Do We Misrepresent God?

There are so very many uplifting and encouraging Scripture verses...

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

"If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, nothing shall be impossible unto you."

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you."

They're wonderful, but often they don't work. We can't do all things, and much that we would like to accomplish remains out of reach.

And some doors stay closed, and we are given a stone rather than a loaf.

Many new Christians see the dichotomy, and look at preachers who see God's favor in obtaining a preferred parking spot, and conclude that Christianity is a sham. They drift away to Eastern religion, to New Age, or to an unfocused agnosticism.

Are we using "sound bite Scripture" to misrepresent God? Are we replacing the Man of Sorrows with Hello Kitty?

Sometimes, perhaps we are.

"Doing all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" means that one can do all through Christ who strengthens us. But Jesus was not a frivolous Savior, dispensing strength for whatever one wanted. He dispensed, and still gives, the kind of strength He needed to survive Calvary.

Not to swing a lucrative business deal

And the mustard seed...the point, I think, is that we don't have that perfect faith possessed by a seed. Through Adam's sin we have doubt mixed with our faith - always.

We can't move mountains just because we say, "Move!"

And when we ask, what are we asking for? Are we looking for grace, seeking after salvation, or are we using this passage as justification for "blab it and grab it"?

Are we knocking on the door to God's heart, or the door to the Ferrari dealership? Will He open both? Or does the door we choose make all the difference in the world?

The Bible isn't a collection of magic spells, and our wildest temporal dreams won't come true if we just believe hard enough.

It 's a guide to Salvation, and the path has been made for us. But those aren't the tracks of Air Jordans, and the aroma we smell is not Vera Wang for Men.

We walk in the path trodden by bare feet, weighted down by a Cross

What we smell is blood.

That's Christianity.

Not That Kind of God

Today I heard something on Family Life Radio that floored me.

It was a radio show intended for children - the scene that was set was a young woman whose mother died, being 'comforted' by a male friend with a goofy voice.

The young woman was wondering why there is so much suffering, and her 'friend' said that, well, if we didn't suffer, we wouldn't know what life was like when it was good.

He used the analogy of coming out of the water after swimming, in a chilly, clammy bathing suit, and then changing into nice cozy warm dry clothes. You wouldn't be able to appreciate the warm clothes unless you'd been uncomfortable before.

Perhaps that works for swimming.

But for someone who lost a parent, that explanation makes as much sense as chopping someone's leg off so that they could fully enjoy a lollipop later.

Losing a parent is a permanent, life-changing scar. To compare it to swimming, and to further turn it into a salutary lesson, is simply obscene.

The God of the New Testament wept at death, even though He knew it would all be set right. He knew that we'd hurt, and that even though the separation wasn't permanent, it would sometimes seem that way to us.

He grieved with us, and didn't try to turn it into a Bible School discussion topic.

Everyone has a bad day, but FLR sure spiked their own end zone on that one.

Searching For An Identity

 A few years ago I set out to find myself.

But I wasn't there. (Groan.)

Who am I, really? The question's important, in a practical sense, because it defines how we live our lives. It shapes what we say, and to whom we say it.

It points us toward the career we'll have - or the series of jobs. Who we'll marry, or who we'll leave.

But it seems to be getting hard for most people to answer. So they address it with externals.

Like dress. People who haven't been near a locker room for years wear jerseys with their favorite athlete's name, and a cap with the team logo.

Churchgoers wear military camouflage, uniforms they haven't earned, save for the money they spent to buy it.

And message t-shirts. "No Fear" was popular awhile back. But it's a meaningless moto slogan, for there are truly terrifying things out there.

Tattoos. Once the province of sailors, tattoos have become middle-class. I guess it's because they're safer. Did you know that in the early 20th century a seaman in the US Navy who became ill from a tattoo had to pay for his own treatment...and could be discharged?

But what drives people to disfigure the bodies that God gave them? And yes, I meant disfigure. Do you think Paul's guidelines for dress in church, and for Christians in general, would include tats?

If I wore a bone through my nose, some people would say it was an improvement...no, sorry, I mean most would say I looked like an idiot, and it was inappropriate to have something big stuck through my schnozz.

And having a few hundred ink-bearing punctures of your skin is ok?

So...why?

I think it's a search for identity. We live in a world we can't comprehend, not really. I have a PhD in engineering, and wrote some pretty sophisticated structural analysis software. But I don't know how the Internet really works, or how this word processing program in Blogger works.

I can't fix our car. If I try, I'll just screw up the computer.

Everything that defines me as an individual seems to be available online, or stored in government or business memory banks.

And there's no control. Unless I hide cash in a mattress, it's only available to me at a bank's pleasure. If the electronics don't work, the money can be gone, or stripped from my account by someone on a foreign shore.

Or by my own government.

A world we don't understand owns us, and that feels bad. So we fight back the only way we know how, by synthesizing an identity. We wear certain clothes, tattoo ourselves, use jargon that makes us 'hip' in a constant effort do define who we are. "Yo, dawg," sounds fine in Compton. It sounds moronic in Olathe, Kansas.

Takes a lot of effort. A lot of unnecessary effort, really.

Because the only definition we need is that we were created, individually, by a God who loves us just as we are. We're not fooling Him with our posturing, and we're not impressing Him, save for our more outlandish antics which might make Him roll His eyes.

Why isn't that enough?

Because, I think, we secretly wonder if He's there at all. We're hedging our bets, to make ourselves little stand-in gods.

So much for faith.

Why Do We Love To Hate?

If you watch one of the Trinity Broadcasting channels for long enough, you're sure to hear something like this:

"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim."

"The Antichrist will be Muslim."

"One glorious day the Mosque of Mullah Omar will be swept away (from Jerusalem's Temple Mount) and the Third Temple will take its place."

It seems that a lot of influential Christians really don't like Muslims.

In fact, most Muslims just want to live in peace, and abhor terrorism (and jihad reders, strictly speaking, to an inner struggle for faith in each believer).

We don't know who the Antichrist will be.

And I rather doubt that it's within Jesus' Great Commandment to gleefully look forward to the day that a structure important to many people of a different faith will be destroyed.

But why the emphasis on hatred? Why are we singling out a certain group as the people we love to hate?

It's happened before. A few generations ago, most terrorists were Irish, and yes, the Irish were hated by many Britons.

The Native American was respected until he was in the way of Manifest Destiny, and then turned into a hated enemy.

And the Jews...treated with careless disdain in most Western countries (including our own), and slaughtered in Russia and Germany.

Is it that we are unsure of our own 'goodness', and need to find someone 'worse' than we are, even if we have to create a fiction to justify it?

Or is it that we're so in love with the 'good vs. evil' conflict that we have to keep it going? In support of this...look at the writers who have "villains you love to hate". Characters whose death you're expected to applaud. Does this teach us that hating the 'bad guy', and delighting in his pain, is ok?

Or, most horribly, is it that we're simply bored, and we need to find someone in whose pursuit and killing we can take vicarious pleasure as spectators?

Are we the New Romans, enjoying refreshments while our lions devour the flavor-of-the-week?

We have to look at our hearts, and the people who guide our faith, very carefully. Most people, Christian or no, are about halfway between good and awful.

And to drag out an overworked cliche, we all cry when hurt.

And we all bleed red.

And no one, not even the worst villain, falls dead from a bullet to the heart.

They whimper, and struggle, and call out to their mothers.

Hatred is a choice. Free will. Yes or no.

Where do you stand?

But What About the Sabbath?

Recently I did something I almost never do. I called in on a radio talk show.

The station was one of the syndicated Christian broadcasters, and the program was hosted by a very prominent preacher. I got through, and felt honored.

The man was talking about the Sabbath, and decrying the fact that we have a 7-day-a-week economy. He felt that pretty much everything should close down on Sunday, in obedience to the Lord's command.

He made an exception for police, firefighters, medical staff, and the armed forces. Nice of him.

I have a neighbor who's a cop. When he's on patrol, sometimes he just needs to step into a McDonald's, use the necessities, and get some hot, fresh coffee and something to eat.

I said as much to the Radio preacher, and his comment was, "Well, on the Sabbath he can pack a thermos and a lunch."

And what about the people who work six days (or seven days!) a week at two jobs, and a few hours on Sunday are the only ones they have to spend with their families. A trip to an ice cream parlor can be a big deal for a kid.

Radio Preacher said, "They should go to church, and then spend family time at home." Then he hung up.

Personally, I found his attitude offensive. We live in a world in which we demand that many services are on call whenever we want them, and Christians are no exception. To demand that everyone follow the same calendar of work and rest is unrealistic at best, and hypocritical at worst.

There's no question that we should have a day of rest, reflection, and worship. But there's nothing magical about Sunday except for the fact that most church services happen then.

If your day off is Monday, you may not be able to attend your local church (you can watch worship on TBN), but you can spend time with the Lord in Scripture.

Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for us, and not we for it. Perhaps we should take his advice.

Do You Really Want a Christian America?

Most Christians would jump at the chance to make the United States a 'truly Christian nation'.

But I suspect that many of these have never really thought it through. They see the abolition of gay marriage and the re-institution of school prayer as prime goals, along with the teaching of Biblical Creation.

But there's more. A lot more. Christianity isn't a buffet. It's more like swallowing a whole cow.

First...parts of the system would look decidedly Communist. When the Apostles got together and established a community after Jesus' Ascension, the members gave Peter and the other leaders the money they got from selling their property...and were given that which they required for their daily needs. No less, but no more.

However, it would hardly be a welfare state, because if a person capable of working chose not to...then no food. But those who couldn't work due to age or illness would be treated with love and respect, not merely fobbed off with a pittance and warehoused in 'facilities'. In a Christian society visiting the old and the sick, to improve their lives and keep them active and happy, would be a must. So much for sleeping in on Saturday.

You might be driving something different, too, because borrowing more than you could afford to pay back would not happen. It's questionable as to whether any borrowing would be permissible, but Jesus was nothing if not practical, and one imagines that He would recognize that you need some kind of house (mortgage) and some kind of car.

A lot more double-wides than suburban showpieces, and a lot more VWs than Volvos.

But don't spend that Christian Dividend from lower mortgage and car payments just yet, because you've still got to give 10% off the top...of your gross income. Many of the other taxes would probably remain. Have to pay teachers and police and firemen and the military somehow.

And...bye-bye bling and muscle shirts and low-cut blouses and Air Jordans. We're dressing modestly, now. But maybe you can keep the Air Jordans if you're a basketball player.

Pornography would disappear, but so would a lot of television shows and movies that you may now enjoy. Decency standards would discourage looking with lust on another woman...

And there goes the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

Your kids would learn to be a lot more respectful. Hooray!

So would you, to duly elected officials, your parents, your neighbors...

Uh, yay? Sorry, couldn't quite hear you.

We could go on, but I think you get the idea. A Christian nation would be very different, and would feel quite confining in many ways.

It would be hell for the very rich, and a paradise for the working poor.

Is this what you want?

Fist of Jesus

Many years ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I faced a WWJD question.

A vacationing couple had taken a wrong turn at night, and met up with the wrong 'local'.

I was there, too. I corrected the situation.

What would Jesus have done? I won't presume to speak for Him, but I did note, mentally, that He was less than polite with the moneychangers in the temple. He convinced them to remove themselves. With a whip.

It seems that too often, we, as Christians, assume we have to pick up the pieces after something horrible is done. That's necessary, of course...providing aid and succor to the persecuted and displaced from Bosnia to Rwanda is a noble undertaking, and certainly within the Christian purview.

But should we do more? Is it enough to bandage the burns of those who are singed by the fires of Hell, or is it time to think about putting those fires out, at least where we live?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Helping the hurt is certainly not 'doing nothing', but is it enough?

The answer I'm driving at - protecting the innocent directly, with appropriate force - presents a host of moral (and legal!) questions. But if we're serious about mobilizing our faith in action, I think we've got to at least consider the possibility.

Because, frankly, the secular world ain't cuttin' it.

Jesus said, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

I thought about that for awhile, and came up with three talking points...

1. It's better than dying in bed.
2. Heaven isn't a bad destination, even if it's premature.
3. I didn't use a sword.