what beliefs separate authentic Christianity from non-Christianity.  We are constantly bombarded with different ideas about what “Christianity” should look like.  Are these different ideas just different opinions from various Christians, or do some of them deviate from actually being Christianity?

No related posts.

I took Dr. Powlison’s Antipsalm 23 and put it alongside Psalm 23 for a phrase-by-phrase comparison.

The text is in a PDF so that it will display correctly.  Click here to download.

Related posts:

1. Spiritual Communication What’s the difference between Biblical meditation, allowing God to communicate...

• You can help it along (intentionally or unintentionally)

You may not feel particularly tired, but if you lie still on a comfortable bed with your eyes closed in a dark, quiet room, there is a very good chance that after a while you will fall asleep. If you want to fall asleep, then you will be well served by doing these things. If you do not want to fall asleep, then it would be rather foolhardy to do these things.

Similarly, you don’t have to be completely smitten with someone to fall in love with them. If the conditions are right for falling in love, then it should come as no surprise that people fall in love, even if that was not their goal. If a young man and a young woman start spending lots of time together, conversing and sharing their intimate thoughts and feelings with each other, then it would not be unusual for them to fall in love. If two people are courting, they can “assist” the process of falling in love, by buying each other gifts, writing romantic notes, holding hands, etc. On the other hand, two people who are not in a position to marry each other should avoid these types of things.

• but you can’t force it.

Sometimes, though, despite all your attempts to fall asleep, you just can’t seem to do it. You’ve set the conditions properly, but you’re still awake. Maybe it’s a medical problem, maybe you had too much caffeine, maybe your mind is too preoccupied. Whatever it is, in spite of your desire to fall asleep, your body isn’t letting it happen.

While love is a choice, and you can always choose to love someone, you can’t make them love you back. And you might find that despite all your efforts, loving them is a challenge. Differences in personalities, interests, maturity, etc., may present significant barriers to falling in love.

• You can push it away

You can avoid falling asleep. It might even be unintentional. You’re engrossed in a movie or something on TV, something you’re reading, or a project you’re working on. If you had gone to bed hours ago, you would be asleep now, but because you have been preoccupied with something else, you’re still awake. Or, even if you are sleepy, you can force yourself to stay awake (for a while, at least). You can drink some coffee, listen to loud music, go for a jog, etc. It might get progressively harder to stay awake, but you can increase your efforts, and usually keep sleep at bay for much longer than normal.

Same thing with falling in love. You can avoid it by being preoccupied with other matters, or you can recognize the signs and take intentional steps to prevent it.

• but you can’t always avoid it.

Try as you might to stay awake, eventually your body is going to give in to exhaustion. Even in the midst of a situation totally unconducive to sleep, if you are tired enough, you will fall asleep at some point, like it or not.

Here, perhaps, the parallel is weakest. I don’t know that there are any situations where you absolutely cannot resist falling in love. The similarity exists though, because there are times when the natural process just happens, sometimes before you even realize it. You weren’t looking for love, or expecting to fall in love, but you meet someone seemingly irresistible, and BAM!, you fall in love. Maybe you even tried to avoid it, but the attraction was just too strong to resist for long.

I don’t think that there is one “right way” to fall in love. There is nothing inherently superior about instant mutual attraction versus an intentional process. There are times when romance should be avoided or delayed, but it can also be a sign of immaturity to resist or put off a relationship (due to fear or unreasonable expectations).  The key is to be obedient to God and use wisdom in the choices we make.

The phrase “falling in love” is somewhat problematic in itself, as it implies chance or accident, and feeds into the false perception of love as being equivalent to romantic feelings. In a sense, “falling in love” is a code-phrase for “the emergence of romantic feelings.” I’m not sure it’s necessary to reject it as a false or worldly concept, but we should seek to imbue it with more meaning and convey a full understanding of what love is.

Related posts:

1. Fear or Love? Do you believe in Jesus because you love Him, or...
2. Relationships A little personal history… Originally posted 10/10/2004 on bibleforums.org: I...

A comparison is drawn between salvation in the ark and baptism. In both instances, believers are saved through the waters of judgment, since baptism portrays salvation through judgment. The mere mechanical act of baptism does not save, for Peter explicitly says, “not as a removal of dirt from the body,” meaning that the passing of water over the body does not cleanse anyone. Baptism saves you because it represents inward faith, as evidenced by one’s appeal to God for the forgiveness of one’s sins (for a good conscience). Furthermore, baptism “saves” only insofar as it is grounded in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a visual representation of the fact that Christians are clothed with Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27), and in union with Christ they share his victory over sin.

(from the ESV Study Bible notes on 1 Peter 3:21)

Related posts:

1. Salvation in the deep dark jungle If you have been a part of evangelical Christianity for...
2. Salvation What about tribes in Africa who have never even heard...

Ten years ago, I borrowed $68,000 to buy a house.  If I had made the regular payments for the full 30-year term, I would have paid $101,076.80 in interest, repaying a total of $169,077.60 on that $68,000 loan.  Ouch!  That’s an overall interest rate for the life of the loan of nearly 150%!

Today, I went over to the bank, got a cashier’s check for the remaining amount, and mailed it off to the payoff department.

As it is, I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000 in interest and fees over the last 10 years (including initial closing costs and a refinance 8 years ago), which is about 34% of the $73,000 purchase price of the house.  Still a hefty chunk of change!

Looking forward to getting the title to our house in a few weeks!

Related posts:

1. Give for Free How would you like to donate to a cause without...
2. Credit While a hunter/gatherer or farmer of the past may have...

The socialist prescribes methods for caring for each other, and assumes that people will comply with these methods.  They assume the productive will contribute just as much as before.  They assume the needy will become productive once their needs have been met.

The libertarian believes that people will generally do the right thing on their own, and that the few “bad apples” will be held in check by market forces.  They believe that self-interest is ultimately good, because each individual’s self-interest is best served by working in harmony with their fellow men.  They assume that the majority are forward-thinking enough to see the benefit in helping their neighbors so that society in general, themselves included, can be more prosperous.

Unfortunately for both socialism and libertarianism, there is no limit to the laziness, selfishness, and greed that lives in the heart of man (Jer 17:9, Eccl 9:3).

Under socialism, the producers will scale back, seeing no personal benefit to increased productivity.  The needy will not seek to be more productive, because someone else will provide for them.  Poverty will increase, and the powers that be will attempt to exert more and more control.

Under libertarianism, individuals will seek their own profit with minimal personal effort, and as each person’s goals conflict with others, society will decay into anarchy.  After a period of anarchy, someone will rise to power, seize control and crack down on the anarchy.

So socialists and libertarians desire the same thing, make the same mistake in estimating man’s goodness, and both lead to totalitarian control.

1. Socialist may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far left of the political spectrum.
2. Libertarian may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far right of the political spectrum.

No related posts.

No related posts.

As I was pondering this topic, my thoughts turned to Paul’s statement in Philippians 3:10, where he says, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.”

Fueled by that statement, I would like to explore what it means for us to share in the cross of Christ.

Sometimes I have a tendency to view Good Friday as primarily a time to look back, and remember what Christ did for me in the past, and be grateful for the forgiveness of my sins, and thankful that I can go to heaven.  And certainly, we should do that.  But, we should not fall into the trap of viewing the cross as simply the means of becoming a Christian, as though the cross is just the starting point, and then we move on from there.  Our continued affiliation and participation in the cross of Christ is also the means by which we live a Christ-centered life.  Our unity with Christ is a unity of sharing with him in the cross.

There are three ways that we share in what Christ accomplished on the cross:

1. We share in his suffering.
2. We share in his death.
3. Because we share in his death, we also share in his resurrection.

We share in Christ’s Suffering

Let’s look first, then, at what it means to share in Christ’s suffering.  I already mentioned Philippians 3:10, where Paul said he wants “to know Christ … and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering.”  Just to drive the point home, let me read a few other passages that reiterate this idea of sharing in Christ’s suffering.

Philippians 1:29 – “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.”

Romans 8:17 – “Now if we are children (God’s children, that is), then we are heirs–heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

1 Peter 2:21 – “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

1 Peter 4:13 – “But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.”

To me, it’s a little unsettling to look at the many verses that talk about suffering, and see that suffering isn’t just inevitable, but it’s actually necessary.  Not that we earn or merit any reward because of our suffering, and not that we in any way make up for our sin.  It is simply that experiencing suffering is part of what it means to follow Christ.

Part of being an imitator of Christ, is experiencing suffering.  Christ was a “suffering servant.”  As Isaiah 53:3 says, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.”  Part of being a Christian is being like Christ.  So, if Christ was a “man of sorrows,” “familiar with suffering,” then in order for us to be like him, it is necessary that we also must be acquainted with suffering.

Since we’re going to experience suffering, we need to be prepared for it.  We need to prepare for suffering before we experience it, not wait until suffering strikes, and then attempt to handle it appropriately.  When you’re talking to someone who is going through a time of suffering, that is not the best time to tell them how they should respond.  You may have the best of intentions, and you may be speaking truth, but you may be received as someone offering spiritual platitudes, when what the person really needs at that moment is a shoulder to cry on and a helping hand.  If we haven’t learned how to respond to suffering before suffering strikes, the suffering will be that much harder to handle.

So, what are some ways that we may experience suffering?

First let me exclude some categories that are not relevant to sharing in Christ’s suffering.  For one, I’m not referring to penance or self-inflicted punishment; that is unnecessary suffering that someone might subject themselves to for improper reasons.  Another type of suffering that we’re not talking about is suffering the consequences of our own wrong doing.

I read 1 Peter 2:21 already, but let me read verses 19-20 also:

“For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

The type of suffering that we share with Christ is unjust suffering.  I have divided the unjust suffering we may experience into two categories: One is suffering as a direct result of our faith.  The other is suffering simply as a consequence of living in a fallen world.

Suffering as a result of our faith

In the first category, suffering as a result of our faith, there are two subcategories.

Persecution from those hostile to Christ

The first, is suffering persecution from those who are hostile to Christ.  Much of the suffering the apostles and early disciples experienced was this type of suffering.  This is what Jesus referred to in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:11 – “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”

Christians in countries around the world suffer persecution like this simply because they are followers of Jesus, and people who hate Jesus will also hate his followers.

Although we are relatively free from this type of persecution right now in America, there may come a day when we see more of this type of persecution.  While we don’t yet suffer the blatant persecution that Christians in some countries face, we may still experience persecution on some level from those hostile to Jesus.  Maybe it comes in the form of someone who talks down to you or says bad things about you because of your faith.  Maybe it’s a neighbor who purposely shows disregard for your property because you’re one of those “Christians.”

How should we respond when we encounter persecution like this?  Just like we are to follow Christ in our expectation of suffering, we are also to follow his example in our response to persecution.

As 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

We should not demand our rights, or seek to get even.  We can accept the injustice, because it helps us identify with Christ, and we know that God will make all things right.

Consequences of taking a moral stand

The second way that we may experience suffering as a result of our faith is by doing the right thing even when that may expose us to undesirable consequences.

Some have experienced this type of suffering by being arrested for standing in the way of allowing abortions to take place.  Other examples might include telling the truth when a small lie could save your hide; or obeying the law when you could easily get away with something that would give you a huge advantage.  Instead, you tell the truth; you abide by the law; you refuse to get involved in something immoral, and it costs you.  When we sacrifice our time, energy, or money for the cause of Christ, we may experience suffering as a result, but that suffering is part of what unites us with Christ.

Random suffering

In addition to suffering because of our faith, we also experience suffering that is simply the result of living in a fallen world.  The way that we respond to this suffering can also be a means of identifying with Christ.

Examples of this type of suffering might include physical pain and sickness, accidents, natural disasters, financial hardship, the loss of a loved one, and other emotional burdens like depression or other forms of mental illness.

Excluding, again, suffering that may be the result of our own wrong choices; when we are intentional about enduring random calamity for the sake of Christ, it is a means of identifying with him.

This is how James could say, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.  Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” (James 1:2-4).  To be “mature and complete, not lacking anything,” is to be like Christ, and that requires suffering.  Knowing this, we can be joyful in the midst of suffering.

We share in Christ’s Death

Not only do we share in the suffering that Christ experienced, we also share in his death.

Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

As human beings, we are both physical and spiritual creatures.  You might say that sharing in Christ’s suffering is a means of physical connection with Christ, whereas sharing in his death is a spiritual connection.

What does it mean that we have died with Christ?  There are two different ways of looking at our spiritual death.

Paul says in Galatians 6:14, “May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

In one sense, the sin that used to be our master is put to death.  In another sense, our old self, who was a slave to sin, is put to death.

Using the analogy of a master and a slave, there are two ways to sever their relationship.  Either the master dies, or the slave dies.  If the master is dead, he obviously can’t boss around the slave.  If the slave is dead, he obviously can’t obey his former master.

Sin becomes dead to us; our sin nature is put to death, so it no longer controls us.

On the one hand, our previous master (the world, the flesh, or our sinful nature) has died; and a dead master is no master at all; a dead master can no longer control us.

Romans 8:9 says, “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.”

We used to be controlled by the sinful nature, but not anymore:

Galatians 5:24 – “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.”

We die to sin; a dead man cannot obey his former master.

However, in another sense, our old master still beckons to us.

1 Peter 2:11 says, “I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.”

Although our sin nature is put to death, ending its mastery of us, we are still at war.  The way that we war against these sinful desires is to count ourselves dead to their influence.

Colossians 2:20 – “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules?”

A slave who dies can’t obey his master anymore.  So why do we still obey the rules of the world, if our relationship with the world was severed through our death?

Romans 6:6 says that “our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.”

We used to be slaves to sin. But when a slave dies the old master can no longer command obedience.  Our “old self,” the person we were prior to conversion, is dead now.  We should act in accordance to the reality that our old self is dead.  We should not drag the dead old man around with us, prop it up, or act like it is still alive.

We share in Christ’s resurrection

Finally, because we share in Christ’s suffering and death, we also share in his life.  His resurrection gives us spiritual life now and forevermore, and guarantees the resurrection and renewal of our bodies as well.

Romans 6:4-5 – “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.  If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”

Continuing on to verse 8 – “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.”

We share in Christ’s victory because we share in His death.

I started out mentioning Philippians 3:10, where Paul said he wants “to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,” (continuing in verse 11) “and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

So let us look forward to Easter and the celebration of Christ’s resurrection and the promise of our own resurrection with rejoicing that we share in his suffering, that we share in his death, and that we share in his life.

No related posts.

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. (NIV1984)

In 1998, the New International Reader’s Version was published, which simplifies things for those who read on a more basic level.

Brothers and sisters, we ask you to have respect for the godly leaders who work hard among you. They have authority over you. They correct you. (NIrV)

In 2005, after attempts to revise the NIV generated controversy, Today’s New International Version was published as a separate version alongside the NIV.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. (TNIV)

Now in 2011, the NIV has been revised, replacing both the 1984 version and the TNIV with a single version that incorporates many of the changes that were made in the TNIV.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. (NIV)

Has there been a weakening of the “authority” language?  I’m not a New Testament scholar, so I cannot attest to which translation is best.  However, compare the NIV with these other translations, which are touted as being very accurate:

But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction (NASB)

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you (ESV)

Now, you might argue that having “care for” someone is essentially the same as having “charge over” someone, and that the NIV still indicates spiritual authority.  But in an age of freedom and independence, are readers of the NIV going to read this verse as an indication that we have people over us, leaders whose word carries more weight than ours?

I’m a Protestant.  I believe in sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers.  I have no desire to elevate pastors or elders to an undue level of authority.  I am still responsible before God for obeying His Word, regardless of what my pastor might say about this thing or that.  However, I’m worried that there is a high degree of individualism in the church that prevents people from recognizing spiritual authority. Most people have the idea that “we’re all equal,” and “it’s just between me and God.”  They might listen to their pastor because he studies a lot and is more knowledgeable than they, but they don’t really see him as being “over” them.  And yet, Scripture says that there are those who are “over [us] in the Lord.” (TNIV and NIV 2011 notwithstanding.)

What, then, does proper spiritual authority look like?  What are the bounds of pastoral authority?  How is it different on an interpersonal level compared to a communal (local church) level?

Related posts:

1. Spiritual Communication What’s the difference between Biblical meditation, allowing God to communicate...

On three corners of Fairfield and Airport Expressway stood a few dozen people holding American flags and a few signs.  We stood with these people, silently expressing our opposition to the hate on display on the fourth corner.  These co-counter-protesters were one audience, our presence communicating to them, “we’re with you.”  Unfortunately, some of our fellow counter-protesters unhelpfully expressed their disdain for the protesters on the other corner by shouting profanity at them.  I wish I could have told them, “I’m with you if you’re standing up for Christian love and patriotic honor, but I want no part of your counter-hate.”

Together, we told the audience of drivers and passengers in the passing traffic, “we honor our country and those who die in service to our country.  We oppose those who spew hatred.”  Some of those passing by tooted their horns appreciatively, expressing support and gratitude for our stand.  Others blew an extended blast of their horns at the hateful protesters as they drove by, extending the middle finger of fellowship through their window.  Unfortunately, some of the counter protesters cheered on this behavior.

On the other street corner, flanked by Fort Wayne police officers, four members of Westboro Baptist Church (WARNING: link to an offensive site) formed another audience.   They were there to protest America’s acceptance of homosexuality, happily rejoicing in the death of an American serviceman as evidence of God’s judgement.  We showed up to let them know that we disagree with the hateful things they say and the despicable way they spread their message.  (Denouncing homosexual behavior is not itself hateful, but the message of Westboro Baptist Church is filled with hate.)

I was also an audience member, on two counts.  For one, by putting my beliefs into action, I was demonstrating to myself that beliefs really matter, and beliefs should lead to action.  There are lots of people and things in this world that I disagree with, but I wouldn’t normally bother to protest most of them.  However, it is especially troublesome to have people who claim to be Christians, who claim to hold the truth of God’s Word, behave in such ungodly ways.  Because I cherish the truth of God’s Word and sincere devotion to following God’s commands, I felt that it was important to express my opposition to the way they twist God’s Word and character.

However, I was also an audience to the protesters from Westboro Baptist Church.  They weren’t just there for the passing traffic or the media.  As they waved their signs, trampled their American flags, and sang their songs, they were performing for those of us on the corners opposite them.  It makes me wonder if it would be better to just ignore them, rather than show up to be part of their audience.

No related posts.

Confession, at its core, is a statement or affirmation of what we believe. It can be a statement of what we believe to be right, i.e., a confession of faith, or it can be a statement of what we believe to be wrong, i.e., a confession of sin. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in its definition of confession, notes that confession is “uniting in a statement that has previously been made by someone else.”

Our most important confession is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Churches or groups of believers have at times written confessions that explain how they interpret God’s word, and provides a basis for agreement (the Augsburg Confession, Belgic Confession, and Westminster Confession are three examples of confessional statements that arose out of the Reformation).

Confession is also an admission of sin. Sometimes, it means revealing to others sin that was hidden. Sometimes others were well aware of the sin, and confession is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and an opportunity to agree that something truly was wrong.

What things are we to confess?

I don’t think there is anything that we shouldn’t confess. We should not hide our faith, and we should not hide our sin. The question, then, is about who to confess to, and in what setting.

To whom should we confess (God, individual, church)?
How, or where, should we confess (publicly or privately)?

There are examples in Scripture of both public confession and private confession. Private confession could be made in prayer to God, or between individuals.

1. Sins that are against another person should be confessed to that person.
2. Sins that are against the church body should be confessed to the church body.
3. Sins that take place in the public eye should be confessed publicly.

Why should we confess our sin?

For starters, God commands us to. But there are two significant reasons why we should confess our sin, and understanding these two reasons can help us in determining who should hear our confession.

1. Confess sin in order to achieve reconciliation. When unity has been severed, or damage has been done to another person or group of people, we need to confess our sin to them in order to be reconciled. The other side of the coin in reconciliation is forgiveness, which the offended party needs to offer. The order is not important (someone may confront you with your sin before you confess), but reconciliation requires both confession and forgiveness.

All sin is offensive to God, so all sin should be confessed to God, but some sins also need to be confessed to other people, if those people have been hurt by our sin. If the sin was private, between you and God, then there is no need to reveal it to others, necessarily.

2. Confess sin to keep from being dishonest. Sometimes, other people have no reason to believe that we have committed a certain sin, or that we haven’t committed a certain sin. Just because we have, doesn’t mean we need to tell them about it. However, there are also cases where someone may be led to believe that we have not committed a certain sin, and it would be dishonest to continue to give that false impression.

Related posts:

1. Confession for the natural man Benevolent and easy-going Father: We have occasionally been guilty of...
2. Westminster Confession Several weeks ago I took a look at the Three...