What would it take for me to forgive?

"What would it take for me to forgive someone who wrongs me?" is something I've considered at times. For Christians, who see forgiveness as a good thing, forgiveness is still a common struggle. It might be easier if another person showed regret for harming me or treating me unfairly. It would help if such a person apologized. It would be fantastic if someone offered to make up for some of the wrongs they had done. 

Or what if they did none of those things and left the harm exactly as-is, unacknowledged, unapologized, unamended? 

"In this is love: not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." (1 John  4:10-11)

For God, the question was not what hoops must the sinner go through before He retires the grudge. He was not expecting us to repay him. He did not demand our humility. He did not approach reconciliation by hoping for something from us. His thoughts are so far opposite ours that He did not demand what we must do, but offered what He could do, even though the fault was ours. He was willing to cover the cost himself as he rebuilt the relationship before we agreed to do the same. 

The point here is not to try to lecture myself into forgiveness, but to recognize how differently God approaches forgiveness. I hope to allow myself first of all to be grateful for it. I hope that recognition moves me to see the world more as He does. As far as whether I am called to be first to put down the grudge: of course I am, and especially with those who do not know Christ. 

Messiah: The Talmud on Messianic Prophecy (Updated 2025)

Various times over the years I have heard the charge that the New Testament makes improper use of the Hebrew Scriptures. The typical suspicion is that it forces certain passages into service as Messianic prophecies in a way that is at least out-of-context, if not wrong or dishonest. A current example is at Common Denominator, where Ken Schenck mentions, 

[A] key issue for me was the way the New Testament interpreted the Old Testament. It didn’t seem to follow the rules of inductive Bible study. The New Testament didn’t seem to interpret the Old Testament in context. 

His immediate example is Isaiah 7:14 (the maiden shall shall conceive and bear a child, and his name will be called Immanuel). 

Here we will look at some ancient Jewish approaches to faithfully interpreting Scripture, particularly drawing from the Talmud. The sages' methods of interpretation allow for deeper thematic resonance than inductive Bible study, and a firm commitment to the relevance of the Messiah in all prophecy. Because this post is not intended as a full exploration of Mr. Schenck's themes, I'd encourage readers to review Mr. Schenck's post in full. I'll limit myself here to addressing any suspicions that may have been suggested about the New Testament texts. 

The first point that needs addressing, when reading the Talmud, is something we still see today: whenever three theologians gather together, there are often at least four opinions among them. The Talmud does not claim that we must hold a certain view of any particular Scripture; in reading the Talmud there are very few views that are held without any difference of opinion. The purpose of this post is simply to show, with references, that the Messianic interpretations of those who wrote the New Testament were in line with acceptable and traditional thoughts of ancient Judaism.

Multivalent Meanings of Scripture

In our modern thinking, we generally look for "the" meaning of a passage of Scripture. That is, we assume there is one right way to understand a passage, and if we have found "the right meaning" then every other understanding is "the wrong one", with immediate suspicions of dishonesty or unfaithfulness. I am not here talking about agreeing to disagree, but the deeper question of whether only one meaning is intended. The sages of classical Judaism rejected that narrow way of thinking: 

For Scripture says, "God has spoken once, twice have I heard this, that strength belongs unto God" [Ps 62:11 NIV, or Ps 62:12 NJPS]. One Biblical verse may convey several teachings, but a single teaching cannot be deduced from different Scriptural verses. In R. Ishmael's School it was taught: "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces" (Jeremiah 23:29) i.e., just as the rock is split into many splinters, so also may one Biblical verse convey many teachings. (Sanhedrin 34a)

This understanding was not a quirk of the Talmudic era. In a modern Jewish study Bible, that verse from Psalm 62 is the basis for the study note: 

This parallelism is one of the classic texts expounded in rabbinic culture to mean that God’s word is multivalent and needs to be interpreted in a variety of special ways (see, e.g. b. Sanh. 34a). (The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1999)

The classic understanding of the Hebrew Bible is richer than the restrictions we tend to place on it. They believed that "one right meaning" is too rigid a way to read something that's layered with symbolism, inspired by God, and in conversation with both past and future. 

The Psalm verse "One thing God has spoken, two things I have heard" recalls the various "counting" Proverbs. These are proverbs where the writer's catalog of things to consider is poetically expanded during a verse, such as "Three things are beyond me ... four I cannot fathom. (Proverbs 30:18)".  That poetic structure calls our attention to how in pondering a matter, we add to our wisdom. If we ponder how many things we do not understand, we add to our humility. And while we cannot add to the word of God, we can always add to our understanding. The paradigm where we seek "the one true meaning" of a verse is a broken paradigm. 

The Messianic Scriptures

Another consistent theme in the Talmud is that all prophecy should be interpreted in light of the Messiah. On a multivalent reading of Scripture, there is no conflict between an immediate sense and a Messianic sense. 

The Talmud recorded an ancient Jewish approach on interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures:

“All the prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah” – Berachoth 34b

And again

“All the prophets prophesied only in respect of the Messianic era;” – Sanhedrin 99a

That is, any prophecy could rightly be read as Messianic. 

Did everyone hold this view? Not necessarily; there is also an opinion that all prophets prophesied on behalf of those who would marry their daughters to scholars. (When we remember how many scholars were involved in writing the Talmud, it makes more sense.) While the comment about scholars may have been intended as humor, we can see that they did not insist on a unanimous view. Among the sages, very few views are ever held unanimously, and the different rabbinical schools held a usually-friendly openness towards each others' views. 

Interpreting all prophecy in light of the Messiah was an accepted ancient Jewish tradition with many examples of its kind, including a great many passages which did not specifically refer to the Messiah. This was considered not just tolerable but also right. When Ruth (ancestress of King David) has leftover grain, this is seen to prefigure the days of the Messiah (Shabbath 113b). Teachings about meals to eat on the Sabbath are interpreted as having special importance for the Messianic era (Shabbath 118a). Even non-prophetic passages could be interpreted as Messianic prophecy, and it was seen as a legitimate interpretation. 

What does this mean? It means that the New Testament usage of the Hebrew Scriptures was true to the traditional methods and interpretive precepts of ancient Judaism. It is therefore legitimate interpretation to read passages such as “Out of Egypt I shall call my son” as Messianic. Likewise, it is legitimate interpretation according to ancient Hebrew practice to read “The maiden shall conceive and bear a child” as Messianic. It is worth remembering that it was the ancient Hebrews who considered it right to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures in light of the Messiah, even when the immediate meaning was not directly about Messiah. This was no late innovation specific to followers of Jesus. More importantly, it was not seen as a distortion of the texts to interpret them in a Messianic light.

Specific Messianic Prophecies

Aside from the vague prefigurings such as Sabbath meals and Ruth’s leftover grain, I'd like to review some of the specific things that were expected of the Messiah, and passages in the Talmud that are more directly about the Messiah. 

There is an interesting discussion recorded in Sukkah 52a starting with the passage “the land will mourn” (Zechariah 12:12):

“What is the cause of the mourning? — R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained, The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination.”

The question is raised, “It is well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son.” – Sukkah 52a (Scripture referenced is Zechariah 12:10, part of the same passage originally being discussed)

Those who hold to the view of the slaying of the evil inclination also discuss their view. It is interesting to note that, in their discussion, they never object to the idea of the Messiah being slain.

The discussion continues in the same passage of the Talmud:

“Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as it is said, I will tell of the decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance. But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain, he will say to Him, ‘Lord of the Universe, I ask of Thee only the gift of life’.’As to life’, He would answer him, ‘Your father David has already prophesied this concerning you’, as it is said, He asked life of thee, thou gavest it him.” – Sukkah 52a (Scriptures referenced are Psalm 2:7-8, and Psalm 21:4.)

Another discussion focuses on different views of when and how to look for Messiah’s coming:

“R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, whilst [elsewhere] it is written, lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.” – Sanhedrin 98a (Scriptures referenced are Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 9:9.)

Few of the conversations are as tightly-focused as this. When looking at passages that are directly Messianic, it is more plain how they apply to the Messiah. When we look at secondary interpretations, it becomes less plain. Christians in particular will enjoy reading an ancient discussion on calculating when the Messiah will come and how long the earth will endure. One commentator uses the following passage in this discussion of the duration of the world and the coming of the Messiah:

“After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.” – Sanhedrin 97a (Scripture referenced is Hosea 6:2)

The commentator himself, while seeing Messianic implications of this verse, does not interpret this in the same way that a modern Christian would. But based on the Messianic view of Scripture, we can see in this passage how Jesus could say that the prophets foretold he would be raised from the dead on the third day.

Conclusion

According to ancient Jewish principles of interpretation, any passage of Scripture might contain a hidden mention of Messiah, and that knowledge should be sought out. Reading prophecy that way was neither wrong nor dishonest, but accepted as legitimate in the Judaism of that day. In short, the Messianic view of Scripture is valid and directly rooted in accepted practices of ancient Judaism.

Originally blogged on CADRE Comments 04/07/2005, and incorporating various material blogged here since then

I know you by name, said the LORD

When I meet a new person, there is a time before I know their name. Even after the introductions take place, I may still struggle with their name. It doesn't have to be a complicated name or an unfamiliar name, just a person I don't know well yet. Once I know a person better, their name sticks in my mind more easily. Knowing someone's name is generally a sign of a friendlier relationship, something more familiar. Once I have a connection with someone I know their name, and it stays with me. The person means something to me, so I have a name for them. 

"You (Moses) have found grace in my sight, and I know you by name." (Exodus 33:17)

"He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out." (John 10:3)

God does not merely "know our name" for the sake of displaying his omniscience. It is not to brag on the extent of his knowledge or show off his skill. It is to show that we have found favor in his sight, and he will be a leader to us. He "knows our name" in the sense that we mean something to him. 

Long-time married folks' best advice on staying married

It is rare that I take inspiration from the comment section of another conversation. But I think the content here merits it. This post asked the long-married couples for the best advice on staying married. 

The comment thread was lively, so I enlisted a bot to help summarize, which it did based on the most frequently echoed and highly engaged pieces of advice among the responses. 

Top 10 Pieces of Advice from the Comments

1. Put God (or faith) at the center of your marriage. 
   This topped the list and dominated replies, often cited as the unbreakable foundation.
   "A cord of three strands is not easily broken - Ecc.4:12."
   
   
2. Never go to bed angry—resolve conflicts before sleep
   A near-universal tip, emphasizing daily emotional resets to prevent resentment buildup.
   
   
3. Forgive quickly and let go of grudges
   Quick forgiveness was hailed as essential for longevity, avoiding the poison of prolonged hurt.
   
   
4. Prioritize regular date nights and intentional time together
   Couples stressed keeping romance alive through consistent effort, no matter the life stage.
   
   
5. Remove divorce as an option—commit fully from day one
   Blunt and recurring: Treat "divorce" as a forbidden word to weather storms.
   
   
6. Prioritize your spouse above all others (except God)
   Family, kids, or parents come second—your marriage is the core unit.
   Example comment: "Never put any human before your spouse. Not parents, siblings or even children. Only God comes before your spouse."
   
   
7. Choose a partner who makes you laugh
   Humor as a buffer for hardships; select for joy, not just compatibility checklists.
   
   
8. Love sacrificially, like Christ loves the Church
   Selfless, unconditional love—putting your partner's needs first consistently.
   
   
9. Address your own selfishness as the real issue
   Shift focus inward: Marriage problems often stem from personal flaws, not just the other's.
   Example comment: "Treat your own selfishness as the main problem in the marriage," quoting Timothy Keller
   
   
10. Avoid infidelity at all costs (including family temptations)
    Practical warnings against betrayal, often with humor but deadly serious undertones.

Awe, wonder, and reverence: Experiences that cleanse

Some emotions cannot coexist. Awe, wonder, and reverence are bone-deep emotions that cleanse away fear or malice or resentment. As such they cleanse our souls, as we would hope for any near-experience of God. 

It is healing for my soul to make room for awe and wonder. It is refreshing to make room for reverence. And by making room, I mean clearing the obstacles, setting aside the time on my schedule, and seeking those solitudes where I most often meet God and know his presence. 

While I value meditations on the word of God, that is not what I mean here. I mean the more primal, pre-verbal, deep-resonance perception of God. I may seek a sight of the stars that declare the glory of God. I may arrange a moment where I see the light on the water for a moment that restores my soul. These are Sabbath moments. 

In our culture, "irreverent" has become a compliment, particularly for "irreverent humor." I suspect that "irreverent humor" erodes our capacity for reverence, even more than short-form content can erode our  attention spans. I have met devoted Christians who distrust reverence, who assume that reverence is false reverence. But there is a genuine reverence that we know in our quieter moments. Reverence is intensely wholesome, removing bitterness and cynicism at the root. The longer I stay in those moments, the more the peacefulness deepens. 

May I make it part of my practice to seek and pursue those occasions to focus on the glory of God. 

Thanksgiving 2025

This year has been (mostly) a good and productive year. I am grateful for my children, my Bible-study friends, my recovery-group friends, a safe home, health, food, and relative peace. 

Wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving, safe travels, and kind company.  

Spiritual exercise and challenge: no unwholesome talk

"Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear." - Ephesians 4:29

Recently in a Bible study, someone passed along this challenge first heard from a group of Christian friends: starting first thing in the morning, see how far they could get through the day before some unwholesome talk came out of their mouths. (That included drive time and whatever they might say to or about other drivers while driving.) In the original challenge, they were reporting back to their group for accountability, humility, fellowship, and possibly some laughter at their own human frailty. 

That was too good a challenge to ignore, so I have taken up the challenge when I recall it, and wanted to pass it along to those who are striving to be more Christlike. 

A dark view of human nature -- and the road to fellowship

Human nature, without fellowship with God, is ungodly. And human nature, without fellowship with each other, tends to the inhumane. 

Sometimes I hear the objection that the Christian view of humanity is too dark. We dislike the idea that we struggle with our own natures, that there are intrinsic problems with our natures. That raises a lot of questions, not least of which is: what good could it possibly do to focus on that? We'll get there before the end of this post. But let's start here: Is that view unique to Christianity? 

Another world religion

Do other religions see humanity as struggling against evil? Buddhism's quest for enlightenment implies that most of us spend our lives in the dark. The eightfold path includes (among other things) right intention and right action, implying that naturally our actions and intentions are not right. The other points of the eightfold path also show that we struggle to have the right understanding or view, right speech, and so forth for all the facets of ourselves. 

Academics

Outside of religion we find the academic realm colliding with the same reality. History can be a general way to understand the human story, and is full of dark episodes. The same can be said of literature, where many stories show a struggle with either unjust opposition or, more humanly, with our own character flaws. 

Psychology

In psychology there are different ways to understand our human condition. For example, Jungian psychology speaks of our shadow, or dark side. Evolutionary psychology places our behavior firmly within the animal realm, where "morality" may not even be a legitimate rubric to apply to humanity. 

The point

We can look at the problem from any angle we wish; we are still looking at the problem. 

It is tempting to avoid recognizing the dark, unenlightened, or shadowy parts of ourselves. Though the struggle is universal, is it humbling. But those are the two biggest gains from recognizing those parts of ourselves: humility, and universal fellowship. What good could it possibly do to wrestle with the reality of the darkness within us? On the other side of facing that unpleasant truth is a warmer regard for the human condition, a lessening of hostility, a growth of compassion. All the serious methods for understanding ourselves insist on facing the problem: without understanding that about ourselves, we still have that peculiar fatal flaw that hinders humility and fellowship. This kind of enlightenment prevents any pride in its attainment. 

With our words we will be acquitted

There are times when Jesus was clearly using figures of speech, and others when I expect it's wisest to take him very literally. One situation where I take him entirely literally is in his cautions against dealing harshly with each other: 

By your words you shall be acquitted, and by your words you shall be condemned. - Jesus (Matthew 12:37)

I want my conversations to have words that I might be glad to hear said back to me on the Last Day. With that in mind, here are some Bible verses that speak to the topic of forgiveness. The first 3 are verses that are suitable for quoting either as as-is or with slight modifications for the situation. The fourth verse records accusers leaving in silence, where below I give voice to some words that might be fitting instead of an accusation. 

• "Forgive them. They didn't know what they were doing." (Luke 23:34)
• "Do not be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You planned evil against me, but God meant it for good." (Genesis 50:19-20)
• "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:34)
• My own conscience isn't clear. How can I condemn you? (suitable words based on John 8:9)

Related: a prior post on the topic. Even after 2 posts, my thoughts are not as well-developed as I'd like. I'd rather be fluent in forgiveness. Here I struggle, yet I hope for God to forgive me. 

Struggling Saints

The hymn "For All The Saints" is traditionally sung on All Saints Day, coming soon on the calendar. I have an additional verse that I wrote and privately use in devotions in memory of loved ones now gone. I'd like to share that verse here: 

For all the loved ones lost throughout the years

The struggling saints, their mem'ries washed with tears

Your steadfast mercy banishes our fears

Alleluia! Alleluia!

This year's "loved ones, lost" includes fellow blogger Joseph Hinman. 

How much should Christians accommodate ourselves to the culture?

I plan on material of a more spiritual nature next week. These thoughts on the intersection of faith and culture are possibly specific to modern Western culture -- which is where I live, so no apologies there, but not as timeless as I'd rather.  

---

Whatever the changing cultural understanding may be, it is by definition not timeless truth. 

Each person is part of surrounding culture. We will each be immersed in it, possibly have the culture's definitions of right enmeshed with the Biblical view. Yet it is not our Biblical calling to promote a specific culture, justify it, or entrust our judgment to it, much less award it the same standing as the word of God. We are to be in the world but not of the world: ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven. 

Becoming apologists for the culture surrenders our ability to transform that culture, to be "salt and light". Christians cannot lose our awareness that we live in a fallen world in need of guidance and grace, and that our own culture is no different in that need for redemption. It has always been so, and will be until our Lord's return. Those most devoted to a particular culture are those most at risk of mistaking their culture's values for those of God's kingdom. 

The "cultural understanding" method of accommodating our fallen world carries the temptation to have the world's approval, or to validate ourselves with the approval of those we are called to serve and to guide -- and to challenge, when necessary. One example is in discussions of the beginning of human life, where Christians on both sides have failed to address why there are so many unwanted pregnancies in the first place. This includes our failure as people of God to uphold sustainable lifelong relationships. The culture of hookups is part of the culture of not only self-centeredness but also a culture of loneliness, where relationships are not meaningful or lasting, and "catching feelings" can be an awkward disruption in a shallow existence. The people of God cannot be true to our calling and at the same time enable a stream of tragedies by providing justification. Those at abortion clinics, like those at drug rehab centers and those at homeless shelters, are refugees from a cultural disaster. That cultural disaster, played out in millions of single-life tragedies, was caused largely by Christianity vacating its place in standing opposed to our fallen natures, which always seek to justify ourselves. As people of God, we are not called see our moral imperatives in justifying this state of decay, or to see the ruin as other than tragic and fallen. Our power to transform comes precisely from standing outside the broken system. 

 

But I still haven't found what I'm looking for ...

So many of us spend time online these days. On a hunch, I checked what is the top traffic website in the world. It's google.com. Runners-up are youtube, facebook, instagram, and chatgpt to round out the top 5. The point? We're all searching for something. (The next 10 most-popular sites just confirm that.) 

We're looking for information, looking for a way to pass the time (or fill it meaningfully), looking for friends or family or connection, looking for conversation. 

I think St Augustine had it right: our souls are restless until they rest in God. 

There is a lot of information, but not much wisdom. A lot of people, but not many close friends. A lot of art, but not a lot of beauty or meaning. A lot of dating, but not a lot of love. A lot that we see, but not much that we find worth remembering. 

Christ is content worth finding. Faith, hope, and love are the connections that are worth remembering. Loving God and loving our neighbor, those are goals worthy of our dedication. 

Peace about the unknown future

There is a lot of anxiety in the air about the future. In some ways this is expected because we live in troubled times. Here are some anchors that can help us either see the future or shape the future: 

Trustworthy promises

Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble, but take heart: I have overcome the world."  This is among many promises he gave us. He promised that he would be with us always to the end of the age, and that his life was given as a ransom for the multitudes and as a new covenant for the forgiveness of sins. He promised that he would return after a troublingly long absence to judge the world. 

Planting seeds that grow

The Bible often compares the word of God to a seed that grows and bears fruit, reproducing and multiplying itself as it goes. It is the same for human words too. If we speak the truth with love, there is more truth and love in the world. If we mostly comment on the faults of those we look down on, then by propagating meanness and arrogance we will see an increase of meanness and arrogance. It is not idly that Jesus reminds us that we will give an account for our words, and that we will be judged by the things we ourselves have spoken. There is a proverb that praises someone who speaks kind instruction. If all of Christ's followers join together in this, the change in our culture would be profound. One of the most profound effects we have on the future is the words we speak, along with the spirit in which they are spoken. 

Building what lasts

Another way in which we shape the future is by what we build. This is not limited to buildings. It includes friendships, families, and ties of fellowship. It extends to art, literature, and songs. Some of the songs we sing in our churches have lyrics that have endured for thousands of years. There is art which outlasts nations. 

Whenever the uneasiness of the world casts a shadow that we live in a time that is fading, let me lay up treasures in heaven that last. 

The question "Politically, what side should a Christian take?", carries some traps

I once saw a Christian asking a political question of someone he looked to as spiritual leader. (I would add a disclaimer that the spiritual leader had no official capacity in any church, as far as I know.) He was asking in good faith, trying to discern his way through complicated times, concerned how a certain conflict was being handled by the then-current president. (Nevermind which president that was, so that the scenario could be relevant to anyone.) The answer was another question: Do you support the president? 

Accepting that question into the conversation was a misstep; I'll come back to that. 

The questioner said Yes, he supported the president. And the responder moved on as if that answered the question about the conflict and its handling. In a way it did: unconditional support for a worldly leader, or party, carries risks that people have not always thought through. 

When the question became, "Do you support the president?", the question stopped being, "What is the faithful Christian stance?" A better answer to "Do you support the president?" would be "When I think he's right." That response would have guided the conversation back to relevant territory. I've heard similar questions over the years where "Do you support the party?" was the question that moved the conversation off of meaningful spiritual ground. And many worldly calls to pick a side are baited with pride. 

The question of which political party should guide our spiritual discernment is already on faulty premises. It "looks past the sale," as some would say, about whether a political party should be guiding our spiritual discernment in the first place. Our support of a political party can never bring light to the world. Our insistence on bringing light to the world -- if we seek it first -- might. 

If we try to tie two things together -- faith and politics -- whichever one is more flexible is going to bend. 

To everything there is a season

To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. (Ecclesiastes 3:1)

Ecclesiastes' most famous passage reminds me that there is an appropriate time for so many opposing actions in life, without spelling out for the reader what those may be. 

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. 

This passage is eloquent and beautiful about the times, but does not offer guidance on discerning the times. This leaves us with people who read the times differently: Is it a time to kill or a time to heal? Is it a time to weep or a time to laugh? A time to keep silence or a time to speak? 

I'm looking for more wisdom on that point, and the first step I have spotted is what Paul once said to the church in Corinth: 

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things are not edifying. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's prosperity. ... So whether you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do it all to the glory of God. Give offence to none: neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, that they may be saved. (1 Corinthians 10:23-24, 31-33)

If I am looking to justify myself, I have the easy job of finding a way to justify myself since most things have their season. If I am looking to seek the glory of God, give offense to none, and seek the benefit of others in general, I have a more difficult job. This keeps a godly restraint on the tendency to read the times to justify myself, instead of conducting myself to redeem the times. 

Essential Bible Verses for Social Media Storms

As is my practice in the middle of polarizing and contentious events, this week I will not be posting a "business as usual" post. In some ways this post is a continuation of the post on Essential Bible Verses for Posting on Social Media. 

1. Avoid pouring fuel on the fire (Proverbs 15:1: A gentle answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger). 
2. Give focus to those who are loving and humble. (Ephesians 4:15: Speak the truth with love; Philippians 4:8 whatever is worthy of praise, think on these things.) 
3. Focus on earnest work for peace. (Romans 12:18: As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.)
4. Grieve with those who grieve. (Romans 12:15: "Mourn with those who mourn." There are times when rejoicing is out of place, so the remainder of the verse is not implied by the quotation of the current part.) 
5. Do not believe the first report without reservation, and do not disbelieve a report merely because it differs from a previous report. (Proverbs 18:17: The first to present a case seems right til another comes forward and questions him.) 
6. We are called to be discerning about what we believe. (1 Thessalonians 5:21: Test everything, hold onto what is good.) 
7. We are called to be discerning about what we say. (Ephesians 4:29: Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful in building up others according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.) 
8. Be as unfailingly kind as our humanity can manage. (Ephesians 4:32: Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ has forgiven you.)

Help from the inside: the work of the Holy Spirit

I have been working towards a fuller understanding of the Holy Spirit, beginning with various things the Spirit is credited with accomplishing. 

• The Spirit of God is described as the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord, rejoicing in the presence of God, particularly resting on God's anointed (Isaiah 11:1-3)
• The Holy Spirit is the spirit by which we call God "Abba", "Father" (Romans 8:15, Galatian 4:6)
• The Holy Spirit is particularly credited with fellowship among believers (2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1)
• The Holy Spirit is to lead the apostles into truth (John 16:13)
• The Holy Spirit is known as Comforter or Advocate (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7)
• The Holy Spirit makes intercession for us when we do not know what to pray (Romans 8:26)
• The Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles to supply the words to say during trials (Mark 13:11) and to teach them what to say on those occasions (Luke 12:11-12)

In some ways the Spirit is the least-seen among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Still, in some ways the Spirit is the most intimate: with us, in our hearts, in our minds, living within us and helping from the inside. 

When is "Self-Defense" a deflection from other conversations?

I have heard more than one conversation lately about self-defense, which is natural in the wake of this week's events. While that question is necessary in our fallen world, I've seen it misapplied in various ways. So before taking a look at self-defense, the first step is to be sure that "self-defense" is the topic on the table. 

If the question is about the ethics of self-defense, that question is specifically about defending the self: the one person asking the question. If the person being attacked is responsible for the defense of others, it is no longer a question of self-defense and the person does not have the latitude to decide on personal preference alone. For anyone in a responsible position, there is a duty to protect those under our care. 

Again, if the question is about the ethics of self-defense, that question is about defending from an attack. It does not cover a "pre-emptive strike", something that comes up more often in international conflicts. The question of self-defense does not cover the question of being the initiator. This is not to comment on whether it is ever justified to strike first, but to state plainly that striking first is not a question of self-defense. 

A second moral conundrum

This post responds to a comment from the comments section of the previous post. I thought it deserved a better answer than fit into the comment box. 

There's some similarity between the new conundrum and the previous post's conundrum, "Suppose you have to steal a million dollars to save a life," which seems custom-made to argue from "there are situations where different moral rules are in conflict" to "there is no real right or wrong", and has the options unrealistically limited. If that ever happened in real life, there would be an option to give the money back with interest, plus record the blackmail to show to the police. But that conundrum is artificially gamed to take real-life options off the table. 

The new scenario has a few things in common with that, but at least it's closer to real life. The comment runs: 

Thank you for this post. I'd be happy if you helped me with the following:

A follower of Christ while running away from a war-torn country meets members of a militia who are out to kill religious people and is asked whether he's a Christian. If the militia stay true to their words and kill all who acknowledge religious faith but allow those who deny it to live, should the right response from the Christian after considering the principle you've described be "yes" or "no"?

To the commenter: I'm not sure of your personal backstory so I want to mention: there's no level of "principle" that creates an *obligation* to allow yourself to be killed. That is: in general it is morally required to look for ways to preserve life, while knowingly allowing yourself to be killed is only *acceptable* if better options have been exhausted. ("Heroic sacrifice" scenarios exist, but that's not our scenario here.) When St Paul first faced the option of being killed for his faith, he ran away. (If anyone is not familiar with that, see Acts 9:23-25 and again 2 Corinthians 11:32-33.) Even though St Paul did eventually die for his faith, there were alternatives that first time -- not presented in the conundrum that he was placed in but created by the motivation to preserve life, which is a positive good in general circumstances. 

The commenter mentions considering the principle I've described: the good that's of higher importance or value takes precedence. Notice that everyone does that, regardless which choice they make: If the person values their life over their faith then they will act to make sure they live. Or if the person values their faith over their life then they *might* not act to preserve their life, but they also might go off-script like Paul going over the city wall in a basket, and not play by the script of wannabe murderers. When there are two good things in conflict, we look for ways to preserve both, even if we have to proactively create new alternatives. 

Whenever this kind of thing happens in real life, one factor that comes into play is human weakness. A human being might wish for the courage to stick by their faith but just not have it when the price tag is dying on the spot. Some might also weigh how it would affect their families. The early church had plenty of experience with that. There were people who died for thought-crimes/group membership in various persecutions. But the early church acknowledged the reality that there were people whose courage failed even if their faith was still there, and they would (eventually) forgive people whose nerve failed them when they had the ancient-world equivalent of a gun to their heads. St Peter springs to mind in this connection, who denied knowing Jesus on the night of Jesus' arrest and trial. 

Speaking of artificially limited options, the options would not be limited to answering with the single word "yes" or "no" except to the unimaginative. If we've exhausted our options, and if (as a Christian) the person plans to give an answer that is essentially "yes", they might want to make it count for something rather than simply playing the villains' game. St Paul at his trial said something to the effect, "It is for my faith in the resurrection that I'm on trial." Even on his way out of this world, he was looking to bring that hope to other people around him. Jesus set the example there with some choice answers at his own trial, including "You would have no power over me unless it were given to you from above," "My kingdom is not of this world," "Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to me," and "You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." Sure, those words provide guidance for people wanting to understand his mindset at the moment. But those words also had a way of making the opposition see what they were doing in a new light. Which is the scenic tour of saying: The canned answers of "yes" and "no" are for those too unnerved to think on their feet. Lots of people in that situation find if they're going all the way, they're going to do it with a bang not a whimper. If I were the person in the hypothetical scenario and couldn't find a way to preserve my life, I'd hope to give a "yes" that moved the needle, maybe like: "If by Christian you mean someone who joins God in loving the world, then yes." I'd just hope I could string that many words together if I had that much adrenaline going, and could hope to manage that short version or better. 

Either way they answered in that scenario, they may have missed one of their moral obligations: to be more proactive in stopping people who go around killing others. You mentioned there's a war going so they might be outside any territory where they were a participant in the culture. But if they were still on home turf, regardless of whether the person answered "Yes" or "No", there is some chance they've dropped the ball previously by letting things get to that point. 

A moral conundrum, and Jesus' answer

I recently came across an old post at a skeptic's blog discussing a moral conundrum. There are layers of conversation in that post, which in itself was a response to this very brief hypothetical in moral philosophy, which runs (with one correction to the text): 

Here is an interesting ethical question. Suppose Smith knows for sure that if he steals $1.000,000, Jones will not murder Williams. But if he does not steal $1,000,000, then Jones will murder Williams. If he steals, of course he's a thief, but if he doesn't steal, does that mean he's an accessory before the fact to murder? See what trouble you get into when you ask questions like this to a philosopher?

The conundrum is too far-fetched to be interesting as more than an armchair exercise, but for those interested in armchair exercises, there it is. To me, the more interesting comment is the skeptic's follow-up: 

Why is it a dilemma?  Because to most religious believers, there is apparently no "correct" answer.  Either choice is wrong.  But that simply illustrates a big problem with religious ethical systems in general: they don't work in real life.  The believer sees moral values as being concrete and absolute.  Murder is wrong.  Stealing is wrong.  Period.  In this situation, you'd be wrong, no matter which choice you make.  Under Divine Command Theory, God dictates whether things are right or wrong, but since moral values are absolute, there seems to be no wiggle room.  There is no right thing to do.  In deontological ethics, it is one's duty to follow the rules (as set out by God), but the rules say we shouldn't make either of these choices.  This is indeed a conundrum for the religious believer.  And let me add here that this particular scenario might never occur in real life, but there are many situations where one is faced with a choice between two things that are both considered to be wrong.  In fact, it happens all the time.

The part that troubles me is that there is so clearly a way to resolve it within Christianity (and within Judaism), but this seems relatively unknown in modern discussions. It is covered explicitly in the Bible. It is something that Jesus discussed and the religious philosophers and moralists studied intently. The fact that it could get into a modern discussion as an unexpected twist or unsolvable problem, that is the baffling part. 

Here is a recorded example of Jesus addressing the exact situation where two paths for action are each against a different moral law, and how that is resolved: the greater law is kept and the person is blameless with regards to the lesser law. Let's look at Jesus' comments first, and then some more follow-up: 

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say to you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (Matthew 12:5-6)

Again as part of the same train of thought, later in the same chapter: 

And he said to them, "What man shall there be among you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the sabbath day, will not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath days." (Matthew 12:11-12; same or similar conversation also recorded in Luke 14)

While Jesus teaches that the principle of greater good is in effect, he is hardly breaking new ground here. It's the driving force behind the question of which law is the greatest, since the greater law is the one that takes precedence in case of conflict. Discussions of "Which is the greatest commandment?" are recorded in three of the gospels (see Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27). For those who followed the ethical and philosophical discussions of the day, this was not about which commandments have bragging rights, but about which ones could not be transgressed, which took precedence in case of conflict. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart (etc)" takes the top priority, and "love your neighbor as yourself" takes the next, according to Jesus. 

These are not just philosophers' questions like the murderer-and-thief puzzle. This is the guarantee that conundrums can be resolved without blame, when the lesser commandment yields to the greater. It also upholds the desirability of reconciliation even in cases when there is blame: love is generally the greater law than the one transgressed. 

Farewell to Joseph Hinman

It is with sadness and regret that I pass along news that my blog-brother Joseph Hinman (aka Metacrock) has passed away. He was not only one of the founding members of the Christian CADRE, but the unifier, the recruiter, the one who saw the potential for what we could be and brought us together. The CADRE was originally a group of Christians posting on religious-and-atheist discussion boards, sharing camaraderie and tips for working to spread faith on some boards that had been, previously, dominated by New Atheists (plus on some boards, one intensely polemical anti-Christian Jewish fellow). This was back in the days when major magazines had staff writers who prided themselves on increasing the intensity of their attacks on Christianity with each passing year, and major movie studios would coordinate anti-Christian pieces for public release to coincide with Christmas or the Resurrection. 

The CADRE formed late in the 1990's, seems like it was around 1998 or 1999. Though I left the CADRE back in 2005, I remember the CADRE days fondly as a formative time for both my ability to communicate my faith and my proficiency in addressing questions -- even trick questions / loaded questions -- in ways that could communicate God's grace. The CADRE'S work on message boards did see several active mockers come to faith, causing some shockwaves on those boards, and Joe was the one who organized and unified the CADRE. 

Not only was he dyslexic, but he had struggled for many years with poor health in his adult life, and had survived his twin brother by a number of years. Despite those challenges he ran several websites, published 2 books, and was continually looking for fresh ways to explain to scientific skeptics how the facts as he saw them did provide a rational warrant for belief. 

Joe, thank you for the friendship over the years, and for the joy and fellowship of working with you side-by-side for many years. I remember when your father and my father died within a few days of each other, and we shared a moment that they were meeting each other on the other side. Tell them Hi for me, and save me a seat! 

News was received through BK, another of the original CADRE members, via a post at the CADRE website. 

Christianity in Tolkien: Our fight is not against flesh and blood

In Lord of the Rings, there is a good deal of fighting with battles and armies. Still, the villain of the piece is not physical. The evil of Sauron is physically insubstantial, seen as a great eye wreathed in flame. Sauron dominates his subjects through fear, through manipulation, through temptation, through deceit. The greatest danger from Sauron comes not directly from him, but from those who willingly go along with his agenda to dominate, in the hopes of sharing the spoils or at least being on the winning side. 

Evil can be dangerous and destructive. But I am not aware of any naturally-occurring physical thing that is inherently evil, or where we can point to identify the source of evil. If evil had that kind of physical existence, we could destroy it by physical means. 

So Tolkien portrays a world in which the physical battles must be fought to protect the homes and lives of the free people, but the physical battles will never be fully successful so long as evil remains to go on recruiting and corrupting. The real battle is not against flesh and blood. 

Christianity in Tolkien: The risk of corruption and the hope of redemption

One spiritual insight developed by Tolkien is that everyone is corruptible. In the Lord Of The Rings books, we see the major characters each take their turns interacting with the One Ring, all tempted by it. The wisest of them know that they are corruptible and keep their distance from it. Some of them even get a glimpse of what they might become if they pursue that kind of power. 

Tolkien spends some time developing the theme that anyone could be corrupted. Saruman, former leader of the wizards, betrays Gandalf and joins forces with Sauron. And again Boromir, representative of the strongest kingdom in the alliance of the free lands, is the one who turns on Frodo. Those who trust to their own wisdom and strength have underestimated their opponent. Finally, even long-resilient Frodo falters in his battle with such temptation, being saved not by his exhausted strength but by the result of an earlier moment of compassion. 

By the same token, Tolkien portrays everyone as redeemable, or at least as having moments when they can be reached. Frodo refuses to break ties with Smeagol / Gollum not because of a misplaced trust, but because of the growing realization they are in the same predicament. 

It is easy to let ourselves imagine that we cannot be corrupted (or our heroes cannot be corrupted), or to imagine that anyone who missteps is a villain. In Tolkien's insight, the path forward is humility combined with hope and friendship. 

The underrated deadly sin

The list of "7 deadly sins" -- and the opposite list of divine virtues -- has developed over time. If "Faith, hope, and love" are the theological virtues, then I'd suggest the deadly sins that oppose them are cynicism, despair, and disdain (though some would say greed as the final opposite, if love were translated as charity, and I am an outlier in identifying the opposite of faith as cynicism). Where humility is recognized as a cardinal virtue, pride (arrogance) is its matching deadly sin. Wrath and patience, laziness and diligence are generally recognized as matched pairs of vice and virtue. Lust and chastity are still recognized as a similar pair by the godly. But we have nearly forgotten about gluttony and self-control. 

It's an understatement to say that our culture considers gluttony to be less serious. The culture distrusts self-control itself on the basic level of whether it is good. There is a message running through society that self-control is repressive, stifling, or dishonest. To break our self-control is the general goal of advertising. "Binge-watch" is part of the culture and language. 

In my years in 12-step fellowships, I've met "multiple winners" (people who are in multiple 12-step programs) who have variously lost control of their lives to more than just the usual suspects of alcohol and drugs. I've met people who have lost control of their lives to food, gambling, video games, and shopping. "Their god is their stomach" says Scripture (Philippians 3:19), and that's disturbingly accurate at times. And it's not by accident that part of regaining control of life, in those fellowships, is transferring the role of god to either God or a higher power of personal understanding. Having a connection to God is vital to stopping the idolatry of self that eventually leads to slavery to some appetite or other. The thing about self-control is this: If we aren't controlling ourselves, who is? So today I'd like to place a marker that this is a virtue worth reclaiming, and a value worth having. 

"Praying Like Monks, Living Like Fools"

It's not often that I post about a book. It's not often that I find a new book that says something new enough -- and true enough -- to shift my perspective. On the recommendation of someone at church, I've been reading Praying Like Monks, Living Like Fools by Tyler Staton. I was skeptical of the book at first: it's definitely not written in the same way as books that I've cherished from, say, C.S. Lewis. The author did not invent the modern editorial trend to structure chapters in a way that verges on click-bait; all the same I was only reading it to follow through on a recommendation received. But now and then I'd come across a gem of insight like this one: 

Everything we interact with in this small, cramped, secular world of our own making, we have the potential of mastering. In fact, we must master it quickly in order to survive -- the most efficient route between home and the office, how to move up the ranks at work, how to eat sushi without looking stupid, how to cut across lanes on our bicycles and live to tell the tale. And if we can't master it, we can always avoid it. I'll just change industries, avoid chopsticks, and take an Uber. 

Prayer can't be mastered. Prayer always means submission. To pray is to willingly put ourselves in the unguarded, exposed position. There is no climb. There is no control. There is no mastery. There is only humility and hope. 

To pray is to risk being naive, to risk believing, to risk playing the fool. To pray is to risk trusting someone who might let you down. To pray is to get our hopes up. And we've learned to avoid that. So we avoid prayer. (p. 14)

It's not a scholarly book. It's a book of experience with insight and perspective. I'm still working my way through. It's turning out to be a book where I re-read certain sections because I want to imprint the insights more clearly in my mind. But some of the insights, such as that one, have been very much worth my consideration. 

Resenting religion -- looking for a path forward

I've made no secret that I attend a 12-step recovery group, and that these groups have some interesting tools for self-examination in the recovery toolbox. In every 12-step recovery group I've heard of, resentments are targeted for spiritual cleanup. There are tools for identifying resentments, taking responsibility for any unfinished work, and resolving them. If someone carries a resentment against someone who was a friend, spouse, employer, relative, or any other circumstance, it is expected for the person in recovery to do the hard work of identifying and resolving it with the help of various tools in the program. This is considered necessary for restoring a full and healthy mental state. And people are encouraged to see that a bad experience with one person (friend, spouse, family, or employer) does not mean that they should distrust all friends, all men or all women, all families, all employers, or even continue carrying the grudge. Over-generalization comes easily to us when we have been put at risk, injured, or even slighted -- especially if we were young at the time, with unformed worldviews and minimal skills for resolving things like that. 

But there are some odd exceptions, and religion seems to be one of them. In religion as in other areas of life, problems come up from the flawed people involved. When it comes to religion, a fair number of people enshrine their resentments as a proud part of their worldview. I am not here discussing people who honestly have philosophical objections; that's a separate question that is not before me today. I am discussing times when people are hurt and angry, have long carried a resentment for something from years ago, and direct that resentment against all people of a certain faith or denomination. The various things experienced years ago -- let's give the benefit of the doubt -- may have been worthy of the anger or fear they inspired, may have been just cause for distrust of the people involved. All that is allowed for, in the general cleanup of resentments -- but still recovery usually comes with the expectation that resentments should be addressed and resolved. In other areas of recovery, it is considered a problem to treasure a hurt so that it can be weaponized, especially against people uninvolved in the original situation. It's an escalation beyond what makes sense, though hurt and anger may not follow rational channels. 

The most intense, adamant atheists I've met on discussion boards tended to have fewer philosophical objections and more anger. And anger doesn't resolve for arguing about it. For an outsider, listening and understanding may help the person who is angry. But it may not. For resolving resentments, the person with the resentment needs to see the resentment as a bad thing and participate willingly in resolving it. So long as the resentment has a valued place in the worldview, I have not identified a path forward. Still, a brief survey of social media comments is enough to convince me: it is important that we try to find that path forward. 

Are we "by nature" sinful and unclean?

I belong to a church body that begins each worship service with confession of sins from those who worship, followed by the proclamation of God's forgiveness from the pastor. We have several different formats for the service, and so our confession of sins may be worded slightly differently from one service to the next. In one version, we say we are "by nature" sinful and unclean. This has been a cause for some discussion among the theologians. 

If we are "by nature" sinful and unclean, there are those who see that as indirectly blaming God as creator or criticizing the work of creation. After all, if we are "by nature" sinful, who created that nature? There is an easy-enough response that our current nature is not as God intended, not as we were originally created. Apart from the grace of God, human nature is prone to sin. 

Human nature was never intended to be apart from the grace of God. The relationship of grace between God and man is established in our existence and was never meant to be broken. God, who is present in all things -- who fills all things in every way -- is absent from our thoughts, from our hearts, from our intentions. That is how we are out of step with nature. That is the lack of grace, and why redemption requires God's presence, "God with us", and God's spirit within us. That is what restores the lack inside us, the cure that meets the root cause of the spiritual illness. 

"Thy will be done" is not always about self-sacrifice

"Thy will be done" is a well-known phrase to Christians. It is part of our regular prayers, including the one Jesus taught us: "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven." The same phrase is also famously, heart-wrenchingly part of Jesus' prayer before his arrest: "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." And we often interpret it in that light: no matter how costly, we are to trust God's direction. So we think of what God's will may cost us. 

But it is not always shown that way in Scripture. Jesus also speaks of God's will in terms of the connections it creates, the fellowship it builds: 

"Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Mark 3:35)

And so an act of seeking God's will transforms the situation to where Christ is our brother, and finds us as brothers and sisters to each other. Even an orphan and an only child may find themselves part of a large family in that light. Doing God's will brings us into a preview of the kingdom of heaven, as it begins to foreshadow itself on earth in the fellowship of those united in God's will. Which brings us back: "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." 

There are times when we feel alone, seem alone. It is part of the human condition. The will of God changes that. Being aware of that may make us more eager to welcome it. 

Answering those who have lost their faith

I've had a long-standing interest in answering those who have doubts or questions about their faith. My main focuses are generally Jesus' resurrection, the general integrity of the New Testament gospel accounts, and the problem of evil. But today I have in mind a woman I met who had left the faith for a different kind of reason: two leaders in her church, married to each other, were each having affairs on the side. Of course that doesn't have a direct bearing on whether God exists, or whether Jesus loves her. Even the best of us mere mortals has both good and bad mixed together in us.

But that doesn't really let us off the hook. Not many should be teachers; teachers are held to a higher standard. Their failings will affect people in that way. It's a variation of the problem of evil: how can a 'good' institution allow things like that? How can 'good' people do things like that? For some, it's a short step from taking God's forgiveness for granted to becoming hardened sinners. And if those hardened sinners are teachers, other people find it's a short step out the door, especially if their faith is new and fragile.

Church leaders aren't the only ones in responsible positions. I know people who were turned away from their faith by their parents' mistreatment or hypocrisy.

Here's the thing: If we count ourselves as witnesses for Christ, we're all responsible. I'm not saying that each of us is obligated to become the next great saint (though I suspect that one person the caliber of Saint Francis or Mother Theresa outweighs a dozen of the snide attackers). I'm saying that simply refraining from evil is far more important than we've given it credit for. If we consider ourselves witnesses for Christ -- or if we're the only Christian that someone knows -- we cannot be the one with the temper, the one with the hatred, the one with the arrogance, the one bearing false witness or slandering our neighbor, the one trying to dominate or put down the other person, or the one cheating or stealing or committing adultery.

Because honestly, some of the atheists that I've met have arguments that don't fully make sense or aren't particularly persuasive, and once an objection is answered they simply produce another objection. That's the sign of someone whose real reason is held in reserve or kept protected. May we not be the reason that they have left the faith.

Create in me a clean heart: Digging into David's prayer

I return to King David's prayer of repentance time and again: "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me" (Psalm 51:!0). He captures the human desire so well as we long for a purity and holiness beyond our ability to attain. So I want to consider what a clean heart might look like. 

• A clean heart will be joyful: "Restore unto me the joy of your salvation" (Psalm 51:12)
• A clean heart has rid itself of things that make it unclean: "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice." (Ephesians 4:31)
• A clean heart holds fast to and desires the Spirit of God: "Take not your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11)
• A clean heart desires to be presentable to God: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer." (Psalm 19:14)
• A clean heart is a treasury, carefully filled with treasures: "Therefore every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old." (Matthew 13:52)

So the faithful are careful about repentance, about reading Scripture, studying together, and pursuing wisdom. These are some of the ways we build the treasures in our hearts. 

Seeing the Invisible God: The Holy Spirit in symbols

The Holy Spirit is God's gift to us of himself. This is similar to Christ, as Immanuel. As we cannot see the Spirit, the Bible provides some other symbols to help us understand the Spirit: 

• Wind symbolizes the Holy Spirit: a breath that gives life. 
• A dove symbolizes the Holy Spirit: a creature of the air and relatively untouched by earthly problems, it is gentle, an emblem of peace and hope. Doves were also at times used as a sacrifice. 
• Water symbolizes the Holy Spirit: washing, cleansing, and renewal. We see the Holy Spirit descend on Christ at his baptism with water, and speaking to his disciples about a baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. 
• Fire symbolizes the Holy Spirit: light for wisdom and understanding, counsel and knowledge. While the Psalmist praised the Word of God as "a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," the image used for that light and guidance is that of fire. Fire was associated with courage, empowerment, and freedom from fear. Fire was also used to purify and refine.

Build-A-Bear Deity Kit: Modern Idols

When I was first forming my understanding of the contemporary world, idols were rare in the U.S., at least in the literal sense of the word "idols". Sure, it was easy enough for people to commit idolatry of a certain kind, putting something else in the place of God. But the kind where people constructed something and called it a god and worshipped it, that was rare. 

Again, it has long been a quip -- a barb, a joke -- that people make gods in their own images. Honestly, given how "understanding" works as we fit things into our minds, we could hardly make any other kind of deity than one that is in our own images. The characteristics must be brought from our own minds and our own understanding, and obviously reflect us. But often that had been meant as a critique of limiting our ideas to the ones already found in our own minds. 

What I have seen recently is the idea -- which some people I know take seriously -- that it is desirable to create a god in our own image based on what we wish that god would be. I have a friend who was  invited to create her own idea of God based on her own needs and preferences, who thought it was exhilarating to be free from all constraints and have a god about whom she had no doubts or reservations. There was even a paper-and-pencil exercise where she decided the traits and characteristics she desired her god to have, based on some reflective journaling. It didn't even seem strange to her. The awareness that she just made it up wasn't seen as a problem. It does not bother her that she prays to a god that she drafted in a journaling exercise. That this deity would never be able to have any insight for her, beyond what she had given it, would be a problem for another day (if ever). I can hope that her understanding of God retains some roots, though there is no guarantee of it. 

We all have misunderstandings of God. When the infinite God meets our finite minds, our mental images are all incomplete. But usually not intentionally so, or with disregard for the best common experiences of humanity through the ages. 

Our culture's relationship to truth and objectivity has changed much in recent years. As BK was posting over at CADRE Comments, there are new challenges calling us forward. 

Genealogies (in Scripture and elsewhere)

When I was a child, my grandparents would try to interest me in the family tree. They would tell me the names of generations who had died before I was born. And at the time I had no interest, much to my regret now. Because time has changed my perspective on that, and more strongly as I have recently sorted through old family photos trying to identify who was who, and how to view old 35mm slides, and how to figure who was the photographer of various scenes. 

As I child I used to see that kind of thing as belonging to an irrelevant past, what I now think of as lost treasure. My grandparents weren't telling me of irrelevancies, they were telling me about their own parents and grandparents and before. I began to feel it more strongly when my father died: that he had become one of the names on a list, memories that lived only in certain people. And it grew on me that all those names from before were my people, my family that I had never met. They are a missing piece of my puzzle. And I am a vital link in their future, as they were for the generations before them. 

The cultures that value genealogy -- such as the Hebrews -- may resonate more strongly than I do with seeing the endless lists of people. And as the years go by, the lists of names even in Scripture become more meaningful to me. The lives, the eras, the stories of how they managed, are a treasure. 

When we forget or devalue the past, we lose part of ourselves. But it can be found again. 

Love hopes all things

When I was a child I spoke as a child. I understood as a child. I reasoned as a child. When I was grown, I put away childish things. Now we see as through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am known. And faith, hope, and love remain, these three. But the greatest of these is love. (Paul, 1 Cor 13:11-13)

In Paul's much-quoted passage about spiritual gifts and spiritual maturity, I do not always credit that faith, hope, and love are seen as having the most potential for maturity in our spirituality. When it comes to hope, it's easy for me to get caught up in what I see: it's not necessarily cause for hope. But "we see as through a glass, darkly." I don't see everything there is to see, and what I do see isn't always seen clearly. And I get caught up in what I know. "I know in part," and tend to forget how much can be missed. 

Earlier, Paul had mentioned some characteristics of love. It included: "Love hopes all things." I can become resigned or even cynical, in a distrust of hope. I can tell myself that the lack of hope is realism. If so, it's a kind of "realism" which overlooks the reality that a situation might be transformed. I can assume that "what we see now" and "what we know now" is the final word, forgetting the limits of what we see and what we know. If "love hopes all things", then it is right that I allow myself to hope the best for all people, even if hope seems like a longshot. 

Forgiveness and Restored Fellowship

Lately I have heard more than one person proudly announce forgiveness by saying something along these lines: "I'll forgive so that I am not burdened," without any plans to reconcile. They may also mention that harboring a grudge is like drinking a poison and hoping the other person dies, and so they stop drinking the poison. (From the tone of voice, they may still wish the other person dies.) 

And yet forgiveness, as we know it from God, is a forgiveness that does not write off the relationship. God's forgiveness always hoped we would not die ("takes no pleasure in the death of the sinner"). God's forgiveness is not for personal peace-of-mind, to get away from the uncomfortable feeling of being mindful of a wrong toward him. God's forgiveness is not a detachment but a reconciliation. So forgiveness from God is not merely the end of resentment, but the renewal of the relationship. 

Of course it takes two to reconcile. That said: a mere detachment cannot lead to reconciliation; it never sought it in the first place. In that way, detachment can resemble condemnation more than it resembles forgiveness in the Christian sense. 

With detachment alone, the natural outcome is that people become more and more disconnected, more isolated. To build fellowship and community, it's necessary to reconnect. It's harder work, but it is how God forgives us. 

Whatever is worthy of praise, think on these things

In this world, there is an element of wonder and awe, the sense of possibility, an invitation to playfulness. One of my most-cherished artists is a street artist named David Zinn. For the most part, he's a street artist / chalk artist who specializes in adding a touch of fun to public spaces. Here is a piece he did that is part street art and part homage to M.C. Escher: 

If anyone could use a moment of delight in the goodness of the world, thinking on things that are worthy of praise, I find David Zinn's art to be worthy of consideration. 

James 3: how different section headings would lead to a different understanding

In many Bibles, there are section headings which are not in the original text. They are added by the publisher as an aid to study and understanding. I find those headings helpful when I am scanning a hardcopy for a particular passage. But the section headings can hide connections. (Chapter breaks, likewise added after the original text was written, share the same risk.)  

While studying the book of James, in Chapter 3 in my hardcopy there are 2 sections: "Taming the Tongue" (3:1-3:12), and "Two Kinds of Wisdom" (3:13-3:18). And yet, there is a chance that the chapter is meant as single unit. Consider that 3:1 may set forward the topic for the whole chapter: Cautions for teachers. That first verse says plainly, "Not many should be teachers, knowing that we shall be judged more strictly." From that point of view, "taming the tongue" and "two kinds of wisdom" can be understood as topics specially applicable to teachers, who spend so much time speaking, striving for wisdom, and hoping to communicate something useful. In "taming the tongue" there are warnings against speech that is incendiary or inflammatory, against speech that curses others. In "two kinds of wisdom" there is a contrast between worldly wisdom -- where someone might boast or use their smarts in service of selfish ambition -- and wisdom from above which is more focused on peace and, through peace, cultivating a harvest of righteousness. The wisdom from above employs the teacher's humility to help the learners and beyond. 

And so when we open our mouths to teach, all of those warnings and instructions may have been meant for just that moment. 

Christ is risen!

He is risen indeed. Alleluia! 

Blessing to all on your celebrations of Jesus' resurrection: God's promise to us that our own lives are not in vain. 

Grappling with Christ's sacrifice

The ancient sacrificial system makes little sense to me. I cannot relate to the idea of bringing goats or pigeons as an act of atonement. 

But I can relate to the idea of being in deep regret or shame, and wanting to bargain my way out of it, make some kind of substitution, any kind of substitution. What about one of those moments in life that I'd give anything to take it back? I can imagine myself bargaining ... "Anything, I see how wrong it is but there's no way to take it back. Just don't let that ruin everything!" Some people say that bargaining like that is futile, but is it? What if God said "Okay"? What if God took the deal with one condition: He would pay the price instead. 

In some ways, the question of "How could a good God allow evil?" is the question how a good God could allow agency to people who are so flawed. I've heard skeptics and scoffers list their reasons to disbelieve in God, and they are often lists of things that humans do to each other. Even on that level, God bears the shame of any wrong I've done. 

May I consider, in those moments where I feel that urge to bargain away my regrets, that God accepted. 

The Stone The Builders Rejected

During the season of Lent, we remember the events leading up to Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus proclaimed himself as the fulfillment of the prophecy of the stone that was rejected by the builders, the one that still becomes the cornerstone. All of us are builders in some way. So I'd like to consider how that warning would apply across the years to us today. 

• When Jesus proclaimed forgiveness, the leaders' reaction stemmed from not knowing who Jesus was: No one can forgive sins but God alone. Or is it that on some level, leaders -- or anyone else -- can gain power by not forgiving others? When we find fault with others, our human desire is not always the good, but the desire to elevate ourselves or put down someone else. Forgiveness can rob us of a weapon. 
• When Jesus cleansed the Temple of merchants to restore it as a house of prayer, the leaders' reaction revealed that they had lost sight of the holiness of the Temple. In the aftermath, the verbal sparring showed that these particular leaders had stopped seeking truth about certain things, and had begun using knowledge (and strategic ignorance) as pawns. It had become more important to them to maintain power, prestige, and legitimacy. Those are necessary, aren't they? But it becomes part of that human picture that we are willing to gain our own prestige at others' expense. If Jesus is the cornerstone, then we are not. Our efforts -- along with our demands for prestige -- are not as vital as we would like to think. Very human to resist. 

The temptations that led his accusers astray were temptations common to us all. 

The Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son: Different approaches for different absences

I've heard the parable of the Prodigal Son preached roughly every 3 years, and so I expect I've heard at least a dozen sermons on the text. Today I heard a new insight I had never heard before. 

The parable of the Lost Sheep -- shortly before the Prodigal Son, and part of the same conversation -- describes a shepherd who has 100 sheep until one wanders off and becomes lost. The shepherd seeks the lost sheep tirelessly until he finds it and safely returns the sheep to the flock. 

The parable of the Prodigal Son describes a young man who demands his inheritance from his still-living father, leaves home, and squanders his inheritance. After losing everything and nearly starving, he comes back home humbly. While he was still a way off, his father sees him and runs to him and welcomes him. 

The sheep who went astray was clueless and foolish. He may not have left intentionally. His separation may have been as simple as not knowing how to find his way back. The shepherd went out looking for him. 

The son who went astray acted in coldness, possibly even malice in demanding an inheritance while his father was still alive. The father did not leave everything and go looking for him. Instead, the father waited until the son came back home, and went out to meet him after he had turned back the right direction and was ready to head home. 

Those parables show the constancy of God's love and the constancy of the rejoicing in heaven over everyone who returns home safely. They also show different approaches to those who left cluelessly and those who turned away spitefully. The desire to have the lost one back is the same. But for someone who left intentionally, there may be no gain in seeking their return until they want to return. The thing that moves the prodigal son to come back is partly his hardship and his hunger. It's also partly knowing that his father loves him very much, having no doubt his father would welcome him back. The groundwork for the prodigal son's return happened before he left. 

"Purple Heart" in life

"Bear each others' burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2)

Each Lent, it's useful to me to take up a spiritual reflection. This year I have been trying to become more aware of the burdens that other people carry. It helps me be more loving to them, more considerate, less likely to be impatient or critical. And how can we "bear each others' burdens" without knowing them? 

When a soldier has been wounded, they may be considered for a Purple Heart -- a medal that recognizes an injury received, and in general injuries are not forgotten. Life in general has no Purple Heart -- at least not officially. And yet life is full of "walking wounded" who may not get recognition, honor, or respect for what they have endured. When I find myself tending toward critical thoughts of someone, it's helpful to run through the Purple Hearts they have earned in life, whether struggles with illness, disability, loss, or any other hardship. 

May I slow down my critical thoughts, and respect and honor people for the hardships they have faced. That is one help in bearing each others' burdens. 

Forgiveness versus Excuses

I've begun to think we may not always "forgive" when we think we have forgiven someone. Speaking for myself, I'm more likely to have excused them -- that is, I have found an excuse that I found acceptable and so what was done was not really wrong, all things considered. Or I've evaluated a hurt as too small to worry about, and given it a pass. "It's not wrong enough to worry about." And it may be true, but it's also not forgiveness. 

When I'm the one in the wrong, my first try is usually for a pass (not wrong enough to worry about) or an excuse (there was a good enough reason or a greater good, so not really wrong). It's when there is no excuse that I need to squarely face the idea of forgiveness. The distinction is important because if all my thoughts of forgiveness are tangled in with thoughts of "accepting an excuse", then any talk of forgiveness can seem like excusing the inexcusable.  If my thoughts of forgiveness are tangled in with thoughts of "give it a pass" then any talk of forgiveness seems like claiming the problem isn't worth worrying about. And so forgiveness itself can look offensive or immoral, if it's considered to be no different than giving a pass or making excuses. 

Forgiveness -- as opposed to accepting excuses -- only comes into the picture when there is no way to give something a pass, no excuse that can be accepted. Forgiveness comes into the picture when there are human beings in that situation, who have done things that cannot be excused. Forgiveness comes into the picture when I realize I am one of those people too. When I sing "Amazing Grace" I sing it for me. I have real faults, not just resume faults. 

With that in mind, if someone is trying for redemption, let me not be the undertow dragging them back. If someone has gotten to the point of acknowledging they do not deserve a pass, and they do not have an excuse, then there might be redemption. 

"Even the demons believe in God" (James 2:19)

The new pastor of my congregation asked an interesting thought-question recently: If the demons believe in God, what exactly do they believe about him? 

• They believe that God exists (James 2:19)
• They believe that Jesus is the Holy One of God (Luke 4:34)
• They believe that God will bring an end to their evil reign (Luke 4:34)
• But they do not work for mercy; they are "the accuser" (Revelation 12:10)

When we accuse each other -- even with cause -- we often do the work of the opposition. 

Wisdom's truest treasure

There was a song sung by my Christian college group, "Lord, you are ... ". I always liked that song and have kept it as part of my devotions over the years. I've added a new verse, privately, and thought I might put it here: 

Lord, you are wisdom's truest treasure

Seeking you rekindles our hope

Loving you refills our hearts full measure

Our hearts are restless til they rest in you

For those familiar: Yes, that last line is based on St Augustine. 

Salt and light: Being countercultural in a good way

"You are the salt of the earth ... you are the light of the world." -- Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught us plenty of ways to be salt and light in the world: from reconciling with our neighbors, to not insulting them, to blessing those who curse us and praying for those who persecute us, to greeting people regardless of whether there is an expectation of return. 

In our current culture, reverence and respect are also counter-cultural. When someone calls humor "irreverent", it is meant as a compliment. There is an entire genre of comedy devoted to insults and put-downs. Public dialog is often mean-spirited and rude. There are some easy opportunities for us to be light in a dark time by simply not participating in the casual cruelty of our age. 

"Do not judge, lest you be judged" - We are often rushed to approve or condemn based on slim amounts of questionable information. May I not take the bait. 

"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us" - Our current culture seems to delight in finding fault. I would have so few friends if people treated me in the same way. 

These are just some private ponderings on how to follow through on what we have been taught. Thanks for your patience in reading!

The Sabbath - beyond "should I or shouldn't I?"

When we Christians discuss the Sabbath, the conversations usually follow predictable paths. Does it apply to Gentiles? Does it apply to Christians? Does it apply under the New Covenant? Does our observance (or non-observance) come from faith and from honest conviction? Are we fully persuaded in our own minds, with a clean conscience? Those are all good and useful questions. They also share a certain focus: Are we doing what God requires? Again, no objection to the question whether we're doing what God requires. There's just more to the picture that tends not to be considered in the conversation. 

A good command is not arbitrary. It is part of a bigger picture. There is a spirit of the law in addition to the letter of the law. This post is not written with the intent to persuade anyone to change their mind on whether or not to keep the letter of the law. It is to expand the focus, to re-introduce the spirit of the law. 

For instance, there are laws such as "You shall not steal" and "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor." The spirit of these laws can be summed up as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The spirit of the law is higher and deeper and more resonant than the letter of the law, and is the motivating force that shapes the letter of the law. The spirit of the law of course includes the specific ways we do not take advantage of our neighbor; rightly done it also moves us to love our neighbor. 

The Sabbath holds a unique place among the commandments given at Sinai. It is the only one of the ten commandments given about how we use our time. It is the only one of the ten commandments given about ensuring that workers and even working animals are not over-worked. Jesus taught that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." The book of Exodus refers to the time of creation, that on the seventh day God rested: it is the day in which God is said to have delighted in the world, remarking that all of creation is very good in every way. It is made for us as a blessing and a gift. 

Consider too how often the Old Testament uses numbers symbolically. In that symbolism the number 7 is associated with an appointed time for blessing, rest, and celebration. Each week the seventh day is blessed with rest and holiness. Each year, the seventh month is blessed with the Day of Atonement,. As time continues, the seventh year is a sabbath rest for the land which is not cultivated during the year. Further, after the 7 x 7th year, the next year is a Jubilee year associated with forgiveness of debts and with restoration of property that has been lost to the larger family over the years: whether the family loss was through misfortune or mismanagement, the loss is restored in God's appointed time. In the book of Daniel, 70 x 7 years is the designated time of waiting for the Messiah, with days of restoration. 

When we remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy, we often think in terms of refraining from mundane work. And sometimes I'll see a bumper sticker that tells us, if we like weekends, to thank labor unions. If we like weekends, I'd rather thank organized religion. Yet the non-work that generally fills weekends isn't necessarily remembering the Sabbath or keeping it holy. Holiness, in Scripture, is more than mere separation. It has to do with what is designated for the beauty and holiness of God, for the presence of God which is accompanied by blessing and restoration and renewal. 

How could a loving God ... ?

Today in Bible class someone was discussing a child who had died in a plane crash; those following current events this week will be familiar with it. While we may grieve less over the loss of someone who is old, the death of a child is always seen as a tragedy. And someone in class had been faced with the question, "How can God let that happen?" 

To be clear, the questioner was not directly affected by the loss of the unknown child, but was affected by the fact that we live in a broken world. I don't think we go wrong there to express confidence in God's goodness, in God's love. God raises the dead. 

When we speak to those directly affected: we mourn with those who mourn. When we speak to those not directly affected but who are troubled by the tragedy -- and when we too are naturally troubled by tragedy -- the time may come sooner to remember God's faithfulness to the world he made. 

Making all things new

In this new year, I wanted to ponder the Scriptures that talk about new things. While the book of Ecclesiastes may mention "There is nothing new under the sun," the Bible's overarching theme is about renewal, as the Bible's finale is the promise of a new beginning with a new heaven, a new earth, and God making all things new. Here is a quick look at the main "new" things that are discussed in scripture: 

• a new house is dedicated to God
• with the new moon there would be feasts
• new wine was a cause for rejoicing, and needed special handling
• a new covenant, with a new heart and a new commandment
• singing to the Lord a new song
• a new heaven and a new earth
• in which we are given a new name

Here is a word cloud of verses discussing "new": 

appointed (7) away (9) behold (12) blood (6) bring (6) burnt (11) burst (5) cart (6) commandment (9) covenant (9) create (5) days (5) declares (5) destroyed (5) drink (9) earth (9) feasts (15) flesh (6) forth (6) garment (6) gate (5) give (11) god (20) grain (15) heart (7) heaven (9) holy (5) house (22) israel (10) king (6) lord (35) man (8) moon (28) name (8) offerings (37) opened (6) pass (5) people (6) regular (5) sabbath (16) saying (7) sing (8) skins (5) son (5) song (11) spirit (8) things (9) wine (20) wineskins (8) writing (5)

created at TagCrowd.com