 
### Love Deeply, Think Deeply, Live Dangerously

### 13 Compelling Topics

_If you change what you think you can change how you love. If you change how you love, then you'll change_ _why_ _you live._

### By Mark Aaron Quick

Other books by Mark Aaron Quick

bound books:

Wisdom for Today's Decisions

Wisdom for Today's Teen Decisions

Ebooks:

Keep Your Shorts On!

A Collection of Short Stories for Christian Readers

You Can Be A More Creative Christian

Using Your Creative Gifts to Touch Others and Bring Glory to God

© Copyright 2016 by Mark Aaron Quick. All rights reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures are taken from the New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by The Lockman Foundation.

### Dedication

For Steve and Phil, who helped me understand everyone lives dangerously.
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 The Art of Living Dangerously

Chapter 2 Well, Bless My Soul

Chapter 3 Living Free

Chapter 4 Communication 101

Chapter 5 Human Pets Syndrome and Personal Identity

Chapter 6 Christian Education

Chapter 7 Do the Math

Chapter 8 Why We Can Never "Prove" the Existence of God to Skeptics

Chapter 9 Play by the Rules

Chapter 10 Keep God in the Center of Your Thoughts and Actions

Chapter 11 The Lone Ranger Rides Again

Chapter 12 Myth Busters

Chapter 13 Our Labor of Love

### Preface

The goal of life is to love deeply. The purpose of life is to glorify God. Neither happens when Christians exhibit an absence of morality, biblical understanding, or thoughtless interaction with God and others.

The world is a dangerous place. Some dangers have a destructive influence. Others serve to make us stronger. At some point in our lives we must embrace the type of dangers that build us up. Simultaneously we should seek to diminish the influence of those things that tend to tear us down, or even destroy us. It requires _discernment_ to recognize which dangers are which. It requires _courage_ to express love even in the face of danger.

Danger is a relative term. "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his soul" (see Matthew 16:26)? The crucial question for Christians to consider is this: is it more dangerous to go against the tide of the world or to live well within its flow?

The challenge for Christians in _all_ cultural settings remains the same as it has been through the eons. We are to seek justice, walk in truth, and demonstrate love while living in the freedom found in Christ. Some believers choose a haphazard approach to their Christian experience. I believe this to be a precarious and unhealthy pathway.

To act like a Christian you need to think like a Christian. We must _Love Deeply, Think Deeply,_ AND _Live Dangerously._ This book addresses 13 topics for readers who want to consistently apply biblical principals to their daily walk. As followers of Jesus Christ I hope all believers will seek to love deeply, pursue Godly thinking, and embrace the idea of becoming "dangerously" like our Master.
Chapter 1  
The Art of Living Dangerously

"No drug is without poison, the dose makes the poison." Paracelsus

***

Are you more conformed to the world than you would like to admit? According to Jesus, His followers should seek God's Kingdom _first_. Jesus taught this in His Sermon on the Mount. So why do so many of us who claim to be His followers seek conformity with the world? Most of us desire to be Christ-like. But _desire_ alone is not enough. Problems arise because we often don't follow Him with complete devotion in every aspect of our lives. Why? The reason is that our "heart" issues draw us habitually into continual dilemmas. Fortunately God offers heart transplants!

The Enormity of Conformity

Many times Christians conform to the world willingly. We _say_ we want to be different, at least from the world. Generally speaking, however, we just want to fit in. We want to be like other people. Is that really so bad? Notice that last question. It was a trap. This is only one of many forms of rationalization we use, because just "saying" we don't want to conform to the world is not enough, especially when we "do" conform frequently.

Does all this sound a bit "schizophrenic"? Many Christians live with a type of split personality. Personal desires are very normal. But normality alone does not automatically imply something is "okay". Being sinful is "normal", but the wages of sin is death.

The world is a dangerous place. Some dangers can destroy us, but others serve to make us stronger. The ART of living dangerously has to do with embracing the type of dangers that build us up.

Conformity with the world is something all believers struggle with. We must resist the desire to allow the world to define our beliefs and lifestyle. We should not let the world define what "normal" is for those of us who are Christians. Instead, we should strive to be extraordinary. This is not the same as being a super hero. Being extraordinary can be accomplished by living a godly "quiet life" (see 1 Thessalonians 4:11). _B_ _eing extraordinary was once achieved by simply placing two small coins into an offering box (see Mark 12:42)!_ All of us CAN be extraordinary.

You can be extraordinary by living a simple, genuine life of faith. Actually a "normal" Christian _is_ extraordinary when compared to people of the world. But this does not mean you should be "satisfied" with this comparison. "Normal" Christianity is not defined by a majority or public opinion poll. Don't compare yourself to others. Using a person-to-person comparison allows rationalizations that may be overly simplistic. Instead, you should "compare" yourself to the standards in God's Word.

When we compare ourselves to others the temptation to maintain self-talk such as, "Well, at least I'm not as bad as Jim!" can actually diminish our spiritual growth. Some people might go down the opposite "self-talk" path and say things like, "I'll never be used by God for anything worthwhile." Such statements are not true. Anyone can be used of God. Jesus demonstrated this through His disciples. Use the gifts you have within the situations you find yourself. Don't be smug about your comparisons, but don't be weakened by self-doubt either.

Biblical principles should show up in our marriages, our work, our entertainment, our politics, and all facets of our lives. God gave us His Word to CHANGE us. In what ways have you changed lately?

The book of Romans points out believers should live by the spirit rather than by the flesh. We should consider this normal for a Christian, not because it is easy to do but because _it is the way it should be_. Romans 7 offers proof that if we attempt to do this with our own power, we will fail miserably. Romans 8 reveals that when we set our mind on the Spirit, God's power can bring victory and nothing can separate us from the love of God!

Dare to Be "Normal" in an Extraordinary Fashion

As stated previously, one problem faced by many Christians is the desire to be like others in the world. We often want to be like other people when in actuality we should simply want to be more like God. We want the same toys and gadgets. We want similar clothing and the same type of music the world has. We want "Christian" music, but we want our Christian music to sound like popular secular music. I must confess I like these things as well, and all these things may be fine, IF we are _not_ being worldly.

But the problem develops in a subtle fashion. We may be tempted to pray, "God, don't let me be _too_ different." When Christians seek to emulate people with worldly values, there is bound to be a clash somewhere along the spectrum of beliefs, priorities, and values (see Daniel chapter 1 to learn one method Daniel used to avoid this).

The Bible teaches several ideas about conformity. Jesus taught that having two masters does not work. Paul's advice was, "... do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2). The author of Hebrews wrote that we should emulate the heroes of the faith who were "men of whom the world was not worthy" (Hebrews 11:38). We should live our lives as people of the "promise" (see Galatians chapter 3). If we are indeed focused on God and upon His promise of eternal life, we cannot live exactly the same as people of the world who do not live for God.

Jesus prayed that His disciples would be in the world but not of the world (see John 17). There is nothing wrong with being here in the world, but our primary allegiance must be with God. Paul wrote to the Philippians that God was not finished yet with his work through him, and so it was "more necessary" for him to stay. He was in the world, but not of it.

When you think about "worldliness", what quantity, dosage, or "amount of exposure" can you sustain before you also become worldly? Consider your personal answer carefully. Christians who cannot distinguish whether they are "of" the world or not may have already become _conformed_. It is likely conformity to the world happens with little conscious knowledge. Regarding conformity "the poison is in the dose"!

Altering Attitude

Paul displayed two important attitudes to the believers in Philippi. We can learn from his example. The first attitude was that of a willing servant. It was his desire to serve both God and others. Do you share this desire, or do you frequently hope someone else steps up to the plate? How do you handle opportunities such as nursery duty, bringing snacks to the youth group, helping out with vacation Bible school, visiting older folks at a nursing home, or whatever _opportunities_ come your way? Is your attitude appropriate? Do you step right in or do you desperately hope someone else steps up to the plate? The reason I know about these dilemmas is because I struggle with them too.

The second attitude has to do with living according to God's promises. Being focused on God's promises allows us to develop an active frame of mind that maintains a genuine future-oriented perspective. You may call it "planning on going to heaven". You may call it accepting the idea that being absent from the body means being present with the Lord. You may call it "focusing on eternal life". You may call it the "book of Job" principle. You may refer to it as the attitude Paul displayed in the first two chapters of Philippians. But whatever you may call it, having this "long-range attitude" is a key ingredient to avoiding conformity with the world.

Paul informed the Galatians that when we get our eyes off the "promise" we tend to live by the flesh rather than by the spirit. There was a movement a few years ago called "Promise Keepers". It outlined important elements such as keeping our promises. That goal is very important. But it is crucial that Christians also become "People Who Live According to God's Promises". We ought to be people who live in and through the knowledge of God's promises to us. Living by the flesh is the essence of conformity. Living by the spirit means being continually focused on God. Is your focus worldly or is your focus on God and His promises?

If Noah sought conformity he would not have built an ark. If Abram (soon to be called Abraham) sought conformity he would never have left Ur. If David sought conformity no one would have defeated Goliath. If Daniel sought conformity, it is true that he may never have been cast into the den of lions, but it is also true that Darius may never have seen the miraculous evidence of God's power! Thankfully these men thought of themselves as "men of whom the world was not worthy" (see Hebrews 11). They remained focused on the big picture.

One of the most common ways we conform is in the way we address issues. We often wail about the demise of Christian morals. We rant and rave about the lack of a Christian worldview within our society. This brings up our righteous indignation. Then we can really take the ball and roll! We can easily behave angrily in a way in which we sound so righteous, so religious, and so committed. This is when we must be most alert. We can become so "righteous" that stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery seems like the _only_ solution (see John 8). It is in moments like this that we are in peril of being most conformed to the world. We need to have the attitude of Christ (see Philippians chapter 2).

Avoiding Conformity With the World

Conformity takes many different roles. It may show up in external areas of our lives. It may be a part of our "internal" life because it may be a part of our thoughts and assumptions. Human nature is complex so we need vigilance in all areas of life. Externally, we often conform in the area of material possessions and appearances. Internally, we often develop conformity regarding priorities, values, and beliefs.

Suppose someone points out that all people have similar needs and that what appears to be "worldly conformity" is nothing more than simply living according to one's needs. All humans have the same basic spiritual and physiological needs. However, when we are "born again" (see John 3), there is a spiritual transformation of needs and wants. We still need water, air, and sleep. True. We still need God's cleansing from unrighteousness, the fruits of the Spirit, and greater love. True again. But the difference between these types of needs is huge. A Christian has already attained these spiritual gifts, or he or she is in the _process_ of attaining them. Needs that are currently met are no longer "needs" in the normal sense of the word. I sometimes observe Christians using the word "needs" to exaggeratedly label things that are actually just wants or desires.

_Learn to focus on your true needs._ These needs are what you should be asking God for. Don't be lazy when it comes to your personal spiritual development. First you must identify your true spiritual needs. _Be aware that they often change at different times during your life._ A study of biblical characters reveals that each person's spiritual _needs_ are often unique. Moses, Elijah, Peter, and John all had differing needs and areas to grow in.

Are you unsure of your own spiritual needs? As a beginning point, seek to improve your personal relationship with God. As you engage in improving your relationship with Him your spiritual needs will become more obvious. What do you need spiritually at this point in your journey? When you ask God to lead you through each day, it will help you avoid conformity with the world.

Foster Consistency

Most Christians do not have a problem with having too few beliefs. Our problem tends to be holding on to inconsistent beliefs. The problem is that we often get our eyes off God and His promises and then we develop _inconsistent_ patterns and habits. For example, when our faith is speckled with fear and worry, it looks suspiciously unlike true faith.

Fear and Worry

A major dimension to our conformity can be seen in things we worry about. We worry about our nation, the education of our children, our finances, wars, natural disasters and the list goes on and on. Most Christians live in fear. How do we rationalize our fears as being anything other than worldly? Imagine how our prayer requests would be transformed if we truly feared God and nothing else! Fear shatters our witness to the world. Our opportunities to be salt and light are diluted and dissipated when we exemplify fear. Rather than presenting courageous peacemaking and the type of powerful meekness that comes from God's internal strengthening, many of us walk through the valley of the shadow of death like cowardly lions.

Our problem is that we often believe our fears. When we do so we are conformed to the world through our fears. Is God in control, is the adversary in control, or is the whole universe in a state of chaos? We know the right answer, and we know we should not be conformed to the world, but sometimes we panic like Peter did on the water. It's never time to panic. When fear assaults it is simply time to pray and keep our eyes on God.

We are aliens (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11). What does it mean to understand _and accept_ the biblical idea that this world is not our home? You and I are just passing through. While we are here we have a purpose. That much IS clear. However, conformity with the world is NOT a part of that purpose. Our purpose is to glorify God. Do you have fears? "Cast all your cares upon Him" (see 1 Peter 5:7).

Living Dangerously

The world seeks to promote self-centered choices, sinful priorities, and values that relate to the goal of "happiness" above all else. How should those of us who are believers live in a world that seeks to constrain Christian choices, priorities, and values? Understanding the spiritual counter balance principle may help some situations. The Bible presents the concept that the first shall be last and the last shall be first (see Matthew 19:30 and 20:16). One way to apply this is to understand that results do not always match expectations. The safest course of action may be to follow what _appears_ to be the most dangerous (remember Daniel and Joseph?). Trying to live a completely "safe" existence may actually be one of the most dangerous things any Christian can do.

Our personal attitude and our personal worldview are crucial in how we relate to God, to our friends and family, and to our society in general. Understanding what choices are safe and what choices are dangerous requires deep layers of evaluation. If we analyze only at surface levels we may miss critical long-term assessments that lead us to live our lives according to fear rather than according to faith. Let me use a few observations from modern American society to illustrate this point.

Many Americans believe they live in a free society. Yet American society at large seems to promote a definition of freedom that has some very suspicious qualities. Only "state approved" forms of religious discussions are allowed in most public schools. Regarding social problems, "thinking" is often discouraged in favor of memorizing the "appropriate" politically correct viewpoints, especially if the solutions being thought about bear any semblance of religious orientation at all. These things are _avoided_ in the name of freedom. Evolutionary theory has become elevated to the status of religious _Darwinism_ with the obvious expectation that all "normal" individuals should bow down, acknowledge, and accept this viewpoint of origins.

What certain people label as "politics" is to be kept outside of the classroom if you are in school or outside of your place of business if you are a worker. The rationale is because argumentative debates are likely to create disharmony or disrupt productivity and perhaps spawn "hate" and "intolerance". Ironically the true meaning of the word "tolerate" has been turned on its head! Americans are told they are free. But their freedoms must be _defined_ according to secular mainstream accepted policies.

Such attitudes and beliefs are dangerous. These underlying attitudes affect our kids too. Honest discussions are considered by many to be "a waste of time" in public schools because they do not raise standardized test scores or because we fear intolerance. The irony is that such discussions are necessary to develop true tolerance. But many in our _free_ society prefer pseudo-tolerance. Without honest discussions, politically correct clichés become the sound bites of our existence.

Whether we are discussing politics, sports, current events, entertainment, social mores or whatever, Christians must develop the courage to live passionately for our Lord. This means avoiding conformity with the world. The most obvious reason is because living passively creates great dangers of its own. For a sincere believer the "safe" way is likely a very precarious way.

First and foremost, living a passive "Christian" lifestyle creates a danger to our own personal walk with the Lord. How can we actively walk with God if we avoid the very things He calls us to do? Secondly, if we maintain a wimpy relationship with God, then our modeling of our own passivity creates an additional danger that our children will also lead wimpy Christian lives. Christian parenting that mirrors the world and its principles, beliefs and priorities will seldom lead to the development of strong disciples and followers of Christ.

Following the birth of our Savior and the events surrounding it, Mary "treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19). Nothing creates greater parental joy than seeing our children live strongly for the Lord. Unfortunately, nothing brings greater heartbreak than seeing our children reject God's best and walk in the ways of the world. Let us do what we can to avoid being wimpy Christians.

A third point is that other people we disciple will be less edified, less stimulated toward love and good deeds, and less deep in their own devotion toward God. Others who need to be nurtured will receive only shallow attempts at edification. Who will nurture them if we do not? The world needs to see God's love courageously put into practice. How can we witness if our lights are always under a bushel? Christians who are frightened into worldly acquiescence will tend to walk by the flesh rather than by the spirit.

Incorporate True Religion into Your Politics

There are plenty of jokes about not mixing politics with religion. While God seems to have a sense of humor in many areas of life (e.g. see your local zoo), we should realize that some spiritual and social issues are nothing to joke about. Not only must we be willing to "discuss" religion and politics we must also strive to _live_ a life of true and pure religion (see James 1:27). Politics should not be defined as merely elections and officials. I believe politics should be defined as _finding ways to improve the lives of others_. In this sense, true religion offers great implication for true politics.

Our outer life is revealed in actions that are spawned from the inner life of our beliefs and attitudes. We reveal how God has changed us by His truth, grace, justice, and holiness outwardly through the way we live. These "outer" qualities are developed because of His inward transformation of our attitude with such things as His love, peace, joy, and hope. Our religion _is_ our politics when our religion is based on our personal relationship with God. We should seek to bring about social changes according to godly principles.

The great concepts of law revolve around truth, justice and freedom. The Bible has much to say about all three. The "Pilates" of our age want to ask the question "what is truth" and then walk away as if there is no answer. But we know the answer. We know the _Truth_ personally (see John 14:6).

The "Pharisees" of our time want to trap us into believing that justice is one-dimensional. But we know (as just one example) the "rights" of a woman do not supplant the rights of another human being (who is also alive). Justice is multidimensional. True justice must consider ALL viewpoints (especially God's!).

The "slave-traders" of our day may not "trade" openly the way they once did. But they promote "slave-ish" concepts like determinism with assertions about our lack of control and decision-making. The intellectual slave-traders peddle the idea that no one is really free and that freedom is just an illusion. This can be seen in the "scripts" and assertions that proclaim certain members of society MUST live a certain way. They have no choice.

"You will never be free of your addiction." "Once an addict, always an addict." This message is preached loud and clear in drug and alcohol recovery groups. It is also a common message regarding sexuality. People are being told they were "born" with a disposition toward pedophilia, or being gay, or whatever sexual orientation they prefer. They are being told the "Nature versus Nurture" debate does not apply because simple genetics "controls" their life.

At the time of this writing 7 separate twin studies regarding same-sex attraction have been completed, the most recent out of Finland. Research confirms that genetics is a minor factor while non-genetic environment factors are major. In his paper on the subject, Neil Whitehead begins his abstract by saying, "This paper uses the seven largest twin registry studies to emphasize that same- sex attraction (SSA) is mostly caused neither by genetics (weak to modest influence) nor direct shared environment (very weak), but by many nonshared individualistic events and reactions..."

But many insist research _must_ be wrong because it doesn't line up with their political agenda. If science research "lines up with the Bible" many automatically assume it must be flawed, even though this research is completely secular.

Our society promotes many "shoulds" and "oughts" in intellectual slave-trader fashion as well, usually by using language relating to "rights". These issues are often considered "non-debatable". Criminals have a _right_ to shorter prison terms and entertainment while in prison. A woman has the _right_ to choose to abort a human if that person is (unfortunately) living inside her body. Animals have a _right_ to organic food. Even plants have _rights_ according to some people.

But if you are a Christian, YOU do not have a _right_ to disagree with any majority opinion when it comes to social or environmental issues. The modern intellectual slave-traders make it clear. Anyone who thinks differently or who maintains values that are different is a danger to society. This is _their_ definition of a "free" society.

Danger is a relative term. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his soul (Matthew 16:26)? Is it more dangerous for a Christian to go against the tide of the world, or to live well within its flow? The challenge for Christians everywhere is to seek justice, walk in truth, and demonstrate love while living in the freedom found in Christ.

We are called to address the great issues and ideas of our time. We are called to wrestle with crucial questions the way Jacob wrestled with the angel of the Lord (see Genesis 32:22-32). What does it mean to follow Jesus? What does it mean to be transformed? What does it mean to have "died to self" (see Romans 6)? What did Jesus _really_ mean when He said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (see John 8)? What does it mean to be people of God? Our answers to these questions are important if we are to avoid conformity with the world.

My point here is that we should seek to avoid worldly conformity in ALL arenas. People like to joke about staying away from politics and religion, but can you imagine Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul or Peter _NOT_ dealing with the religion and politics of their time and culture?

Our challenge is to find ways for truth to be fully integrated into every part of how we live. As Christians, we cannot avoid political issues just as we cannot avoid life issues. During my freshman year of college I wrote a paper about how "un-political" Jesus was. I based my ideas _at that time_ _in my life_ on the fact that He did not seek to overthrow the Romans via the Zealot methodology. I also pointed out that regarding poverty Jesus told the disciples they would always have poor people in society.

During that time period of my life I maintained a rather stiff definition of the term "politics". I held assumptions that led me to disengage from political discussions and actions. I now realize I was very wrong. I was actually spiritually immature. I should have spent more time integrating the principles from the book of James into my life and thinking.

_True spiritual change represents the highest form of political change because people's lives are improved from the inside out._ It was not my misinterpretation of the biblical accounts that caused the problem. The root of the problem was that I held a very narrow definition of politics so I then misapplied some of the spiritual principles from Christ's life.

Finding Safety in Danger

_A true relationship with God leads to true religion that is infused into every dimension of our lives._ This is the key. Our politics may have nothing to do regarding the current majority or minority party. But our politics should be infused with our religion as we are making disciples, performing acts of mercy, or caring for orphans. Our religion should be revealed in our political stances whether we are helping to develop schools, hospitals, ministry opportunities, providing aid to widows in need, supporting missions, planting churches, or engaging in any form of ministry, worship, or spiritual act.

These things all play a part in the political _kingdom_ of God. These types of acts should represent our politics. God grants us an active role. We are to take up His yoke and harness ourselves alongside of Him (see Matthew 11:29). With His help we can change the world in radical ways that are both religious and political! Redefine the term "political". _Do what you can do._ That is the path of an intentional Christian.

The _safest_ thing a Christian can do is to live "dangerously". When it comes to the things of the world, I urge you to be nonconforming. I am convinced that following Christ will _transform_ your understanding of politics. Words such as "freedom", "rights", and social "needs" will become redefined. When your whole approach to life includes love, grace and truth then the definitions you use for _true_ education, _true_ tolerance and _true_ poverty will become greatly refined.

Jesus demonstrated that political change should come about through religious transformation. As Christians, our problem is not that we render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Our problem is that we tend to NOT render to God the things that are His. We are quick to slice off the ear of Malchus (as Peter did, see John 18:10), but slow to love our enemies.

We "worry" too much about politics. As the Nike slogan suggests, Christians should "Just Do It"! Paul pointed out in Romans 14 that we should be good citizens. This means we must find ways to discriminate between what it means to obey God rather than men. Sins such as stealing, murdering, and falsely accusing someone are clearly prohibited in the Bible. These are black and white. We should not call black and white issues gray, nor should we call gray issues black and white. What we should be able to do is discriminate.

Smuggling Bibles into a country that outlaws them may honor God. Engaging in corrupt business practices is never okay. If a Christian is having difficulty discriminating between such scenarios it may be that this particular Christian needs to be re-taught basic principles of the Bible (see Hebrews 5:11-14).

We should never worry when we trust in the sovereignty of God. There has never been a Christian utopia, nor will one ever exist until Christ comes again. Acknowledge the fact that God **IS** in control and then move on. The motif is to do what you can do.

Let us also redefine the term "religious". The definition used by the Pharisees (following rules) allows for a hard heart. The definition used by the Sadducees (religion is POWER used to control people) allows for class-based selfishness. Many in our society believe all forms of religion always involve one or both of these definitions. But they are wrong. We need to PROVE they are wrong. _True_ religion is this: love God and love others.

Don't Worry About Your Concerns, Be Concerned About Your Worries

There is a huge difference between concern and worry. We should always be concerned but we should never worry. We must discriminate between the two. We should work to bring about positive changes in society not because we are afraid, but simply because we love others and want to see them benefit. It is at this foundational level of motivation that I perceive many Christians stumble. Politics motivated by fear does NOT demonstrate religion motivated by love.

What is your purpose in life? Be sure that you are working toward that purpose in a way that brings glory to God. Each of us has a sphere of influence, and each of us can make a difference if we allow God to use us. Ask yourself this question. Who is influencing whom?

Areas for additional thought:

1. If Christians conform to the world's standards it is clearly bad for the Christians. But what might happen to society at large (hypothetically) if _all_ Christians simply gave in and actively accepted worldly standards completely?

2. How consistent are you in your spiritual habits and beliefs? Do you have attitudes that need to be altered? Is there an area of your heart you ought to allow God greater access to?

3. How can you personally live an "extraordinary" life? How do you define the term "religious" in your daily life? What spiritual _needs_ do you have right now?
Chapter 2  
Well, Bless My Soul

"God bless us, everyone." Tiny Tim (from Dickens' _A Christmas Carol_ )

***

Are you blessed? Well of course you are, if you have a relationship with Christ. Nevertheless, Christians still ask this question frequently. But is this the _crucial_ blessing question? The Bible teaches it is more important to consider whether we are blessing others. Even more intriguing is this follow-up question: shouldn't we be asking if we are blessing God?

It is dangerous to live with inappropriate beliefs about blessings. In this chapter we will look at the purpose of being blessed and of blessing others. There is no lack of biblical teaching on the subject. Scripture passages about blessings are commonplace. For example, Paul wrote, "... when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ" (see Romans 15:29). Have you ever wondered what the term "blessing" means in such a passage? Let's see if we can unpeel part of this _spiritual_ onion.

We use the term "blessing" in either a noun or verb form. We may receive a blessing (which is the noun form) or we may bless someone (which is the verb form). In either case the term implies the basic transference of something beneficial. Wherever blessings occur we see a desire or promise of a benefit. In the passage above Paul is simply telling the church in Rome that he is bringing with him the "benefits" associated with Christ. The "fullness" of this blessing includes things such as salvation, an abundant life, grace, truth, and love, to name only a few of the blessings of the "fullness" of Christ.

Once we understand that blessings are "good" our minds generally jump to thinking about how we can get more blessings. This is very human. But it is a reaction that can lead to serious issues. Our natural desire to assure the acquisition of blessings can lead us into seeking formulas. This in turn may lead to thinking about "prerequisite conditions" that will _guarantee_ blessings. The danger of this type of thinking is that we may begin to focus on our _gains_ rather than on our _purpose_. Instead of thinking about guarantees from a "formula" frame of mind, try thinking of the simple first steps you believe God wants you to do. This means you should stay focused on your purpose. The difference is subtle, but the heart of the matter lies within your initial decision to do things either your way or God's way.

If you want to bless someone, the first step is to clarify your intention. Make sure your motive is pure. You may go a step further then and make that person a promise. If you do, be sure to fulfill it. Making a promise is not about having a formula. It is about developing a plan. A formula implies "multi-dimensional magic" that can be used in all sorts of places and platforms. A plan is individualized to a particular person or situation. There is a distinct difference between a formula that seeks to obtain a result from a self-centered perspective, and a plan that seeks the best for someone else.

The motivation of any methodology should be seen as weak if it is done with even a bit of self-interest involved. Many people do things that are "good" for others out of a motivation that relates to their own self-interests. Maybe they do it to receive a pat on the back or maybe they do it for personal glory or power. It's good to do good, but it's even better to be a builder in God's kingdom. Do good with _right_ motives. Instead of doing things so that we may receive personal gain, the Bible teaches we ought to operate out of motivations driven by love.

Whenever you read about a blessing in the Bible it is used in reference to one of three possible interactions. A blessing can be received from God to man, from man to man, or most astoundingly (at least to me) from man to God. This last point has frequently boggled my mind. How can I actually "bless" the Almighty God Who created all of the heavens and the earth? We will come back to this amazing question. It is sufficient to observe here that the answer has to do with our purpose for existing.

What is a Blessing?

At a rudimentary level a blessing must be something good. If it were not good it would not be much of a blessing. Yet what are we to make of phrases such as, "Blessed are those who mourn" or "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness" (see Matthew 5)? Most of us do not associate mourning and persecution with "goodness". So is a blessing _always_ good?

The answer is that blessings are always _ultimately good_. Those who mourn shall be comforted and those who are persecuted shall receive the kingdom of heaven. The Bible often presents a "long range view". Blessings often require an eternal perspective. The stories of Joseph, Job, and Daniel, illustrate that even "shorter range" blessings here on earth may take a great degree of patience before they are realized. When we understand it this way we may observe that biblical blessings often require a degree of deferred gratification. Abraham and Sarah did not receive their promised son "immediately".

In our current society deferred gratification is not a popular notion (of course it has never been a popular notion at any time in history). Some Christians claim that the teachings in the Bible about faith demand assertive interpretations so that we may realize the pragmatic elements of being blessed. These individuals (at least those I am thinking of) seem to hold to the idea that true faith means we have only to ask, and if we _truly believe_ , it will happen.

The Bible does instruct us saying, "Ask, and it shall be given unto you" (Matthew 7:7). The problem comes when some people interpret this to mean we may literally ask for anything. If the thing I ask for is selfish, unrelated to my purpose in life, or something of a personal lust, if I "ask" with the right formula then the Big Santa Claus in the sky ought to give it to me. This idea goes too far. It is not appropriate to use a verse taken out of context to build a lifestyle.

On the other hand, it is also true that many Christians do not go far enough down the road of "asking". There is a need for balance. _The truth is some people ask for things they ought not to and some people never ask for things they should._ Imagine how your life would change if you were to spend more time asking for things related to the Kingdom of God such as patience, courage, love, and joy (to name only a few).

Frankly, I'm tired of Christians joking around with other believers with comments such as, "Well friend, whatever you do, do NOT ask God for patience." These humorous little jokes may just be jokes to some people, but I believe they are indicative of deeper attitudes that actually do focus more on short-range happiness rather than long-term discipleship. In other words, I am convinced that some people who crack such jokes actually would NOT ask God for patience, because even though they say it's just a joke, deep in their heart they hold a fear that God might teach them something though a trial. I consider this a dangerous attitude.

In whatever we ask, the Bible teaches we should ask with godly motives. _How_ we ask is also important. We should ask with faith (see James 1:6). But _why_ we ask is also very important. The book of James points out that sometimes we "ask with wrong motives" (James 4:3). True faith demonstrates _trusting_ (this is often where patience comes in) and _obeying_ (which should also be done with the proper motives). Faith without works is dead (see James chapter 2). True faith is obedient, but like love it is also patient. To receive blessings from God we should be operating out of godly motivations.

Relating Blessings to the Abrahamic Covenant

In Genesis (chapters 12, 17, and 22) we read about the Abrahamic Covenant. This covenant describes honor ("I will make your name great") and shared blessing ("all families of the earth shall be blessed") as a promise. Without the promise, there would be no covenant.

But there was a condition to be met regarding this covenant. The condition had to do with obedience based on faith. Abram was to leave Ur and go to a land unfamiliar to him. Genesis 22 reveals another amazing fact about the relationship of Abraham with God. Abraham's faith was validated, "...because you have not withheld your son, your only son...." God knew within His perfect plan, that He too would not withhold His only Son. That was a part of His promise of blessing. Scripture uses Abraham's faith as a model for our faith (see Romans chapter 4). Abraham's faith included external actions that demonstrated his internal beliefs.

Some Christian leaders concentrate heavily on blessings through faith as a major focus of their ministry. Some Christians seem to understand faith to be only "intense belief". This is a very weak definition. Abraham's faith showed a deep relationship with God demonstrated by obedience. Jesus said, "Blessed are those who hear the Word of God AND OBSERVE IT" (see Luke 11:28, emphasis added).

We should be prepared to ask hard questions about how we interpret and apply the Scriptures. When we read the Bible do we try to make passages say what we want, or do we allow the Holy Spirit to use the scripture to change our perspective? I have witnessed some people interpret passages based on their "priorities" and "wishes". In other words, we may emphasize something a particular way that involves unwarranted presuppositions. This tendency must be resisted, especially with concepts involving things like blessings where motivational lines can easily be crossed. Let me illustrate this point about Bible interpretation regarding "blessings" with another example from Genesis.

Genesis 26 describes how Isaac obeyed God and how God blessed Isaac. When we read Genesis 26 our initial worldview may determine how we apply what we read. One individual may read the passage and conclude that he should seek to become wealthy like Isaac was. Another individual may read the passage and conclude that she should obey God like Isaac did. These are two very different conclusions, with very different ramifications when it comes to application. I further believe that only one of the above interpretations is correct. Our purpose is NOT to seek wealth, even if God blesses us with it.

Blessings May Provide a "Witness"

Let's explore the statement above more deeply. When God blesses someone in the Bible, the blessing itself provides a "witness". The men of Gerar could plainly see the Lord was with Isaac. Because of this they sought to establish a covenant with Isaac. What modern application can we learn from this? One application would be to understand that when God blesses there are results, therefore, do things God's way.

There are many other scriptures that reveal God blessing His people, but a common theme is that things should be done God's way rather than "our" way. When we study the Beatitudes (see Matthew 5), we realize each promised blessing is based upon a condition. Even in difficult circumstances there may be blessings that are evident (or that will become evident). God often transforms an apparent curse into a blessing! The cross itself is a profound example of this. God loves unconditionally, but His judgments and His blessings are based upon conditions.

Blessings Bring Hope

An instructive blessing was recorded in the book of Numbers. Moses said to Aaron and his sons, "The Lord bless you, and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance on you, and give you peace" (see Numbers 6:24-27). Blessings bring hope because they are based upon **relationship**. Aaron was not perfect. Actually he was a sinful man. But even sinful, imperfect people who seek a relationship with God can be blessed! Think about what it means for God to shine His face on _you_. Consider meditating upon how _you_ might be affected by the brightness of God's presence. Such meditations may reveal various aspects of the nature of God. Often such knowledge is a blessing in and of itself.

Person to Person

Blessings from God to man are not the only type of blessings. Blessings can be given from one person to another. We use wills and trust funds today, but during the era of the patriarchs a blessing could be given that went far beyond how we utilize a last will and testament. The Genesis account contains a famous story in which Isaac intended to bless Esau, but he blessed Jacob instead. There are many amazing factors associated with this story. Did Esau truly deserve the "first" blessing? Was Isaac spiritually "blinded" by his own carnality to the many faults of Esau? When Isaac realized the "mistake" why couldn't it be reversed? The biblical account leaves many of these elements unanswered. Nevertheless, God clearly used the situation for His glory.

Jacob had many faults but the Bible reveals a crucial difference between the two brothers. In Genesis chapter 28 we read that Isaac urged both sons to NOT take a wife from "the daughters of Canaan". This request had to do with spiritual influence. Jacob obeyed his father's wishes, but Esau _intentionally_ disobeyed. This provides an important insight into the basic character of both sons. It is important to note that it is _while_ Jacob was in the act of obeying this directive that he received his famous "ladder" dream and a direct blessing from God Himself. Obeying his father implied he was also obeying God.

The Bible clearly teaches we can bless others. It does so with numerous illustrations in addition to the story of Isaac blessing Jacob. There are many ways we can bless others, and we should WANT to bless others! We can do this by praying for them. We can do this by providing food, water, and clothing. We can do this by visiting them. There is an infinite amount of creative ways we can seek to bless others.

How Can We Bless God?

I have heard many Christians teach about how to receive blessings from God. The Beatitudes encourage us to do "godly" acts so that we may receive blessings associated with those actions. This is definitely an important biblical concept. But the Bible also teaches the strange and wondrous idea that WE can bless God. When you ponder deeply, perhaps that is the point of the Beatitudes.

President Kennedy once asked the people of the United States to, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Kennedy's point dealt with changing one's attitude from a self-centered focus to an outward and purpose-oriented focus. As important as this is at a political and national level it is even more crucial at a spiritual level.

We should ask not only how God can bless us but also how we can bless Him. He certainly does not need anything we have. On the other hand He has revealed some of His "desires". He desires our love. He desires our obedience. He desires our faith. He also wants us to acknowledge truth. He wants us to fear Him in the biblical sense of the word. _All of the above qualities require a submission of our freewill_.

He does not want us to submit the way "peons" might before a tyrannical ruler. His goal is love. His desire is to lift up our head and grant us eternal inheritance as sons and daughters. He wants to give us the truly important things in this life leading to abundant living.

Think about what a relationship actually is. It is about connections and unity. It is about the blending of heart and soul and mind. It is about sharing experiences. The deeper our personal walk becomes with God, the more difficult it becomes to separate distinctively between when He is blessing us and when we are blessing Him. In a mystical sense I believe that most often both events happen simultaneously. There is an amazing principle of reciprocity at work in regard to blessings. As you seek to bless Him, you will realize He _is_ blessing you.

Some readers may find metaphysical statements such as this too vague for their personal satisfaction. Hopefully the next few paragraphs will make our goal setting process less vague. Although this is not an exhaustive study I believe we can identify potential target objectives that may enable us to bless God. The following represents merely a few potential starting points.

The prophet Micah (see Micah 6:8) wrote about some specific goals. "And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Humility is a key idea expressed throughout all of scripture. At the heart of humility is the acceptance of reality and truth. God is God. He knows who He is. When we acknowledge Him and honor Him for who He is, **He is blessed**. Pride ALWAYS involves some degree of self-deceit. Doing what God wants us to do in an attitude of humility "blesses" Him. The more accurately we see God, the more humbly we see ourselves.

Besides humility, the prophet Micah gives us two other areas to focus on by which we may bless God. God is blessed when we seek to do justice and also when we love kindness (some translations read "mercy"). These are elements we do in a "horizontal" manner. As we do them to others we simultaneously do them to God (see Matthew 25:35-40). It is amazing to consider how deeply our horizontal walk (what we do to others) affects our vertical walk (our relationship with God).

Moses also identified three target areas to please God (see Deuteronomy 30:19,20). His list includes loving God, obeying God, and holding fast to God. These goals are aimed at developing and maintaining a personal relationship with God. Do you want to bless God? Develop your relationship by loving, obeying, and holding fast to Him.

We may also bless God through our worship. It is worth noting that in one sense there is little distinction between possessing humility and worshiping God. We may say that the former (humility) is the attitude while the latter (worship) is the action, but such definitions are seldom perfect. Essentially they are both an outflow of our walk with Him and what the Bible identifies as awe inspired "fear" of the Lord.

Worship may be done through a variety of means. We may worship by acknowledging His glory (see Revelation 5:12,13). We may worship through meditation, poetry and song (see Psalm 103). We may worship in silence (see Psalm 62:1) or in loud shouts of praise (see Psalm 150). We may worship by offering material possessions (see Malachi 3) or by offering our lives (see Romans 12). Whatever form it takes, true worship blesses God.

David wrote, "The Lord lives and blessed be my rock; and exulted be the God of my salvation" (Psalm 18:46). Through the use of the "rock" metaphor David focused on the attributes of God that relate to strength, power and steadfastness. When he stated, "The Lord lives..." he revealed his own faith while at the same time focusing on the marvelous aspects of God's self-sufficient existence. When we make statements about the reality of God we bless Him. It may be more accurate to say that it is not the statements that bless God, but the faith of the person who makes the statements. It is the relationship itself that is the important thing.

Blessing God involves exulting God. To exult Him is a very personal thing. David proclaimed, "The Lord... is the God of my salvation" (see the Psalm 18 quote above). God doesn't want a simple "business" arrangement. He is blessed when we make it personal.

Psalm 145 begins with the words, "I will extol Thee, my God, O King; and I will bless Thy name forever and ever. _Every day I will bless Thee_ , and I will praise Thy name forever and ever." This Psalm describes focused meditation on God's mighty acts. It also describes focused meditation upon many of the attributes of God such as His majesty and splendor. God's attributes are important to focus on. Acknowledging His righteousness, grace, mercy, love, wisdom, holiness, and omnipotence, as well as any of the other aspects of His nature serves as a pathway for blessing Him.

This Psalm (Psalm 145) displays a crescendo of praise. At the beginning David states, " _I_ will bless Thee". In the middle he announces, "Thy _godly ones_ shall bless Thee." By the end of the Psalm he points out that ultimately, " _All flesh_ will bless His holy name forever and ever." We bless God when we focus on Him. For this we were created. This is our purpose.

Going Deeper than a "Santa Claus" Relationship

We should not seek to be blessed by God in a mere Santa Claus fashion. He seeks relationship with us. When we seek relationship with Him He is blessed and we are blessed. Blessing flows out of relationship. Being blessed by God reveals your allegiance to God as the precondition, and His allegiance to you through the demonstration of the blessing.

It is a mistake to think of blessings only in physical terms. Otherwise it would obviously be impossible for us to bless God! There is a story in the Bible in which one woman understood the concept of blessing in very physical terms. She proclaimed to Jesus that it was a very great blessing for _the mother who bore Him and nursed Him_. These are very specific physical items she was focused on. But Jesus replied in a much more spiritual manner. He said that a greater blessing comes to those who hear the word of God and who obey it (see Luke 11:27,28).

The Role of Stewardship and the Concept of Blessing

Stewardship has a connection to being blessed by God. Stewardship involves personal economics. We may be tempted to think that the level of "blessing" we discern in our personal economics presents a mirror image of our relationship with God. From a biblical perspective this type of thinking rests on dangerous ground. It represents a type of "backwards" thinking.

There _is_ a direct correlation between our personal economics and our personal theology. But our economics should not be driving our theology. It is our theology that should be driving our personal economics. The reason such a strong statement may be made is because our theology reveals our priorities, and our priorities should reflect those espoused in the Bible.

There are a lot of verses in the Bible that deal with money and wealth. But if money is a man-made phenomenon why does God care about it? The way each of us frames our answer to this question reveals a great deal about our personal priorities. Our answer to this question also reveals a great deal about the personal relationship we seek to maintain with God. Our priorities and our stewardship impact our daily decision-making.

Our priorities determine greatly how we live. Circumstances and life events get filtered through our system of priorities as we choose how we will react. Not only do we react to situational information, but we also choose what proactive steps we will engage in for possible future events and circumstances. Our priorities reveal the way we essentially want to live "for ourselves". They reveal _our_ goals and _our_ dreams and _our_ aspirations. How often do we analyze the desires of our heart? What is it we want to accomplish with our lives? What is it that we deem truly important? All of these questions deal with economics at some level.

Stewardship represents how we choose to live for our Master. What do we want to accomplish for _Him_? What do we believe to be _His_ desires and what are we doing to realize those desires? The story line of the parable of the talents (see Matthew 25:14-30) reveals a general goal for each servant to work toward. The actual "how" (i.e. "means") pertaining to what method each servant in the story was to utilize to accomplish the goal was left up to each servant. Not only must we want to serve our Master, but we must also choose _how_ we will serve Him on a daily basis.

Issues of wealth and economics regarding the application of what we will specifically use our money for are always closely related to personal priorities and to our view of stewardship. Money may be a man-made phenomenon, but God created us in a material world. He created us with needs. He also created us with the ability to "want" and "choose". The way we use money reveals a great deal about our heart.

One principle of Malachi chapter 3 is that we can never "out give" God. Scripture reveals that God does not need our money. To imagine God "needs" our money is bizarre. Even the most surface level study regarding the attributes of God will clarify this point. Nevertheless, our personal attitude about money reveals something about our personal walk with the Lord. It may also reveal how we "interpret" whether or not we are currently being blessed by God.

Times of privation allow the Lord's discipline to instruct us. We need frequent reminders that man does not live by bread alone (Deuteronomy 8). Moses revealed the idea that God often humbles and tests us that He may, "... do good for you in the end" (see Deuteronomy 8:16). Times such as these are often instrumental in our development. Tough times do NOT mean we are not walking with the Lord! It is foolish to overlook the stories of Job and Paul and even Jesus Himself when we contemplate our personal status.

But despite tough times, most of us will also have times of economic prosperity. What should our attitude be like during such times? How will we use our "blessings"? Having money or wealth brings the ability to get services and possessions. It also brings problems. Admittedly these "problems" are the type many of us don't mind having. But problems ARE problems, and as problems they must eventually be solved.

Wealth itself is not the issue; the real issue is whether we love the wealth and power or whether we love God. Large amounts of money require large amounts of "upkeep". Possessing money beyond our immediate needs forces us to examine our priorities. It requires effort and a concentrated analysis of our values. Choices must be made. This brings great responsibility. Time, energy and focus placed on money may detract from time, energy and focus placed on God. At least this is a dangerous possibility for some people. That is why it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven (see Matthew 19:24).

Of course, there are others reasons why rich people have difficulty entering the kingdom of heaven. Rich people may struggle with the development of humility as a personal attribute. They may feel that they themselves have earned the wealth or that they simply "deserve" it. This may lead to prideful thoughts such as those Moses warned the Israelites about in Deuteronomy 8.

We need "economic" humility as well as humility in all areas of stewardship. One reason has to do with the spiritual danger of economic blessing. The root of the danger lies in the fact that we may arrive at the conclusion that our own power and strength have been the means to our gain. We cannot maintain such a perspective and also be fully focused on God nor can we fully trust God if we maintain such an outlook.

These ideas about stewardship serve to remind us of the big picture ideas of the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Galatians 3:9 this covenant applies to all believers who follow in the footsteps of Abraham. GOD WANTS TO BLESS US SO THAT WE MAY BRING BLESSING TO OTHERS (see Genesis 12:2,3). Jesus said we should even, "Bless those who curse you" (see Luke 6:28).

The Abrahamic Covenant was given specifically to Abraham, yet the covenant is still operable because the covenant is applicable to the descendants of Abraham. These descendants are those who follow in his example of faith (see Romans 4:16 and Galatians 3:7). According to the scripture, we are to live according to the "promise" (see Galatians chapter 3). The primary aspect of living "in" the promise is for believers to realize that God's gift of salvation and eternal life is theirs through faith. Part of living "in" the promise is to realize that God wants to bless us.

Why Does God Care about Money?

Our weaknesses are frequently revealed in areas that deal with money. God does not "use" money, at least not in any divinely practical way. But He is concerned with the purpose He has planned for us. We were made to have relationship with Him. The way we use our finances and wealth can help that relationship or hinder it. This is why the parable of the talents and the faithful servants is so important.

True _blessing_ in scripture does not come when "snapping your fingers" or "rubbing a magic lamp" requests are brought before Almighty God. In the Abrahamic Covenant it is stated that God desires to bless us _so that He may bless others_. In Genesis 12 we read, "... so you will be a blessing, and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

When God blesses someone He may choose to do it directly or by using one of His servants. In the latter case we may say that God blessed a servant so that this servant could bless someone else. A beautiful example of this can be seen in the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis. Joseph was able to help thousands of people avoid starvation. He was able to provide a witness regarding the greatness of God to the Egyptians and to all other nations. He was able to provide salvation for his own family members. The covenant relationship in this story is also revealed. Joseph was also blessed himself, not initially, but ultimately. Joseph was obedient. He pursued his relationship with God. So God was faithful toward Joseph. God blessed him, so that he could bless others. This does not mean Joseph did not endure hardship.

I have heard some Christian "teachers" instruct listeners to follow a particular step-by-step formula. Often they promise that their listeners will have financial blessings and experience all God wants to "bless" them with, if only they do such and such. I seldom hear these types of teachers talk about the faithfulness of Joseph _through_ his times of hardship and persecution.

A biblical understanding of the concept of blessing reveals that deep relationship with God is the ultimate aim. A biblically trained disciple knows that persecution or hardship is often a part of God's formula for our growth (e.g. see Matthew 5:10 and 1 Peter 1:3-7). Some people attempt to de-emphasize this aspect, despite the great examples in the Bible.

Being Changed by Blessings

Imagine being focused completely on God and attempting to live only for Him. Wouldn't such a "vertical" focus also flow in an outward "horizontal" direction? While loving God wouldn't you also love others more deeply (see 1 Corinthians 13)? If you focused on the above suggestion, whenever you asked God to forgive your shortcomings wouldn't you also seek to actively forgive others? I believe the answer is yes. When we adopt His priorities our idea of what it means to be "blessed" will be altered as we align more closely to His desires. It is impossible to be changed by God in spiritual dimensions yet remain unchanged in the way we live our lives. If we follow the advice of Romans chapter 8, we will actually walk according to the spirit rather than the flesh. This represents a definitive change in our "flesh".

Our priorities determine our personal desires. Our stewardship determines how we live for our Master. In a sense, the more mature we become, the more aligned these two things become. When our desires align with God's intentions, we often find ourselves in a position to bless others. This is an additional reason the Bible emphasizes money issues.

We should be careful how we use the word _blessing_ in our daily lives. I am not suggesting we should stop using clichés such as "God bless you" and "bless my soul". However, we should understand what we mean by such expressions and also how those who hear these expressions may interpret them. Even a casual usage of a frivolous cliché may remind someone of spiritual things. Most of the time we do not need new insights. What we usually need are frequent reminders about things we already know. An old hymn suggests, "Count your blessings name them one by one" and that is precisely what we should do.

By way of conclusion, I would like to remind each reader of Psalm 37:4, "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart." When we have switched from a "Santa Claus mentality" of begging for things, we may find our inner self being transformed (by the renewing of our mind). We may find ourselves asking for God's desires to become our desires. _When we exist to serve our Master our life has functional meaning and spiritual purpose._ Those who discover this become aware of the key to meaningful love, abiding joy, and the deepest intentional blessings possible.

I believe Psalm 67 provides a great closing for this chapter:

**God be gracious to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us—that Thy way may be known on the earth, Thy salvation among all nations. Let the peoples praise Thee, O God; let all the peoples praise Thee. Let the nations be glad and sing for joy; for Thou wilt judge the peoples with uprightness, and guide the nations on the earth [selah]. Let the peoples praise Thee, O God; Let all the peoples praise Thee. The earth has yielded its produce; God, our God, blesses us.** _God blesses us, that all the ends of the earth may fear Him_ **.**

Areas for additional thought:

1. Can you identify a deeper _purpose_ within an area of life you believe you have been blessed in?

2. If believers approach "blessings" from an incorrect (i.e. non-biblical) point of view, how might this affect their understanding of the promises of God? What additional dangerous (i.e. "negative") consequences might come about?

3. Are you blessing God? How?
Chapter 3  
Living Free

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free..." John 8:32

***

People often define freedom by the choices and opportunities available to them. If we can choose to do something we want, then we see ourselves as "free", at least in _that_ area of life. But freedom is actually a bit more complex than this. Even when we have choices and opportunities, there are obstacles, barriers, and complicating factors that may interfere in ways that diminish our personal freedoms.

Certain forms of freedom may come with a dangerous price tag, while some "apparently dangerous" choices of behavior and attitude may actually lead us into greater freedom. The Bible informs us about several factors that interfere with our freedom, but the number one factor is sin.

The concept of freedom is important to think about because it has so many applications to our social, psychological, physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of life. In the Bible the concept of freedom is often used as a contrast to the idea of bondage. The Bible actually has a broad definition of bondage. For example, sin, lust, poor choices, and desire are some of the things that bring bondage. According to the Bible everyone is in some type of bondage. To use biblical language, what you "serve" is your "master", and if you have a master, then you are in bondage to that master.

The Bible provides even further clarification. Serving sin is bad. But serving God is good. Man has the ability to make choices. But he also has a sinful nature. Most of the time people walk according to the flesh. However, we can walk according to the Spirit, but only with God's help. All of this leads to the biblical idea that we are all "in bondage" to either sin or God (see Romans 6).

If each of us is a "servant" to _something_ or _someone_ then how we view that thing or person will deeply impact how we view "being free". Someone who considers God as master will view freedom within the context of his or her relationship with God. Even if a person denies having a "master" he or she may still be a slave to that master. In other words, denying that you have a master does not make the master go away. For example, an alcoholic who denies being a slave to alcohol may in fact still be a slave to alcohol. But the prior point still holds true. That person will view alcohol with a perspective that filters their view of freedom and reality. They may even vacillate between denial and despair, but the "master" remains.

Someone who is a "slave" to a particular sin will maintain a worldview that sees things as they relate to that sin. Although exceptions exist, basically, there are two predominant ways of handling the enslavement of sin. People tend to either embrace it or blame it.

People who embrace sin "accept" it. Often they rationalize their sin. They may make the argument that everybody does it. Some are even proud of it. These people are generally proud of being "worldly". They may even brag about their ability to carouse and party. They may brag about their sexual conquests or about how they were able to "beat" the system because of their intellect. This type of person believes he or she is free. Arrogance characterizes their thinking. From a biblical perspective, however, they are far from being free.

Some people "blame" sin. They see themselves as victims. Nothing they do is their fault. They should not be held accountable, because most of the time they try to be good. They are aware of parts of the "cause and effect" chain, but seldom perceive their own role in any of the chain of events. They often completely sidestep personal responsibility or self-blame. They may even reject the label that they are "sinners". This type of person believes he or she is NOT free and could NEVER become free. Fear characterizes their thinking. Though they are accurate in their assessment that they are NOT free, they wrongly assume they can never be free. God wants to set them free, and He is able to, but He will not do so until they yield fully to Him.

When faced with the idea of "eternity" people cope in differing ways. The arrogant sees no need for a savior because they don't want to change. The fearful sees no need for a savior because they assume they are not at fault. Those who are arrogant focus on increasing pleasure while those who are fearful focus on diminishing pain. Both typically maintain a short-range view of life by focusing primarily on the here and now rather than eternity. Either type of person may reject the concept of God and eternity out of hand. Neither type is free, regardless of how they rationalize.

According to the Bible, ALL have fallen short of the glory of God (see Romans 3:23). Everyone is at risk both now AND for eternity. Both types of people generally live life attempting to avoid eternal issues.

Fortunately Christians know there is a third choice. There is Good News. We do not have to build our house on the sand of arrogance or fear. We may build on the solid foundation of Jesus. We can be justified by faith (see Romans 5:1). Faith is the tool we use to build on this solid foundation. We may "give" our sin to God. We may confess our sin and ask Him to cleanse us. We may ask Him to see us as _justified_ by Christ's sacrifice. We may further implore Him to "make" us righteous (see 1 John 1:9). We don't have to do the work of being "good enough". We couldn't even if we tried. Praise God, Jesus has already done the work and paid the price. The point of these comparisons between the arrogant, the fearful, and the Christian is that our viewpoint greatly influences our perspective and interaction with the concept of freedom.

Our identity is deeply connected to our beliefs and actions. The arrogant often identify with their predominant sin, although they may use language that describes things in terms of power or control. The fearful often identify with their situation or "victimization". But Christians identify with their Savior.

Unfortunately, what some Christians do is initially give their sins to God, and then later on begin to take some of their sins back. When we truly give our sin to God, leave it with Him, and profoundly accept Him as our master, instead of the sin, He promises spiritual freedom. Sin is no longer our master (see Romans 6).

Someone fond of simple logic may bring up an objection. How can a Christian claim he or she is a _servant of Christ_ and also simultaneously _free in Christ_? Logically these ideas seem to contradict one another. How can I be both a servant and free? The biblical answer is this. From my perspective I ought to humble myself as a follower and servant. But from God's perspective He sees me as free because all my bondage has been paid for by Jesus' sacrifice. He sees me as an heir. As a servant, all that I have belongs to Him. But as an heir, all that He has is mine! The logical fallacy lies in not taking into account the TRANSFORMATION of the relationship!

Even in servitude it is important to acknowledge that a person maintains freewill in numerous aspects and dimensions. I do not mean in "ALL" areas, for then the word "servitude" would have no meaning. But even a prisoner has _some_ freedom within the totality of his experiences. Joseph was in prison in Egypt. But he still had freedom to maintain his personal relationship with God. John Bunyan spent years in prison, but he still had the freedom to think and write his classic _A Pilgrim's Progress_. The thief on the cross provides another great example. He demonstrated his freedom to give his heart to God even in the final moments of his life.

_A servant to sin still utilizes freewill._ My point is everyone makes a myriad amount of decisions each and every day. Likewise, a servant of the Lord also makes many choices. The emphasis of Romans chapters 6, 7, and 8 has to do with what believers should focus on as they live their lives. Being a servant does not mean we have no freewill.

The Bible points out the importance of understanding clearly **who or what our master is**. Will we walk according to the flesh or according to the spirit? Will sin or fear be our master, or will God be our master? Will we live as though we have died to sin? These are important questions. When we acknowledge God as our Master (which is what we mean when we address Him by the title "Lord"), then all the puzzle pieces will fall into place.

In one sense everyone understands _freedom_. Yet in another sense, freedom is very difficult to define because it means different things in different contexts. The concept of freedom never implies the ability to literally do _anything_. In the area of choice, men are created free, but in the area of "need" we are seldom completely free. This is an important area to discriminate in. _No one has a complete absence of needs_ _._ Everyone needs something. So in that sense, no one is ever completely free.

However, once again, a clarifying distinction is taught in scripture. There are people who have yielded their life completely to God. There are those who accept the gifts God offers. These people may claim absolute freedom because God has promised to meet ALL of their needs. When we seek His kingdom first (see Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6) God promises to supply our needs.

Choice as One Element of Freedom

Imagine a man with a television set that receives 10 channels. Another man has access to 100 channels. Both men have "freedom" to watch TV. Both men can turn the TV off and do something else. Nevertheless, it is also clear that when both men decide to watch television, one of the men has a greater amount of choices available. Choice itself is not exactly synonymous with freedom, yet it is a major component of some types of freedom. Even a servant or prisoner has some choices, such as how he will occupy his free time and thoughts.

We should acknowledge that some choices have very undesirable consequences. But sometimes people choose something undesirable because of a value or priority they hold strongly to. This fact rubs salt in the wound of those who believe in a deterministic worldview. We should also acknowledge that some choices are not possible in all settings and in all circumstances. In general, however, we may conclude that having a range of desirable choices is a major factor of most types of freedom.

Bondage Versus Freedom

Freedom has another aspect we should look at involving the idea of being "released". The idea of being released from some sort of bondage is definitely a significant aspect of the word freedom in the theological sense of the word. When we speak of having been set free we are referring to being released from something. This is the most common usage of the term as it is used in the Bible.

Freedom also includes the idea of being able to engage in thoughts and feelings and behaviors in a voluntary fashion. This is often where philosophical Determinists begin their arguments. They often take the position that "promptings" and "urges" _condition_ a person's responses. Their position is that if you were prompted or urged to do something then your response to that urge was not voluntary. Because of this, some Naturalists also want us to believe that freewill is an illusion. It is likely they arrive at this conclusion because of their initial assumption that we are a product of Nature rather than of God.

If we are a mindless product of Nature then the concept of freewill makes no real sense. If this is the truth we are also off the hook for moral issues of crime, deceit and sin. Given this set of assumptions, the concept of sin has no basis and is essentially meaningless. But then, if a person buys into that mindset, they must also conclude that there is also no such thing as "right and wrong". Even though this conclusion is logical, few individuals can adhere to this consistently.

The Determinist and the Naturalist make a few assumptions that invalidate their position. First, they tend to discount the range of possible choices. They also tend to discount the reasoning process and the ability of people to hold internal values, beliefs, and priorities that also affect their decision-making. Both the Determinist and the Naturalist are blinded because they insist on seeing people only from the outside in. They tend to look at behavior from only an external perspective. They often misinterpret motivations derived from an internal set of beliefs. The error is in their oversimplification of people. In reality, people are far more complex than they assume, and so too is the issue of freedom.

Freedom is Complex

Imagine a child in a candy store. Her mother has given her enough money to buy 5 pieces of candy. She has numerous choices available to her. Let us also imagine she has entered the store with a presupposition. She has a favorite candy in mind that she hopes to find. It is this preconditioning that the Determinist focuses on. But it is the actual choices, her attitude in making those choices, and the morality of those choices that the theologian focuses on.

Notice how complex our little scenario can quickly become. Is she thankful for the store's existence and her ability to purchase 5 candies? Perhaps she is motivated by the idea of experimentation, so she plans to buy 3 of her favorites and two "experimental" varieties "just to try them out". Perhaps our little girl is angry that her mother did not give her enough money for 10 pieces of candy. Perhaps the store is out of her favorite candy, and this makes her angry. Perhaps lust and greed become a part of the formula. She could attempt to steal some candy, and pocket the money. She could share some of her candy with a friend, or even with her mother. It is her reason for the choices she makes that the determinist and theologian may argue about, but it is clearly a mistake to over-simplify the complex reasons humans act behaviorally.

But what does the Bible say about freewill? The Bible claims we are responsible for both our thoughts and our actions. We have all sinned, and sin has consequences. As far as the revelation of God is concerned, all men "are without excuse" (see Romans 1). Despite the fact that we are slaves to sin, we are nevertheless free in our choices. Some people have difficulty understanding the difference between being a slave to sin yet being free in the area of personal will and decision-making. Like it or not, this is the biblical position.

I remember hearing an interview during the 1970's in which the word freedom was used. Streaking (running around naked) had become a bizarre "national" phenomenon. A news crew interviewed a man who was streaking and asked, "Why are you doing this?" The man's reply was, "freedom".

It would have been more accurate for him to say, "I'm doing it because I have freewill". He definitely had freewill and was exercising that freewill, but I can't help but feel he was just as trapped by social expectations and his own personal needs and sin's oppressive grip just as much as the rest of the world. Streaking does NOT make one free.

The Determinist may attempt to take the above statements and run with them. But the problem is in understanding that freedom itself is not the big picture. God is the big picture. In God's system there are rules ("do not eat of this tree..."), and choices ("from any of these trees you may eat"). In God's system He is in control (we call this sovereignty) yet His creatures have freedom in their will. The Determinist has missed the biblical perspective entirely because he or she has focused only on the small picture of actual behavior.

The streaking man held the idea that his ability to break a societal norm represented freedom. This is a common misconception. Trading one form of slavery for another form of slavery is not absolute freedom. A teenager who purchases his or her first car is excited about the freedom the new car allows. The same teenager may not realize until much later how much economic "slavery" is involved in owning the car as well. Gasoline, new tires, oil changes and other maintenance needs are constant and ongoing, and these things represent a new form of bondage. As long as the teen has responsibility in these things, he or she may enjoy the type of freedom the car offers. However, if the teen behaves in non-responsible ways concerning these things, eventually he or she will lose or diminish the freedom gained from the car.

Why Understanding Freedom is Important

Why is freedom a crucial concept for Christians to understand? One reason is because morality is an artificial concept if people do not have moral freedom. This is another area where danger lurks. There is a big difference between living on an amoral planet and living on a planet in which morality truly exists, but exists in a corrupt state. It is the latter that the Bible teaches.

When we discuss freedom we also touch upon responsibility and rules. When one person's application of freedom impinges upon another's freedom then the concept of responsibility and rules (such as the Golden Rule) come into play. Ideas such as fairness and justice cannot be fully understood without also understanding freedom.

Motivation is another reason it is crucial for Christians to understand freedom. Paul wrote, "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." This verse from Galatians chapter 5 reveals a powerful reason Christians need to embrace the concept strongly. If we understand that God has set us free in a meaningful way from the yoke of sin's slavery, we will be even more motivated to embrace the freedom He has given us.

In addition to this, how we view the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man provides us with another significant reason we should spend time thinking about our freedom in Christ. Time after time the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man are linked together in scripture. How we develop our view of these factors tremendously impacts our theology. Our basic perceptions and assumptions about this connection often determine what theological campground we brew our coffee in.

For example, if someone assumes God's sovereignty is the "top layer" of everything, and that all man does is under its umbrella, then that person may tend to see scripture from a more Calvinistic viewpoint. If someone acknowledges freewill yet believes that God's sovereignty underlies everything through the warp and woof of His system, then that person may tend to view scriptures from a more Armenian perspective. No one debates whether or not a connection exists between sovereignty and freewill. When people debate this issue they tend to focus on "how" and "why" those connections exist and what extrapolations we may conclude about the connections.

An understanding of freedom is also an important apologetic tool when it comes to explaining the problem of evil to those who are not believers. The key element here is that freedom only exists with genuine choices. Evil must be a possibility if true freedom and true choice exists. The sovereign God of the universe did not create evil. But He did create creatures capable of evil themselves. Therefore a Determinist cannot effectively use the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God (even though this is a common tactic). If a Determinist maintains consistency in his view, then his definition of evil is random and arbitrary. If a person argues there is NO freedom of choice, then evil must not exist either. The problem of evil is actually a "proof" FOR the existence of God, not a "proof" against the existence of God.

The next time you're in an argument with someone who claims to believe people DON'T have true "freewill" choices, watch them squirm when you link their belief to the idea that nothing, then, must be evil. Ask, "So you don't believe anything is evil?" If they acknowledge "some" evil exists, then pursue "why" – were choices involved or not? If they don't believe evil exists, well, that's another interesting conversation. If they believe evil exists but insist on their deterministic mindset (this is what people usually attempt to do), that conversation is a good place to show them the _inconsistency_ of their position.

We live in God's created world AND with man possessing freewill. Imagine a science textbook's "model" drawing of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Imagine one side of the double helix representing freewill, with the other side representing the sovereignty of God. I am using this crude model as merely a mental visualization tool. Metaphorically this model demonstrates a linked "ladder" between the two elements. The freewill of man is linked with the purpose and plan of God. God Himself created the connection.

God's purpose is to allow man as a creature to have and utilize freewill, although God is ultimately in control. A. W. Tozer illustrated this idea with an ocean liner example in his book _The Knowledge of the Holy_. Tozer asks us to imagine a liner traveling from New York to Liverpool. This can be seen as a metaphor for God's purpose. The passengers on the ship may walk about, play cards or shuffleboard, eat, and engage in various forms of entertainment. Everyone has this type of freedom. But God's purpose and plan will still take place, because eventually the liner will reach Liverpool.

The created creature has plenty of opportunity for choice. He makes hundreds of choices each day. He responds to stimuli. He is goal oriented (e.g. trying to find personal happiness, or trying to please God...). Wherever choices are made, the sovereignty of God can also be seen nearby, if we are willing to look for it.

Man does possess certain "hardwired" elements. I believe these hardwired elements in no way diminish the freewill aspects of man, as a Determinist might suggest. But they do serve to illustrate some of man's limitations. In point of fact, they also serve to explain why man is capable of freewill. Man was created in the image of God and he has a sense of morality and he is a choice-making sinner. These are some of his "hard-wiring" aspects. He can reason and he is capable of faith and love and joy and sacrifice. God is in control of the entire system, but each man makes genuine choices. God has breathed life into the system and in Him it holds together and exists. But God has created man as a significant part of that system. So significant, in fact, that He sacrificed His Son for man.

Another major reason we should understand freedom as the Bible presents it can be seen in the following verse from John chapter 8: "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." There is an incredible connection between truth and freedom that should not be overlooked because truth is a doorway to so many things.

The Promise of Even More Freedom

Christians look forward to a time in which "this mortal must put on immortality" (see 1 Corinthians 15). A metamorphosis concerning freedom _will_ take place in which we may proclaim, "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" We have many forms of freedom now, but some forms are "deferred" until we will exist in our resurrected state of being. What a glorious existence this state of being is to contemplate. To have freewill in a realm with immeasurable choices in a dimension void of "needs" is a wonderful thought. In this context Jesus IS the Truth and He can and _does_ make us entirely and truly free.

We are in Christ, and we are new creatures now. But we _are_ still flesh and blood. We still wrestle with sin, although it is no longer our master. We have freedom in Christ even now, and because of the promises of the Bible we look forward to so much more!

Because everyone has NEEDS no one is ever completely free. But there is a major difference when we compare believers to non-believers. For Christians, ALL OUR NEEDS ARE BEING MET BY GOD. The truth has set us free, especially from the bondage and eternal consequences of sin. Even in freedom, however, we wrestle with how God wants to use us in our daily lives. Yet because we "have peace with God" (see Romans 5:1) we can "exult in hope of the glory of God" (see Romans 5:2).

Do you live fully within the freedom God has granted you? Do other people see this distinctive quality in you? Do you live your life as one who has been set free? In this world you will encounter pain and trials on your journey. Each "pilgrim's progress" has many forms of danger. May God bless the choices you make as you travel the road set before you. As Christians, _we are free_! In a world enslaved by sin, Christians are free to be salt and light. We are free to show others how to find and experience the freedom available through God's grace.

Areas for additional thought:

1. How do your personal values, priorities, and beliefs affect your choices? How do your choices enable you to display your freedom?

2. Imagine _you_ are the girl in the candy shop. What aspects of freewill might go through your mind as you make your choices and selections? Would God's commands (e.g. don't steal, honor your father and mother, etc.) impinge upon your freedoms, or would they "clarify" your range of freedoms? What factors would influence the way in which your choices are made?

3. In what ways has truth made _you_ free?
Chapter 4  
Communication 101

"Beam us up Mr. Scott." Captain Kirk, from Star Trek (using a "communicator")

***

For most of us the "dangerous" part of communication lies in not doing enough of it, or in doing it poorly. Sometimes we ignore God's Word. Sometimes we allow the cares of the world to decrease time we spend listening to God's voice. Many of us don't spend nearly enough time communicating important things even with those we love.

Understanding the fundamentals of spiritual forms of communication can lead to great vibrancy in our Christian walk. God communicates with us through His Word and through His works (i.e. creation). He sometimes uses other forms of specific revelation as well (e.g. see Acts 16:6-10). We communicate with God through prayer, actions that demonstrate faith and obedience, and even through the unspoken _intentions_ of our heart. He can easily discern the state of our heart.

There is also the horizontal flow of communication from one person to another to consider. Out of our relationship with God, we each have the story of our own life to share with others. We also have opportunities to share God's message of power and love and grace with others. But we can also talk about the weather, sports, shopping, politics, movies, and all the wide variety of life issues available. But here is the important point. In the horizontal realm we can build or tear down relationships. As Christians, we need to be builders. Communication is one of our major tools for building others up.

The subject of communication brings up many issues. My goal in this chapter is to simply stimulate thinking by exploring four questions: How does God communicate with us? How do we communicate with God? How should we communicate with other believers? How should we communicate with unbelievers? The purpose of this chapter is to merely begin to develop an attitude of awareness rather than to explore each area exhaustively. As you think about these four questions, I hope you will become more _intentional_ about the way you listen and communicate.

The Vertical and Horizontal forms of Communication are interrelated

Vertical communication yields additional forms of vertical communication but it also affects horizontal communication. Likewise, horizontal interactions have cause and effect results in both the horizontal AND vertical realm. For example, when I "hear" from God, it affects my prayer life, but it also affects the way I talk with others and what I choose to talk about.

God communicates, but He won't _force_ us to listen. His plan is to develop true love, and to do this He has created free will. He wants us to hear His voice, but He won't force it. He has given us His Word as His primary "speaking" tool. The more sensitive we are to His voice the more sensitive we can be to His desires. With greater sensitivity we can listen more receptively. Being both sensitive and receptive will likely improve our prayer life and help us to be more consistent in how we obey Him.

Hopefully our communication with others will flow as a natural outgrowth of our walk with God. It is wise to reevaluate our communication habits to discover if we are representing the gospel artificially or through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. We also need to consider the impact our communication habits have upon our spouses, children, friends and co-workers. Christians should be aware of _what_ they say, _how_ they say it, as well as _why_ they say what they do.

We should also thoughtfully compare the different ways we communicate with unbelievers and with fellow Christians. Verbal statements we make are interpreted. Those interpretations are influenced by our nonverbal actions, as well as by what we seem to be emphasizing. In one sense, everything communicates one way or another.

Which Bible Version Should I Choose?

This is a valid question as we approach the "vertical" forms of communication. _Your Bible is the single most authoritative form of communication between God and you._ The Bible is sharper than a two-edged sword (see Hebrews 4:12), so which style of "sword" should you select? Some people might prefer a rapier while others insist upon a claymore or saber. I assume each reader favors a particular English translation of the Bible. Translations vary in how they prioritize word for word versus phrase-by-phrase transcription. They also vary on the amount of emphasis regarding readability, smoothness, and usage of modern English words, as well as overall vocabulary and so forth.

I am fond of the NASB because of its word for word accuracy. Some people don't like it because they feel it doesn't read smoothly. Some translations use a phrase-by-phrase approach. Differing rationales support a variety of selection choices, but fortunately many wonderful versions are available. I read several versions including the Holman Christian Standard Bible, J.B. Phillips New Testament, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New King James and several others. In fact, if I purchase a Bible to give to a new believer (or someone I hope will soon become one) I currently favor giving them the New Living Translation. I personally receive insights from any of these versions. A few comments about the process of making a translation will, however, benefit readers concerned with their personal choice of any Bible version.

All language is meaningful, and the Word of God is powerful whether it is presented in Greek, English or Swahili. Proper Bible translation is important, but this does not imply we must all become expert translators. Nor does it mean a legendary "perfect" translation exists.

I believe the original manuscripts were perfect because they came from God. But I also believe our translations are awesome, but not perfect. The manuscripts used to make our translations are copies of the originals. Anything copied, means human error may exist in some of the copied manuscripts. However, when you study how exacting the scribal process was and how we can crosscheck all the extant manuscripts, you realize how valid and reliable the Bible is.

Many of us take our English translations for granted. We _should_ be thankful for the massive amount of scholarship represented by so many excellent versions. The fact that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) supports the idea that translating God's Word into any language is acceptable. For the average believer, this basically means most of us don't need to become Hebrew and Greek scholars to understand God's written Word.

My brother Phil held a Ph. D. in linguistics before he passed away due to cancer. He often shared with me some of the challenges faced by Bible translators. Here is one example.

Phil was working as a Wycliffe Bible translator with the language of Tazlan. It is one of the many hundreds of Indonesian languages. When translating Luke 13:32 Phil was faced with a dilemma. In this passage, some Pharisees told Jesus that Herod wanted Him to "depart" and "go away". Jesus replied to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal."

Phil's problem was how he should translate the term "fox" into Tazlan. The Pendau people (who speak Tazlan) live on a fairly large island (Sulawesi) near the equator. They have no word for "fox" in their language. They do not even possess the concept of fox, although they do have a few small mammals they are familiar with.

Phil had several possible ways to go. He could transliterate the word from Greek into Tazlan as closely as possible, and then rely on the additional step of education to "teach" leaders and anyone reading the Tazlan Bible what a "fox" was. Or he could use the term for monkey. A monkey is mischievous, but it does not conjure up the same images a fox does. He could also simply describe Herod as a crafty and sly fellow. Of course this involves the assumption that we know for certain that when Jesus referred to Herod as "that fox" in Koine Greek that He was referring to these characteristics. Phil ended up using a term for a type of leopard that is a vicious predator (even though that creature is imaginary in their culture). The point is that in all forms of communication, we make choices. Although the original Scriptures are inerrant, no _translation_ is completely free of imperfections. However, we have awesome translations. Choose the version or versions you enjoy. Here is the point. God will speak to you through it. His Word is powerful.

How does God communicate with us?

God communicates to us through both general revelation and specific revelation. Creation speaks openly (see Psalm 19), and we can see the hand of God revealed within our own sense of morality as well as in all the amazing elements of nature. We may learn much about the attributes of God from a generalized study of nature, and the Bible directs us to learn from various aspects of nature. But God has also used very specific forms of revelation such as the Bible itself.

The "Word of God" is powerful. It is "...living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword... and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). God can use other forms of specific revelation as well. He is not limited regarding His methods of communication. Sometimes God reveals His will through visions or dreams.

As Christians we should ask ourselves whether we are open to God's communication regardless of whatever form it may take. Regarding visions, dreams and alternative forms of communication from God there is a caution. If you are wondering about whether something is from God or not, remember that God will not lie. If something aligns with scripture then perhaps it is of the Lord. Continue to pray about it and seek confirmation from other believers. But if it does not align with scripture it is definitely NOT from God. Reject it immediately.

Jesus used parables as a powerful communication device. Jesus used this tool because not all people accept communication in the same manner. Not all people share the same degree of _openness_. The concept of openness is mysteriously related to both the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man. God reveals Himself and His desires, but if He is too overtly forceful He will diminish freewill. He has chosen a system that allows people to choose Him or reject Him. His gift of freewill to mankind is real.

Any message can be delivered, but the important point is, will the message be received? The use of parables and "stories" allows those who want to learn to do so. People who are truly seeking come with readiness and openness to receive truth. Those who are not ready or open to truth will not understand the parable.

God's communication is not limited to only specific forms of revelation. He also uses "general" forms. Have you learned anything about God or yourself from nature recently? The book of Proverbs reminds us we can "go to the ant" to learn about work ethic. David commented that he looked up to the hills to discern attributes of God's nature (see Psalm 121:1). Isaiah reminds us that the grass withers, but God's Word will stand forever. God's specific Word affirms the usage of His general revelations. We need to be reading both "books", the book of nature and His Holy Word.

_Nature provides us with opportunities to glean insights concerning the attributes of God._ Take some time. Study a tree. Watch an animal. Observe a sunset. Oftentimes, personal meditation reveals a great deal.

Here are just a few examples. Our planet is located perfectly in space to support life. Any closer to the sun and all life with be vaporized by heat, any farther away, and we would be a frozen lifeless place.

Our planet has mountain ranges. Without mountain ranges fresh water would be a serious issue in most parts of the world. Mountain ranges provide water "storage" and slow release throughout the year. Mountains are why we have streams and rivers. There are hundreds – probably thousands of things to ponder from nature that reveal God's creativity and love for the people of this planet!

Here is just one more example. Our planet has fruit trees with relatively low hanging fruit. It is easy for humans to harvest. It's not like you have to scale a giant redwood to get an apple. We have to work, but God has provided us with natural things that are "do-able".

Nature is "cool" to think about, but our major source of information about God comes from Scripture. T _he Bible provides us with specific principles, hundreds of examples, and many specific and general guidelines for personal growth and application._ Its depths can never be exhausted. Its inspirational possibilities, like God Himself, are limitless.

I realize I have barely scratched the surface of how God communicates to mankind, but I trust each reader can continue to glean additional insights along his or her personal pathway. My goal is stimulation. My hope is that each reader will continue his or her own personal exploration of the topic of communication.

How do we communicate with God?

The short answer to this question is that we communicate with God through prayer. But there are other ways we communicate as well. What I most want to focus on here in this section is how we communicate with our actions. The Bible says we ought to present ourselves as a "living and holy sacrifice" (see Romans 12:1). This involves both commitment and obedience. Scripture makes it clear that we also communicate through our faith, which is often displayed in our choices, priorities, and actions.

When Noah built the ark, he must have communicated to his family that the massive task was important. His giant "object lesson" was a form of communication to those in the world. He may not have been "a voice crying out in the wilderness" in the same way John the Baptist was, for scripture does not reveal "what" Noah said, or whether he did any preaching at all. At the very least Noah's construction project _implied_ openly the need for others to repent before impending judgment. The truth is we know very little about Noah's "horizontal" communication. We know a bit more about his vertical communication. In his steadfastness and obedience he communicated to God that he was a willing servant. Through his actions he communicated his faith and his desire for an on-going relationship with Almighty God.

"Two way" communication occurs frequently between God and any man or woman who is open to His Spirit. The Holy Spirit convicted David in a powerful way before the writing process of Psalm 51 even started. The Spirit's involvement is clear in the creation of the Psalm. Yet David, as a man, was also very much involved in the composition process. David's words are deeply personal. "Be gracious to me... blot out all my iniquities... create in me a clean heart, O God".

These words communicate more than just mental decision-making. These words communicate an attitude of humility, an abiding faith, an understanding of personal need, and his deep desire for relationship. It is true that we communicate with God through prayer, but we also communicate through our very lives!

How should we communicate with other believers?

We communicate with other believers through both our words and deeds, but "what" should we seek most fervently to communicate about? Obviously we may communicate about all areas of life, however, I believe there is one area that deserves special emphasis. In communicating with other believers we should be especially aware of ministry _expectations_. Although other communication arenas are valuable, I have chosen to focus on this one area of believer-to-believer interaction.

First, I urge all believers to be wary of throwing rocks at another Christian's vision. Perhaps because Christians often focus on "shoulds" and "oughts" they easily fall into the habit of disparaging others. We must guard against such dangerous habits. Second, we should also be equally wary of "forcing" others to "own" the exact same vision you or I have for a particular ministry.

Scripture exhorts us to, "stimulate one another to love and good deeds" (Hebrews 10). We are not supposed to "stone" one another for NOT taking part in a particular ministry. Each part of the body should do its part and fulfill its function, but no part should demand that some other part of the body do the work the first part should be doing. When we _inspire_ one another it is wonderful to behold. When it comes to "making demands" my advice is to avoid usurping God's role in the lives of others. A big toe should not tell an ear to help with the walking. If God wants to transform the ear into a toe, that is another matter altogether.

I once knew a good Christian man who had a vision to take the elementary children he was working with down to an orphanage in Mexico. This was a beautiful idea. Many people in the church supported the idea and a trip down to the orphanage was made several times over a couple of years. Gifts were brought at Christmas time and on other occasions work crews built and repaired bunk beds and fulfilled other needs.

But the man who originally started this ministry began to complain. Other Christians in the church were not taking up the leadership of this orphanage project. He was expected to continue to lead the way. This project was his vision originally, yet after two years he wanted to give it away. He was angry that others were not coming forward to relieve him of this task. I don't know all of his reasons. Perhaps he felt he had done his duty. He did not wish for this ministry to die out, but he no longer felt called to continue it. This created a dilemma. He was disappointed other adults were not taking up the mantle of this ministry.

How should we approach such dilemmas? The next few paragraphs may be very uncomfortable for some readers. It involves the idea of "ministry triage". But being called to follow Christ frequently means we must endure being uncomfortable.

Let's start with this question: Can each church be involved in every ministry? This is obviously a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly "no". Let's look at a few facts. Each of us needs to be involved in ministry, but my vision may not be your vision, and my ministry may not be your ministry.

God is infinite. He does not lack for energy, or commitment, or resources. But each church is made up of individuals and each of those individuals _is_ finite. One aspect of the role of wisdom in our lives is to use discernment to help us with our priorities.

Each local church should establish priorities just as they establish a mission and a vision. No church can "do it all". No one person can "do it all". God Himself, CAN "do it all", if He so desires. However, the Bible reveals an interesting fact about God, He often chooses to allow frail humans to do some of His work. Nevertheless, when we adopt a vision that we do not wholeheartedly feel called to, it is actually small wonder that the ministry may not be all it could be. Nor should we be surprised that other areas of ministry may be left fallow as we pursue the former ministry.

The flip side of this involves personal growth through ministry. Occasionally there appears to be a need for which no one seems able to fill the gap but you. Imagine that you are aware of a need in a particular ministry. In this ministry you are able to help, although perhaps you feel as though you lack a dimension of giftedness in regards to it, or perhaps you do not feel "called" to this ministry (remember, Moses could relate to this feeling). Participating in it may not be what you do for the rest of your life, but the time you spend may bring glory to God, it may bring others closer to the Lord, and it may bring growth in your own personal life. On the other hand, participating in such a ministry may deplete your ability to participate in other ministries you feel more gifted in.

I have frequently wrestled with such issues myself. I have no black and white answers. Keeping things in balance is often a great challenge to anyone involved in any ministry. The more ministry opportunities we become aware of, the more complex the decision-making becomes for such dilemmas.

What is clear to me is this. We are ALL called to minister. We need to discern the importance and usefulness of ministries. Some ministries may need to "die" or be postponed. Making such a decision is _always_ difficult. At least I have personally never known it to be easy. Remember, Paul was on his way to Bithynia when he was led by the Spirit to switch to Macedonia (see Acts 16). Like Paul, we should make plans yet remain open to a change of those plans. We should definitely choose to do things we feel called to. There are also times when we should step up and fulfill a need, whether we "like" it or not (see the book of Jonah).

This brings up another point. Some people use the word "need" as though it were always black and white. In reality people are often referring to a want or desire when they use the word "need". For example, someone may state that we need more workers for our children's ministries. This may be true (and it probably is). On the other hand maybe we should reevaluate whether all children "need" a specialized format apart from the main church audience. It is amazing to consider how the early church managed to thrive without specific children's ministries. Some older children might actually benefit spiritually by remaining with their family and listening to (gasp) a sermon by the pastor. Perhaps we deem they are not "ready" for it when in fact they may be. If this is found to be true, then perhaps we have _created_ a "need" where one does not actually exist. Where we draw the line tends to be gray rather than black and white.

Organizations and individuals should reevaluate their values and priorities frequently. Do our values and priorities align with God? Does each particular ministry align with God's priorities? Not all ministries are effective, and many of them need to be reevaluated. The fact that a particular ministry has always been done (in other words, it is a "tradition") does not negate the need for reevaluation. _I have found that discussions about "ministry" and "service" are some of the most important areas believers need to communicate with other believers about._ When we engage in such discussions, let us be sure to communicate love and support to our brothers and sisters. We should listen and communicate encouragement as well.

How should we communicate with unbelievers?

The Gospel is powerful (see Romans 1), but how should we communicate it? Some believers feel that Christians ought to pass out tracts on a weekly basis. Others feel it is more important to simply live a life that represents salt and light to the world. Defining the efficacy of any particular _method_ is illusive and often complicates the issue further. Placing the will of God "in a box" is always a dangerous endeavor, and this is a risk we take when we become so enamored with a particular method to the extent that we stop "listening" to the Lord about how He would have us communicate with unbelievers.

Once again there are no simple answers, which is why I chose to address the above subject of ministry as an _on-going conversation_ Christians should be continually having with other Christians. Some people may communicate by building a boat (e.g. Noah) and some by building a "Crystal Cathedral". Some people may use object lessons like Jeremiah did by breaking a pot and then using the shattered potshards to make a point. Some people send greeting cards or letters. Some communicate through art. Some communicate through acts of kindness and mercy.

As Christians, we share the same purpose but we do not all share the same function (see 1 Corinthians 12). We communicate through our words, our attitudes, our work ethic, our values and priorities as well as through our beliefs. All Christians have a function, and when one's function is used properly, that function will help fulfill the purpose of God. The world is full of needs. The reason we communicate is because we know what and Who the world needs.

We have the truth and we KNOW it. We also know that all people need to be saved. Sometimes we may be tempted to think we should FORCE others to be saved for their own benefit. The first problem with this method of thinking is that we simply cannot bring it off. You cannot force someone to believe what you believe. Of course you can force them to go into defensive mode or to pretend to believe it, but this does not accomplish the desired result. We should remember the fact that God Himself does not operate in this manner.

The story of Philip and the Ethiopian court official (see Acts chapter 8) reminds us of the important role the Holy Spirit plays in the process of others accepting any witness or form of communication we offer them. Prior to the invention of the printing press, early Christians were not standing on street corners passing out tracts. This fact does not mean they were not "standing on the street corners" of their society in other ways, but just as we desire the needy world to be open to God's message, we also need to be open to any methodology God directs us in. The Ethiopian court official was obviously open to the message of God. Philip was equally open to being used by God as a messenger.

Clearly not all unbelievers are "equal" regarding their openness to God. We should get to "know" our audience. This knowledge should influence our communication choices and formats. We should be building bridges and developing dialogue. No one form of communication is the only way. Peter's style of witnessing was not exactly the same as Philip's or Luke's or Paul's or John's style.

_We cummocinate nervnonlbaly, smybloically, and wtih wrods._ We need to make the truth presentable. We use our choice of music, hairstyles and clothing as methods of communication. Our hobbies, the type of cars we drive, and even our vacation locations symbolize our values. These symbolizations are also methods of communication. In other words, we communicate our values and preferences and priorities in both verbal and non-verbal formats. People are watching us, nearly all the time! Most readers were probably able to read the first sentence of this paragraph ("we communicate nonverbally, symbolically, and with words"). **Even when we communicate imperfectly, we still communicate** , especially when others possess a desire to understand.

Areas for additional thought:

1. How do you _know_ you are open to God's communication toward you? Can you identify some of the ways God has communicated to you in the past?

2. What improvements could you make in your personal forms of communication to God? What improvements could you make in how you communicate with others?

3. What influences (whether physical, spiritual, psychological, social, etc.) tend to break down spiritual forms of communication in your life?
Chapter 5  
Human Pets Syndrome and Personal Identity

"As in water face reflects face, so the heart of man reflects man." Proverbs 27:19

***

A few days after a hurricane named Katrina damaged much of the South and destroyed parts of New Orleans in 2005 forecasters predicted another major storm approaching south Texas. A mandatory evacuation order was issued to escape the impending onslaught of hurricane Rita. One Texas woman refused to leave without her pets. She stated her rationale for the decision this way, "They're human, just like we are."

Her statement poignantly raises two important questions all Christians should consider from a biblical perspective. First, are animals human just like we are? And second, and much more importantly: what does it mean to be human?

Fortunately the woman mentioned above received assistance from rescue workers allowing her to evacuate with her pets. According to news reports, however, some people died in the onslaught of Rita because of the exact same rationale. They refused to find safety and leave without their pets.

Are animals more important or more valuable than humans? What should our attitude be toward animals and how should we view ourselves? Are pets indeed "human"? If pets are to be valued and viewed on the same plane as humans, then are we human "pets" ourselves? Okay, one more question along these lines. Are all these questions even valid? On a personal basis, I must admit, only a few years ago I would have tended to think many of these questions were absurd.

Actually such questions are valid _now_. We need to explore these things because 21st century individuals are dealing with issues that are different from the ones those of us raised in the latter half of the 20th century faced. Such questions were not even being asked in previous generations. In every generation people need to know who they are _. Our beliefs about our personal identity influence the way we live our lives._

What Does Being Human Have to do with Our Beliefs?

All people are religious. I often find it interesting (and even fun) to discuss this premise with people who claim to NOT be religious. It usually doesn't take long to figure out the roots of their genuine beliefs. When you dig deep enough, you will discover that all people feel passionate about something. All people also hold some sort of belief system and generalized philosophy of life.

What people value, how they develop priorities, the standards (or lack of standards) they hold all serve to reveal their true "religious" preferences. While most modern people prefer the term "spiritual" (as opposed to the term "religious"), once a person infuses their personal spiritual beliefs systematically into their daily life I hold that those viewpoints have now become their personal "religion". For example, when the woman in the hurricane scenario above made the assertion that animals are equal to humans she was stating a religious belief. People often hold to religious beliefs without labeling such beliefs as a part of their religion. Her statement reflected a part of her overall "religious" perspective.

Perhaps the English word "humane" creates additional misunderstandings. The word _humane_ is clearly similar to the English word _human_. It is generally used in reference to animals as a statement that they should be treated in a civilized and merciful manner. People should also be treated mercifully and with civility (i.e. "humanely"), but there are also many ways in which we should differentiate between the ways we should treat people and animals.

Within her statement we may infer a strong sense of morality regarding the treatment of animals. She is biblically correct in desiring to prevent purposeless harm. But the key concept here lies within the meaning of the word "purposeless". She is correct, biblically speaking, in asserting that animals are not valueless. Senseless abuse to animals should never occur. Animal should be treated with care. They should be treated humanely. But this in no way means that animals are human!

In Genesis 1:28, 29 we read that man was to "subdue and rule" other created forms of life, both plant and animal. _Dominion_ was God given, not man invented. Man was revealed as the pinnacle of God's creation in the Genesis account. Man received commandments and tasks to accomplish. Man was created in the image of God. The animals did not receive these gifts and challenges. There was a major distinction clearly revealed between man and animals. Man is capable of sin. Animals are not.

The story of Noah's ark reveals God's desire to maintain and preserve His creatures because animals have value. Jesus told a story of a shepherd with 100 sheep who leaves the 99 sheep to search for a single lost sheep. This parable is actually about people rather than sheep, however, the reason the metaphor works is because even a lost sheep DOES have value. Animals do have value, but not equivalent value when compared to people. According to the Bible the value animals possess is different from the value humans possess.

Elevator Theology

When someone draws the conclusion that "pets are human" one of two things has happened. Animals are either elevated to the level of man or man is diminished to the level of animals. Either conclusion has spiritual implications. Elevating animals to the level of man usually has pantheistic overtones. If God is seen in everything, then everything possesses similar value. Lowering man to the level of animals is often founded upon materialistic thinking and assumptions. In this line of thought, nothing has worth, apart from what we "arbitrarily" ascribe to it.

The pantheist sees god in all things. A Christian "sees" God in all things also, but in a distinctly different way. When a Christian views a tree he acknowledges the hand of God and the power and creativity God utilized to create such a fascinating object. The pantheist sees the tree as actually being a god. The Christian honors the Creator of the creature while the pantheist honors the creature as the creator. The pantheist waters down the concept of God. In his viewpoint anything can be god, despite the absurdity of this definition.

Materialists hold to the idea that nothing exists outside of nature and all things are derived only by mere chance. For anyone who holds such a perspective, it is nonsense to exalt man above other life forms or in fact above even an inanimate object. If there is no Intelligent Designer then it is inconsistent to place either a higher or lower value on a chance happening. If humans and earthworms both exist by chance, then neither is of greater or lesser importance. If this is a person's foundation, then he may logically conclude that animals are human and humans are only animals. In this system all values are arbitrary. For the true materialist, the fact that the man may have a greater sense of consciousness than the earthworm is merely a bizarre twist of fate.

The materialist view is currently very popular. Except for adherents of theistic evolution, nearly all evolutionists are also materialists. But there is a consistency problem with this belief system. Materialists hardly ever hold to the conclusions their assumptions and beliefs logically lead to. Every materialist I have personally discussed these ideas with actually prefers to hold an eclectic, inconsistent belief system. It is simply too painful for most people to believe that murder, rape, abuse, and violence of any nature is no worse than living a life of love and humanitarian pursuits. A true materialist position lacks too much common sense for any but the most stubborn thinkers. Most materialists have simply not thought through the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

Here is one easily understood example. If you ask a materialist if smashing a baby's head with a hammer is wrong, he will correctly affirm that it is wrong. But if you ask him WHY it is bad, you will have asked him one of the most difficult questions he can face. The materialist will probably stammer out a reason like, "Well, everyone just knows it's wrong!" This is an observation, not a reason.

The Christian worldview states that everyone is created in the image of God and this means that everyone has value. Materialists have no such value basis. They must wrestle with contrived reasons to explain why bashing a baby's head in with a hammer or abusing an animal is evil. _The main point is this, materialists know that such things are wrong, but they don't know_ _why_ _such things are wrong._ Welcome to the world of philosophical and religious relativism.

Optimism Versus Pessimism

Modern man has traversed a philosophical continuum that demonstrates an interesting shift in thinking. Humanism exalts man. It often proceeds to a point where it elevates man above God. If man is equal to or greater than God, then either God has ceased to work in our lives (Deism), or God has ceased to exist (a form of Nihilism), or He never existed in the first place (Materialism).

Regardless of which system a person believes, if God is absent, then truth is arbitrary and everything is meaningless. If everything is meaningless, the humanist eventually rubs up against a logical dilemma. When there is "no meaning", the humanist is thrust from his precarious "pride driven" system over to what we currently label as a more postmodern system. As a person is plunged into postmodern speculation, he or she eventually realizes that man cannot accurately be exalted above God or indeed anything! Man must not be elevated above anything else at all, including earthworms.

Humanistic optimism is only one side of the continuum. History reveals that societies generally flow from one side of the continuum to the other. Our current journey represents a progression from optimism (based on humanism) to pessimism (derived from today's post-modern beliefs). Obviously a majority of the "thinkers" of our age are currently in a pessimistic mode of thinking because global warming and postmodern thinking dominates. Eventually the sine curve of worldview may return to an optimistic trend, but for now we see the prevalence of pessimism and skepticism. This can be seen in the arts and literature. For example, much of today's science fiction tends to be very pessimistic about the future. Literature in this genre is often referred to as dystopian. The utopian views (created by enlightenment thinking) that led to the American, French and industrial revolutions and then continued up to the Marxist states have given way to the pessimistic (i.e. "we must accept reality") views of the 20th century existentialists and the 21st century postmodern skeptics. The postmodern skeptics' distain for language relating to "truth" has resulted in ever deepening loss of hope.

People who hold to a humanist worldview see man as the central figure in the universe. For the humanist, it is easy to view "mere beasts" as a means to an end and man is clearly better than any beast because of his intellect.

There are still many humanists in our society, but we live in a time dominated more and more by postmodern ideas. A genuine postmodern is suspicious of any statement regarding superiority, including the idea assuming man is superior to other animals. With this viewpoint, testing new drugs on animals can be seen as evil. A postmodern animal lover will not offer any viable solution. But he or she WILL insist on how morally wrong medical science is to do this.

From this perspective, once a relationship has been established with an animal, it is easy to begin to think of any particular creature as also being human. This is increasingly easy for generations raised on Star Wars characters. Chewbacca, Yoda, and the Ewoks are all creatures that bridge the gap between human and creature.

Any statement about a "flawed worldview" is an oxymoron to a postmodern. In a world of arbitrary values where each individual creates truth and where no truth is of greater significance than any other truth, no worldview can be "more true" or "more false" than any other worldview. The problem is that Christians claim that there ARE rules that should be lived by. This is why the postmodern "referees" of the world have issued a technical violation on Christians. We MUST tolerate all worldviews. In a world without rules, we _must_ play by their rules. People who maintain postmodern beliefs have absolutely no problem tolerating (and even promoting) inconsistencies. They know what they want. They just don't know WHY they want it.

New Age Influences

As for the Texas woman case study mentioned above, I believe it is quite likely she has emerged from the pantheist camp. She would likely be personally shocked to be made aware that I am comparing her beliefs to those of Hinduism and animism, but eastern "new age" and "enlightened" thinking has permeated our culture in such a way that many who believe such things are completely unaware of their own internal _assumptions_. Modern man is taught to accept rather than to think.

This has evolved because our society has stopped discussing religious beliefs critically. Most people seem to have no idea of the roots or implications of their beliefs. Not discussing things critically does not make people less religious; it merely makes them less systematic in their beliefs. The current redefining of the word "tolerance" is also responsible for some of this confusion. It is okay to engage in surface level discussions of religious concepts, but only by way of making statements of personal belief. In this way, other people can nod their heads and say "That's nice, especially for you." The absolute truth of any belief is not questioned because of the post-modern belief that there is no absolute truth.

Regardless of how it came to be, our culture has become permeated with new age beliefs. These beliefs often contain roots from Animistic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Taoist, and other traditions. More than likely, the woman's statement that her pets are "human, just like we are" contains an eclectic blend of several of these belief systems.

Implications Regarding Abortion

What does it mean to be human? The Christian answer found in Genesis and throughout the Bible is that man is the high point of God's creation, but he is after all, only a creature himself. He exists to develop relationship with God. He exists to give glory to God and to love God and to love others. This is at odds with most secular worldviews. Yet this is precisely what the abortion debate is all about.

Secularists do not want to be "mean" to babies. They just define a woman as a person and a fetus as a form of tissue. A person has rights, but tissue is disposable.

If we are to combat this worldview we must understand that there is a spiritual dimension to this debate. But we must also recognize that there is an emotional side and an intellectual side to the debate as well. Regarding emotional aspects, our strongest strategy may simply be to allow people to experience a fetus empirically. Pictures and sonograms have done this and will continue to be great tools. The point of this educational experience is to get people to understand that a fetus is a person. When someone touches a pregnant woman's belly and feels a baby kick we want them to understand that the tiny life capable of creating these vibrations is a person!

Regarding intellectual aspects of the debate, we must educate others about the deficiencies of a worldview that dehumanizes. Exalting mankind the way most humanists do actually dehumanizes man by trying to make a "god" out of him. Lowering man to the level of the animals dehumanizes man by making a beast out of him. We want others to fully understand what it means to truly be human. Man was created in the image of God, but he is flawed and sinful due to the Fall. This is how we should view ourselves, no higher and no lower.

The schizophrenia of modern man is shocking. Killing a pet is bad, but aborting an "animal" that is not a "person" is fine if there are "obvious" pragmatic reasons. We feel strongly about protecting pets yet we have no qualms about aborting the "blobs" we desire to "eliminate" through the act of infanticide. There are both cognitive and emotional rationales for this schizophrenia, but the inconsistencies of these positions are still amazing.

We should never forget that the Bible teaches that evil will always exist (in this realm). No amount of "religious education" can transform people's hearts. Against this dimension of spiritual warfare there is no "weapon" except the saving grace of our Lord through the work of the Holy Spirit. People's hearts are transformed through genuine relationship with God. Having a deep and abiding relationship with God (see e.g. John 15) is so much more than mere "religious education". But without that transformation, most modernists will continue to kick against the goading pricks of their own conscience.

For the humanist, if she herself is a "god", then no mere mortal should be allowed to interfere with her personal happiness. For the postmodern, the struggling fetus has no more right to life than any other object. Either viewpoint can rationalize the idea that the pregnant woman can do whatever she wishes with "her own" body. If she were being true to her _actual language_ , she is involved merely in cosmetic surgery (i.e. destroying a "part" of her own body) rather than infanticide, but we all know that the REAL issue here is self-centeredness.

People are evil and selfish. Both the humanistic worldview and the postmodern worldview allow a _rationalization_ for being evil and selfish that allows people to appear "normal" rather than appearing evil and selfish. It is no big secret that raising kids is expensive. It costs a great deal of money to clothe, feed, shelter, educate and keep children happy. All these areas can provide numerous rationalizations, and we should expect nothing less from "good" capitalists of either worldview camp. Occasionally you will even hear someone use the rationalization that by the act of abortion, they are actually doing the child "a favor"! _Alternative solutions_ (such as adoption) are generally not even brought up because they painfully draw the decision away from being a "pragmatic" choice and drag the issue (and the person involved) into the "mud" of ethics and morality.

The Role of Unsystematic Morality when Dealing with Dilemmas

By definition, a dilemma requires a choice between conflicting morals or values. The Texas woman was faced with a moral dilemma in which she was forced to weigh the value of her own life against the value of her pets. The difficult circumstances forced her to reveal her personal belief that she is of no more value than her pets. As to the life endangerment of the rescue workers forced to come to her aid, "well, let's face it," she might say, "they're paid to do that".

The Bible reveals that Jesus died for her sins. In no place does scripture ever even hint that her pets need spiritual salvation. Man is not more valuable than animals because man decides he is more valuable than animals. Man is more valuable because God has established the value system. It is not our system. It is His system.

We could applaud the woman for what seems like a lack of selfishness. But was her decision selfless? Did she do what she did as a way of honoring God? It seems more likely she was honoring the animals. When a creature honors other creatures more than God, then a form of idolatry may have been created.

What is Man?

I do not actually know this woman's genuine motives, but I question her decision to stay because it also may have endangered the valuable lives of other people as well. Her decision could easily have endangered the lives of rescue workers. And what could she do if the water did endanger the animals? She also refused to acknowledge her own powerlessness in such a tragic situation. In the end, did she view herself as a "god" who would be able to stop the floodwaters somehow?

"What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him?" (see Psalm 8:4-9). This question exists in all cultures and in all eras. But the psalmist does not ask the question in a vacuum the way modern man tends to ask it. The psalmist asks the question in the sense of contrasting man with God.

The rest of the passage reads as follows: "Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God. And dost crown him with glory and majesty! Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea. Whatever passes through the paths of the seas. O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Thy name in all the earth."

The worth of man is intrinsic simply because of the love of God. God is personal, and He is deeply concerned with all aspects of humanity. His Son came to die for the sins of all mankind. The value of each individual is demonstrated by this act.

Animals need not have their sins paid for. Animals are sinless, because no commandments have been made of them. This distinction alone elevates man above all other forms of animal life. Man is the pinnacle of God's creation and man was given dominion over the animals.

So how should we view animals? God instructed Adam to exercise dominion over the animals. Deuteronomy points out that if we find an animal wandering, we should attempt to return it to the rightful owner (see chapter 22:1-4). We should "use" animals, and co-exist with them and avoid senseless cruelty to them. The biblical idea of cruelty refers to how we care for and treat animals. Numerous shepherding examples and metaphors demonstrate many principles of animal husbandry. As hard as it is for modern urbanized people to understand, there is a huge distinction between cruelty and the slaughter of an animal for food. Eating meat is completely acceptable. Peter was instructed in his vision from God to "kill and eat" (see Acts 10:13).

God does not place animals on the same value scale as man, and we should not either. This does not mean we attach no value to them. We should not under value them nor over value them.

Animals have a "personality" and they have the ability to respond to their environment. Yet clearly different animals have different functions. It is postmodern thought that refuses to delineate such distinctions. It is materialistic thought that believes foundationally we should not see any distinction between one creature that arose from the mud of evolution compared to another creature. It is postmodern materialistic thought that cannot distinguish between the function of a family dog to protect and provide companionship, or a cow to provide milk, or a hog to be slaughtered and eaten.

Pets are not human. We should completely reject the idea that pets are human, and that all creatures should be viewed in an egalitarian fashion. This does not mean we cannot establish relationships with animals. But let us never substitute such relationships for the intended relationship we should be building with our Heavenly Father!

Animals enhance our existence, as God intended. Animals may provide companionship, assistance in work, food, and many other things. There are also many things we may learn from animals. Solomon pointed out that we could learn something about our work ethic, preparing for the future, and the advantages of working toward a unified goal just from studying ants (see Proverbs 6:6-11).

Our relationship with animals has some interesting aspects we would do well to learn from. Isaiah noted that the inhabitants of the earth are like "grasshoppers", implying that we are rather powerless when contrasted with God (see Isaiah 40:22). We are not without value, but we should never be proud and boastful. All we have and all we do is truly a result of His grace.

The Bible also uses animal similes and metaphors to teach us a lot about human nature. This does not imply we should be equated with animals. It just means we can learn from them. Isaiah points out that we are like sheep. We have "all gone astray" and gone our own way (see Isaiah 53:6). Other biblical comparisons with sheep are so numerous I will make no attempt to list them here. Jesus referred to many of the Pharisees and Sadducees as "vipers" (see Matthew 3:7). He instructed His disciples to be "shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves" in the context of being sent out as "sheep in the midst of wolves" (see Matthew 10:16).

These and many other _comparisons_ teach us about who we are and how we should live. We are not pets, and pets are not human. Man is not merely an animal. Man is merely man. And man is also, wondrously man. On this point the Bible is also very clear. Yet regardless of how metaphorical the language may be, there is a great deal we may learn from animals, both in our biblical reading and in our daily lives.

The advice of the ancient Greeks was to " know thyself". Modern psychology suggests we each need to "find our self". But the Bible informs Christians that God has already found us. He knows each of us individually and personally. He values us. He wants to have personal relationship with us. We find our true identity in Him. Anyone who pursues God will _find_ herself or himself within the fabric of personal interaction with Almighty God.

Areas for additional thought:

1. If a person places animals and people on the same "level", what does this imply about their beliefs regarding life after death for both animals and humans?

2. Many people claim to not be "religious". What are some areas of life in which such a claim can usually be found to be false?

3. Is there any connection between the social issue of euthanasia and the ideas presented in this chapter?
Chapter 6  
Christian Education

"But the goal of our instruction is love..." 1 Timothy 1:5

***

What is Christian education? According to the Apostle Paul's statement to Timothy the goal of our instruction should be love. No matter how you slice it, from an educational standpoint this does not involve a simple curriculum. The Greek word in the letter to Timothy is _agape_. Paul defined this type of love eloquently in 1 Corinthians 13 and it is the type of love demonstrated by Jesus. That does NOT mean it's easy to teach. Even when we manage to express it in some sort of educational context, godly love is incredibly difficult to live out.

Okay, so love as defined and demonstrated in the Bible is neither easy to teach nor easy to learn. God still wants us to "deal with it"! In fact, it's the main thing. Jesus was an excellent teacher but when He attempted to teach a rich, young ruler a lesson about love, the young man demonstrated that he was not ready to learn that particular lesson. So "readiness" of our pupils is also something to consider.

Ultimately we want our children, our young men and women, and in fact all believers regardless of age to learn to love God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love their neighbors in the same way they love themselves (see Mark 12:30,31). This is the ultimate goal of Christian education. But the POWER to do this must come from God Himself. Therefore, Christian "Education" must enable, encourage, and foster a deeper on-going relationship with God in the heart of each Christian student.

An education that is truly Christian will also help learners align their lives with the principles of God and in so doing live a life that pleases God. Such an education should enable us to be followers, disciples, ambassadors, and servants of Christ. Christian education ought to inspire continual growth. Think for a moment of all the skills ambassadors and servants need to possess. Truly we are faced with a daunting task.

One major problem with the simple definition of education above is that it focuses on the outcome of the education, and not on "what" the education actually is. It does not imply whether or not algebra, history, science, grammar, spelling or literature will be a part of that education. Nevertheless, in an area as complex as Christian education it is helpful to begin with what the end product should look like, and then work backwards toward our present position asking how we may indeed arrive at that point. In this regard simplistic definitions serve a valid function. I believe we may confidently state that the end point we would like to see believers reach in the area of Christian education is that they become learners who continue to learn and apply the truths of God in their lives on a daily basis as loving ambassadors and servants of Christ.

I sometimes wonder if our seminaries understand that the greatest seminary education ever developed took place in a three year mentoring environment that involved direct ministry (compare how Jesus worked with His disciples). No certificates were awarded. No Doctorate of Philosophy was given, just personal growth through mentoring, modeling, and the genuine display of love.

Can we begin to look beyond formulaic procedures of garnering pieces of papers with various "degrees" and "diplomas" on them? Should Christian education do more than expose us to new ideas? Should it do more than help us to develop memorized aspects of knowledge? To provide an education that is Christ centered I believe we MUST do more!

Perhaps there are some who believe it is enough to be able to recite Jesus' words, whether we understand their intent or not. But I am not one of them. I definitely do not believe we ought to blindly follow our master without thinking. I do not believe mere acceptance in some nonintellectual manner is the way to develop abiding faith, unwavering obedience, and fervent love. Mere acceptance is not what faith is.

Jesus did things that "forced" people to THINK and to _apply_ the principles of scripture. He spent a great deal of time enabling Nicodemus, the woman at the well, and Zacchaeus to truly understand deeper meanings. When we educate our children we need to bring them to Christ in ways that are life changing.

Dealing With Anti-intellectualism

Some Christians take passages from the Bible and use them to support anti-intellectual beliefs. This mentality has a direct bearing on how we perceive Christian education. For example, in Acts 4:13 members of the Jewish Council noted that Peter and John were "uneducated" and "untrained". Yet both Peter and John clearly displayed great power. They were also obviously pleasing God. A conclusion could be reached that education and training are not needed. Some Christians have fallen into this trap and hold to an anti-intellectual position regarding the merits of education.

Christians of all eras have struggled to find a balance between being "in the world" but not "of the world". It would appear that some anti-intellectualists want nothing to do with anything that is "in" this world. The problem with this stance is that it discounts nature and many forms of general revelation. These areas have significant educational value to Christians. This attitude also leads (in my opinion) to situations that make it difficult to relate to others who _are_ of the world because it maintains a mentality of separatism. Jesus' prayer in John 17 includes an _anti-separatist_ statement. He said, "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one." We are still "in" the world.

There is also a huge problem if we go to the opposite polarity. Some "overly" intellectual proponents of Christian education seem to value form over function. Another way of saying this is that some people prioritize "product above people". Warnings about this are also abundant in the New Testament. This is a danger that may appear whenever our beliefs and lifestyle begin to mirror the beliefs and lifestyle of the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Jesus never placed "product above people". Knowledge is not more important than relationship.

Outcomes Versus Knowledge

More than what we "learn", Christian education is about how we are being used. There is no doubt that God can truly use anyone, and there is no doubt that we should rely on the leading and power of the Holy Spirit in our lives. The truth of the matter is Peter and John _were_ educated _and_ trained _and_ filled with the Spirit. Three years of individual and small group mentoring with Jesus amounted to an incredibly valid education. _When worldly people define education and training according to their standards, we who are Christians should not fall into the snare of simply using the definition they thrust upon us._

Christian education does not consist only of little white pieces of paper signifying certifications and degrees. However, don't take this concept and go to the opposite extreme and say that the certifications and degrees have no value. That too, is NOT what I am stressing. They have value because we are "in" the world. My point is not to confuse the symbol (of the degree) with the actual Christian education.

What is wrong with "worldly wisdom"? Paul points out that people may boast of it (see 1 Corinthians chapter 1). Paul further points out that our faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (see 1 Corinthians 2:5). These attitudes about humility and about discriminating between Godly wisdom and worldly wisdom do not mean we should have less education as some anti-intellectual Christians imply. It simply means that teaching such attitudes and the skill of discrimination ought to be a major factor of Christian education.

It is wrong to assume that Paul did not utilize his own "worldly" education even after he converted to Christianity. I am confident he used "all" of his education as he approached the Athenian philosophers at Mars Hill (see Acts 17). Paul used it, but he held it in its proper perspective. While writing to the believers in Philippi Paul noted that if he wanted to "have confidence in the flesh" he could, but he instead counted "all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus... that [he might] know Him and the power of His resurrection" (see Philippians 3:8-10). It is clear that one of the problems faced in Christian education involves the question of how we can educate people about the _power_ of God and how they may tap into that power! Education about the power of God must come by nurturing biblical beliefs and attitudes, and above all by nurturing a deeper relationship with God.

Besides defining and clarifying what Christian education is, there is another significant problem. Who should our teachers be? If a Christian school employs a mediocre Christian who is only nominally committed to Christ, is the school also "Christian" in name only? This is something worth pondering.

I have already mentioned the concept of mentoring. I believe powerful Christian education often happens in the homes of parents reading the Bible with their children, praying in meaningful circumstances, and guiding their children into ministry opportunities. Christian parenting is a powerful form of Christian education because it is mentoring. But it is just one avenue.

Christian education often happens between a parent and a child, but sometimes it is the parent who learns. It may occur between peers. It may happen in the work place or the playground or the classroom. It can even happen at the mall or in the car on the way to an event. It cannot be defined only as something that happens in a school. Christian education can take place even in public schools (I have witnessed this firsthand).

Christian education may happen wherever a mentor guides, teaches or models biblical doctrine or godly behavior or Christ-like attitudes. Is Christian education restricted to a classroom with a credentialed teacher? Of course it isn't. It may occur in a classroom between a teacher and a student (and I hope it does!), but the path of learning does not always proceed from teacher to student. Sometimes the teacher may learn from the student, and sometimes a student will learn from other students.

In Deuteronomy chapter 6 parents were encouraged to teach their children about the oneness of God (the _Shema_ ), and to fear God, and to diligently keep His commandments. The duty for this task did not fall to highly credentialed scholars. The duty for this task fell to parents. Christian parents often need pastoral shepherds teaching them and reminding them of what they need to do by way of instructing their children. This "trickle down" methodology should actually be a common part of Christian education. One scenario illustrating this is when a pastor teaches a congregation about what children should be taught. Programs like those offered by Focus on the Family are another example. Parents and youth workers may then incorporate these ideas into the way they work with children.

Jesus Himself was a Rabbi (i.e. teacher). When Paul wrote about spiritual gifts he mentioned the gift of teacher as one of those gifts (see Romans 12:6). In as much as possible, we should seek to place people who have the spiritual gift of teaching in roles allowing them to teach. There is a dual role of responsibility here. Institutions should be seeking out such individuals, but the individuals who possess this gift should also seek to place themselves in opportune positions that will allow their gifts to be used.

Christian education needs Christian leaders. Jesus' words to Peter, "Feed My sheep", stated a direct challenge to him. Jesus wanted Peter to discontinue his chosen profession as a fisherman and become the full-time church leader he eventually became.

Our entire Christian community has a role to play regarding the edification of each other. When everyone is working harmoniously and when everyone is actively participating in his or her area of function and ministry then spiritual teaching AND mentoring will occur _naturally_. Christian education should not be laid only upon "classroom" teachers. There is something to be learned from those who demonstrate service or mercy or any activity that builds the Kingdom of God. Mother Teresa's _life_ was a form of Christian education. We learn not only from Christian teachers, but also from the entire Christian community.

Teaching and Modeling Morality

Consider the issue of morality as another example. Moral development is a great aspect of Christian education. Moral issues demonstrate meaningfully my position about being balanced in the area of intellectual pursuits. Intellectually we need to be aware of the commandments and guidelines of the Bible. But no matter how we intellectualize, we must _apply_ the guidelines and principles for them to be useful. Christian education ought to help believers avoid _intellectual stupidity,_ which basically translates as bad moral choices. Discrimination can be learned from any believer, not just from those "labeled" as teachers.

Regarding moral education we must promote moral intelligence. We must develop both the mind and the heart. Christian education that teaches moral intelligence requires a holistic approach. Another way of saying this is that Christian education should be evident in lifestyle and behavioral choices. All believers may play a role in the "teaching" of this simply by living good moral lives. If Christians in general are living in ways that mirror the values and priorities of the world then it is doubtful that true Christian education is taking place in their circles of influence.

What do I mean by the term "intellectual stupidity"? Let me use the following examples to illustrate it. Imagine a person making a huge salary who then compromises that salary by pilfering a few hundred dollars. Imagine a president of the United States engaging in an affair with a young intern that endangers his presidency through impeachment. Imagine a media mogul earning millions of dollars a year who risks jail time to save a few dollars through illegal stock manipulations. Imagine a forty-year-old teacher in the middle of his career having a "fling" with a high school girl that costs him both his marriage and his career. What do these examples have in common? They each demonstrate a lack of moral character.

Oscar Wilde once wrote that, "The only thing that ever consoles man for the stupid things he does is the praise he always gives himself for doing them." Wilde did not live as a Christian, but in this statement he possessed great wisdom regarding man's nature. Christian education should promote moral development that is real, fundamental, and biblical. In a nutshell, it should help people (young or old) avoid stupid decisions and stupid behavior.

Our society values intelligence. I have heard people say things such as, "Oh, he is such an intelligent young man. He will make a GREAT lawyer!" Of all the vain qualities we use to evaluate others it sometimes seems to me that only beauty is esteemed more. We praise people for their intelligence as if the level of their intelligence was something garnered by their own efforts.

The parents of young people who make terrible mistakes are often assuaged by statements such as, "Don't worry, she is such an intelligent young lady that I am sure she will recover marvelously from this setback." There are cases in which we are dumbfounded, not by the fact that people we esteem as intelligent participated in an immoral behavior, but by the fact that they got caught! My point is that we ourselves sometimes value intelligence above morality. Nothing could please Satan more.

Many people are manipulators. Such individuals are likely (at one time or another) to "game" whatever system they happen to be a part of. They manipulate friends, family members, colleagues at work, and people in general everywhere they go. For manipulative types of people all of life is like a game. They often divide the world into 2 types of people. The ones I have worked with over the years tend to see people as either "winners" or "losers". They see themselves as winners. But even "smart" people make corrosive and corrupt decisions. Christian education needs to find ways to reveal these layers of corruption and self-deceit. Christian education must probe the depths of the human heart and soul. It cannot be satisfied with a mere cursory overview.

How is introspection to occur? Our curriculum needs to connect each student to the values and priorities presented in the Bible. The Bible must be foundational to Christian curriculum. All the values and priorities we need as believers are found within this textbook. Our curriculum should find ways to make the dogma transparently real, powerfully alive, and pragmatically useful.

This does not imply the exclusion of other textbooks from our curriculum as well, and curriculum is only one problem. I suppose we could come up with a hypothetical "desert island" example of a person marooned with a Bible and numerous textbooks, devotionals and commentaries who "educated" himself. But generally speaking, I believe that Christian education requires iron sharpening iron (see Proverbs 27:17), and iron sharpening iron requires mentoring. We cannot have mud sharpening the iron. That will result only in rust.

_Everyone "models" something._ Models themselves may be good or bad. The Bible itself provides numerous examples of mentors. Elisha hung around Elijah to learn about his ministry. "And Elisha said, 'Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.'... and he took the mantle of Elijah" (see 2 Kings 2:9,14). Knowledge about God is not merely to be learned, it is to be passed on and _used_. Elisha grasped this idea. Elisha _wanted_ to be used by God. We must find ways to pass on such _attitudes_ if we desire education that is genuinely Christian.

Attitude Versus Aptitude

Samuel learned from Eli. Peter learned from Jesus. Timothy learned from Paul. We are too often satisfied with the idea that education is only the passing on of knowledge. **It is not knowledge, but attitude that is the key, and attitude is what mentoring provides that books alone cannot.** The problem is not that we don't understand or value a mentoring model. The problem is that great mentors are not easy to find. _A major challenge facing each of us is to ask if we ourselves are mentoring others the way we should!_

But mentoring is not the only method of learning. There is also a need for introspection. There is a "desert" model that may be observed in the Bible as well. Moses was in the desert for 40 years. The nation of Israel was also wandering for 40 years. John the Baptist spent time in the wilderness and Paul had his time in Arabia. I mention these examples, not because I believe we should imitate them exactly, but because they reveal the importance of a time of introspection as a key element of Christian education. Many people have realized this and it is one reason Christian "camping" experiences are so widespread. While group activities are utilized a great deal, camping experiences also promote serious moments of introspection for each individual camper.

Whether we do it from the pulpit, in the classroom, with mentors, with Christian camping experiences, with journaling experiences, or whatever means we may think of, _we should value the internal thought processes of our students_. We should encourage the asking of hard questions. We should encourage discussions that go beyond pat answers. We should encourage the desire to grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. What would happen if we were all trained "the Jesus way"?

We are not without guidelines. The Bible provides us with an anchor. But I do not believe Christian education to be an easy thing. I believe it to be a "life" thing. Until the truths of scripture become inculcated into the life of a student, we run the risk of mirroring worldly education with the trappings of Christendom rather than providing genuine Christian education. While students come with a wide variety of aptitudes, the most crucial attribute of Christian education is to instill godly attitudes, and this cannot be achieved apart from a genuine relationship with God. The fruit of Christian education can be seen when people want to draw nearer to God, and be used by God, and to lead others to Him. When people display the attitudes we associate with a faithful servant we can observe the fruits of a Christian education.

Up to now, I have not touched upon another valid question. Should believers place their children in private Christian schools or in a public school system? This raises the question of exposure versus protection. My suggestion in analyzing this decision is to ask the question of who is influencing whom? I do not believe there is an appropriate black and white answer to this question. Some people feel VERY strongly one way or the other about the issue. Whatever decision you as a reader make about this, you should consider the fact that "worldly" influences often occur in Christian schools, just as Christian influences may occur in secular settings.

There were times when Jesus cloistered His disciples. During these times the disciples were just with Him, alone from the world. There were times when together they engaged in ministry to others. In these times He was there to lead, yet they assisted in the ministry (e.g. distributing food at the feeding of the 5000). There were other times when He sent them out to be salt and light.

Jesus' disciples were always to be in the world but not of it. We too, are disciples. Understanding our ultimate purpose and understanding readiness are two additional factors to consider. If you are a parent, review the duties and responsibilities of being a parent as they are presented in the Bible. Tell your children about God, provide for their physical and spiritual needs, provide moral mentoring and education yourself, and provide high expectations with unconditional love. Whenever children are "ready", I believe that providing opportunities for them to be involved in ministry is a valid arena for Christian education to occur in. When it comes to ministry, it is not only those being ministered to who benefit. Those who do the ministry benefit as well.

Discerning and "Creating" Readiness

When Simon Peter finished his three years of "seminary" he went back to fishing. Was his education complete? Of course it was not. Christian education is NEVER complete. _But we are not always "ready"_ _to absorb the next lesson._ In Peter's case it required all the previous lessons, which also included learning about his own weaknesses, and perhaps the passage of time before he was "ready". His next big lesson involved seeing the Master again (now resurrected) and being asked 3 times whether he loved Him (see John chapter 21). When Peter finally began to grasp what Jesus intended for him by the statement "feed My sheep" he was finally ready for the next lesson which involved "waiting" for the Holy Spirit. Waiting is always tough. Even after we have learned a "tough" lesson, the next lesson may still be tough as well.

Readiness is a major theme of the Bible. The stories about Noah, Jonah, and also Jesus' parable of the ten virgins all illustrate that people need to be ready to "face" God and to follow His calling upon their lives. _Christian education must engage in attempting to bring people to a place of readiness._ The author of Hebrews wrote to his primary audience that they should be more advanced spiritually. He was forced to lament that they were still in need of someone to re-teach them the "elementary principles of the oracles of God" (see Hebrews 5:12).

Edification

Before we simply analyze classroom education, we should also take a hard look at the pulpit. In John Milton's poem _Lycidas_ he lamented, "The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed." This may be true in any generation. The pulpit may be a wonderful source of Christian education, or it may represent a place that focuses on "ear-tickling".

The real question is this. If the pulpit is not a source of Christian education, then what is it (or what has it become)? Perhaps we do not understand what Christian education truly is, or perhaps we do not understand the role of the pulpit in our lives. When a minister is visiting the sick and afflicted, he is in the role of pastor. But when he is in the pulpit he is in the role of preacher. A preacher's primary goal should be the edification of his flock. He is to build them up. By its very nature the word edification implies change and growth. Too many leaders define the words change and growth only by physical change (like new buildings) and numeric growth (i.e. numbers of people). Internal personal deep abiding spiritual change and growth are the foundations of edification. The word is edification, not edifices.

It seems that many of our beliefs about Christian education evolve from our fears. The sermon must be fun, spicy, cute, and entertaining, lest we bore someone. Our youth groups must have bizarre games, or we fear young people will no longer attend. Our Christian school curriculums must model whatever state we live in, or we fear that either the state will hound us or that parents will not want their children exposed to a curriculum that is "too" Christian (as if this were possible).

Fear should not be the driving force in our decision-making, unless we are talking about fear of the Lord. Modeling state curriculums is not a problem, so long as the Christian school determines that the student outcomes are indeed "Christian" and it is done for these reasons rather than out of fear. If the bizarre youth group games can be used in ways that are indeed edifying and instructive then by all means let them continue. If we run our Christian education programs in fear that someone will be bored, perhaps we need to return to a deeper analysis of the educational methods of the gospels, the book of Acts, and the epistles. I do not find the methods presented there to be boring in the least. If we must fear, let us fear we are NOT "making disciples" of our youth and allowing them to become vigorous ambassadors of Christ.

Should we engage in Christian education that is of a "one size fits all" nature? I do not believe this to be modeled in scripture either. At the student level, we must understand the uniqueness of each student. Jesus used different lesson ideas and methods with different students. We too should consider each individual differently. Each student is at different levels of maturity and motivation. Each student has different strengths. Each student has different elements from their past. We should ask if the education we are currently engaged in is meaningful for each student.

We cannot sanitize the world before we present it to students. But we can help students find their own function and explore their own personal strengths. We can help them overcome and diminish weaknesses. We can teach them morality and teach them to foster genuine relationship with God. As we teach students to love God and to love others, we will simultaneously teach them to bring about meaningful change to the world. We cannot sanitize the world for our students, but we can seek to present students to the un-sanitized world who are genuine Christians. The goal of our instruction is love.

Areas for additional thought:

1. List some qualities you believe an "educated" Christian should possess.

2. This next question is short, but profoundly difficult to answer. May I suggest mulling it over for a long time before attempting to answer it. How can love be taught?

3. List some specific ways you can become more engaged in mentoring and in being mentored.
Chapter 7  
Do the Math

Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"

Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." (from Matthew 18:21,22)

***

It's dangerous to pretend that everything in life is simple. When it comes to Christian living, we often need abstractions clarified so that we can live in a consistent manner. In addition to helping us understand how to solve problems like the one Peter brought up about forgiveness, we also need to deal with complicated problems in our daily lives. I trust readers will find the ideas of this chapter interesting yet useful.

Dealing With Abstract Ideas

Mathematicians use several different styles of thinking to solve various problems. Linear styles of thinking are used in algebraic areas of math while global styles of thinking are often utilized in geometric areas. What do I mean by linear and global types of thinking? Linear processing is step-by-step thinking while global thinking involves more "big picture", spatial, or intuitive types of thinking. Global thinking often involves (or enables) flashes of insight.

Theologians use linear thinking to help them develop principles, build understanding, and engage in ethical and moral problem solving. An example of linear thinking is as follows: If a=b and b=c then a=c. Whenever a grade school child uses a step-by-step process to do a long division problem, the child is also engaging in a form of linear problem solving.

Linear thinking is characterized by a very orderly progression of ideas. In a similar fashion, there are many areas of theology that also use this type of linear thinking. A theological example is as follows: if God declares the wages of sin to be death, and if He further declares that all men have sinned, then we can be sure that all men are "dead" (spiritually) or headed for death (apart from the work of our Savior). This type of thinking is logical, mathematical, and also definitely theological. This is the type of realm where systematic theology excels. Abstract concepts are often built upon concrete foundations and when one concept builds upon another concept in a progressive manner we may describe them as linear in their development.

But not everything can be approached this way. Not all concepts are capable of this type of development and the way we address black and white areas must often differ from the way we address unclear, hard to grasp, rare, or non-empirical areas of consideration. We may acquire knowledge about "murky", unclear theological ideas but the _way_ we acquire this knowledge may affect the way we _use_ or implement this knowledge. Think again of Nicodemus wrestling with being born again. Jesus used this metaphor as a "model". But the insight necessary was difficult for Nicodemus to grasp. I believe that once he "flashed" upon a deeper understanding, he was then able to proceed linearly and logically along that pathway toward application of the insight.

Most of our Christian walk is not mysterious. We are often very "linear" in our thinking and in the way we comprehend and apply knowledge. Generally speaking, this is as it should be. The Bible provides clear guidelines, and we may extrapolate from those guidelines as to how we should live. Knowing what to do is usually relatively easy. Actually doing it is another matter. However, as far as thinking about such issues goes, we are talking about relatively linear aspects of the Christian walk that allow us to determine a step-by-step approach.

For example, I read the Bible each day as a "discipline". I do this for many personal reasons, not the least of which is so I can draw nearer to God. I draw nearer to God so I can pray more effectively. I pray so that I may see God's power at work. This is an example of linear theological thinking.

But there are exceptions. What are we to do when we face gray concepts that are difficult to understand? Perhaps we can learn something from how mathematicians face such issues in their arena of study.

First we should note that mathematicians utilize very clear definitions for terms. This is important also for theological terms. If we are going to have a discussion with one another, we must each understand what the other is saying.

Secondly we may observe that many areas of geometry utilize proofs. This is the stuff many kids struggling with geometry hate the most. Often these proofs have more than one way to arrive at the actual "proof". While the end result of the proof may be quite linear, the actual development of the proof may have required great imagination, intuition, and very global thinking. In a spiritual sense, once we have attained a higher level of insight and understanding, we may apply our learning via very linear methodology, even when the original development of the insights may have required tremendous amounts of "global" and intuitive energy.

In higher levels of mathematics there is often more than one way to get to a correct answer. Whichever way is more "intuitive" for the person doing the work is likely to be the path chosen by that individual. Global thinking generally involves connections to principles, and often these connections require a "big picture" awareness to see the links and connections involved.

People studying about God also need to call upon their ability to make global generalizations, especially when they discuss the attributes and nature of God Himself. Analyzing some of God's attributes requires the most imaginative and intuitive powers our puny brains can draw to bear. Evaluating right and wrong in gray areas and creating a valid image of the Almighty God in our minds cannot always be accomplished with a simple step-by-step linear approach. Some areas of thought require deep levels of understanding based on principles. Scientists and mathematicians sometimes use a "model" to help them conceptualize something that is only "partially" known about. A model may not be perfect, and it may from time to time be modified, but it may also be very helpful. It should not be looked upon as the actual "reality", but merely as a helpful aid in understanding that which is real.

Theologians use models as well. In this book, for example, I have spoken of the "system" God developed. God created a system of choice and freewill. The purpose of His system is to allow the development of genuine love and relationships built on that love. Evil is a possible by-product of such a system. My description of this system is a type of model that allows me to understand, at least in a rudimentary fashion, why evil exists AND a good and loving and powerful God also exists. My mental model of God's system is not complete. There are aspects of the system that exist that I have not even considered. But it is nevertheless a helpful model, at least for me.

In addition to helping us understand ways we approach theology, mathematics has a few additional connections with Christian theology. By way of warning I should point out that the theological "math" I discuss in this chapter is not intended to align with our general understanding of math. The math we study in school deals with the natural world. The "mathematical" examples used below are metaphysical in nature. Actually my use of the term "math" here is more metaphorical than actual, and I should add that it is also a bit "tongue in cheek" as well. The "math" connections I have made are intended to be didactic to our Christian walk rather than being used to make someone a better mathematician. In other words, I am not saying that the topics below represent a new branch of Euclidean geometry. My goal is not to develop better mathematicians but people who are better able to study God and relate to Him. I am merely saying that it is interesting, and hopefully helpful, to see how theology connects to various aspects of life, even something like mathematics. I hope and believe such ruminations may indeed allow us to walk more deeply with our Lord.

The Mathematics of the Trinity

Let us begin this next section with one of the most difficult concepts in all of Christian theology. I am referring to the doctrine of the trinity. Moslems insist that Christians worship 3 Gods. Christians insist that there is only one God. Moslems are confused by the concept of unity. Using standard math Moslems think of addition and the fact that 1+1+1= 3. But Christians are thinking more in terms of 1x1x1=1. The identity principle can be confusing and the trinity is an extremely abstract concept. Christians are saying that God the Father and Jesus are "one". The Holy Spirit and the Father are "one". Jesus and the Holy Spirit are "one". They are not three different ones. Each one has a differing "persona" yet the same essential _identity_ as the next one. There is one God, with three persons, with one essence. The plus signs should not exist. Christians are not talking about addition; they are talking about unity and the Identity Property of the One True God. Nevertheless, we can readily see why this is such a sticking point for some people.

Most Christians admit that comprehending and explaining the concept of the trinity is very difficult, even for mature Christians. Consider the following example: in one sense the tri-unity is similar to the mathematical definition of a plane, which states that a point and another point and a third (non-co-linear) point define a single plane. They are all points within the same plane. There are three points, but only one plane. This example may illustrate how abstract the concept of the trinity is, but otherwise it represents my poor inadequate attempt to provide an example of what is meant by that concept.

But I am not alone in dealing with the concept of the trinity in an inadequate manner. Dr. Rick Cornish used the analogy of a plane to illustrate the concept a different way in his book _5 Minute Theologian_ (Navpress, 2004 p. 79). Dr. Cornish asks his readers to think of a white board such as the kind used in a classroom. We may describe the board as being white, flat, and hard. We are not talking about 3 different boards we are talking about traits relating to the same one board.

Both of these examples are imperfect metaphors. They show nothing at all about the nature of God Himself. They use spatial imagery that has nothing to do with God and they may "beg" other complicating questions that make understanding the trinity MORE difficult rather than less difficult. But the reader is advised to note that ALL metaphors about the Trinity face similar problems. The Trinity is a unique existence, and therefore no "pure" example exists.

There are plenty of metaphors that have been used to attempt to illustrate the concept of the trinity. I am a son, and a husband, and a father. Water can exist as a solid or a liquid or a gas. An apple has an outer skin (which is what you "see"), as well as both an area of inner meat and also a core, et cetera and et cetera. But all of these metaphors fall short of rendering a clear communication of precisely what the trinity actually is. The Bible clearly talks about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and it further identifies each as God and it clearly states that there is but one God. Nevertheless, explaining it in non-biblical terms to other people is a very difficult task.

These examples fail because all the "parts" of God are a whole. This means (here comes the metaphysical implication) that each part is NOT a part of the whole because each part IS the whole. God Himself is the only true Trinity, and most of the metaphors do a better job of describing distinctions rather than unity and oneness. There is no perfectly valid example. There is only the singular truth itself, which is why we struggle to try to get our minds around the concept. The doctrine of the trinity is a mystery, but it is a mystery that can be accepted because of the great deal of scriptural support.

Numerology

I hesitate to bring this up, but because some people are "involved" in it, and because it represents a potential area that may lead people farther from the truth rather than closer to the truth, I thought I would include a brief passage about it. Numerology involves the "study" of numbers as they are used in scripture. Various forms of symbolism may be associated with a particular number, and therefore when that particular number is used in a text, proponents of numerology claim that their understanding of the symbolism regarding the number used in that passage adds additional information.

Although it is usually defined as the "study" of numbers, in my opinion it is often more about assumptions than study. For example, there are some who believe that the number 7 is the number of perfection and 8 is the number of new beginnings and 9 is the end or conclusion of a matter (e.g. see _Number in Scripture_ by Bullinger). Numerology does not really have anything to do with regular mathematics, nor in my opinion with regular theology except that proponents often add (or multiply) "key" numbers together to "combine" the conceptual aspects of the meanings of the "key" numbers. For example, a numerologist might see the number 15 in a text and conclude that the text is talking about either the perfection of a new beginning or some new beginning involving perfection, such as our future resurrection. This assumption may have been "seen" because 7 plus 8 equals 15. If 7 is the number of perfection and if 8 is the number of new beginnings, then this is how such conclusions may be reached.

To me such thinking represents some mighty big "ifs". I consider this to be an area of "mind tickling" that may be interesting at best, but it risks being theologically damaging at worst. Because it may involve false assumptions I urge anyone interested in numerology to exercise great caution. The interpretations garnered from numerology exude a sense of Gnostic "special" knowledge. While I have read interpretations that may genuinely reflect the truth, I have also read numerology interpretations that seem quite far-fetched.

The Mathematics of Forgiveness

One area of great numeric interest to me is what might be referred to as "The Mathematics of Forgiveness". Peter asked Jesus if he should forgive up to seven times if a brother sinned against him. Jesus' intriguing reply may be seen in the quote at the beginning of this chapter. Clearly there is some strange math going on here! I know of no pastor or commentator who believes Jesus literally meant that we should forgive someone exactly 490 times. The implied idea is that we should keep on forgiving others many, many times. Most commentators state that the number is so big that we need not "count" how many times we have forgiven someone. We should simply continue to forgive others.

Forgiveness is a key idea in scripture. We are encouraged to forgive others "as God has forgiven us". How often will God forgive you and I? How many times can we screw up and still have the blood of Jesus cover our sins? According to 1 John 1:9, if we confess our sins, [God] is "faithful and just to forgive [our] sins and to cleanse [us] from all unrighteousness." There is an infinite amount of "cleansing" available. The mathematic ideas relating to forgiveness are truly awesome.

Miraculous Mathematics

Consider the theological math involved when five loaves and two fish can feed 5000 people (see Mark 6:38). After all of the people had eaten the disciples still were able to fill up twelve baskets of leftovers [Note: these numbers are VERY tantalizing to the numerologists...]. A miracle is defined by supernatural intervention upon that which is natural. Food was broken yet ended up expanding. The division of food resulted in the multiplication of it. If the division of food resulted only in the division of food that would of course be "natural". The fact that something unnatural occurred is why it is a miracle. In this case division meant multiplication!

The Divinity and Humanity of Christ

Eternity is not the same as infinity, but comparing the mathematical idea of infinity may help us (ever so slightly) with the theological concept of eternity. Why should we wrestle with the concept of eternity? If we understand eternity then we will be better prepared to understand both the divinity and humanity of Christ. As God He existed ever, as man He entered time as the "only begotten son".

Infinity is easier to understand than eternity. Infinity is a string of numbers that is unending. We can effectively visualize this idea, and it is an aid to at least thinking about the vastness of eternity. Eternity is also unending, but it is not a string of anything. Mentally we may be tempted to insert "time" as the string of what is unending, but eternity is not a string of times placed together. Here the analogy between infinity and eternity breaks down. Eternity involves the absence of time. This is not something we are capable of grasping completely. Because of this, it is difficult to know whether I should write the next paragraph in the present tense, or in the past tense, or in the future tense. I have chosen the past tense, but the truths are valid in all tenses.

Jesus was fully God and fully man. As God, He was incapable of non-existence. As a man He lived and died in time, yet He also arose from death into life. In biblical language He "conquered" death. From the perspective of eternity outside of time, God's gift of salvation was already in effect for believers such as Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets of old. To them, it was a promise yet future, yet also received. They received eternal life through their faith in the coming redeemer (see Job 19:25-27 and Hebrews 11:13).

From God's perspective of eternity, the promise was more than guaranteed. God dwells outside of time and for Him it was already "done", at least in the eternal sense. Being done "in" time meant it was, and is, and will continue to be done in eternity. The problem lies in our inability to conceive of anything that is NOT past, present or future, but rather just IS. Jesus said, "I AM". Even before Abraham was, He said, "I am." He was "begotten" as a man. But he has always existed. In regular mathematics we learn about the "identity property" as it has to do with numbers. In theology we need to understand the "identity property" as it has to do with God.

Some cults look at Jesus and theologically fragment aspects of His existence. In a mathematical sense this amounts to seeing only a fraction of who He is. Some groups emphasize only His humanity. They say He was an extraordinary man, but He was only a man. Other groups emphasize only His divinity. Neither of these positions is biblical. Just as it is difficult to understand the unity concept of the Trinity, it is equally as difficult to understand the unity of His existence as both man and God. He is not half man and half God. He was both, and He IS both. He was in the beginning with God, and He was God (see John 1). Yet He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but He emptied Himself, and took upon Himself the form of man, even to the point of death (see Philippians 2:5-8).

Metaphysical concepts are seldom easy to comprehend. We may never fully understand the trinity, how God forgives our sins, His miracles, or the humanity AND divinity of Jesus. But we may use "models" that help us to use what we know. Some truths we seek to apply linearly in a step-by-step manner. Others we analyze globally as we intuitively apply them to our worldview. If we are open to growth we may lead lives incorporating God's truths into all fabrics of our walk. When we avoid the integration and transformation of God's ideas into our lives, we walk along dangerous spiritual lines.

Areas for additional thought:

1. How can "seeing" things from different angles benefit your overall perception of theological concepts (e.g. the reasons people sin, or what obedience means, etc.)?

2. What connections can you find between attempting to understand the Trinity and attempting to understand the "Christology" idea that Jesus was not half man and half God but actually fully man and fully God?

3. Is there someone you need to forgive?
Chapter 8  
Why We Can Never "Prove" the Existence of God to Skeptics

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.... There is no speech [where] their voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1,3

***

God exists. But proving this fact in an indisputable fashion to a skeptic is not easy. There are facets of God's existence that even believers find difficult to grasp. For example, His eternal existence is difficult for us to understand because of who He is and because of who we are. We had a beginning. He was uncaused and ever existent. We live in time and dwell in space. But He is boundless. He is confined to neither time nor space. We are corrupt, yet He is pure and holy and completely righteous.

Our minds cannot grasp these ideas fully, because we have nothing to compare them with. Time is related to eternity in our minds, yet in actuality they are completely different. And space is no more related to God's omnipresence than a grain of sand is to the entire universe. Even the "sand" metaphor does not come close to explaining God's omnipresent attribute because the metaphor itself is tied to space.

We communicate with language. Some of us know several languages, yet each one must be learned through painstaking methods of development. Yet God can use man-made language with the simple ease of His ever-present omniscience. He may also communicate without language (the heavens declare His glory). The power of His "Word" was revealed in His ability to create _ex nihilo_ (out of nothing) with only His Word.

If the idea of God's ability to be omnipresent were presented to a young child, the child might respond by exclaiming, "Wow, God must be REALLY big!" But size itself is not an attribute of God. Size has nothing to do with God's ability to be in all places at once. No matter how big something is _size_ implies a degree of physicality. God is spirit (see Deuteronomy 4:7,12,39). Even though He is Spirit, He can create flesh, He can touch flesh, and He can even become flesh. How amazing it is to ponder a Spirit that may _become_ flesh (see Philippians 2). Some may have the idea that something in the spirit realm has less physical power than something already in the physical realm. This idea is not true, nor has it ever been. All of creation is a testimony of how powerfully the spiritual dimension of the supernatural can touch the natural and physical realm. Ultimately creation represents the awesome power and majesty of God.

But all of this wonderment creates a witnessing problem. How can we communicate the reality of God to those who do not yet believe? You will have opportunities to witness to a wide variety of people. Depending on "where" a person is "at" in their spiritual journey, you might discuss evolution. You might point out some flaws and fallacies relating to the theory of evolution. You might go over the idea of irreducible complexity. This is the idea that something complex like the human eye or the human immune system cannot simply "develop" in an evolutionary sense because it only "works" in its fully complex state of being.

You might discuss intelligent design. This may lead into a discussion about finding a smart phone on a beach. No one would assume the smart phone was a part of nature. Clearly the smart phone had a designer and a maker. The universe is like the smart phone in this sense. Philosophers would label this as a teleological argument. It is considered by some to be a "proof" of God's existence, but not to a typical skeptic.

You might further discuss our innate and universal quality of morality. All people possess a sense of right and wrong. It may be tweaked differently in different cultures, but it is nevertheless amazingly similar all across the world, especially in the area of justice. People everywhere understand the concept of something being fair or unfair.

You might ask an arguer to consider _why_ hitting babies in the head with a large tool feels "immoral". You might ask a nonbeliever to consider why this idea is likely to be true in all cultures. From a debater's point of view, it may also be useful to note that even in cultures that allow some form of infanticide, infanticide across the board for ALL babies is never seen as "good". When infanticide is practiced, it is done so from a "values" perspective that still perceives some sort of "good and bad". For example, in a culture that tends to kill baby girls, the choice is made based on the perceived "good" value of boys versus the perceived bad of bringing a girl child into the household. In our culture, those who favor abortion also define it in terms of "good versus bad" (regardless of how self-centered their definitions and rationales may be).

Every person in every culture understands the concept of right and wrong in some form, even if that form has become "warped" (see Romans chapter 1). Man is a moral creature. I claim this as a proof of God's design because He made us in His image (Genesis 1). It is a proof to me the believer, but to the evolutionist, this is only a "problem". He is unlikely to see it as an insurmountable problem. He may simply state that somehow "morals" also evolved. While he cannot prove it, he at least feels it counters my "proof".

There is no need to apologize for good apologetics. We just need to realize the limitations of apologetics. Our "proofs" are ultimately just discussion points. Through such discussions, someone may become convinced over a period of time, _perhaps as much by our relationship as from the actual arguments themselves_. The honest evolutionist will at least begin to discern the inherent weaknesses in his own case. **But none of these "proofs" is a powerfully irrefutable force.** None of these arguments truly "force" someone who lacks faith in God to suddenly become an ardent believer in God. It does happen that some people come to God, but it is not forced, and therefore very often it does not happen. None of these "proofs" forces someone to admit that God definitively exists. Unlike the statement that two plus two equals four, these proofs still allow anyone who wants to **willfully** escape to simply "wiggle" out (note: the word _willfully_ is used here intentionally). Human _willfulness_ plays a significant role in accepting or denying any evidence or "proofs".

I personally never felt as if any of these "proofs" listed above actually _proved_ God's existence in the way I wanted. When I was a younger man, I felt that this situation was intolerable because I believed that all people need the truth. John Wycliffe wrote, "...in the end the truth will conquer," but I felt that people need it now, not only in the end when it is too late (i.e. at the great white throne judgment).

So I wondered, couldn't better proofs be developed? I set out to "help" the truth to conquer by attempting to write my own proof. I knew mathematics used many proofs and I also knew that calculus dealt with the concept of infinity and infinitesimals. I thought that if I could "connect" the concept of infinity with the concept of eternity I could use that to prove that if time exists AND eternity exists, then eternity must exist outside of time. Eternity by definition must have ALWAYS existed, and time by contrast must NOT have always existed. In other words, time must have a beginning. If time did NOT once exist, but it does now exist, it must have been created. Who created time, if not God? I assumed that this line of thought could then lead to, "In the beginning God created...(see Genesis 1:1)" and _voila_ , I would have devised a proof.

The Proof is not in the Pudding, it is in the Heart

But unfortunately, as I worked on the details of this project I could tell my "proof" was no stronger than any other "proof". In fact, it had numerous leaps in thinking and quite a few "holes". There were still _assumptions_. No matter how hard I worked on filling in the gaps, certain basic assumptions remained. The only tangible benefit of my work was to allow me to see how many assumptions all people have in all of their "interpretations" of general cosmology.

I began wondering why the Bible itself does not spend more time attempting to prove God's existence. Sure, there are verses such as, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (see Psalm 14:1). The Bible also presents many stories about people providing a witness for God and Who He is. But time after time, and in story after story, the Bible itself simply _assumes_ the existence of God.

I knew the Bible to be powerful. I knew that if people would actually read it, and if they looked to the heavens, I knew that God _would_ reveal Himself (whether they perceived Him and accepted Him or not...). But the question remained whether or not people would actually "see" those revelations and "honor God as God" (see Romans 1). _God IS revealed, but is He "proved"?_ And so I struggled, why must we _assume_ anything?

As I pondered these things, a thought exploded in my mind. I had spent a great deal of time trying to PROVE God's existence, yet _He_ did not set up creation in the "black and white" way I myself was trying to force it into. God set up His system to allow freewill!

This was an explosion in my mind. If we could truly and absolutely "prove" His existence, we would in a sense, be tampering with His system. He set up a freewill system to develop genuine love. Faith is NOT an empty word. He wants faith to develop. But love and hope are not empty words either. All these "attitudes" must be developed! Hope and faith and love are interconnected in a kaleidoscope of theological truths, and God has revealed Himself in ways that are adequate to His purpose. He does not want robots! He does not want creatures that MUST believe in Him and He does not want creatures that do things ONLY out of a sense of obligation. He wants freewill relationships. He wants relationships that allow genuine love. His system is better than my system.

I am merely His ambassador. I am a witness. I am a believer. I am a follower. But I am not able to _prove His existence_ to the skeptic. Does God want you and I to prove His existence to others? No. What He wants is for us to reveal His love to others. If God wants to hit somebody in the head with a bolt of "revelation-al" lightning He can surely do so. He did so with Paul on the road to Damascus. But He does not choose to do this with everyone. His general revelations are for everyone. He doesn't need me to devise a creative or clever proof. My conclusion is that the best proof I can offer is my own transformed life.

I still get into discussions with non-saved individuals about evolution versus creation. I still believe such discussions are a wonderful forum. I still debate others about additional reasons they should come to God and place their faith in Jesus Christ to save them from the consequences of their sins. But my attitude is more relaxed, in the sense that I realize God is in control. I am serving in those moments as a catalyst to perhaps stimulate the person into becoming a "seeker" of the truth. I do not have to "win" the argument. In fact, I realize that my overall attitude during the debate may be more important than the actual words I use to argue with. Am I patient? Am I kind? Am I a Good Samaritan? Do I avoid arrogance? As a witness, do I act "unbecomingly" (see 1 Corinthians 13)?

It _is_ appropriate to discuss politics (remember, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's"). It is appropriate to discuss issues about education, social problems, and anything else people wish to discuss. We must simply attempt to love others and still share the truth. We should use the "proofs" we know of. But realize the "proofs" at our disposal are only tools. They are what they are, and nothing more.

Know in your heart that God is sovereign. He has revealed Himself to everyone. Your job is to be a faithful servant. You do not have to "prove" Him to people. You are not working against the "steel-trap" soundness of non-believer's arguments and beliefs and assumptions. _You are simply working upon the hardness of their heart. You have truth on your side_ **.** Their arguments are NEVER sounder than those you present from the Bible. If they reject them, they are doing so from the hardness of their heart.

But _you_ must absolutely possess a soft heart if you wish to model having a soft heart for them. Only when their heart begins to soften will non-believers truly begin to "think". Only when their heart begins to soften will they ask genuine questions. People with hard hearts will refuse to believe even if they have absolute proof! Jesus illustrated this fact in the parable we call "The Rich Man and Lazarus". But you can testify to His love and grace and peace, and you can be His devoted ambassador.

Areas for additional thought:

1. What strategies may be employed to work upon the hardness of someone's heart? How can such strategies be combined with efforts geared toward demonstrating the unsoundness of their arguments?

2. Although a few notable exceptions exist (such as C. S. Lewis), arguments alone do not generally lead people to Christ. Why do you think this is the case and what factors tend to influence someone's personal faith development?

3. List a few doctrinal ideas that involve both the freewill of man and the sovereignty of God. Just to get you started, think about things such as prayer, salvation, and the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 such as "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy." Another way to state this is to simply ask: How does what you do affect what (if anything) God does?
Chapter 9  
Play by the Rules

"How can you have any pudding if you won't take your meat?" Pink Floyd lyrics from the song "Another Brick in the Wall"

***

Most of us don't like to be told what to do. We are naturally "rebels", whether we have a cause or not. So why _did_ God give us commandments? If He knows us intimately, then He must know we possess a strong propensity toward rebellion. Does He command us just to irritate us? Does He do it to "test" us? Why give us both free will and rules? The Bible is full of rules, and we need to know _why_ they exist.

Before we look at the question of "why" God gave commands, let's look first at why parents generally establish household rules. Parents do not establish rules as a means of preventing joy or happiness. While dysfunctional parents do exist, parents do not generally create rules to simply be "mean". Parental rules are not about keeping someone from reaching their full potential. Most parents would tell you the goal of their rules is precisely the opposite; they want their children to ultimately flourish, and their rules are designed to help their children down that path.

Some family rules reflect values, such as the Golden Rule. As parents, we teach each child to treat everyone the way he or she would like to be treated. We hope this rule becomes more than _just_ a rule. We hope it also becomes a life lesson that builds into a principle of overall character development.

Sometimes rules involve what is "easiest" and safest for all concerned. Many parental rules involve guidelines to provide healthy choices and safety. For example, a parent might instruct their child to open the door for grandma after she rings the doorbell, but only after the child looks to see that it really is grandma. This type of "rule" involves both safety and an element of what is "easiest" for all concerned.

Most rules created by parents are intended to enable our sons and daughters to reach their full potential. A child's development is the basic factor. In fact, when rules are adjusted it is often because the developmental status of the child has changed. Perhaps the child has developed more trustworthiness and maturity. Rules are established to decrease unhealthy factors and to increase the likelihood of some type of positive result. In some households, rules that were once very black and white may become gray. This phenomenon occurs in our Christian walk as well. We begin as new believers by observing black and white rules such as the Ten Commandments. Later in our walk we may begin to apply our desire to not see others stumble in regards to gray areas of life. Rules often exist out of a connection to needs. In other words, parents often develop rules to ensure that some type of perceived need is going to be met.

Our society also has many basic rules. Does anyone really believe that it is better to run red lights? The rule to stop at red lights exists to maintain safety. If I choose to run red lights I endanger my own life, the life of any passengers in the vehicle with me, and I am also a menace to society – or at least to those who are simultaneously in any intersection with me. Likewise, if I choose to physically hurt someone, I can be sent to prison. If I choose to not pay my taxes I can get into significant trouble.

Rules exist (at least theoretically) for the benefit of society in general. Hopefully the government won't squander my tax dollars. Hopefully the money is used for the benefit of all of society.

Most cultural rules have some sort of consequence if we choose to not obey the "rule". For example, if I am impolite or bizarre I may face social ostracism. Consequences are always a fact of life.

Why establish rules? There is no singular answer to this simple sounding question, but the ultimate idea is that good rules will eventually bring good results, at least if the good rules are adhered to. While parents may occasionally make imperfect rules, God's rules are without flaw. Adherence to them is always beneficial. Sometimes the benefit requires an eternal perspective, but that is of course the perspective God issues them from. God wants His children to reach their true potential.

Rules may be evil and corrupt when founded in sinfulness. Christians have had to deal with the consequences of corrupt laws and practices in every society. However, I have chosen to avoid delving into "evil rules" in this chapter in favor of analyzing the simple and general question of why rules exist at all. Political, educational and sociological implications may be looked at, but I will leave the discussion of dictatorships and totalitarian systems to some other setting.

Rules are Beneficial

The first point I hope to make is that rules are established to bring about beneficial outcomes. With God this is always true. With parental and societal rules it is usually true. As pointed out earlier, the spiritual rules that God gives to us may involve abstract benefits requiring an "eternal" perspective.

So why do we chaff at the bit so often? Even when we know the rules "are supposed" to benefit us in the long term, we still often dislike or disobey the rule. We tend to view life from an immediate gratification perspective accompanied with an attitude that we are mature enough to make our own pathway through life. Like I said before, we tend to have a rebel heart. We also tend to overestimate our personal level of maturity.

The Lord has declared, "I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go.... Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding, whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in check" (Psalm 32:8,9). This passage implies there are rules (i.e. listen to My instructions....), and then there are capital letter _RULES_ (i.e....if you don't initially listen, then increasingly harsher consequences will come about...). If we ignore the helpful, health oriented rules then the harsher _RULES_ (with harsher consequences) begin to kick in. Both types of rules have consequences. Rules and consequences are inherently connected. Without consequences a "rule" is just a platitude with an attitude.

God told Adam and Eve, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat" (see Genesis 2:16,17). There are some very beneficial things about commandments and rules we should consider. Rules provide boundaries for behavior. God created us with freewill, but we often forget that this quality allows for an incredible range of choices that includes both evil and good possibilities. God's rules are intended to "balance" our freewill. Good rules exist to aid us in choosing good choices, and good choices yield fruit and positive benefits we often describe as "blessings".

God realized that _knowledge_ of good and evil expands the possibilities of choice. What He had created was already good. It would have remained good if Adam and Eve had not chosen to eat of the forbidden tree. The consequence of some forms of rule breaking may be relatively minor, however, the consequence of breaking this particular command in the garden exceeded the consequence of any other "rule" broken in history. The relationship between the "good" creature (i.e. man) and his Holy Creator was corrupted by the entry of sin. When we declare "not my will but Thine" we reap the consequences of unity, joy, peace and life. When we declare "not Thy will but mine" we reap disharmony, despair, corruption and death.

Rules Can Be Instructive

God can teach us many things through His rules. Aspects of His nature are revealed through His rules. For example, the Ten Commandments reveal how important love and relationships are. His rules help us identify His values and His priorities. Walking along God's pathway becomes easier because we can see the "edges" of the path via the revelation of His rules. Even when we refuse to follow them, rules and consequences of not following those rules may reveal the weaknesses of our own human nature. This can teach us just how much we need God.

There are good ways to use rules, and poor ways. The Pharisees developed artificial rules they thought would lead to godly living. It turned out those rules actually kept them from the very thing they intended. They developed "rules" about God's rules so they could stop thinking. The lesson taught is learn to think about _why_ each rule exists, but do not try to do God's thinking for Him. Think about Him, yes, but live for Him and do not try to "think" for Him. "Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker.... Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?'" (see Isaiah 45:9). If God has established a rule, there is a legitimate reason for that rule. Don't question the value of the rule. Instead use your God given intellect to try to understand why.

Suppose a man says, "Okay, I agree with you that God's rules should be obeyed. But I can obey without understanding why the rule exists. There is no reason for me to think about _why_ the rule exists." Such rote "obedience" is extremely problematic. The Bible is full of pharisaic examples of what may happen when people begin to "obey" without really understanding why.

If we do not understand God's reasons, then in actuality we may not be obedient, even when we think we are. There are "gray" situations where understanding the intent of a command enables us to work through a complex situation involving some sort of dilemma. We sometimes use the phrase, "understanding the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law". This phrase refers to understanding the deeper purpose of a rule.

We run the risk of being poor disciples when we begin to blindly follow commands we do not understand. There is a fine line to discriminate here between walking by faith and being obedient. When we have clear guidance from God we should obey whether or not we understand why. My point is NOT that you must always understand "why" – that is an impossible desire. My point is that you should always seek to know "why". Eventually God will reveal the "why".

Let me use the "Faithful Servant" story Jesus told to illustrate this. The master gave 3 different servants some "talents". They were to use them. They did not initially need to know "why" before they started using them – but it would have been helpful if they did have an idea of "why". Either way, they needed to be obedient. But the servant who was least obedient arguably thought he WAS being obedient. In his mind, at least he wasn't "blowing" it all.

At one level, we may say that it is impossible to ever fully understand the layers of spiritual subtleties contained within the phrase, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Yet in another sense, we MUST have some understanding of the phrase in order to seek to obey it in all aspects of our lives. Adam likely could not foresee all the negative consequences, but he was clearly told the purpose of "the rule" he broke was to prevent death (see Genesis 2:17).

On the other hand, there ARE times to obey whether we understand or not. God's command to Jonah was both clear and specific. When you possess such clarity obedience is a must. However, that dimension of clarity is rare. Most of the time we are seeking to obey _general_ commands and rules (such as "love your neighbor"). It is these types of rules I am arguing we need to seek to understand.

Deeper Magic

When I was in college I had a long running "debate" with God about why He commanded me to do things I felt I could not fully control. My biggest issue was with the command to love, especially people I did not want to love. Over the years I came to realize that that was the point. I had to get to a place in my walk with God where I admitted my weaknesses and allowed Him to live fully in me. He had to help me learn to love, for I simply could not live for Him on my own.

As we have seen, there are rules, and then there are capital letter RULES (i.e. rules with initially hidden yet deeper effects). On the positive side, there are blessings, and even greater and deeper blessings. On the negative side, there are deep consequences we do not always understand. Every believer I know has experienced the impact that comes from applying or refusing to apply scripture principles. The results are either positive or negative accordingly. In God's system, rules always have a deeper purpose.

One of the most wonderful parts of C.S. Lewis' book _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ is when Aslan reveals the deeper magic. The White Witch knew some of the rules, but she did not understand the deeper purpose of the rules. Peter and Susan and Lucy and Edmund continued to gain deeper levels of understanding as they followed Aslan.

In following God's rules, we often attempt to "make them more clear". In doing so we sometimes introduce a degree of artificiality. Regarding the Pharisees' artificial rules, Jesus quoted from Isaiah the prophet. "The Lord said, 'These people show respect to Me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Their worship of Me is worth nothing. They teach rules that men have made.... The understanding of their wise men will be hidden'" (see Isaiah 29:13-15, from the _New Life Bible_ version).

Rules Touch Both the Small Picture and the Big Picture

We may say that the purpose of rules is to provide "order" or safety. But we should also be aware that in the bigger picture, living a more abundant and beneficial life is the purpose of God's rules. One aspect of a more abundant life is to live with deeper levels of understanding. This is a major separating factor between the Christian and the non-Christian. We should "obey God rather than men" (see Acts 5:29), but this does not mean we may invent our own rules of what being obedient to God looks like. The further removed we get from the "rules" outlined in the Bible, the more we risk diminishing our own actual "understanding" of truth and grace.

There is another potential problem regarding "allegedly" following God's rules. Let us assume that I actually attempt to follow the rules, but I do so with hardness of heart (see also the parable often referred to as the "Rich Young Ruler" [e.g. Mark 10:17-27]). When I do this have I really obeyed God's rules?

Isaiah spoke of people honoring God with lip service yet having a heart far from God. When the crux of God's rules deal with _love_ , obedience based on a desire for a deeper relationship needs to be a part of one's motivation. The appearance of following a rule is not synonymous with actually following the rule. Hypocrisy does not fool God; it only fools the fool.

The Purpose of Rules

Ask yourself if you really understand the purpose of God's rules. Beneficial rules do not exist in order to prove who the boss is. _Rules exist to ultimately allow for greater freedom and abundance of life._ There is no rule that exists that does not impact relationships in one way or another. Good rules enhance relationships. Once you understand this you may begin to find ways to teach this concept to others, as well as ways to apply it to your own walk with the Lord.

I find it difficult to imagine any setting that does not involve rules of some kind.

For example, we have rules for worship, rules for dealing with brothers or sisters in the Lord, rules for dealing with unbelievers, and even rules for developing a deeper walk with God.

Some readers may feel that now I have gone too far. Some may feel that "rules" for worship do not exist because each person should simply worship God in whatever manner he or she is able to. How can we have "rules" for worship and all these other areas? Yet the Bible clearly states that we ought to worship in spirit and in truth, and we ought not to worship idols. These things ARE "rules".

Handling our relationships also comes with "rules". With our brothers and sisters we are to bear one another's burdens and instead of going straight to court, we should attempt to work out a settlement outside of court. With unbelievers we should be ready to make a defense to anyone who asks about our faith and we should be willing to suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. As for our walk with the Lord we are to love God with all of our heart and soul and mind and strength and to obey His commandments. These are only a few examples of the ubiquitous "rules" that exist. Each rule has numerous "descriptors" of how it may be lived out.

After reading the above paragraph, some readers may be wearily shaking their heads. Is everything to be broken down into compartmental rules? Jesus' disciples felt a similar sense of frustration. In a moment of emotional fatigue His disciples once asked, "Who then can be saved?" (see Luke 18:26). I imagine that the feelings they experienced were very similar to the frustrating range of emotions many of us feel as we attempt to understand God's rules for our lives. Fortunately, God has summarized His "rules" for us with several key ideas. His commandments may be summarized, and this can be a tremendous help.

For example, "Love God and Love Men" is a phrase that summarizes (at least the intent) of all of God's commandments. Throughout the centuries the Church has used creeds to summarize beliefs. When we seek to incorporate our beliefs into all aspects of our daily lives they have in essence become life "rules" for us. When we choose to live according to a set of "principles", we are in essence choosing to follow certain ideals as "rules".

Scripture provides other summaries to help us. Here are a few examples: "Fear God and keep His commandments", " You must be born again", and "Walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh". Jesus' reply to His frustrated disciples when they asked, "Who can be saved?" was simple, "All things are possible with God." We too need to remember that.

Although we could list many other "rules", ultimately we must remember that rules are guidelines and that they serve as building blocks for our relationship with God and others. Salvation is not acquired by following rules. We are saved because of God's grace. We follow God's rules _because_ He has saved us, not _so_ we may be saved. We are commanded to love, but we engage in love only because He first loved us. This major distinction is lost on some, but it is the essence of our Christian walk.

_Genuine Christianity is not about following rules it is about relationships._ _But it is the rules that help us build the relationships._ The rules are not the "what" they are the "how". They are not the goal. They are the tools that allow us to build. "Honor your father and mother", "be kind to one another" – these rules allow us to build our relationships.

The key point of this chapter is that wise believers understand that God has given us "rules" to assist us in our relational goals. The hymnist wrote, "Trust and obey". We develop relationship as we submit to God. Trusting and obeying are both relational.

Be filled with the Spirit is a "rule". It is a rule that depends upon the manifestation of a personal relationship with God. Because of worldly priorities Simon the Sorcerer could never understand this fully (see Acts chapter 8). He wanted formulaic rules, but he did not want a personal relationship with God. As a consequence he could not be filled with the Spirit.

Illustrating How Rules Influence Relationships

For illustrational purposes, I have selected a few verses from Proverbs chapter 13 to allow each reader to "discover" how rules affect relationships. Each of the following proverbs contains a "rule". See if you can identify a relational aspect in each. I have provided a brief analysis about the first "rule". I will allow each reader to make his or her own analysis of the subsequent proverbs because of my personal belief as both a counselor and an instructor that deeper learning occurs when you have to "work" a bit for something.

"A wise son accepts his father's discipline, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke" (Proverbs 13:1). Here is my analysis of this verse (as an example): A son has a relationship with his father. A wise son pays attention and listens. The verb "accepts" implies that such a son would change and learn from the discipline experience. A son who is a scoffer also has a relationship with his father, but he is inclined to ignore the lesson contained within the act of discipline. The scoffer refuses to grow and change in a beneficial manner. His relationship with the father is diminished, and he will intentionally continue to repeat his folly. The rule is to listen to your father. Think about your actions and behavioral choices. Accept his discipline. See the bigger picture. This is both a "rule" and a type of advice.

***

DIRECTIONS: As you read the proverbs that follow, see if you can see both a "rule" AND how that rule connects to any relationship of some sort.

Here is the first sample to practice on. "The one who guards his mouth preserves his life; the one who opens wide his lips comes to ruin" (Proverbs 13 verse 3). What is the "rule" or principle? How is that rule connected to relationships? What are some possible relationships that could be involved? Take a few moments to work through your thoughts about these questions.

Here is the next sample to practice on. "Wealth obtained by fraud dwindles, but the one who gathers by labor increases it" (vs. 11). Go over the same types of questions as above. Even though specific relationships are not mentioned, what are some of the implied relationships that would likely be affected by this "rule"?

Here is the last "rule" to analyze in this section. "The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, but the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded" (vs. 13). Figure out what this means to you and also at least one way it can be applied.

Hopefully you were able to see some sort of relational connection in the examples above. In the context of this chapter, we can see that many rules are not just about following "black and white" drills. Relational connections can be found in any "rule" with a spiritual aspect. Rules are about adhering to life principles. Life principles are about relationships, either with God or with other people.

Commands and Advice

In this chapter I have used a broad definition for the word "rules". Although I have used the term somewhat interchangeably with the word command or advice, there are discernable differences between a command and what we might label as simple advice. What is the difference between a biblical command and biblical advice?

The _probability_ of a consequence occurring is one aspect of differentiation. Solomon concluded the book of Ecclesiastes with the statement, "... fear God, and keep His commandments". This statement is more than simple sound advice. It is a statement about reality because it implies harsh consequences for any who refuse to follow this advice. It is _advice,_ but it is advice about a command. A command must be obeyed. Why? Because the wages of sin is death, and death is separation from life itself, from loved ones, or in a spiritual context from God Himself. The consequence of a command of God that is broken is sure. Regarding biblical commands, consequences will occur 100% of the time.

Negative results are _likely_ to occur when we ignore sound advice (as opposed to an actual "command"), yet the negative results are not guaranteed. When we choose to not follow advice, it may disrupt unity, but it seldom completely destroys relationships. The one who offered the advice may be disappointed and saddened when their advice is not followed, but a relationship likely still exists. Parents experience this frequently. If we do not follow advice it does not guarantee bad consequences, it just makes it likely.

Scope of influence is another area of differentiation. God's commands apply to all. Advice is given in specific situations to a specific individual or to a specific group of people. A "rule of thumb" is a broader principle that has many potential applications. Not following a rule of thumb may have negative results, but the negative results are not _guaranteed_. A rule of thumb operates as generalized "advice". It is advice that is generally good to anyone in all walks of life and to most life situations in which it might apply.

Experience alone does not make us wise. Many people believe experience is a great teacher, but how do we _interpret_ our experiences? Our thoughts about an experience may lead to wisdom, but even the thoughts do not occur in a vacuum. Rules provide boundaries and departure points for our thought development. Rules remove us from the vacuum of abstract mental "space". God's rules allow us to ponder experiences more concretely.

Adam knew a change had occurred after he sinned. He could discern his own nakedness. He could discern that his relationship with God had been adversely altered. He was deeply aware that he "should not" have disobeyed. Because he remembered the rule, he knew he had disappointed God. He experienced shame and guilt and sorrow.

Rationalization is a frequent companion to shame or guilt. Adam rationalized and you and I often do so as well. Adam said, "Lord, it was the woman You gave to me...". Poor theologians (such as the Devil) often interpret results wrongly. The serpent may have argued, "See, you didn't really die." But Adam knew he had died spiritually. Adam knew his relationship had been altered.

In our lives we have many gray areas. Commandments provide us with clear pathways for obedience, and clear avenues for understanding to be gained even when we fall. The good news of the gospel displays the wonderful "rules" of grace. Thankfully, grace _is_ available. "If we confess our sins" there is a beautiful rule that applies; "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness" (see 1 John 1:9).

Consequences

Through the power of observation, we can learn vicariously. When we see someone break a rule we may see the consequences of that choice throughout the scope of their life. Following rules allows us to avoid known pitfalls. Obedience to rules demonstrates great wisdom.

Consider a few sample scriptures that use the word "do" in them: "Depart from evil and do good" (Psalm 34:14). "Let us do good to all men" (Galatians 6:10). James wrote an exhortation for us to be not just hearers of the Word, but also "doers" (see James 1:21-24).

These types of statements do not contain a direct "OR ELSE" clause. In other words, not every passage from the Bible is a direct command. These passages simply advise us to "do" something. But even if a consequence or benefit is not stated, there are nevertheless, some big time implications. Clearly the purpose of following the advice is that we might have _more abundant lives_. The tricky aspect of this area is that without proper balance we may easily slip into "black and white" thinking that may lead to legalistic tendencies. We must be ever vigilant regarding our motivations.

From Rules to Relationship

We need balance in our relationship to God, and we need balance in our relationships with others. We need balance in our attitude and behavioral choices. When we are out of balance, our prejudices and stereotypes amplify any misunderstandings of scripture we hold. For example, when we are legalistic, we may share truth with others, yet easily be lacking in love. The "truthful" irony is that God is not only holy, but He is also love, and this is the truth that often ends up _not_ being shared! That is why balance is important. As Christians we need not only know the ultimate gift of life, but we need also to walk _with_ the ultimate gifts of life. Following God's rules helps us with this process.

Rules exist in all parts of life. Even areas we label worldly involve "rules". Sociologists can identify rules relating to any culture or context. Social scientists also point out that acceptable "rules" of behavior are the main part of defining a culture or subculture. For example, when we say something is acceptable or unacceptable, the standard it is measured against is in essence a type of "rule". Some rules are informal while other rules may be quite formal. But rules exist in all settings.

Our thoughts may be good or evil, depending on whether the thinking itself is done within the rules or outside of the rules. For example, a married man might say, " I wonder what it would be like to be with another woman?" On the other hand, he might say to himself, "I wonder how God might use me in this situation?" The first question leads to dangerous territory. It is a temptation and needs to be disposed of and given to God immediately. But the second question offers great propensity for good.

While questions such as these may not lead us to develop absolute rules, they often lead us to develop generalized "rules of thumb". Both questions involve creative thinking. But the first question is deadly to the soul and spirit of a man while the second is a beautiful question to consider. Because the former involves pondering the breaking of a God given rule, it is corrosive and corrupting. The latter is not only within the scope of all of God's rules, but the pursuit of this thought is likely to bring additional spiritual health and joy, which lines up with the _purpose_ of God's rules. Which type of questioning do you currently _tend_ toward? This will be an indicator of the type of rules you tend to obey or have trouble obeying, as the case may be.

There are areas of life that deal with "needs" and "wants". God's rules exist to help clarify these areas. Jesus said, "If anyone _wants_ to be first, he shall be last of all" (see Mark 9:35). This guideline helps us align our priority of "wants" more closely to God's. If we take time to think about the situations we strive to be "first" in and remember to apply the principle, we can live more abundant lives by focusing on the needs of others above our own "wants". However, there are things we truly need to do and things we certainly need to understand. If we ignore such needs we will be lacking something similar to the five foolish virgins who needed more oil.

When we get to the big "life issue" questions, understanding the purpose of rules helps us to sort out where we should go. For example, a basic understanding of the biblical passages pertaining to adultery allows us to know how to advise others. Our "advice" does not get us off the hook for God's other rules. We should love our neighbors as ourselves. We advise others knowing that if they will follow the biblical "rules" their lives will be full, abundant and less encumbered. _This is the case with all sin_. The rules exist to guide us into better choices.

And this line of thought leads us into one additional area of exploration regarding rules. Freewill is a fact of God's system. God's commands offer us a way to PROVE our love and commitment. In following God's commands we take abstract ideas about truth, justice, and our relationship with God and with others, and transfer those abstract ideas into a concrete realm. Relationships are often fraught with abstractly gray areas of growth and change. Obedience allows black and white clarification to occur.

Consider the example of Jonah. How could his relationship with Almighty God grow and develop fruitfully while he refused to obey? God's specific command for him to go to Nineveh was much more than symbolic. Jonah's willingness to go or not go displayed a concrete "snapshot" of the state of his internal heart.

We are often at a similar place in our own walk with the Lord. We have opportunities to obey. Each opportunity to obey represents an additional opportunity to trust. Scripture reveals the trustworthiness of God as well as the purpose of His "rules". Fulfillment comes to us as we trust and obey. And with the fulfillment comes a sense of meaning and purpose. This growth leads to the genuine development of love, which is our ultimate goal.

Rules exist to establish boundaries. They reveal God's expectations to us. They help us meet our true needs. They outline ways allowing us to live rich, full, abundant lives. Rules help us reach our true potential. They do not exist to keep us in a box or to diminish our joy. God's "rules" are truly for our benefit and not His, even though it is true that the "rules" are a reflection of His holiness. His holiness represents a major part of true reality. Seen in this light, His rules are representations of reality.

In a sense "nobody likes boundaries", yet everyone likes security and knowing where they stand. The Bible exhorts us to "Delight in His commandments" (see Psalm 112:1). Do we delight in them? Do we understand that the benefits God desires to shower upon us far outweigh any supposed negatives? Do we understand the purpose of rules in general? Do we actually understand His rules? God's rules enable us to live a more abundant life. They are beneficial now and in the future. We do well to acknowledge that God knows us better than we know ourselves. Accept the idea that His guidelines are truly for our benefit. We need to trust Him and obey.

Why do we need rules? We need them because of the results. Most people believe that fitness guru Jack LaLanne really liked to exercise a lot. However, he once said, "I don't really like to exercise, what I like, are results!" Following God's rules leads to assured outcomes that are beneficial both now and forevermore. Following God's rules brings about wonderful results!

Areas for additional thought:

1. What types of "rules" do you have the most difficulty following? Why do you suppose this is so?

2. In what ways do you have greater freedom and greater abundance of life when you choose to trust and obey God? What commands of God do you "delight" in?

3. What human relationships do you have that illustrate the idea that following rules benefits relationships?
Chapter 10  
Keep God in the Center of Your Thoughts and Actions

"To know final truth we must know the Revealer of truth." Dr. Rick Cornish

***

By definition **theology** is the study of _theos_ , which is the Greek word for God. But it seems we often attempt to make our study of God about ourselves. Studying the nature of man is one _part_ of formal theology. Theologians study the "nature of man" because insights about man and his nature also reveal a great deal about God. For example, studying the nature of man helps us understand God's purpose. But it is God Himself who should be at the center of our awareness and our lives.

_The true purpose of studying God (i.e. theology) is not to know about God, but rather to actually KNOW Him!_ So what's the difference? If our theology dissolves into only a look at religious issues then it may serve only a very limited purpose. But if our study of God brings us into a realm of constant awareness about God Himself, then this is something different entirely.

It is in the realm of constant awareness of God that we see ourselves most clearly. John the Baptist understood this clearly when he announced of the Messiah, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (see John 3:30). Godly humility brings clarity of spiritual vision, and spiritual vision is foundational in the development of our personal relationship with God.

According to the Bible, there are two main things we should immerse ourselves into fully and completely. Those two things are to love God and to love others. Of course loving God and loving others involves a degree of our own input as we seek to demonstrate love. But it is the object of focus we are discussing here. The type of love the New Testament identifies as _agape_ love focuses outwardly toward God and toward others rather than inwardly in an egocentric fashion (see 1 Corinthians chapter 13).

The contemporary nonsense stating "you can't love anyone else until you love yourself" is ridiculous. The Bible clearly points out that loving yourself is NOT the issue (see Ephesians 5:29). As a counselor, I work with many anxious and depressed clients. Many of these clients are overly focused on themselves, and this self-meta-awareness often _feeds_ their depression or anxiety. People DO love themselves, sometimes TOO much. I often prescribe assignments that involve doing something with or for someone else. I see growth in clients who begin to love others more. When people appear to "hate" themselves, the problem is not that they don't love themselves enough; the problem is they are overly self-absorbed and they do not love _others_ enough. Rather than egocentric "love", the number one question people should frequently ask is, DO YOU LOVE GOD?

Theology alone is never enough. Even good theology does not live itself out! The more completely we put ourselves into the two goals of loving God and loving others, the more completely we empty ourselves in humility. Godly humility leads to joy in all aspects of life. A major solution to the alleged "self-haters" feelings mentioned above is to experience this type of joy!

Only as you become immersed in the process of loving God and loving others will you discover the deepest levels of the joy of living for God. I highly recommend Brother Lawrence's book _The_ _Practice of the Presence of God_. Lawrence suggests we live each moment with a full sense of awareness in the presence of God. His book offers several valuable tips for how we may effectively do this.

When considering how to go about studying Almighty God, it is good to remind yourself that it's not about you. But when you consider the _application_ of theology, then of course you do have a major role to play. It is my hope that the mere brevity of this chapter does more to remind you about the brevity of your own life than hundreds of additional words could ever do. May you hear at the end of your journey, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Areas for additional thought:

1. What do you think are some of the best ways to study God? What can you do to more effectively place God in the center of your thoughts and actions?

2. How does what you _know_ impact what you _do_? How does your personal relationship with God impact the person you are becoming?

3. When you think about applications to scripture, do you find yourself thinking more about what others should be doing, or more about what _you_ should be doing?
Chapter 11  
The Return of the Lone Ranger

"That right, Kemo Sabe." Tonto

***

For those of us who grew up with the familiar strains of the Finale of Rossini's William Tell Overture and the hearty cry of "Hi Yo, Silver", the Lone Ranger was an interesting character from the years of early radio and black and white television. Not only were the television screens black and white in the 1950's, but so too were the plots and characters. Wherever this crusader for justice went, he looked for opportunities to help people. Being alert for opportunities to help others is something Christians ought to do as well. After all, that is what the parable of the Good Samaritan is about.

Sometimes we live our lives in what feels like a vacuum. We are never truly alone, but sometimes we feel as though we are. In many settings we may feel as though we are the only ones attempting to live by God's standards and values.

This may happen within a particular ministry as well. We may feel no one is sharing the responsibilities and struggles. Elijah once felt this way, so the Lord comforted him with the knowledge that there were 7000 men in Israel who had not bowed to Baal (see 1 Kings 19:18). Regardless of our perceived "aloneness", a heavenly host is waiting to applaud our efforts. We all experience frequent opportunities in which we need to respond and act in meaningful ways, whether with a small band of fellow believers, or in a larger community of faith, or in a fashion that truly appears to be "alone". When life presents you with an opportunity in this latter mode, my message is simply this: trust God and carry on.

Living With Both Purpose and Function

Although the entire body of Christ has one main purpose (to bring glory to God) each individual part of the body has its own function. In many cases one particular part of the body needs to be providing this function "on its own" as it were. The Lone Ranger metaphor has many positive aspects to explore that can be very beneficial, especially if we expand our definition beyond just "looking for opportunities to help others" and consider also the idea of bringing "glory to God". Like the Lone Ranger, let us not be deterred by seemingly dangerous situations. Let us live boldly for our Lord.

Our society's entertainment choices include many heroes and super-heroes. The world needs "heroes" of the faith right here and now who bear witness of the Almighty God who Himself is everlastingly faithful. You may need to be "a lone ranger" for many possible reasons. Perhaps you will find yourself amidst a pagan group of people because God called you to move to an unknown land. This very move may serve as a symbol of faith and trust in God. Abraham was a type of "lone ranger" as the only believer in the one true God in Canaan, and you may find yourself in a similar situation at school or work, or even in your neighborhood.

Abraham was not a perfect man, but he was definitely a man of great faith. In certain circumstances, whenever you decide to make a stand for God's values, God's priorities, and God's principles above the common values and priorities and principles of the world, you are setting yourself apart (i.e. you are thereby "sanctified") as a "lone ranger" (aka [also known as]– a follower of Jesus Christ).

Perhaps you will find yourself amidst a group of people who claim to be walking with God, but who have actually followed idolatry, hedonism, or materialism. Like Isaiah or Jeremiah, God may call you to be a type of "lone ranger". God may lead you to call others to return to Him as John the Baptist was used to call people to repent. Perhaps you will need to provide the "voice of one crying in the wilderness".

Perhaps God will place you among people who are culturally and spiritually different from you. Certainly all people need to hear the good news. Perhaps you will be placed near people who need to see the power of God. The Egyptians of Joseph's time and the Babylonians of Daniel's generation also needed to hear about God. Maybe you will be "forced" to live among such people. The current version of America I am living in feels this way to me on a frequent basis. God can use you in any circumstance, whether you go to such people voluntarily (as most missionaries do) or involuntarily, as was the case with Joseph and Daniel. Although I was born in the United States of America, it now feels like a mission field to me.

Missionaries, businessmen, educators – or even Christians on vacation just visiting various parts of the world can influence those they come in contact with. In one sense, you may provide a "lone" voice for Jesus Christ in any particular setting. You may be a solitary example of how God can transform someone from self-centered existence into a man or woman who lives for God. Keep in mind that in actuality God reveals Himself in many ways, but you may only be aware of your own particular area of witness. It may "feel" as though you are the only solitary witness. Beware of feelings. As God reminded Elijah, there are others around somewhere (and of course there are always God's general forms of revelation). You may just be unaware of them in that particular setting.

Some plant and others water, but God causes the growth (paraphrased from 1 Corinthians 3:6). You may be the only example of a dedicated believer in a particular place at a particular time, but in the big picture, you are never the sole source of God's revelation. The point is this: _always be ready to be used, but never despair because you feel alone_.

I was teaching a graduate course in counseling when I met a woman with a remarkable story. She was a student in my class. Louise (her Anglicized name) was born in communist China. Her father was a farmer, but she did well in the state run schools. She was granted additional education. China wanted students to learn to speak English and she became an English teacher even though her own English was far from perfect. Occasionally the Chinese English teachers received additional English training from foreigners. Louise met a woman from America who happened to be a devout Christian. They had many fascinating discussions about not only the English language and its acquisition, but also about the Bible and Christianity. Louise did not immediately become a Christian, but this exposure planted a seed that later bore fruit. Louise eventually became a "lone ranger" (not many Chinese were Christians in her rural region of China) because of the influence of a "lone ranger" in her life!

Ready to Ride

One Lone Ranger attribute we should seek to emulate is that he was always ready. The theme of "readiness" is very prevalent in scripture. People who are "ready" to be used can obey the Lord in a timely and spontaneous manner. Often their very readiness may allow them to be used for great things. People who are not "ready" (such as Jonah and Moses) may be placed in "growth" situations or experiences until they are ready. Perhaps _you_ will be the only one willing to fight a giant. Hopefully your relationship with God will be such that you will not need to hear the strains of the William Tell Overture to inspire you.

The Individual and the Community

When I was an undergraduate student at Azusa Pacific University in the early 1980s, the "Lone Ranger" term was coined as a negative label for self-directed styles of Christianity. However, I am not using the concept here in a "just do your own thing" type of context. Wherever we are, we ought to be doing God's "thing". There is a _collective sense_ in which no man is ever alone. That is what God revealed to Elijah.

There is a _spiritual sense_ in which each man should realize that truly he has never been alone because God has always been there for him and with him. However, there is also a sense in which each man or woman IS alone in his or her own spiritual journey. Moral dilemmas and life choices abound that each individual must weigh, and in the final analysis choose. Decisions may be bounced off of others and opinions and wise counsel may be sought. But final decisions and the ramifications of those decisions are ultimately up to each individual.

There are ways in which God treats each and every one of us the same. There are spiritual needs and physiological needs that are universally the same. But there is also a sense in which God knows the hairs of our head and our individualistic gifts and needs. During the discipleship process, Peter and John shared certain needs, but they also displayed stark individualistic differences. They both came to be used greatly by God. But they were both used differently. John needed to be shown humility. He needed to stop seeking a place of honor and learn to be satisfied with being the "least" in the Kingdom and a servant of all. Peter needed to learn that he was not as strong as he thought he was.

As each of us explores God's calling upon our own life, there may often be a type of "lone ranger-ism" within each particular calling. After graduating from college having majored in Religion with an emphasis in Biblical Studies, I planned to become either a pastor or a missionary. Being recently married to my wife who was yet a sophomore in college, I picked up a teaching job at a nearby Christian school. After my wife completed her education, we planned for me to continue through seminary and then seek the Lord's leading. At that time, she understood that I planned to go into either a mission field or to find a pastorate. In the meantime I began the process of ordination with the Wesleyan denomination. I received a "local preacher's license" from the denomination and began preaching in various situations, predominantly preaching at an "older folks" home but also just filling the pulpit at various churches. I began working toward a Masters of Divinity at Fuller Theological Seminary. The next step was a "personality" inventory test the denomination used followed by a meeting with the bishop to review the test and my sense of God's calling upon my life.

I remember clearly taking that test. During the test I wondered if I should answer every question completely honestly or if I should answer some of the more difficult items according to the answers I imagined the bishop would prefer to hear. I remember a question asking if I would prefer to visit someone in the hospital or if I would prefer to read a book. Now I was certainly willing to visit people in the hospital, but I also like reading. If I answered in a completely honest fashion, I would _prefer_ to read a book more than going to visit someone in a hospital. Yet I instinctively knew that this is NOT the answer any church leader would wish to hear from another potential leader. However, I decided such an important test, with so many ramifications pending on my life, deserved the utmost in truth and honesty.

A few weeks later I met with the bishop to discuss my advancement toward ordination. I still remember vividly his question for me, "Are you sure you want to be a pastor? Frankly, I am not at all sure you should be."

I must admit that I was "mad" for 6 months (it should be noted that this also is not a good quality for pastoral candidates). During the following months of introspection and soul searching, I came to realize that God could use me in other areas of ministry. Years later I can look back and say that God used this form of revelation. I can see how He has used me in the fields of counseling, writing, and teaching, as well as in numerous ministries within my local church.

Team sports can provide an interesting twist to illustrate the idea of "Lone Ranger" difference making. Even though a team must play together, individual performances can make a huge difference. Consider the sport of baseball. Baseball generally has "specialists". Players tend to emphasize skills in just a few aspects of the game (at least defensively). However, some players are very good at many different things. Although they may not be incredible standouts at any one position, these players are sometimes referred to as "utility players" because they can fill in wherever needed. They help make the team stronger overall. They can step in wherever a job needs to be done.

I discovered over the years that in my local church I am a "utility" player. I can contribute to the children and youth ministries. I can participate in the music ministries (worship team band, special music, weddings, youth group music, etc.). I can be an encourager. From time to time I fill the pulpit, but as the bishop implied, being a full-time pastor is not how God has used me. Above all, I can teach, and it is in this niche that I have discovered my primary ministries. I have also discovered that I often need to be a "lone ranger". If I see a need, I should be able to step in and lend a hand, whether someone else leads me or not. This does not always mean I say "yes" to every request made of me. I frequently have to weigh a request against other requests and other "needs" and priorities.

When John Donne wrote the words, "No man is an island" in _Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions_ , he did so from a bed of illness where he was dying from an incurable disease. Donne understood that even though he suffered alone in one sense, in another sense we are all connected to each other. In some contexts we may be leaders. In other contexts we may be servants, workers, or general contributors. Occasionally we are called to be "lone rangers". We should always be ready to be used in whatever role the Lord may see fit to place us in. Hi Yo, Silver. Let's go.

Areas for additional thought:

1. What is your role in the body of Christ? How might your role change in the future? In what ways are you often a "lone ranger" in this role and in what ways are you never truly "alone"?

2. How do you personally discern your own readiness to be used in any given situation?

3. In what sense can Christian "lone rangers" experience unity and a sense of community with God and God's people?
Chapter 12  
Myth Busters

"Don't do that!" said Gandalf, sitting down. "Do be careful of that ring, Frodo!...What do you know already?"

"Only what Bilbo told me. I have heard his story: how he found it, and how he used it: on his journey, I mean."

"Which story, I wonder," said Gandalf.

"Oh, not what he told the dwarves and put in his book," said Frodo. "He told me the true story soon after I came to live here...."

"That's interesting," said Gandalf. "Well, what did you think of it all?"

"... well, I thought the true story much more likely, and I couldn't see the point of altering it at all."

From _The Hobbit_ , by J.R.R. Tolkien

***

People believe things. We may safely assume that generally speaking people hold what they believe to be true. But people also believe things that are not true. If person A believes fact "X" to be true and person B believes fact "X" to have been disproved and therefore false, we realize that person A and person B cannot both be correct. One of them must believe a "myth".

We live in a world full of mythology. When we are talking about the Easter bunny and Santa Claus perhaps there is no harm done. But when individuals propagate theological, scientific, philosophic, and historic untruths, then it becomes a serious matter.

If a person believes myths, and they base the way live their life upon those myths, then eternal ramifications are often at stake. Unfortunately, most myths are not _labeled_ as myths for us. Generally speaking, people do not go around announcing whether something is a myth or not. Because of the proliferation of media propaganda, it has never been easier to spread myths. The proof of this statement can be verified by observing how widely accepted so many myths are.

Mythology may be found amid thinking that is flawed or fault-ridden. It may also be acquired from false philosophical or theological assumptions and by worldviews that have been founded upon lies. Most individuals who believe a myth do not think of it as a myth. They see their beliefs to be true, and therefore they do not perceive themselves as holding to a myth.

The Role of Discernment

You and I must judge which stories and beliefs are true. We must also judge which ones are mythological. Like Gandalf in the quote above, we need discernment to assist us in these judgments. Many popular myths of today were _probably_ developed unintentionally and it is unlikely that "planned" prevarication was the intent of each and every promoter of each myth. However some myths do have insidious underpinnings and there are people who intentionally attempt to peddle false ideas.

Worldviews, assumptions, presuppositions, and worldly philosophy in general account for a wide variety of mythological development. Myth busting must be a continual part of our personal _modus operandi_. Let's look briefly at some of the important myths of our generation. In this way we may have a better handle on how to effectively be "salt and light".

Christianity – the Truth About the Truth

The first myth I would like to debunk is this: Christianity itself is only a myth. This idea persists despite its lack of foundation. Men often promote things based on their desires. For some people, if their desires do not reflect absolute truth, then they are satisfied with a "temporary" truth-like substitution.

Contemporary thinkers tend to be very comfortable with inconsistencies and uncomfortable when things are inconvenient. Many accept a lack of truth as a necessary form of collateral damage. Actually the idea of "truth" being a part of the collateral damage in their current belief system probably never even crosses their mind. People who live according to the principle that "the end justifies the means" tend to be concerned with results rather than truth.

Christianity is often inconvenient. Many modern people prefer to live in the "now" as if God and the concept of eternal life are only myths. If a concept is seen as uncomfortable, the current generation of thinkers will often deem having a discussion about it with their skeptical friends to be an adequate level of "research". Then they can proudly say they have rejected Christianity based on scientific research, especially if they have located similar _opinions_ on the World Wide Web.

The assertion that Christianity is only a myth is a direct attack on truth. But it is not a new onslaught. As a response to similar attacks in the 1st century Peter told his readers, "We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (see 2 Peter 1:16). Christians do not hold to Christianity because it is nice. Nor do we believe it merely because it sits well with our social conscience. We believe it because it is true (see 1 Corinthians 15). To support this (and display the prophetic power of the Bible) we may simply turn to Psalm 22, Psalm 69, and Isaiah 53 and compare these passages with the crucifixion accounts of Matthew and Luke as cross reference points. These passages provide dynamic and clear _internal_ evidence that concretely demonstrates the validity of the Bible. There are also numerous books and websites available for the interested reader about proving the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God (e.g. see _Cold-Case Christianity_ by J. Warner Wallace or Josh McDowell's classic _Evidence That Demands a Verdict_ ).

Many _external_ sources of documentation authenticate the truth of the biblical scriptures. Such documentation can be found in archaeological evidence, historical documents, ancient writings, and artwork. The history of the Bible is true. The people of the Bible were real people. Yet despite a large amount of evidence, many people persist in discounting the truth of biblical Christianity. Their lack of belief does not make the truths presented in the Bible any less true.

Knowledgeable Christians readily welcome **honest** attacks regarding the veracity of the Bible. God's Word will stand! Genuine seekers of truth do exist. But most attacks aimed at the Bible or Christians in general are NOT honest. Many people value power over truth. Some value pleasure over truth. Some are willing to sacrifice truth for a perceived gain. Some value personal honor and prestige above factual accuracy. Some are simply willing to forego honest assessments in favor of "replacing" what is authentic with a diminished form of reality. Perhaps the most common motivation of the post-modern generation has to do with promoting political agendas. What they "want" is more important than what is "true" (they don't even believe truth exists -- except the truth they insist upon). There is not always a singular or easily identified motive for such behaviors, but when we dig deep enough we will see that there is _always_ an ulterior motive of some kind.

Sometimes people discount the Bible because they claim it is not accurate. What is really happening tends to be the substitution of the concept of precision for the concept of accuracy. The Bible IS accurate, it is just not as precise about some details as some people would like. This distinction needs to be made. The Bible was written for a purpose, that is, to reveal God's plans and intentions. It was not written to be a precise history book, however, it is does provide accurate historical accounts.

Another common methodology for some individuals transpires as follows. Some malign the Bible simply by aligning their personal religious beliefs with some previously adopted worldview. If a person takes a set of assumptions and generates beliefs to fit those assumptions, the beliefs themselves appear to be truth, even while they may be just so much sand and straw.

For example, a Hindu may discuss Christ with a Christian and state that obviously Jesus Christ was enlightened. To the Hindu, Christianity and Hinduism are basically saying the same thing because there are "many paths to the mountain top". I have actually had this conversation with a Hindu myself. Rather than adjusting their life to truth, this sort of person adopts their personal ideas about "truth" to fit their life. This has been metaphorically presented in the Bible as building a house upon the sand (see Matthew 7:24-27).

Worldview Adoptions

In western society there are three common foundational systems used to accomplish the adoption of a non-biblical worldview. Secular individuals tend to adopt either a humanistic, postmodern, or hedonistic " _slant_ " or perspective. A person's starting point generally predicts their endpoint.

The humanist tends to be an open-minded optimist while the postmodern tends to be a skeptical pessimist. The humanist views herself above the truth. In many ways she sees herself creating her own truth. In a sense she sees herself as the "god" of her domain.

On the other hand, the typical postmodern simply believes Truth with a capital "T" does not exist. Because of his skeptical perspective he _assumes_ , therefore, that Christianity cannot be ultimately true. _No proof of his pessimistic theory is needed because he does not believe even in the concept of truth to begin with._ This is a key point. It should be noted ironically, that he says this only when it is convenient for him to do so. He does indeed hold beliefs. In fact, his personal belief that _he_ does NOT have genuine beliefs is itself a myth. The humanist is certain of her certitude, while the postmodern is certain of his uncertainty.

The hedonist, however, is in a completely different category. His goal does not tend to be one of understanding or "explaining". His focus is on the enjoyment of life, not on understanding it. He wants to "experience" life. He does not care whether or not he understands it. But the problem is that he too promotes myths. If nothing else, he promotes the myth that simply living life in any way you choose is all that is important. The hedonist may readily accept eastern mystic concepts because the emphasis is on harmony rather than understanding. Eastern mystic ideas allow one to "feel" as though they understand, even though they do not understand at all, they merely "accept".

We all live in a culture rather than just in a vacuum. We experience life at the crossroads of those we touch because they also touch us. Hopefully, as Christians we impact our culture greatly, but we should understand that our culture impacts us as well. Our culture influences the way we live out our Christianity. I am not saying this is good, I am merely saying that it is often the case.

Our culture attempts to define us in many ways. People define us according to their worldview. Some people relish the opportunity to engage in name calling directed at Christians. Christians are blamed for wars, both ancient and modern. Christianity is viewed as the cause of many problems in our society. According to the myth put forth by some members of the media, all Christians are homophobes and hypocrites. Such criticism may be hard to take. But we _should_ consider the source of that criticism.

Members of the media often feel the need for some sort of scapegoat. Christians often fit the bill. For news to be ultra newsworthy, it requires a "fear" target. In other words, it requires something to talk about. Hitler utilized these ideas about propaganda against the Jews. In our society it is Christians that are often targeted. On occasion the assertions are true. This is unfortunate. We do not always live as we should. More often than not, however, the negative caricatures set forth are simply false statements. But as good propagandists know, if you repeat a lie frequently enough, most people will begin to accept it as the truth. The caricatures are frequently based on ignorance and illogical conclusions extrapolated from a few isolated incidents. Nevertheless, the repetition of the propaganda accomplishes the goal of presenting Christianity as a farce.

False statements cause damage. That is the reason I am writing about myths. When people believe a falsehood they are damaged personally, but other "victims" of their mythology may also be influenced and thereby damaged as well. Whenever someone believes something false, truth is diminished.

If Christians are to be salt and light, then we also need to avoid making false statements. If people in the world are to believe what we say, we need to build trust and rapport with them. False statements diminish these opportunities. Unfortunately, sometimes Christians "backlash" against the propaganda with political, social, and personal agendas that include the usage of biased statements. Such backlash attempts often cause more damage and generally do not appear to emulate actions that Christ Himself would engage in.

Don't overly react to the statements above by bemoaning the diminishment of truth. God is sovereign. He is also omnipotent and we should remember that _ultimately truth will be revealed_. So in an ultimate sense, truth is never diminished. But the reason we seek to reach out to others is because we know that for those to whom this "ultimate" revelation occurs at the time of judgment, it will be too late.

The Domino Effect of False Ideas

When I was a boy, I enjoyed setting up dominoes in exquisite patterns simply to watch the transfer of energy from one domino to the next. I would plan forks in the path, stairs and even bridges. After all the careful planning and attention to detail, at last a moment would come when I would almost casually flick the first domino. The chain reaction ALWAYS amazed me. I derived great joy from each experiment. No matter how often I did it, somehow I simply wanted to see if it would "work". Sometimes, the project would not work because a gap was too large, or a domino was slightly misplaced.

There is a domino effect at work whenever we touch anything that is false. Many statements of truth can be negated by one simple falsehood. In other words, we can share truth after truth linked together, yet when the chain of truth is broken by a single falsehood, the end result can cause great damage. So it is with worldview and beliefs. Sincerity does not imply truth. Only truth itself may be extrapolated to further truth.

Only orthodox Christianity provides total truth. Is this a harsh statement? To say that a statement is "harsh" is not a condemnation about whether or not the statement is true or not. To say that a statement is harsh is a value judgment. The harshness of the statement does not determine the validity of the statement. Truth often _is_ "harsh".

I do believe that "truth in part" can be found in non-Christian settings. As an example, consider the following Taoist belief. Taoists believe we should live our lives like water. Water seeks the lowest places, yet it can smooth even the hardest of rocks. Taoist doctrine therefore promotes the idea of humility as a part of lifestyle (see the writings of Lao Tzu). As a Christian I agree with the basic concept that we should be humble. For Christians humility is needed because of who God is and because Almighty God desires relationship with us! The relationship itself is humbling.

The Taoist sees only the truth of the principle as it is represented in nature. Nature is a part of God's general revelation. The Taoist got his "truth" from God in the form of this general revelation. He now knows a little bit about God and the nature of man as created by God. The problem for the Taoist arises from his contentment with only this small amount of truth. The Christian sees the truth of the principle in nature _and_ in the Word of God and understands it as a part of the expression of love that leads to building a strong relationship with God. Only biblical Christianity provides _total truth_.

Keep Your Behavior Excellent

How should we respond to those who espouse myths about Christianity? Paul advised us to, "...lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness" (1 Timothy 2:2). Peter wrote, "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles" (1 Peter 2:12). Jesus told His disciples to, "Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return" (Luke 6:35). In a spirit of what we now label as apologetics, Paul advised Timothy to "...be ready in season and out of season" (2 Timothy 4:2). We should, "...always [be] ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, _yet with gentleness and reverence_ " (1 Peter 3:15, emphasis added). Our response should be not only in words, but in godly attitudes as well.

We will be persecuted. Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:10). If we understand that ultimately we will be blessed, it is easier to bear. We are promised persecution, no matter what we do. But we throw needless fuel on the fire when we fail to follow the advice of the Word of God. We are to blame for some of the myths that develop regarding us, because of the frequent imperfections we display when we do not walk in a manner pleasing to God.

Why does "the world" view Christians in a negative fashion? Basically this happens because we live in a fallen system with sinful people. But there are other more specific reasons worldly people become vehemently opposed to Christians who are peaceful, hard-working, good citizens of a society. The reasons are always related to sin of some kind. Pride, lust, selfishness and greed are all possible motivators.

Sometimes we are misunderstood and misunderstandings may often be traced to myths that non-Christians believe about us. Non-Christians simply do not understand true Christians. The myths they believe about Christians set up numerous false assumptions. But sometimes the reasons actually _are_ related to the truth. Opposition develops because someone really does _not_ like what we legitimately stand for. They _do_ hold different values, different priorities and an altogether different worldview than we do. We scare them. They see us as "dangerous" to the preservation of their sinful desires.

Part of living in a way that pleases God is to realize our role as ambassadors for Christ. God is patient. We should not panic when worldly people mistreat us. God has been dealing with mankind's sinfulness and man's mythological premises for millennia. We should simply strive to continue to be salt and light wherever we are. We are His ambassadors. We should continue to grow personally, make disciples, and continue to love God and others. The victory belongs to the Lord. We know that we do not follow a myth.

Evolution

There are many myths we could look at and some are more important to debunk than others. Perhaps no other single myth of our time has had more influential impact than the myth of evolution. Presented as science, labeled as science, understood as science, this idea is actually philosophical in content and religious at its core. There is only a slight smell of "science" around the edges. The so-called "science" is the simple fact that many scientists _believe_ evolution. The assumption of course is that if a scientist believes something, then that something must be science. But the genuine science supporting evolution is virtually nonexistent.

Scientists are themselves philosophical and religious beings. The theory of evolution is based on supposition. No hypothesis is repeatedly tested. No reproducible experiments are utilized. It looks at man, it looks at plants, it looks at turtles, and makes the banal observation that "here they are". They MUST have gotten here somehow. As scientific as this "observation" is, it is still based upon assumption. Most aspects of direct observation involve simple scientific descriptions. But the descriptions themselves do not imply evolution. It is in the attempt to explain "why" a creature or plant is the way it is that so many scientists feel the need to make assumptive leaps in their analysis. These analytical attempts are often labeled as conclusive science. Yet thousands of years of horse breeding has not produced a better dog. The analysis of why one horse is faster than another while one is stronger or less prone to illness than another also does not "prove" evolution. If anything, it actually serves to disprove it. The horse is still a horse, of course.

" **Truth" That Is Comfortable**

The dilemma for most people is that they initially want to define things in such a way that they are both truthful and comfortable. However, if something must be sacrificed, between these two choices, it is truth that is usually sacrificed. The idea of God is so uncomfortable for some that they prefer to accept a myth as an alternative. Coloring it in the guise of science helps make these faithful believers (of evolution) even less uncomfortable.

The actual "proofs" are often so lame it is sometimes intellectually embarrassing to have a discussion about irreducible complexity or intelligent design. The speculative examples found in many "science" textbooks are not only poor science, but generally speaking they tend to also be poor philosophy. I must admit, however, that some points made by proponents of evolution are excellent forms of propaganda. They often label items in a dishonest fashion, which is both poor philosophy and poor science. It is, however, very good propaganda. It was only a few years ago that the hoax of the white moth versus the mottled moth (previously alleged to be a result of the industrial revolution) was revealed. This "evidence" was in textbooks for decades, but a retraction by both scientists and publishers was minuscule.

The strength of the evolutionary community is their imaginative interpretations of artistic conceptions. However, these imaginings are not proofs as they are frequently claimed to be. Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and Haeckel's fake embryonic drawings illustrate the willingness of religious Darwinians to go to extremes, even if truth is sacrificed.

Most science textbook publishers want to avoid controversy. Some people believe that if it's "science", how can it be controversial? Many believe an assumption printed in a textbook must be true (and therefore, it must not be an assumption). Their reasoning may be circular but they perceive it as linear. Of course these same people may be the first to disregard this view when it comes to seeking second opinions about their _own_ medical treatments. When it comes to risking their own life, their personal doctor's "scientific" black and white _opinion_ may represent the new gray. They may seek a second or even a third _opinion_. Apparently "science" CAN be controversial. As I said before, Post-moderns have no real problem with being inconsistent.

Controversy _is_ a part of a great deal of science, in fact it is often how science "grows". But most science textbook publishers avoid it like the plague. Valid points about irreducible complexity are completely avoided, not in the interest of promoting students to develop genuine thinking and analysis, but so the "party line" can be preached in a vacuum. And "preaching" is often the correct verb to describe how Darwinists attempt to sell their religion.

Poor science and poor philosophy have allowed the issue to slide easily into the realm of politics. But as many of us know, in politics _truth_ is also frequently a victim. Example after example of speculative evidence is spread out before us. Yet example after example requires _unproven assumptions_ to support the leap.

One scientist took four skulls to illustrate how dolphins evolved into dogs. He showed how the blowhole or nostrils of each creature was located in various positions. This demonstration "proved" that dolphins evolved into dogs because the breathing slot "moved" from on top of the skull until it became a dog's nostril. In reality, after the smoke and mirrors have been revealed, this demonstration only proved that four different creatures had four different skull positions for breathing. This is frequently the "science" we as Christians are mocked at if we say we don't believe the myth.

The funny thing about truth is that it is actually true. And that fact is what makes the mythological story of evolution so amazing! The people who claim it is true do so without any genuine evidence. Deep faith is placed in the work of people such as biologist Stephen Gould. The level of exultation bestowed on Charles Darwin is really rather astonishing. His standing has been elevated from explorer, naturalist and writer to the status of near "god". Many people now use the term "Darwinians" to describe themselves.

There was a time in my life when I assumed that many ancient Greeks were probably somewhat agnostic. I considered it likely that many merely "held" their beliefs in Hercules, Zeus and Apollo the same way many modern people believe in God, just in name only. I assumed that for many ancient Greeks, such beliefs were probably "convenient". The stories could teach lessons on how to live a good life for their children. The stories also gave them something to talk about. In reality, they _might_ consider it to be true. As is the case of our modern society with its numerous skeptics, many skeptics must have been around then as well, right? In other words, did all ancient Greeks _really_ believe in their "gods"? Wouldn't at least some of the educated scholars and priests only hold to them as cultural mosaics?

I am now convinced that I was completely wrong. I have witnessed many intelligent people not only accept evolution, but embrace it to their very core. I have witnessed people who believe it, not because of its evidence, but because they doggedly refuse to accept the only viable alternative. The human heart is desperate to make some sense of the universe and our existence. I have come to see how easily humans may be duped, and I have seen how sincerely people hold to their personal worldview. It is a very sobering realization. As it was for the ancient Greeks and their myths, so we too have our myths. As they believed their myths, so we as a society believe ours. God grants each of us opportunities to share the truth with others. It is my sincere hope that we may openly seize our opportunities to share truth with others, just as Jesus did with Nicodemus.

" **Christian" Myths**

The two great secular myths of our time are that Christianity is a myth and that evolution is true science and that it explains our origins. But there are other myths floating about. Christians should be aware of the main ones (even though they continually change) because we may need to address them from time to time. It is not possible to identify "all" the myths of our society. Such a list is probably impossible to develop, but it is also unnecessary. Even if I could publish a list, the list would be obsolete within days as new myths are developed and presented. The best way to be a good "myth-buster" is to be intimately familiar with the truth.

We need knowledge of the truth because our problems are not only "with the world". We have "myths" that develop within the midst of Christendom as well. There _are_ "Christian myths" (if I may use such terminology). The proximity of these myths to us can create longstanding problems and therefore I hope to increase the reader's awareness of this potential.

Cults with a stated link to orthodox Christianity continue to be a problem. We realize that apples are not oranges, but if the oranges begin to say that they are indeed apples, then we have a problem. Denying the truth of the Bible tends to be a secularist agenda, but the Christian (in name only) cults present us with a different problem. What are we to do when certain groups claim the Bible is "okay" and they say they follow it, but in reality they do not do so? Cults present a unique form of mythology that is not easy to deal with.

We may readily understand why a Moslem would deny the resurrection of Christ from the dead. We may understand that a philosophical moralist who believes in "salvation" through good works may conclude that "sin" is _not_ a problem that MUST be brought to God alone for cleansing. That is because the "do good" moralist believes his own good works will balance the scales of righteousness. We may hope to demonstrate the error of this belief to the individual, but even if we do not convince such a person of the biblical error of his assumptions, at least we can understand it. What is more difficult to understand is when non-Christian beliefs are put forward _as_ Christian beliefs by people who are or claim to be Christians.

Genuine biblical Christianity is hard to live out. But we also have to deal with the myths espoused by the many cults proliferating in our culture as well. If cultists would simply announce themselves as followers of Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) or Charles Taze Russell (founder of the Watch Tower followers called Jehovah's Witnesses) or whatever cultic group, and make no claim about Christianity, that would be one thing. But many of these groups _claim_ to be Christian. Mormonism promotes polytheism. Ultimately Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians (they deny the deity of Christ and hold that He was a created being rather than the Creator incarnate). Cults promote falseness under the guise of truth. Cults not only promote myths, they promote dangerous myths. They promote myths that can lead someone away from the total truth.

Yet even some "mainstream" branches of Evangelicals have willingly succumbed to the siren's voice of liberalism. Some have accepted the false teachings of "higher criticism" ("how can something with such a scholarly name be false?"). Many liberals pick and choose which passages of the Bible to accept, and which ones to reject. These behaviors represent mythological tendencies because they ultimately lead to the development of myths.

Jesus warned, " Not every one who says to Me 'Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of heaven'" (see Matthew 7:21). Certainly this passage from Matthew 7 is one many liberals would either delete mentally or simply explain away as an error of some sort. _Their_ Jesus is a Jesus of love who would never say such a harsh thing.

Unfortunately, they are accurate, because _their_ Jesus is a figment of their imagination. He is not the Jesus of the Bible. The twisting of truth does not squeeze out more truth the way twisting a towel that is wet yields water. The liberal's diminished and twisted truth only leads to labeled Christianity that may not be essential Christianity (see 1 Timothy chapter 1 for a warning about this). I cannot judge a liberal individual's personal relationship with God or their salvation. That is for God alone to do. But I must insist that people who believe such things walk on dangerous ground.

There are other myths that plague Christians as well. Sometimes we believe myths ourselves. This book has discussed many aspects of truth, even as I have acknowledged that some aspects of truth are not always readily perceptible. Whether easy or difficult to perceive, truth ought to be sought out and myths ought to be busted. In the closing of this chapter I will look at how the concept of tolerance has become twisted and how a cliché that embraces only half-truths can be problematic.

The Myth of Tolerance

There is a myth permeated throughout our culture that tolerance demonstrates love. The way Jesus handled the woman caught in the act of adultery is frequently cited as a demonstration of tolerance. But the story from John chapter 8 demonstrates that judgment may be tempered with grace because "mercy triumphs over judgment" (see James 2:13). Yes, Jesus demonstrated love, but it was not His "tolerance" that showed His love.

People define the word "tolerance" differently, and we must define it clearly with whomever we discuss such issues. Jesus did not condemn the woman, but He also said, "Go, and sin no more." We could say He "tolerated" her as a human being, and obviously He loved her. But He did not tolerate the sin itself. Love demonstrates mercy and compassion, but holiness requires atonement. Jesus was capable of both. We do Him an injustice when we interpret His love as a lack of holiness. Nor should we interpret His holiness as a lack of love.

Some believe we should be sensitive to others in such a way that we should tolerate them and simply accept them as they are, without ever suggesting they make any changes at all. As a proof text, a person may cite the story of the woman at the well or the story of Zacchaeus as examples that Jesus simply accepted people as they were.

Jesus came to sinners, that much is clear. But did He accept all people and leave it at that? Why did Jesus die for their sins? There is a vast difference between forgiveness and love out of a standard of holiness and purity in contrast to the idea of complete acceptance and tolerance regardless of any standard.

A married couple began attending the Sunday school class I was teaching a few years ago. They both claimed to have recently become Christian believers. They also stated they were experiencing difficulties in their marriage. The wife stated that she hoped that their new relationship with God was transforming their marital relationship as well. After attending the class for just a few weeks, on one particular Sunday the man came alone to the class. He informed the class that during the week he had met another woman with whom he hoped a new relationship could be developed. He was excited about this woman and he asked the class to pray for this new relationship.

Instead of praying for this new "extramarital" relationship to be blessed, the class members prayed for his marriage to be renewed and healed. Many prayed for both he and his wife to develop a closer walk with the Lord. After class, several of us talked with the man for a long time about the situation. We encouraged the man to continue to seek the Lord, to not walk away from his wife at this transitional time in their lives, but the man felt that _his personal happiness_ was more important. After the interaction of that day, the man quit coming to the class. Was the behavior of the class "intolerant"? Most members of society would say that it was intolerant behavior, but sharing the truth of God's standards with an attitude of love is _not_ intolerant.

Incidents such as this one need to be discussed by Christians. We need to discuss how we can forgive others AND love others AND still share truth with them. There are many difficult situations in which we may find ourselves. True love is defined in 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 5. _The idea that personal happiness is the single most important desire we should have is another myth._ It is a myth promoted by many modern psychologists and therapists, but it is an ironic myth, for the people who find the greatest dimensions of joy are not the ones who seek personal happiness.

Avoid False Clichés

As a believer, I expect the world to have "myths", but Christians also maintain their share of myths as well. There is no end to the possible myths that could be explored. One Christian myth I have heard espoused recently is the statement, " _You are the only Jesus some people will ever see._ "

I have heard this particular cliché couched in language about the church being the body of Christ. Those who use this statement apparently assume that if we do not bear witness of Him, He will never be revealed. This assumption not only discounts the biblical concept of general revelation (see Psalm 19 and Romans 1) but it also presents a rather low view of the sovereignty of God. We are His ambassadors, nothing less, but also nothing more.

When I hear a cliché such as this I wonder if the person using it really believes it, or if he or she is simply trying to motivate me. Are they trying to set up an intentional guilt trip for Christians? I realize that often I do need to be motivated, but I believe that even our "pithy" clichés need to be based on the truth. When we attempt to stimulate one another to "love and good deeds", let us do so with both grace and truth.

Myths are all around us. Many contain some aspects of truth as well as many false aspects. Some are complete fabrications. As Christians we should be aware of what we believe, why we believe it, and the ramifications for others who do not believe the Word of Truth. Examine your own life. Do you hold myths that need to be busted and are you "ready" to share the truth in love with those you come into contact with?

Areas for additional thought:

[Note: The questions below are difficult. Don't read books about them first. Try to answer them as well as you can here and now. Then later, compare your answers by discussing your initial thoughts with other believers or engage in research by reading books and blogs. Think first. Then do more research.]

1. What arguments and proofs can you personally use right now to demonstrate the truth of the Bible and of Christianity?

2. Is it possible that you yourself believe a "myth" or two? Are there areas of spiritual belief you hold to that should be labeled as _opinion_ rather than as absolute definitive truth? What standard do you use to help you define absolute truth?

3. What specific factors identify a cult as being a cult versus Christianity that is absolutely true and reliable?
Chapter 13  
Our Labor of Love

"Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" 1 Corinthians 15:58

***

Work is a big part of life. As Christians we need to have a balanced and biblical perspective about this important aspect of life. It's nice when we love our work, but regardless of how we "feel" about whatever work we are doing, it is far more important to _show love to others_ through that work. What should our attitude toward "work" be like and is there anything wrong with "just making a living"? Obviously, the last thing any dedicated Christian wants to do is live a life of vanity. Whatever we do, we want our lives to count for something!

Paul advised the Thessalonians, "make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands... so that you may behave properly towards outsiders _and not be in any need_ " (1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 emphasis added). One dimension of our work rationale is to avoid being a burden on others. By working steadfastly we are able to help others rather than forcing others to help us. Of course there are exceptions due to health and war and famine and economic devastation, but the general principle remains. There is a very strong connection between our need to work and our purpose for existing. Whatever work we do should be done for the glory of God. We should never work just for "food which perishes" (see John 6:27). We should always be aware that there is much more to life than just our existence here and now.

Some believers might be tempted to assume missionaries and pastors follow the Lord on a "superior" plane, simply by virtue of their overt commitment. A logical conclusion of this belief is the implication that superior and inferior callings are a part of the equation. One problem with this way of looking at work is that it does not align with numerous examples throughout the Bible and specifically with the message of 1 Corinthians 12.

Paul points out that people have different functions. Biblical examples include God using slaves, fishermen, shepherds, tax collectors, and men and women from all walks of life. The key ingredient is not educational training or professional background. The key ingredient is openness and a willingness to be used by God.

A second way of looking at the issue is to assume _all_ believers have a "higher calling" but some are simply not following that calling. This viewpoint is also problematic. The example of Jonah may be cited here, but Jonah was a VERY specific situation with a very clear calling. Very few of us have such a specific, crystal clear calling.

The "higher calling" assumption is an awkward way of thinking about the issue of work because it draws upon assumptions that may or may not be true. A person's calling may change during the course of their life. Moses did not begin his work as leader of the Israelites until he was eighty years old. Jesus worked as a carpenter until He began what we often label as "His ministry" at age thirty. Obviously this means he was a carpenter for 10 to 15 years.

What a person is doing "now" may not be what they are called to do ten years from now. We often do different things at different times of our life. Prior roles and experiences often prepare us for future purposes we are presently unaware of. It is difficult to know if God is using our current circumstance to prepare us for a future role, or if the current situation IS the primary place of ministry.

Consider how many different occupational roles David and Joseph had during their lifetimes. My suggestion is for us to simply remember how many "older" people were used of God in biblical eras as well as throughout history. There is no simple answer to the question "what specific occupation should I be pursuing?" Each man and woman who follows Christ must discern his or her present function within the family of God. Each of us must seek the answer from God. Inversely, beware of judging others based on your assumptions about what that particular individual should or should not be doing vocationally.

What is Work?

Let's take a closer look at what work really is. In the book of Genesis we read that "work" is part of living in a fallen and cursed environment. Man was given "dominion" over the earth. Before the Fall, Adam was also given "work" to do. He was to name the animals. This was a task involving both physical and mental aspects of working. Physically he had to explore. He could rest in one spot and observe many creatures, but at some point he had to presumably walk about and explore. He had to use his senses to see and hear and smell and touch. It was also a reasoning task requiring classification and an awareness of diversification. It was a task that required an ability to observe differences, and it was also a task that required creativity. Adam's mind had to be fully engaged. It is also interesting to note that naming animals required a unique usage of his God given ability to utilize language. He had to create new "labels" and thus develop new vocabulary. Essentially, Adam was the first scientist.

From Adam's perspective, it was a job that could enlist within him a sense of awe regarding God as he observed the creativity of his own Creator. In other words, it was a task that could actually bring him closer to God as he engaged in it. It was also a nearly endless task, at least for one man. In this sense it was challenging and would serve to eliminate any possible boredom. Within this activity we see a union between God and man. God set up the system, but He yielded much control. He allowed the man genuine choices as well as ownership of his choices.

After Adam disobeyed and sinned, things changed. Within the curse and the "Fall" of man's nature and all the rest of nature God stated that man _must_ work by the sweat of his brow. Thorns became a part of nature. The easy "pickings" of the Garden of Eden were taken away from Adam and Eve. Ever since the Fall, man has been struggling. God has been trying to teach man to return to Him, to rest in Him, to observe how He provides for the flowers and birds, and to allow blessings to flow upon him.

At the most basic of levels, we must work. As thinking Christians we may ask why we _must_ work for our needs _and_ _yet_ trust God to provide for all our needs. This is a very valid point to meditate upon. Someone who has studied logic may find this reasoning difficult to comprehend. The answer lies in identifying the ways work shapes our relationship to God and others. As we study "work", I believe we will see that any form of work may glorify God. The litmus test involves understanding our purpose. Some key questions we should ask include: Am I doing this work to gain honor in the sight of men? What are my needs and what are my wants? Do my "wants" align with God's principles? As I work, do I do my work as unto the Lord?

In a chapter about white washing a fence, Mark Twain demonstrated through the character of Tom Sawyer that when you are paid for something it then becomes work. When you do it as a lark for the simple pleasure it may bring, then it is play. Although many people truly enjoy their work, there is much truth in Twain's definition.

But in a very real sense, we should not be expected as Christians to define the word "work" in precisely the same way people who are worldly do. Christians are servants of God and we work to build His kingdom. Nevertheless, Twain's observation reveals that when it comes to work, there are different strokes for different folks.

Different Strokes for Different Folks

In the area of vocational choice there are no second-class believers. It is true that people may be living out their "Christianity" in a second-rate fashion, but this is a matter of personal discipleship rather than a reflection upon one's chosen profession. Not all believers are "walking in the Lord" as they should. It should be noted that this possibility applies to missionaries and pastors just as much as it does to any other believer.

There _are_ different callings and different gifts (see 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4). "The butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker" may all be living lives that are pleasing to God. They may also be displeasing to God as well. Identifying someone's vocation does not reveal if that individual is fully utilizing God's will or not. Paul's advice to the Thessalonians included the rationale that they should avoid being in need. We work so that we ourselves are not in need. We work so that we may give to those who are in need. Fulfilling God's desire at this point may be accomplished with any profession.

Many men and women are interested in knowing if they are doing what they are "supposed" to do. If opportunities to minister arise and fruit is being borne, then it is likely that a person is "where they should be". However, often we must admit that only God knows. God can look for fruit in people's lives easier than we can. The timetable for bearing fruit varies for different situations, and some "fruit" is less tangible (humanly speaking) than other fruit. Our evaluations of someone else's walk with the Lord may be based on biblical guidelines, but there is always a degree of speculation on our part. We cannot see another person's heart the way God does.

This raises the question of whether or not we should even "evaluate" others at all. Isn't it safer to just evaluate our own walk and to leave the evaluation of others up to God? Actually this is one of those "sort of, it depends" type of issues. Evaluating others _is_ worthless if you have not taken, "...the log out of your own eye" (see Matthew 7). But life is not always quite so simple because true love demands caring interaction. To "make disciples" requires the caring type of paying attention to others that Jesus modeled. We need to use God's principles to help us evaluate others around us so that we may become more sensitive to their needs. But this still requires a cautious bit of evaluating. Paul's instruction from Galatians 6:1 is for us to do it from a position of humility with an attitude of hopefulness.

When it comes to how others do their work for the Lord, we may analyze how we "think" other people are doing. We may interpret their values and priorities and beliefs based on their words and actions, and on the relationships they pursue and develop. This type of judgment is _not_ what Matthew 7 warns us against, and most of us do this type of assessment automatically anyway.

There are biblical reasons for making these types of assessments. We should encourage others (as Paul did to the church at Philippi). There are times when we should point out to other believers their shortcomings or perhaps take them aside for a loving and gentle reminder (see Galatians 6:1, as well as the entire books of First and Second Corinthians). Our perceptions might only be presumptuous, unless we see actual sin occurring. Evaluating others has a proper place, although the need for self-evaluation cannot be overemphasized ("first, remove the plank from your own eye..." see Matthew 7:5).

If all believers conducted deep self-assessments AND demonstrated a heart that desired repentance in the way David demonstrated in Psalm 51, then there would be little need for believers to "care enough to confront". We should note however, that David himself once needed such a confrontation. His confrontation with Nathan was the catalyst for Psalm 51.

Jesus' disciples never stopped "needing to grow" and neither will we. But just how should we assess ourselves, especially if we are to avoid our natural tendencies to either be too harsh or too lax upon ourselves? Evaluating "where" God wants me to be and what precisely I should specifically be doing at each and every moment is not an easy task. Each individual seeker must develop ears to hear and eyes to see. For this type of assessment we need to understand the scriptures. As a starting point I suggest readers begin with a prayerful reading of Galatians chapter 5 to discern whether they are being "led by the Spirit".

As stated above, simply being in a typical profession does not imply whether a person is or is not precisely where God would have them to be. Pharaoh's Chief Cupbearer in the story of Joseph was placed in exactly the right situation where God could use him. I assume he was not a believer in Almighty God. If an unbeliever may be used to bring about God's will, how much more will God use those of us who offer our whole lives to Him?

Remember this. In a practical sense we are "in" the world even though in a spiritual sense we are to be above the world and not "of" it (see John 17:14). Working "unto the Lord" implies a sort of blending of both the practical with the spiritual. One way we may think of this concept is to remember that as we operate in the material world we should do so by God's principles and for His purposes. We are to emulate the "men of whom the world is not worthy" (see Hebrews 11:38), even as we love God and love others. Work can be done in a way that allows us to grow closer to God. Growing closer to God will bring us back time after time to the principle of the commandments to love God and to love others. A major part of "Our Labor of Love" is to simply "work" at loving others.

Working Unto the Lord

Whatever we do, when we do it with Him in mind, and when we do it as we think He would have us to do it, and most importantly when we do it to please Him, then we are doing our work "unto the Lord". The functional aspect of work may be to provide a product or service for another human. But when the _purpose_ for which we do that action is to ultimately bring glory to God, then our work is being done "unto God". My challenge to you as you read this is to ponder how often you operate out of this sense of purpose.

It is no great surprise to realize that work can also be done for a person's own glory. Many people do not care about God's glory, or even about God Himself for that matter. We don't expect unbelievers to participate in a godly "labor of love".

When we speak of people being "lost" we usually make reference to their spiritual status regarding the forgiveness of their sins and "justification". Yet being "lost" also describes each unbeliever's sense of meaning and purpose. Unbelievers cannot have a genuine sense of their purpose and meaning because of their "lost" relationship with God (in the sense that they lack such a relationship). Ecclesiastes addresses the futility of working for one's own glory, but people of the world do not generally read philosophical books of the Bible.

The problem some Christians face is that they may find themselves struggling with issues about purpose and meaning even though they already are "God's children". It is not always easy for each man or woman to find his or her niche in the family of God. All of us may experience this sensation at one time or another.

Both spiritual and worldly factors contribute to our lack of understanding concerning our function and purpose. Some believers claim to care about God's glory yet somehow find they continue to work for their own interests. It is quite possible for Christians to live their lives with a self-centered focus upon their work. The truth is that some believers are immature. Some live with callused hearts. Some live a lukewarm lifestyle. Some are simply not walking close to God. An overemphasis on work may prevent some individuals from spending the essential time needed to foster and build a relationship with God to its fullest potential, just as the same may be true of how such an overemphasis may damage family relationships. These are some of the pitfalls of being human.

The premise of this chapter, however, is based on hope: the hope that people can use their work to help them grow closer to God and to be used by Him. There are people who use their work to run away from God rather than toward God. Such individuals often avoid building relationships that have spiritual dimensions. Each of us has the ability to build or tear down our "vertical" relationship. Our "horizontal" relationships are evident in all we do and our emphasis should be on "building" with godly dimensions of love. Jesus said, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (see Matthew 5:16).

When Jonah disobeyed God's command to go to Nineveh to preach a message of repentance, he did not slump into sullen inactivity. He was very active in his disobedient quest for self-centered peace! He sought to do things his way rather than God's way. Yet he was not a "sluggard". People may work, and yet work wrongly.

Balanced Living

The Bible teaches a balanced approach to work. The book of Proverbs promotes strong work ethics and good stewardship. Ecclesiastes points out the futility of being a workaholic. In Luke's gospel we read, "But Martha was distracted by all her preparations.... But the Lord said to her, 'Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only a few things are necessary'" (see Luke 10:40-42).

Even things that are good can be taken to an extreme. There is a definite balanced approach we should take toward all we do. Whenever anything is taken to an extreme it is often corrupted. Work _can_ be something we take to a corrupted extreme.

The concept of _balance_ always involves the underlying concept of "need". Some needs are overt and obvious, but some needs are "hidden" and spiritual in nature. When we lack awareness or sensitivity to our needs we may find ourselves living "out of balance". Satisfying one need makes it easy to disregard a different need. Are you walking close to God? Are His attitudes your attitudes? Are His priorities your priorities? Answering such questions truthfully and diligently will help you make needed adjustments so that you may be able to establish your own spiritual "balance".

Balanced living may be discerned by reflecting on whether we are following the commands of God to love Him and to love others. This relates to our own personal needs, and also connects us to the needs of others. Living a life characterized by love connects us to God's purposes. When we walk in the spirit rather than in the flesh (see Romans 8) God's transforming power allows us to sense spiritual needs differently and to "need" fleshly things less.

Progressing Through Your Own Spiritual Journey

What should we focus on when it comes to thinking about "work"? Remember the words of Paul, "... Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (see 1 Corinthians 10:31). The principle is clear, but applications may be opaque. How _are_ we to "do all to the glory of God?"

Spiritual journeys must be undertaken personally. We must each answer the question above within the context of our own lives. I encourage each reader to understand that it is a journey. Commit to that journey. God is not done with you. I know He is certainly not done with me. Each of us must pursue our own walk with God.

This is not to say that your journey is private. You may be completely surrounded by people, but your internal realizations will still be completely personal. The work of the Holy Spirit is a promise God has made to each of us. Your openness to His work and your interpretation of His will _is_ personal.

Many of our life decisions are based on fundamental beliefs about work. Did Jesus call Simon Peter to leave his profession of fishing, or did He call him to "follow" Him? What is the difference? Being called "to" something is NOT the same as being called "away" from something else. The difference has to do with the area of focus. It's not that fishing is a bad profession. Jesus' call to Peter involved making a commitment _to_ ministry.

The Bible often addresses the idea of the "flesh" versus the "spirit". But does that mean jobs such as banker, carpenter, teacher, or truck driver are of the flesh? Of course not! Abraham was a rancher. Joseph was a politician. David was a shepherd, musician, soldier, poet, and king. Amos was a shepherd, Paul a tent-maker, Jesus a carpenter, Luke a physician, and the list could go on.

No profession is "more godly" than another profession just as no profession is "lower" than any other. It is not the profession you engage in that is the essence of your spiritual walk, but rather the behavior and attitude within that profession that becomes your "salt" and your "light". "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (see Matthew 5:16 _King James Version_ ).

Areas for additional thought:

1. Do you consider what you "do" to be superior or inferior to what other Christians do (be honest)? How does your answer to this question impact other areas of your life?

2. What is the purpose of your life? How does your answer to this question affect the way you trust God to meet your needs? How does it affect your work ethic?

3. How do you demonstrate love through your work? Answer this from both a perspective toward God as well as toward others.

Postscript

Christianity is both hard and joyful. To follow Christ is the hardest thing you will ever attempt to do (obviously you will need to enlist His help). Yet it is also the most joyful thing you will experience on the planet! It is full of joy because it is about developing relationship with God. Nothing brings deeper joy and satisfaction to the human soul. It is also joyful because it involves being fully engaged in truth, and I know that the human heart wells up with joy in the process of discovering truth.

Claiming to be a Christian but living with worldly priorities is dangerous. Discussing theological concepts (such as those presented in this book) with your friends and acquaintances can also help build your relationship with God, even while building deeper dimensions of depth in your human relationships. At times, this may "feel" dangerous. With God's help, I am confident that each of us can become dangerously Christ-like! I hope each reader will continually and pleasantly be surprised by joy. Be doers of the Word and not hearers only (see the book of James).
