Have you ever thought how easy it is to get complacent? How easy it is to go from brightly burning, on-fire passion and action for God to doing church-ly, American christianism-ly stuff and accepting it as your daily dose of doing something Godly?
Let me share from my own life.
Up until approximately 3 weeks ago, I had a vibrant, thriving devotional time in which I was becoming more on fire for God. I was reading Acts. I was reading Radical, by David Platt. I was becoming increasingly on fire for God in a counter-culture way. I was becoming more aware of the state of what I've come to call cultural christianity or American christianism instead of Christianity. I was, to use the popular vernacular, becoming woke to the reality of the urgency, direction, and mission of genuine, Biblical Christianity.
Then life happened.
My father-in-law unexpectedly passed away.
We traveled to be with family, to help put affairs in order, to be present for the visitation, to be at the funeral.
Not to mention my wife was 28-29 weeks pregnant at the time and we were preparing for the baby shower shortly after the funeral.
And we've had visitors at the house for a few days after the shower.
On top of having clinical rotations and exams for school
There's been life piling up and my time with God has been pushed to the back burner.
Fast forward to today.
I'm continuing in the exact same readings I have been doing and it's just not hitting me the same way. I see the words on the page and I'm just mentally bobbing my head, thinking "mmhmm," like a drowsy Baptist deacon during the sermon, whereupon the realisation hits me of where I am, leading me to reflect.
Without thinking, I respond to myself in defense that I'm still doing the various Godly things in my life that I'm supposed to do, when I realise that I'm not. What I've been doing and the way I've been acting is about a Godly and Christian as gun rights and school choice - which is to say, more American conservative than Christian. In the span of 3 weeks, particularly the last week, I have slid unwittingly from having the mind, heart, and passion of Christ, to having the mind, heart, and passion of the American dream.
The moral of this story, then, is to be on guard. The enemy has a clever deception in American christianism. From outward appearances, it has the perception of Christianity, as our culture falsely perceives Christianity, without the actual truth of Christianity. It is that form of godliness covering worldliness that Paul warns Timothy against and which we must stay on guard against. It is a subtle poison, pervasive and insidious in its effects.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Addressing the Alt-Riot
To provide a little background for those who may not have seen the news, last night there was a riot and counter-riot in Charlottesville, VA, a city ~ 1 hr away from me. It made the news in part because it was another Alt-Right riot and in part because, in combination with counter-riot protests, it got ugly.
This morning, as I opened my Facebook and saw the news, I grieved a little. I saw the rightful denouncement of this event by a local pastor. I saw the urging of a seminarian for White conservative Christians to speak out against the Alt-Right. I also saw the news articles themselves and something there stood out to me.
In amongst the list of slogans chanted was one phrase that stood out to me as the real heart of the movement:
You are not being replaced.
Just because our society seeks to uplift members of our society who were previously denied any affirmation, exhortation, or agency does not mean that our society says we are now worthless. To put it another way, if my boss decides to praise my coworker for something he or she did, that does not mean that I am inferior.
To celebrate Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian history and culture does not mean our White history and culture is irrelevant. We need to instead change the view that we don't have any history and culture, that White American culture is null or nonexistent and that any celebration of a culture not our own erases any presence of our "non-culture" or "non-history."
To use an analogy, it's like trying to draw with a white crayon on white paper - of course it's not visible, unlike the black, brown, green, red, or other coloured crayons, which can lead to the perspective that the white paper is being covered over or drowned out by these other colours. At the same time, if we were to use a black piece of paper, the black crayon would be equally invisible. We need to stop looking at the white crayon on the white paper and see the white crayon in the box with the other crayons.
Practically, that means we need to actually look at our American culture and see where our Whiteness is distinct from it.
That means celebrating White heroes and historical figures who were a force for good.
That means remembering the acts and misdeeds of White men and women who wrought much evil.
That means celebrating our white quirks, many of them regional, like the fact that some of us are so white we need "moonscreen", or embracing the dad jokes and polos tucked into khaki shorts.
Until we can recognise and embrace both the positive and negative in our culture and history, until we can actually see our heritage and recognise it, we will be constantly running in circles, like a hamster on a wheel.
But let me also add something more important. If our entire identity is based on our Whiteness, our Blackness, our Conservative ideology, our Progressive ideology, our Hetero- or Homosexuality, then these issues will always devolve into identity debates - groups of people shouting "See me!"at one another.
On the other hand, if we base our identity on something that transcends race, politics, gender, nationality, something like our identity in God, then we are able to debate these issues, not as opposing enemies, but as fellow brothers and sisters, as one family under God, secure in our identity under God to be able to discuss and debate the smaller matters of race, politics, and gender.
In closing, to my brothers and sisters in the ranks of the Alt-Right: I love y'all. I'm praying for you and, as much as I may speak out against what you espouse and believe, I do not see you as subhuman and I would love to sit and have a chat with you, to learn where you come from and what fears you have.
To my brothers and sisters outside of the Alt-Right movement: I love y'all too and I encourage you to do the same, to open the conversation in love, to see the members of this movement not as racist bigots and monsters, but as flesh-and-blood humans like yourselves who have families and fears. Are there genuinely bad eggs in the lot? Sure, but the same can be said of y'all, too.
This morning, as I opened my Facebook and saw the news, I grieved a little. I saw the rightful denouncement of this event by a local pastor. I saw the urging of a seminarian for White conservative Christians to speak out against the Alt-Right. I also saw the news articles themselves and something there stood out to me.
In amongst the list of slogans chanted was one phrase that stood out to me as the real heart of the movement:
"You will not replace us."That's the real fear - impotence and irrelevance, the loss of relevance, weight, prestige, and power in society. Now, I say this not to pardon this movement or to beg clemency for them. No, I want to speak directly to the heart of the movement, to my fellow White brothers and sisters who may hold this fear in their hearts.
You are not being replaced.
Just because our society seeks to uplift members of our society who were previously denied any affirmation, exhortation, or agency does not mean that our society says we are now worthless. To put it another way, if my boss decides to praise my coworker for something he or she did, that does not mean that I am inferior.
To celebrate Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian history and culture does not mean our White history and culture is irrelevant. We need to instead change the view that we don't have any history and culture, that White American culture is null or nonexistent and that any celebration of a culture not our own erases any presence of our "non-culture" or "non-history."
To use an analogy, it's like trying to draw with a white crayon on white paper - of course it's not visible, unlike the black, brown, green, red, or other coloured crayons, which can lead to the perspective that the white paper is being covered over or drowned out by these other colours. At the same time, if we were to use a black piece of paper, the black crayon would be equally invisible. We need to stop looking at the white crayon on the white paper and see the white crayon in the box with the other crayons.
Practically, that means we need to actually look at our American culture and see where our Whiteness is distinct from it.
That means celebrating White heroes and historical figures who were a force for good.
That means remembering the acts and misdeeds of White men and women who wrought much evil.
That means celebrating our white quirks, many of them regional, like the fact that some of us are so white we need "moonscreen", or embracing the dad jokes and polos tucked into khaki shorts.
Until we can recognise and embrace both the positive and negative in our culture and history, until we can actually see our heritage and recognise it, we will be constantly running in circles, like a hamster on a wheel.
But let me also add something more important. If our entire identity is based on our Whiteness, our Blackness, our Conservative ideology, our Progressive ideology, our Hetero- or Homosexuality, then these issues will always devolve into identity debates - groups of people shouting "See me!"at one another.
On the other hand, if we base our identity on something that transcends race, politics, gender, nationality, something like our identity in God, then we are able to debate these issues, not as opposing enemies, but as fellow brothers and sisters, as one family under God, secure in our identity under God to be able to discuss and debate the smaller matters of race, politics, and gender.
In closing, to my brothers and sisters in the ranks of the Alt-Right: I love y'all. I'm praying for you and, as much as I may speak out against what you espouse and believe, I do not see you as subhuman and I would love to sit and have a chat with you, to learn where you come from and what fears you have.
To my brothers and sisters outside of the Alt-Right movement: I love y'all too and I encourage you to do the same, to open the conversation in love, to see the members of this movement not as racist bigots and monsters, but as flesh-and-blood humans like yourselves who have families and fears. Are there genuinely bad eggs in the lot? Sure, but the same can be said of y'all, too.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
As the Dust Settles
So, another arguably successful election season has passed. Someone has won. Many have lost. Some feel vindicated, some disappointed, and some like they've sold their souls (yet justified that they did what was necessary).
All of these sentiments I agree with and understand. Me, I voted for a third party. I was under no illusions that they would win, but I was at least hoping for a major spoiler effect due to the sum total of third party votes. (Props to Utahland for a 20% McMullin spoiler).
For those a little out of touch with the American political race, this was a hugely heated race. As a fan of neither dominant party candidate, I saw, on the one hand, a hardened career politician with pending criminal cases and, on the other hand, a bragadocious demagogue spouting populist rhetoric. These caricatures were and are just that - caricatures. Hillary and Trump are both more and less than their media portrayals, as are every other candidate who ran.
As I wrote I the aftermath of the last election and the one before it, we, as citizens, and we, as Christians, have a responsibility to respect and honour our leadership. I know that sounds archaic and dated in our advancingly progressive society. After all, that's the beauty of Liberalism, right? I am beholden to no one and am completely free to speak my mind and take my own action as best befits what I deem best for myself. And yet, I admonish you to set a small measure of individual liberty aside for the benefit of the community. If we all set aside a measure of "I"-ness, of "Me first"-ness, of "Validate my ideas"-ness, or any other breed of self-seeking and instead seek the benefit of our local and national communities, then we can and will see our nation grow closer in understanding.
How do we do this?
Well, for starters, we can:
All of these sentiments I agree with and understand. Me, I voted for a third party. I was under no illusions that they would win, but I was at least hoping for a major spoiler effect due to the sum total of third party votes. (Props to Utahland for a 20% McMullin spoiler).
For those a little out of touch with the American political race, this was a hugely heated race. As a fan of neither dominant party candidate, I saw, on the one hand, a hardened career politician with pending criminal cases and, on the other hand, a bragadocious demagogue spouting populist rhetoric. These caricatures were and are just that - caricatures. Hillary and Trump are both more and less than their media portrayals, as are every other candidate who ran.
As I wrote I the aftermath of the last election and the one before it, we, as citizens, and we, as Christians, have a responsibility to respect and honour our leadership. I know that sounds archaic and dated in our advancingly progressive society. After all, that's the beauty of Liberalism, right? I am beholden to no one and am completely free to speak my mind and take my own action as best befits what I deem best for myself. And yet, I admonish you to set a small measure of individual liberty aside for the benefit of the community. If we all set aside a measure of "I"-ness, of "Me first"-ness, of "Validate my ideas"-ness, or any other breed of self-seeking and instead seek the benefit of our local and national communities, then we can and will see our nation grow closer in understanding.
How do we do this?
Well, for starters, we can:
- Respect the government officials elected over us
- Pray for our presidents, congressmen, and local government officials
- Pray for and support our police, EMS, firefighters, military, and other similar servicemen
- Love our neighbours
- Advocating peaceably for necessary change, even if it doesn't directly affect oneself
- Caring for the minorities, refugees, immigrants, etc. among you
- Caring for the poor and those unable to effectively care for themselves
- Standing up for those who are oppressed in your communities
- Share the Gospel within our communities **
I know it seems like a lot, but, please, join with me as I seek to make the best I can of the new, upcoming political and social environment of this country for the benefit of my local community. If enough people from diverse backgrounds and regions begin to carry and act upon these type of ideals, perhaps we will see healing happen within our generation
** For my non Christian readers: I do not and will not apologise for my faith. Active evangelism and discipleship are integral components of Christianity.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Option C
I've not been a fan of Trump or Hillary from the beginning. With Hillary, it's been the pending trial - I already have one president with "postponed" investigations (approx 783 of them, to be specific) and I don't want a second. With Trump, it's been his character and demeanour - from the get-go, he's struck me as a populist and demagogue, the likes of which I used to see every election in South Africa or a neighbouring country.
Now, courtesy of my South African upbringing, I am not overly close-minded to minor political parties. After all, at least one new party is formed every election back home. In previous years, I had dismissed third parties as a trivial waste of a vote, especially when there was a candidate I didn't mind voting for.
I watched in horror as Dr Carson, Rubio, and Kasich, the three Republican candidates that I, as a conservative-leaning moderate felt able to vote for, fell before the steamroller that was Trump. I admire Kasich for his conviction and unwillingness to step down - his tenacity spoke volumes about his character and, as more came out about him, I continued to be impressed, but I digress.
Seeing the Trump/Hillary split, I began researching third party options. I was only familiar with the Libertarian and Green parties and so, settled on Johnson as my choice for president. Now, yes, I've heard the arguments from Trump/Hillary supporters that "A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary/Trump," and I happen to disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, electoral college muddies things up, but a third party vote is not a vote in favour of "The Opposition"; it is a vote in favour of that specific third party. Consider the following opinion:
Like the Redditor I've quoted above, I'm of the mindset that too many people vote Republican or Democrat over their personal convictions because they're afraid that everyone else is going to do the same. If everyone who was considering voting for a third party did so, there would be a massive disruption. Would the GOP or Dems probably still win? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a clean, near 50-50 division. Instead, I wouldn't expect either party to get above 40%, let alone reach 40%. Can you imagine the effect on the political climate if neither Republicans nor Democrats obtained higher than 35%?
Back to my story.
In the last month or so, I became personally convicted over my view towards presidential candidates. My old view was very pragmatic - I didn't care if they were pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-anything-opposing-Christianity. None of that I deemed necessary to run a country, so I simply voted on policy and capability. I looked down sometimes on Christians who would rather vote for a pro-lifer whom I thought was a poorer choice for the country as opposed to a better-qualified pro-choicer. Gary Johnson, in my opinion, was one such choice. I disagreed with his platform on many areas, but I was willing to vote for him as the best of three options.
Then my perspective was changed.
I don't remember what prompted the change, but I had a priority shift. Part of my realisation, you see, was that it was of greater importance to honour God than to pick my choice of what's best for the country. After all, Ahab was an excellent king by the world's standards. He conquered territory, forged treaties, and maintained Israel as a prosperous nation, but because he would not honour God, he is considered a terrible king. Conversely, David was nobody's pick to be king. He was the youngest son of a small shepherding family, but he sought to honour god to the best of his abilities and God gave him what he needed to rule effectively.
That realisation coincided with a post from The Gospel Coalition. The fact that there is a Christian Democratic party in the US that seeks to honour God through the planks in their platform blew my mind. I thought most Christians, like myself, just tried to make do with unpalatable options, but we don't need to. Someone else, fed up with the lack of God-honouring options, decided to make their own party in the mid-late 2000's. Now, do I agree with all aspects of the ASP's platform? I wouldn't say so - I tend to lean a little more fiscally conservative than they do - but I do agree with their overarching goal, vision, and motivation enough that I am willing to throw my lot with a young, small party. I can vote for a candidate whom I trust will seek to honour God and have faith that God will give what is needed to run this country.
This is my Option C. What's yours?
Now, courtesy of my South African upbringing, I am not overly close-minded to minor political parties. After all, at least one new party is formed every election back home. In previous years, I had dismissed third parties as a trivial waste of a vote, especially when there was a candidate I didn't mind voting for.
I watched in horror as Dr Carson, Rubio, and Kasich, the three Republican candidates that I, as a conservative-leaning moderate felt able to vote for, fell before the steamroller that was Trump. I admire Kasich for his conviction and unwillingness to step down - his tenacity spoke volumes about his character and, as more came out about him, I continued to be impressed, but I digress.
Seeing the Trump/Hillary split, I began researching third party options. I was only familiar with the Libertarian and Green parties and so, settled on Johnson as my choice for president. Now, yes, I've heard the arguments from Trump/Hillary supporters that "A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary/Trump," and I happen to disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, electoral college muddies things up, but a third party vote is not a vote in favour of "The Opposition"; it is a vote in favour of that specific third party. Consider the following opinion:
Like the Redditor I've quoted above, I'm of the mindset that too many people vote Republican or Democrat over their personal convictions because they're afraid that everyone else is going to do the same. If everyone who was considering voting for a third party did so, there would be a massive disruption. Would the GOP or Dems probably still win? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a clean, near 50-50 division. Instead, I wouldn't expect either party to get above 40%, let alone reach 40%. Can you imagine the effect on the political climate if neither Republicans nor Democrats obtained higher than 35%?
Back to my story.
In the last month or so, I became personally convicted over my view towards presidential candidates. My old view was very pragmatic - I didn't care if they were pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-anything-opposing-Christianity. None of that I deemed necessary to run a country, so I simply voted on policy and capability. I looked down sometimes on Christians who would rather vote for a pro-lifer whom I thought was a poorer choice for the country as opposed to a better-qualified pro-choicer. Gary Johnson, in my opinion, was one such choice. I disagreed with his platform on many areas, but I was willing to vote for him as the best of three options.
Then my perspective was changed.
I don't remember what prompted the change, but I had a priority shift. Part of my realisation, you see, was that it was of greater importance to honour God than to pick my choice of what's best for the country. After all, Ahab was an excellent king by the world's standards. He conquered territory, forged treaties, and maintained Israel as a prosperous nation, but because he would not honour God, he is considered a terrible king. Conversely, David was nobody's pick to be king. He was the youngest son of a small shepherding family, but he sought to honour god to the best of his abilities and God gave him what he needed to rule effectively.
That realisation coincided with a post from The Gospel Coalition. The fact that there is a Christian Democratic party in the US that seeks to honour God through the planks in their platform blew my mind. I thought most Christians, like myself, just tried to make do with unpalatable options, but we don't need to. Someone else, fed up with the lack of God-honouring options, decided to make their own party in the mid-late 2000's. Now, do I agree with all aspects of the ASP's platform? I wouldn't say so - I tend to lean a little more fiscally conservative than they do - but I do agree with their overarching goal, vision, and motivation enough that I am willing to throw my lot with a young, small party. I can vote for a candidate whom I trust will seek to honour God and have faith that God will give what is needed to run this country.
This is my Option C. What's yours?
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Forest and Trees
Today, I want to speak to my fellow white people, particularly my fellow Christian white people.
Many of us are missing the point
Yesterday, an innocent man, Terence Crutcher, was shot. He was an innocent man inspecting his own car. He was tazed and shot because he did not immediately follow instructions. He was unarmed. He had his hands up and visible. Now, investigations are ongoing and this article has a fairly good summary of the due process that needs to be followed and the confounding legal questions, but the shooting is not what I want to highlight.
I want to highlight our response.
You see, Mr Crutcher is a black man and, unfortunately, he is now the newest name in a growing list of black men killed by police. He is now the next name on a list in the argument against police brutality and social injustice. You would think that, after such a tragedy, there would be mourning as a community in response. No, no. I only heard about the shooting via my wife. I saw nothing from any of my white friends except a post which showed how there are good relationships between black men and police.
Yesterday, in Langa, a peri-urban settlement (lit. a shack town) in Cape Town, South Africa, inhabited almost completely by poor black individuals, was in the midst of a protest against poor services delivery. The only word I heard from any of my SA friends was from one person who had to drive through the protest, recounting the shock of riot police, guns, and the smoke of burning tires, praising God and thanking the police that she made it through safely. My fellow white people, I am ashamed. You are focusing on the minutiae, the trees, when the problem is with the forest.
The protest of police vs black violence is not about shaming the police. It doesn't require you to defend the police or discredit the victim and find opposing evidence - there will always be evidence to oppose anything, provided the inclination is there. The issue is about respect and fair treatment under the law, something assumed by many of us white people, but still being fought for by many of our fellow black men and women.
Service delivery protests/riots, while terrifying, are happening because of a real problem. While we recount the horrors and fears experienced as an outsider passing through, let us remember that what many white people have and take for granted, our black brothers and sisters are fighting to obtain - and not because they cannot afford it, but because it has yet to be delivered.
Just because we, as white people, are not immediately impacted is not a sufficient excuse to dismiss the injustice surrounding us in society. When Christ gave the parable of the good Samaritan, he did not say that our neighbour extended only to those who looked/spoke/thought like us. No, the whole point of the parable is that loving our neighbour means seeing the hurt, the maligned, the needy, and doing what we can to help.
And that help? I'm not advocating at all for the White Messiah complex. For help to be actual help, it must be the right type of assistance/aid/support, given in the right manner, at the right time. To make a comparison, if someone drops on the floor, having a heart attack, you don't begin scolding the individual for any habit he/she might have that contributed to his heart attack; you administer CPR or find someone who can. When social injustice is shown, you don't tell the victims they're imagining things or that they've contributed to their own issues; you stop and listen, giving a willing ear and a heart willing to understand, and, should the opportunity present, take some measure of appropriate action.
Are we not called to weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn? What would it hurt to take a moment to empathise - to place ourselves, our families in these repeated cycles of injustice? Would it hurt to turn to a black friend, relative, or colleague and simply say, "I heard about what happened. I'm so sorry."? Take the initiative. Put yourself out there in love, seeking to understand or support. Make that connection. If nothing else, it's a start.
Many of us are missing the point
Yesterday, an innocent man, Terence Crutcher, was shot. He was an innocent man inspecting his own car. He was tazed and shot because he did not immediately follow instructions. He was unarmed. He had his hands up and visible. Now, investigations are ongoing and this article has a fairly good summary of the due process that needs to be followed and the confounding legal questions, but the shooting is not what I want to highlight.
I want to highlight our response.
You see, Mr Crutcher is a black man and, unfortunately, he is now the newest name in a growing list of black men killed by police. He is now the next name on a list in the argument against police brutality and social injustice. You would think that, after such a tragedy, there would be mourning as a community in response. No, no. I only heard about the shooting via my wife. I saw nothing from any of my white friends except a post which showed how there are good relationships between black men and police.
Yesterday, in Langa, a peri-urban settlement (lit. a shack town) in Cape Town, South Africa, inhabited almost completely by poor black individuals, was in the midst of a protest against poor services delivery. The only word I heard from any of my SA friends was from one person who had to drive through the protest, recounting the shock of riot police, guns, and the smoke of burning tires, praising God and thanking the police that she made it through safely. My fellow white people, I am ashamed. You are focusing on the minutiae, the trees, when the problem is with the forest.
The protest of police vs black violence is not about shaming the police. It doesn't require you to defend the police or discredit the victim and find opposing evidence - there will always be evidence to oppose anything, provided the inclination is there. The issue is about respect and fair treatment under the law, something assumed by many of us white people, but still being fought for by many of our fellow black men and women.
Service delivery protests/riots, while terrifying, are happening because of a real problem. While we recount the horrors and fears experienced as an outsider passing through, let us remember that what many white people have and take for granted, our black brothers and sisters are fighting to obtain - and not because they cannot afford it, but because it has yet to be delivered.
Just because we, as white people, are not immediately impacted is not a sufficient excuse to dismiss the injustice surrounding us in society. When Christ gave the parable of the good Samaritan, he did not say that our neighbour extended only to those who looked/spoke/thought like us. No, the whole point of the parable is that loving our neighbour means seeing the hurt, the maligned, the needy, and doing what we can to help.
And that help? I'm not advocating at all for the White Messiah complex. For help to be actual help, it must be the right type of assistance/aid/support, given in the right manner, at the right time. To make a comparison, if someone drops on the floor, having a heart attack, you don't begin scolding the individual for any habit he/she might have that contributed to his heart attack; you administer CPR or find someone who can. When social injustice is shown, you don't tell the victims they're imagining things or that they've contributed to their own issues; you stop and listen, giving a willing ear and a heart willing to understand, and, should the opportunity present, take some measure of appropriate action.
Are we not called to weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn? What would it hurt to take a moment to empathise - to place ourselves, our families in these repeated cycles of injustice? Would it hurt to turn to a black friend, relative, or colleague and simply say, "I heard about what happened. I'm so sorry."? Take the initiative. Put yourself out there in love, seeking to understand or support. Make that connection. If nothing else, it's a start.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
The Role of Law
One question I've heard off and on, particularly when, in church/ministry circles, a teacher or a student is asking a thought-provoking question, is, in my own words, "Given Christ and the new covenant, what is now the role of the Law, the old covenant?"
I think many times, in my experience, we try to answer something along the lines of, "It serves to show us the standard and impossibility of perfection."
It's a good answer, but it also sells the old covenant somewhat short. After all, there are times when God had remarked to Israel that He would prefer the sincere worship of their hearts to the empty exactitude of lawfulness.
While doing some reading and spending time with God today, I came across a small little verse that really illuminated, to me, the role of the Law, especially in light of Christ:
"So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." - Gal 3:24The Law wasn't some cosmic quality metric to show us our imperfection. Neither was it a ball and chain, enslaving the Israelites. No, the Law served to illustrate to the Israelites the character of God, that they might grow in understanding, becoming ripe for the harvest of faith, that is, Christ. The original Greek word used for "guardian" is paidagogos, a word used for a servant whose role was (to train up a child by administering discipline, chastisement, and instruction." (HELPS Word-Studies, Helps Ministries Inc.)
1350495671768.jpg) |
| studyblue.com |
Thursday, August 25, 2016
That Note about Generous Reassurance
So, 2 Corinthians 9 is Paul's appeal to the Corinthian church to follow up on a previous promise for donation to his work and ministry. The topic of money and giving is always a touchy one for most congregants, especially for those aware of all the prosperity gospel preachers, who then become acutely worried their pastor may be turning into one such individual. (Or, maybe it's just me, because I know I've had moments like that, being the cynic and skeptic I am)
That being said, It's not unheard-of for those in ministry to live off the donations of worshippers, after all, that was one of the reasons for the tithe back in Old Testament times - without it, the Levites would have had nothing to live on. Similarly, today, most pastors live off of either tithes alone or tithes plus a side job. To take an even more extreme example, missionaries rely almost completely on donations so as to not overly burden those they are ministering to (following the example of Paul himself).
So, giving is important, but, as Paul writes here, it is not compulsory:
That's a pretty critical perspective. If we withhold charity out of fear of not being able to survive without what we'd give, the reassurance that God will give us what we need, in this case as a response to godly, charitable giving, is very, very freeing.
So, then, my question to you, the reader, is this:
What work or ministry are you missing out on because you are afraid to go without?
That being said, It's not unheard-of for those in ministry to live off the donations of worshippers, after all, that was one of the reasons for the tithe back in Old Testament times - without it, the Levites would have had nothing to live on. Similarly, today, most pastors live off of either tithes alone or tithes plus a side job. To take an even more extreme example, missionaries rely almost completely on donations so as to not overly burden those they are ministering to (following the example of Paul himself).
So, giving is important, but, as Paul writes here, it is not compulsory:
"Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Cor 9:7Yes, Paul writes the verse before that one reaps in proportion to what one sows, but it is the verses following that stand out to me:
"And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. ... Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness." 2 Cor 9:8, 10Paul is addressing what I often feel as someone looking to give, particularly outside of tithe. Basically, he's saying, "Don't be afraid to give; God will make sure you have what you need."
That's a pretty critical perspective. If we withhold charity out of fear of not being able to survive without what we'd give, the reassurance that God will give us what we need, in this case as a response to godly, charitable giving, is very, very freeing.
So, then, my question to you, the reader, is this:
What work or ministry are you missing out on because you are afraid to go without?
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Vanity, Vanity. All is Vanity
So, I was taking some time to read the Bible this morning, something I like to do, but sometimes fail to make time to enjoy, and one verse really hit me between the eyes. It stood out, because, to me, it highlighted something that is often taken for granted or even glossed over in today's Church, particularly the Western Church.
The verse, in context, read as follows:
All of that, Paul says, is vanity, emptiness, nothingness, a waste of breath. If that is all you believe about Christ, if that is all you consider to be Christianity, then you have believed in mere smoke.
What, then, does true belief that brings about salvation consist of?
I means listening to the Gospel and internalising it, making it a part of your everyday being. It means living your life at the footsteps of Christ, believing in the deity of Christ. It means identifying with the church, standing in solidarity with persecuted brothers and sisters, withstanding persecution yourself and, yet, with grace and forgiveness, loving the world whose morals are so far from Christ as the East is from the West.
A faith that saves is one that, as Paul writes, holds firmly to the Gospel, never wavering or compromising in belief, no matter what storms may come.
The verse, in context, read as follows:
"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."
- 1 Cor. 15:1-2 (Emphasis added)Paul is quick to make note here that receiving and standing upon the Gospel is not enough. You can listen to the Gospel as much as you want, but it doesn't make you a Christian, he is saying. You can choose to live your life by Christian principles and believe in the historicity of Christ, but that doesn't make you a Christian. You can identify with the church and push for the moral establishment that comes with it, but that doesn't make you a Christian.
All of that, Paul says, is vanity, emptiness, nothingness, a waste of breath. If that is all you believe about Christ, if that is all you consider to be Christianity, then you have believed in mere smoke.
What, then, does true belief that brings about salvation consist of?
I means listening to the Gospel and internalising it, making it a part of your everyday being. It means living your life at the footsteps of Christ, believing in the deity of Christ. It means identifying with the church, standing in solidarity with persecuted brothers and sisters, withstanding persecution yourself and, yet, with grace and forgiveness, loving the world whose morals are so far from Christ as the East is from the West.
A faith that saves is one that, as Paul writes, holds firmly to the Gospel, never wavering or compromising in belief, no matter what storms may come.
Friday, July 22, 2016
The Christian Race
With police violence protests, #blacklivesmatter protests, and counter protests flying everywhere throughout the U.S. and much of the world, I thought I'd share something I read today that might, hopefully, spur on those of us who claim to follow Christ:
Tell me please, church, where it tells us to let our brothers and sisters struggle alone?
Paul is pretty clear here. As a white Christian, when Black Christians, Hispanic Christians, Asian Christians, Arabic Christians, Coptic Christians or other Christians suffer, I suffer. Why? We are one body.
Take a look at your body. When your toe jams into the doorway, it's not just your toe that is affected. When your tiny, seemingly purposeless appendix gets infected, your entire abdomen feels the pain.
We are all equal under Christ. There is no division by race, status, money, or language, but that doesn't mean we are all the same. Just as the body is composed of many parts, the church is a conglomeration of thousands of backgrounds, races, languages, social strata, and perspectives. If we are ever to achieve unity within the church, let alone the country, we need to begin by appreciating and supporting our brethren from different backgrounds. We need to apologise where necessary, lend a hand where needed, break bread together when able, and see each other's humanity and worth at all times.
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
1 Corinthians 12:12-26 ESV
Tell me please, church, where it tells us to let our brothers and sisters struggle alone?
Paul is pretty clear here. As a white Christian, when Black Christians, Hispanic Christians, Asian Christians, Arabic Christians, Coptic Christians or other Christians suffer, I suffer. Why? We are one body.
Take a look at your body. When your toe jams into the doorway, it's not just your toe that is affected. When your tiny, seemingly purposeless appendix gets infected, your entire abdomen feels the pain.
We are all equal under Christ. There is no division by race, status, money, or language, but that doesn't mean we are all the same. Just as the body is composed of many parts, the church is a conglomeration of thousands of backgrounds, races, languages, social strata, and perspectives. If we are ever to achieve unity within the church, let alone the country, we need to begin by appreciating and supporting our brethren from different backgrounds. We need to apologise where necessary, lend a hand where needed, break bread together when able, and see each other's humanity and worth at all times.
Friday, June 17, 2016
A Church Divided
So, I was reading through Paul's first recorded letter to the Corinthian church (In truth, if I recall correctly, it is the second of four, though we only have records for the two we call 1 and 2 Corinthians) and partway through the first chapter, Paul begins addressing some rivalries and divisions happening within the church.
He rebuked them, calling them to ponder three questions:
He rebuked them, calling them to ponder three questions:
- Is Christ divided?
- Was it Paul who was crucified for you?
- Were you baptised in Paul's name?
As I was looking over this passage, what came to mind first were some of the church splits I have seen, with individuals falling out between leaders or over minor details, thinking along the lines of "Did Pastor X die for you?" or "Were you baptised in the name of Deacon Y?"
The more I pondered it, though, the more I realised that the divisions within the church run far deeper than merely within an individual church. Many divisions today run along doctrinal or interpretational lines. Methodists vs Baptists, Orthodox vs Catholics (or Protestants/Anglicans vs Catholics for that matter). The church today is massively divided. Now, yes, there are some divisions along lines of preference. Those preferring a more ordered service may sit comfortably within a Presbyterian church than an Assembly of God. That being said, there are divisions along racial lines, political lines, policy lines. We have divided ourselves over minutiae.
In light of this passage, I am inclined to agree with Erasmus where he butted heads with Luther, wanting to bring about change within the Catholic church instead of fracturing and starting a separate church.
Yes, we are going to have differences of interpretation of scripture. For example, when it comes to the end times, my pastor ascribes more to the dispensational philosophy/theology whereas I fall into a post-tribulational premilennial standpoint. Does that mean I should leave my church? No.
Baptists, did the Anabaptists and early baptists die for your salvation? No.
Methodists, were you baptised in the name of John Wesley? No
Catholics, was Leo IX crucified for your salvation? No
Orthodox churchgoers, were you baptised in the name of Cerularius? No
We all were saved by the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. We were all baptised in the name of Christ.
Let me ask you, is Christ divided?
Then why do we, the church, divide ourselves?
Should we not focus on Christ as the unifying goal? Should not our doctrines be subject to Christ and should we not be able to come together under the banner of a single, catholic (not Catholic; it means "universal") church?
I mean, that was the purpose of creating the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, to establish what is common doctrine to all Christians, that we may focus on the forest instead of getting lost amongst the trees.
These are my thoughts, though. I am no theologian. I do not know the intricacies of the dividing points in different denominations' doctrines and I do not profess to know. I merely am asking a pertinent question.
These are my thoughts, though. I am no theologian. I do not know the intricacies of the dividing points in different denominations' doctrines and I do not profess to know. I merely am asking a pertinent question.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Homotopia
So, my wife and I went to watch Zootopia in part of an early birthday celebration and I was thoroughly pleased. In fact, in this current political climate, I would recommend the entire US watch it - and here's why: As a family movie, it very tactfully and directly deals with prejudicial tension and what can happen when it is allowed to go unchecked.
Spoilers (Highlight to read):
In this movie, a number of predators have gone missing and are found to have gone "savage". When uncovered, the protagonist, an eager, fresh, idealistic recruit to the police department unwittingly chalks it up in a media interview to the predator species, for some reason, reverting to their pre-civilised states, because "It's in their DNA." Of course, this causes widespread panic and discrimination against the predators and, depressed, our heroine quits her job.
While back at her family's farm, she realises that she had made a mistake - the reverted behaviour was due to a plant compound, not a freak reversion of nature. In the process of trying to mend her mistake, she uncovers a plot headed by a faction of prey (headed by the assistant mayor, a sheep) to smear predators via this extract and gain the power and recognition they deserve through harnessing the fear of the other prey.
What I, as a white man, saw is the stark reality of America today that I see on a regular basis.
Spoilers (Highlight to read):
In this movie, a number of predators have gone missing and are found to have gone "savage". When uncovered, the protagonist, an eager, fresh, idealistic recruit to the police department unwittingly chalks it up in a media interview to the predator species, for some reason, reverting to their pre-civilised states, because "It's in their DNA." Of course, this causes widespread panic and discrimination against the predators and, depressed, our heroine quits her job.
While back at her family's farm, she realises that she had made a mistake - the reverted behaviour was due to a plant compound, not a freak reversion of nature. In the process of trying to mend her mistake, she uncovers a plot headed by a faction of prey (headed by the assistant mayor, a sheep) to smear predators via this extract and gain the power and recognition they deserve through harnessing the fear of the other prey.
What I, as a white man, saw is the stark reality of America today that I see on a regular basis.
- We have a presidential candidate smearing other races by fear and mockery, rallying many to a prejudiced cause of racism and xenophobia.
- We have a population comprised largely of one racial group (White) who, actively or passively, are acting and reacting to other racial groups with a preconceived notion of criminality or mal-intent
- African-Americans are perceived as criminals, illiterate, and thugs
- Hispanics are perceived as illegal, drug lords, and job thieves
- Arabic-appearing individuals and Muslims are perceived as terrorists and threats to the American way of life
- You could even make a connection to many heterosexuals' fear and discomfort around homosexual individuals
- You see whites and heterosexuals jumping to the immediate, easy conclusions, applying blanket discrimination along a stereotype instead of looking deeper for the/an actual cause
When talking to my wife, who is African-American, I discovered that one scene resonated with her in a way that took me a while to understand. In the attitude and monologue of the ringleader, she identified a deep-seated bitterness reminiscent to the attitude of many in the African-American population towards the white population as a result of racial labeling and prejudice over the years.
Through the film, it's very possible to see an exaggerated portrayal of prejudice being allowed freedom to act. We see the growth of prejudice within a population and a demonisation of another population.
We also see two responses to prejudice. Either, (spoiler) like the assistant mayor, you can act upon prejudice, seeking vindication through vengeful action, leading to division, or, (spoiler) like the protagonist, you can react to prejudice, seeking its end through restitution, leading to unity.
These actions can be either internal or external, responding to the prejudice within yourself or the prejudice of others. It's easy to see the external, lashing out in prejudice or seeking forgiveness for committed or implicit prejudices, but the internal is more important, being the seed from which actions develop - the fermenting of prejudice, often through resentment, bitterness, or fear, or the battle to overcome ingrained prejudices, often through forgiving those who have enacted injustice.
Of course, forgiveness is difficult, especially in the face of deep-rooted wrongs.
Why should I forgive those who have wronged me in the first place?
Firstly, for those readers who are Christians, it's what Christ did for us - he forgave us and took our punishment while we were still his enemies (Rom 5:8-10). We are commanded to right any wrongs and grievances with others before coming to God in worship (Matt 5:24) and to not allow anger to ferment within ourselves (Eph 4:26).
Secondly, especially for those who aren't Christians, granting forgiveness tells the aggressor that you no longer subject yourself to the effect of his/her wrongdoing, that you no longer allow it to cripple, poison, or otherwise negatively affect you in any physical, mental, spiritual, or social capacity. It also tells the aggressor that you relieve yourself of any right to retaliation, seeking restitution through mutual peace instead of vengeance. (I'm not saying that recompense is not due, however, just that vengeance will not be sought)
What if I forgive someone only to have them repeat the same insult?
Jesus answered this question to one of his disciples, telling him to forgive endlessly ("not just seven times, but seventy-times-seven times" - Matt 18:22).
What if someone takes advantage of my forgiveness to continue acting in prejudice or offense?
Christ tells us to love our enemies and to pray for our persecutors (Matt 5:44). He also tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves (Matt 22:39).
What if I recognise my wrong and have sought to address it, but those I've hurt refuse to forgive me or those like me?
To be honest, this is a difficult question to answer and is something that is often very disheartening, especially as someone who desires to help open racial dialogue and bring about restoration in my immediate communities. The most I can say, though, is this: Paul writes to the Galatians, encouraging them to never cease in doing good, to continue doing so anywhere the opportunity presents (Gal 6:9-10).
We must never give up the fight for reconciliation, doing what little we can as often as possible, whether that be forgiveness or redress. Perhaps then we can to bring peace and unity to our own Homotopia.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
The Cost of Greatness
"But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”Mark 10:43-45 ESVServanthood.
In Christianity, the one who is greatest made the least of himself.
Jesus forsook his lofty throne, took on the form of a man, and, in insult to his perfect, holy nature, took upon himself the penalty for the sin of every man who ever lived.
God took upon himself that which he must definitely did not deserve.
The greatest made himself the least for the sake of the lost and lowly.
Why, then, do so many Christians seek their own fame and recognition?
In the words above, Jesus explicitly rebuked his disciples who were seeking position amongst themselves.
Jesus corrected the pride of his disciples. Not only that, however, his words serve to correct the pride of all who claim to follow him, myself included.
As I read these words, I recognize my own unwillingness to humble myself in servanthood to others. Sure, it's easy to serve those who agree with me or act and think like me, but surely God doesn't want me to serve those who hate me or want to kill me.
No, no. Jesus came to serve those who were so deep in sin that they were against him. Jesus saved Paul, who before then was persecuting Christians, capturing and killing them. Jesus saved tax collectors and zealots, that is, thieving Roman sympathisers and murderous anti-Roman extremists. Paul writes in Romans 5:10 that we were enemies of Christ when he died for us.
If the example of Christ is self-sacrifice and servanthood towards others, then we need to get down on our knees and serve.
"That's all well and good," you say, "but where exactly and how am I to serve others?"
The bible talks about that in a number of places. Some that come to mind are Matthew 25:31-46 and James 1:27, feeding the hungry and thirsty, clothing the naked, giving respite to strangers in need, tending to widows and orphans. In fact, to paraphrase James in his second chapter, just do something. Even the devils do something about their belief in God - at least they shudder in fear.
I'm preaching to myself as well, but church, do something. Offer to pray with the cashier at the Taco Bell drive-thru. Go serve at a food pantry. Give some money, food, or a food voucher to a homeless person.
Church, now is the harvest. We were not called to be the overseers, watching the harvest being taken in and collecting our sites. No, as Jesus said after his stay in Samaria, "the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few."
Our role is to be the harvesters, toiling and sweating over the blades of grain, grassy stalls clinging to salty, perspiration-beaded, fly-bitten, sun-burnt skin.
Christianity was never intended to be pretty or comfortable - and I speak to myself. It's time to get dirty.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Putting the Bern on Christian Charity
Bernie Sanders has taken the American populace like wildfire and many Christians and conservatives, while opposed to his ideals seem clueless as to the reason he has become popular. Bernie isn't popular because he's promising free stuff. He's popular because he sees some of the problems in America clearly and is actually trying to address them.
There is a vast amount of injustice present in the US, largely because of two factors: Finance and Race. Of the two, finance probably plays a larger role. I say this because, while white individuals are given more implicit credit in general, if a non-white gentleman dresses as though he has money and acts respectably, as we expect the wealthy or well-off to act, then he will be treated with greater respect than he would if he were wearing grubby jeans and an undershirt.
What is Bernie doing in his campaign? He is addressing the financial and justice gap between the haves and have-nots and, honestly, he is the only candidate to do so. Every other candidate is geared towards the middle class, upper class, or businesses. So, that makes sense, then, why many of Bernie's supporters are from the lower echelons of the socioeconomic status ladder. It also explains why many millennials have flocked to his cause.
I don't know if you've noticed, but almost every social justice movement in the past few years has been spearheaded by millennials. We have seen how pure Capitalism chews up and spits out those on the bottom rungs for the sake of those higher up. We see how difficult it is to escape cyclical patterns, like poverty, or even abuse and neglect. We also have seen how the church has done nothing.
Is it any wonder, then, that some of our youngest and brightest minds are campaigning for greater governmental oversight? They see that something needs to be done. They have grown jaded towards the church, seeing entrenched hierarchies and hypocrisy, turning away towards other philosophies in which adherents actually live out the ideals they espouse, and embracing ideals of humanism.
That society is turning instead towards the government, the highest establishment of man, to right these wrongs is the greatest indictment against the modern Western church.
Some Christians are realising this, using passages such as Acts 2:42-47 to support socialist policies, justifying society's leaning on the state and encouraging Christians to get behind this goal because that is how the early church acted.
I would argue this point. We say the early church engaged in socialist policies, because we are familiar with those words. I would use a different word, however, to describe the church's actions: Charity.
Charity, as defined by Webster is:
Charity is an outpouring of love. It is a response of obedience to the love of God for all man, a response of worship to God, and a response from the overflow of the love and kindness of God given to us.
Paul writes very clearly in Romans 2 that the kindness of God is for the leading of man to repentance. In John 13:12-17 Jesus gives the example of servanthood in washing his disciples' feet and shows them what obedience looks like. In Matthew 25, Jesus very explicitly indicates that those who follow him will care for the needy. Even James, the brother of Jesus, states that worship that God finds pure and unadulterated cares for the needy.
Socialist policies, on the other hand, substitute love for law. God is removed from the picture and the state becomes the provident entity. Where before, love addressed iniquity and spurred men and women to action in order to help lift those able to self-sufficiency and care for those unable, we now have the state implementing a state of stasis, in which all are seen to, but are not encouraged to do more, either through taking from the wealthy or merely giving to the poor. To give a medical analogy, where before we had curative treatment with some palliative care, we now have total palliative care. Where once we had antibiotics, now we have morphine.
So, that's my beef on social policies, but here's the thing, we brought this on ourselves.
When we, as the church, stopped loving others out of charity, we waived our rights to caring for the needy and standing up for the oppressed. When we started caring more about our wallets and our Sunday dresses, our houses and cars than our neighours, we passed the role of caring and tending for our neighbour to someone else.
Church, let me ask you some questions.
Who built the majority of hospitals around the world?
Who built the majority of homeless shelters?
Who started the majority of orphanages around the world?
Who advocated for the rights of natives to colonising powers?
Now, Church, let me ask you some more questions.
Who runs the majority of hospitals around the world today?
Who runs the majority of homeless shelters today?
Who runs the majority of orphanages around the world today?
Who advocates for the rights of indigines and the previously disadvantaged to the societal powers today?
Answer those questions both in context of the US and worldwide, because the difference in answers may surprise you.
To the church in America, I ask you, what is more important? Do we resist socialism because it infringes on our individual, social freedoms or do we give of ourselves to those in need, rendering socialism unnecessary?
There is a vast amount of injustice present in the US, largely because of two factors: Finance and Race. Of the two, finance probably plays a larger role. I say this because, while white individuals are given more implicit credit in general, if a non-white gentleman dresses as though he has money and acts respectably, as we expect the wealthy or well-off to act, then he will be treated with greater respect than he would if he were wearing grubby jeans and an undershirt.
What is Bernie doing in his campaign? He is addressing the financial and justice gap between the haves and have-nots and, honestly, he is the only candidate to do so. Every other candidate is geared towards the middle class, upper class, or businesses. So, that makes sense, then, why many of Bernie's supporters are from the lower echelons of the socioeconomic status ladder. It also explains why many millennials have flocked to his cause.
I don't know if you've noticed, but almost every social justice movement in the past few years has been spearheaded by millennials. We have seen how pure Capitalism chews up and spits out those on the bottom rungs for the sake of those higher up. We see how difficult it is to escape cyclical patterns, like poverty, or even abuse and neglect. We also have seen how the church has done nothing.
Is it any wonder, then, that some of our youngest and brightest minds are campaigning for greater governmental oversight? They see that something needs to be done. They have grown jaded towards the church, seeing entrenched hierarchies and hypocrisy, turning away towards other philosophies in which adherents actually live out the ideals they espouse, and embracing ideals of humanism.
So, then, why would a cohort disillusioned with the church petition the church or God to act in the face of injustice?
That society is turning instead towards the government, the highest establishment of man, to right these wrongs is the greatest indictment against the modern Western church.
Some Christians are realising this, using passages such as Acts 2:42-47 to support socialist policies, justifying society's leaning on the state and encouraging Christians to get behind this goal because that is how the early church acted.
I would argue this point. We say the early church engaged in socialist policies, because we are familiar with those words. I would use a different word, however, to describe the church's actions: Charity.
Charity, as defined by Webster is:
- Benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
- Generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also, aid given to those in need
- An institution engaged in relief of the poor
- Public provision for the relief of the needy
- A gift for public benevolent purposes
- An institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
- Lenient judgment of others
Charity is derived from the Latin, Caritas, which, according to Dictionary.com is a love identified with justice and goodwill.
Now, if charity and socialist policies have similar goals, why do I support one and not the other?
Charity is an outpouring of love. It is a response of obedience to the love of God for all man, a response of worship to God, and a response from the overflow of the love and kindness of God given to us.
Paul writes very clearly in Romans 2 that the kindness of God is for the leading of man to repentance. In John 13:12-17 Jesus gives the example of servanthood in washing his disciples' feet and shows them what obedience looks like. In Matthew 25, Jesus very explicitly indicates that those who follow him will care for the needy. Even James, the brother of Jesus, states that worship that God finds pure and unadulterated cares for the needy.
Socialist policies, on the other hand, substitute love for law. God is removed from the picture and the state becomes the provident entity. Where before, love addressed iniquity and spurred men and women to action in order to help lift those able to self-sufficiency and care for those unable, we now have the state implementing a state of stasis, in which all are seen to, but are not encouraged to do more, either through taking from the wealthy or merely giving to the poor. To give a medical analogy, where before we had curative treatment with some palliative care, we now have total palliative care. Where once we had antibiotics, now we have morphine.
So, that's my beef on social policies, but here's the thing, we brought this on ourselves.
When we, as the church, stopped loving others out of charity, we waived our rights to caring for the needy and standing up for the oppressed. When we started caring more about our wallets and our Sunday dresses, our houses and cars than our neighours, we passed the role of caring and tending for our neighbour to someone else.
Church, let me ask you some questions.
Who built the majority of hospitals around the world?
Who built the majority of homeless shelters?
Who started the majority of orphanages around the world?
Who advocated for the rights of natives to colonising powers?
Now, Church, let me ask you some more questions.
Who runs the majority of hospitals around the world today?
Who runs the majority of homeless shelters today?
Who runs the majority of orphanages around the world today?
Who advocates for the rights of indigines and the previously disadvantaged to the societal powers today?
Answer those questions both in context of the US and worldwide, because the difference in answers may surprise you.
To the church in America, I ask you, what is more important? Do we resist socialism because it infringes on our individual, social freedoms or do we give of ourselves to those in need, rendering socialism unnecessary?
"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it." - Luke 9:24
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Deal or No Deal?
You know when you're hitting the wall, like, so bad you'd prefer to write a blog post instead of pore over powerpoint slides of nephrons?
That's not really a fair deal, when you think about it. It's like trading my entire potential med school debt (-$200k club, here we come) for a $1m check. I get the money, he gets the debt.
So, next time you're thinking that God's cutting us a raw deal in only letting the Christians enter heaven, take some time to think and realise that He's cutting his own throat* instead
*Great, now I'm picturing a dude in a robe with long white hair, moustache, and beard carrying a box with neckstrap, peddling salvation like CMOT Dibbler's pies
Well, guess where I am.
Actually, I wanted to copy something over from my Devo Notes page that I thought was particularly read-worthy. I generally don't like disseminating my devotional notes, using the blog more as a means of accountability and a tool for higher processing, but this little blip, I thought, was worth sharing.
"So, when you think about it, God's being very gracious in allowing us to exist, enduring the stench of our sin for the sake of redeeming as many as possible back to Him."That's kind of an arbitrary, somewhat morbid statement, but it's true. I didn't get what I deserved when I accepted Jesus' sacrifice. Rather, What I deserved was taken on by Christ and instead, I get what He deserved.
That's not really a fair deal, when you think about it. It's like trading my entire potential med school debt (-$200k club, here we come) for a $1m check. I get the money, he gets the debt.
So, next time you're thinking that God's cutting us a raw deal in only letting the Christians enter heaven, take some time to think and realise that He's cutting his own throat* instead
*Great, now I'm picturing a dude in a robe with long white hair, moustache, and beard carrying a box with neckstrap, peddling salvation like CMOT Dibbler's pies
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Erace
I want to take the time right now to speak on a serious topic that's been particularly heartbreaking for me.
Those of you who've been reading my blog for a while know I grew up in Cape Town and, while I may not currently live there, I have many connections back home and so, I see a large amount of what goes on and what some of the key issues are.
South Africa and the US have a good number of similarities, as far as social dynamics go. One such similarity that's been building in my awareness is the disparity of perception and treatment based on the perception of wealth and degree of whiteness.
And that grieves me.
At the University of Cape Town, a number of events have occurred within the past couple weeks. I won't pretend to know the full thought and intention, but they prompt me to see that many people, students especially, are fed up with the non-progress of social equality in SA.
In the US, I see the federal neglect of water quality in Flint, where ~ 63% of the population is non-white and 42% of the population is below the poverty line. I see awards ceremonies where black artists are awarded in an "urban" category, but don't even really place in the grand running, or where black actors and actresses are only recognised if they make movies and shows appealing to a broader (read: white) audience.
We still live in a society where one's degree of whiteness or affluence affords an individual certain subconscious benefits and, let's be honest, we judge affluence by adhering to a white standard of dress and decorum.
Here's where it hits home for me: my children will not be afforded the same generosity of subconscious treatment that I have received. They will be born into a society in which even a drop of melanin darker than an Italian or body features more akin to Africa than Europe are sufficient to unconsciously define them as "lesser".
For over 50 years in the US and over 20 years in SA, racial equality has been the law, but as many conservatives are quick to point out on issues like gun legislation: you can't legislate behaviour.
White America, white South Africa, open your eyes. Your brothers and sisters, your countrymen are overlooked, underrepresented, and unseen.
When someone with a different background and a little more melanin than you moves into your neighbourhood, how do you respond? Do you act differently if they speak, act, and dress like you?
What about a new hire at your work, do you assume that he earned the position if he's white, but was given a position to help "diversify" the company if he's hispanic, black, or another such marginalised group?
How do you talk about other people groups? Are you "Us" and the others "Them"?
How do you react when you see some white teenagers walking down the street compared to black teenagers?
Church, what about you? Look within your walls. How many different colours can you see?
Are you monoracial or diverse?
Do you have an even spread across racial lines or only a token few not of the majority?
Are you reaching across racial boundaries to show Christ's love?
Are you stepping out in faith where you might be uncomfortable to take on the plight of another?
Take a look at James 1:27. Need I remind you, Church, that we are all one people under Christ, as Paul makes clear that there is no division like Jew or Greek? Why, then, do we allow this disparity of treatment by race to persist?
If these things are troubling you, maybe striking a chord, I urge you to read a couple posts (The Passion of the Chris & Sodomy: A South African Love Story) from a pastor friend, Brett "Fish" Anderson.
Now, all that said, here's the thing: I'm not much better.
I don't want you thinking that I'm giving all my money to the poor or that I go every weekend to the run-down parts of town to do some kind of charity work. I don't.
I don't want you thinking that I am that amazing white man who understands the entirety of the racial struggle and can serve as cultural translator for both parties. Ask my wife - I've earned the right to ask her her thoughts on the modern race dynamics and have come to the point that I recognise I don't understand. And that's okay, because I'm willing to put in the hard work to be humble and ask.
Some of you may be wondering why I'm targeting everything at the white population. After all, there is racism perpetrated by other groups and negative attitudes and behaviours from other sides as well. To put it simply, I am white. I have no right to dictate patterns of behaviour to those not like me, especially when people like me have contributed to the problems currently in place
Those of you who've been reading my blog for a while know I grew up in Cape Town and, while I may not currently live there, I have many connections back home and so, I see a large amount of what goes on and what some of the key issues are.
South Africa and the US have a good number of similarities, as far as social dynamics go. One such similarity that's been building in my awareness is the disparity of perception and treatment based on the perception of wealth and degree of whiteness.
And that grieves me.
At the University of Cape Town, a number of events have occurred within the past couple weeks. I won't pretend to know the full thought and intention, but they prompt me to see that many people, students especially, are fed up with the non-progress of social equality in SA.
In the US, I see the federal neglect of water quality in Flint, where ~ 63% of the population is non-white and 42% of the population is below the poverty line. I see awards ceremonies where black artists are awarded in an "urban" category, but don't even really place in the grand running, or where black actors and actresses are only recognised if they make movies and shows appealing to a broader (read: white) audience.
We still live in a society where one's degree of whiteness or affluence affords an individual certain subconscious benefits and, let's be honest, we judge affluence by adhering to a white standard of dress and decorum.
Here's where it hits home for me: my children will not be afforded the same generosity of subconscious treatment that I have received. They will be born into a society in which even a drop of melanin darker than an Italian or body features more akin to Africa than Europe are sufficient to unconsciously define them as "lesser".
For over 50 years in the US and over 20 years in SA, racial equality has been the law, but as many conservatives are quick to point out on issues like gun legislation: you can't legislate behaviour.
White America, white South Africa, open your eyes. Your brothers and sisters, your countrymen are overlooked, underrepresented, and unseen.
When someone with a different background and a little more melanin than you moves into your neighbourhood, how do you respond? Do you act differently if they speak, act, and dress like you?
What about a new hire at your work, do you assume that he earned the position if he's white, but was given a position to help "diversify" the company if he's hispanic, black, or another such marginalised group?
How do you talk about other people groups? Are you "Us" and the others "Them"?
How do you react when you see some white teenagers walking down the street compared to black teenagers?
Church, what about you? Look within your walls. How many different colours can you see?
Are you monoracial or diverse?
Do you have an even spread across racial lines or only a token few not of the majority?
Are you reaching across racial boundaries to show Christ's love?
Are you stepping out in faith where you might be uncomfortable to take on the plight of another?
Take a look at James 1:27. Need I remind you, Church, that we are all one people under Christ, as Paul makes clear that there is no division like Jew or Greek? Why, then, do we allow this disparity of treatment by race to persist?
If these things are troubling you, maybe striking a chord, I urge you to read a couple posts (The Passion of the Chris & Sodomy: A South African Love Story) from a pastor friend, Brett "Fish" Anderson.
Now, all that said, here's the thing: I'm not much better.
I don't want you thinking that I'm giving all my money to the poor or that I go every weekend to the run-down parts of town to do some kind of charity work. I don't.
I don't want you thinking that I am that amazing white man who understands the entirety of the racial struggle and can serve as cultural translator for both parties. Ask my wife - I've earned the right to ask her her thoughts on the modern race dynamics and have come to the point that I recognise I don't understand. And that's okay, because I'm willing to put in the hard work to be humble and ask.
~ ~ ~
Friday, January 15, 2016
The Ethics Dialogue
So, many times we tend to take the Christian ethical perspective for granted. After all, we live in a nominal Christianity-soaked atmosphere, where many individuals are peddling Christian-flavoured perspectives, thoughts, and other mice, moral "Christianities".
One of the cool things about being a medical student is seeing where scientific naturalism/humanism and Christianity stand at odds and there are few places where this is near as evident as in ethics, especially medical ethics.
Today, let us consider inherited congenital chronic disorders (think ALD, Cystic Fibrosis, Down's Syndrome, etc).
Many such disorders once had an average life expectancy barely into childhood. Here lies the first conflict. A naturalistic and/or humanistic philosophy might say that we should let natural selection run its course. After all, they would probably not contribute much to the human population. From a Christian perspective, we see a couple strong, influencing factors, revolving around the posits that life is a special creation of God, that man is created in the image of God, and that human life is valuable to God. From this position, then, it makes ethical sense to seek preservation and prolonging of life, regardless of genetic anomaly.
Modern medicine, now, has enabled patients with an inherited congenital disorder to live longer lives, many with an average lifespan well into an adulthood. That, of course, prompts another, newer ethical question: Many such patients reaching adulthood may be wondering about and wanting to have children - is it morally or ethically right for an individual with an inherited congenital disease to conceive children? Similarly, is it moral or ethical to disallow such an individual to conceive? Lastly, what are the moral and ethical costs associated with adoption? Given the shorter lifespan and constant, present treatment and expenses, should adoption agencies consider such a patient as a potential parent for adoption?
So, those are a ton of questions to ponder. I can give the cold, hard, far absolute scientific naturalist/humanistic response to the first couple questions. The answer would be a flat "No". The answer would even be no for two carriers to marry and conceive children, because they run the risk of perpetuating undesirable genetic traits in the gene pool. As for the adoption questions, those are a grey area not immediately affected by natural selection and would probably be answered with a "Yes".
Note that most scientists will not lie in this far camp, more likely falling in a more compassionate position. Many may be familiar with the term "eugenics". Eugenics was an application of genetics in population medicine in an effort to purify the human gene pool. That is a historical application of this stance on ethics.
From a Christian perspective, should we allow these individuals to conceive children? I would say that question is not our jurisdiction. We humans do not have the right to determine whether an individual should exist, given that God is the one who decides whether an individual will exist in the first place.
To cease deferring the question, though, I would say the Christian has an ethical and moral obligation to inform a patient of the risks inherent to his or her children, but has no right to tell him or her not to have children. Instead, the patient has full autonomy and the physician is providing more background for a fully-informed decision. Adoption is definitely a viable option, I think, with the only question being the ability of the prospective parents to emotionally, physically, and financially support and care for a child.
These type of ethical dilemmas are entertaining to ponder, particularly the far absolutes. It is of great value that we take time to consider what is right and wrong and the rationales therefore, as they provide us great insight into our own values as well as the values of others.
If you, as the reader have any other perspective, have a question, or feel that I have missed an important point, please let me know.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Open Doors
Okay, so this is my token contribution to the continuance of Syrian refugees in the US.
First: When I heard about the attacks in Paris, one of my first thoughts was the worry that this would encourage world leaders to shut their doors on refugees and asylum-seekers. Thankfully, this has not happened.
Second: I heard backlash against President Obama along the lines of "We need to have better screening. We can't just open our borders to thousands of refugees, some of whom may be terrorists!" (Yes, this was the first I'd heard of Obama's announcement. Don't judge me; I'm in medical school.)
Third: I saw many Christians welcoming the refugees and castigating the other Christians and conservatives for wanting to slam the door.
Now, as we all know, Facebook is the world's most accurate source of information and news. Even so, I decided to do a little digging of my own. Why? Well, because I recognise what the Bible says about loving foreigners and asylum-seekers, both in the Old Testament and the New.
Some good examples may be found here:
To further set an example, we were once considered strangers to the kingdom of God (Eph 2:11-19, Col 1:21-22)
First: When I heard about the attacks in Paris, one of my first thoughts was the worry that this would encourage world leaders to shut their doors on refugees and asylum-seekers. Thankfully, this has not happened.
Second: I heard backlash against President Obama along the lines of "We need to have better screening. We can't just open our borders to thousands of refugees, some of whom may be terrorists!" (Yes, this was the first I'd heard of Obama's announcement. Don't judge me; I'm in medical school.)
Third: I saw many Christians welcoming the refugees and castigating the other Christians and conservatives for wanting to slam the door.
Now, as we all know, Facebook is the world's most accurate source of information and news. Even so, I decided to do a little digging of my own. Why? Well, because I recognise what the Bible says about loving foreigners and asylum-seekers, both in the Old Testament and the New.
Some good examples may be found here:
To further set an example, we were once considered strangers to the kingdom of God (Eph 2:11-19, Col 1:21-22)
As Christians, this should be our first point of reference: "What does the Bible say on this?"
In addition to the Bible, a clear understanding of what has actually been said and elaborated upon should probably be obtained from credible sources, not the rumour mill.
What's most easily accessible is the number of Republican party members, all presidential hopefuls, pushing to stop the influx of refugees, citing national security. Note, these are presidential hopefuls and this is immediately following the Paris bombing, in which one suspect was, allegedly, a Syrian refugee. Is there an element of caution? Yes. Is there an element of bi-partisan power playing going on? Very likely. Are these individuals hoping to garner the increasingly xenophobic conservative ballot? Most definitely.
Something of interest, though, is that Obama made the plans to permit up to ~10k refugees way back in September and nobody batted an eyelid. All of two months ago, he made that statement and assured the public and the press that they would follow due process in granting asylum papers, a process which, for the US, is far longer than most countries. In this case, it's actually close to 1 1/2 years worth of paperwork. That means it'd be 2017 before any of these current refugees actually have their papers.
Yes, we get the comments coming from the Right that the US is most likely the main target for extremists - what else is new? Yes, we get that we don't know who these people are - that's why the long vetting process.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that this issue has become a red herring and echo chamber for conservatives who keep to Fox News and/or conservative tabloids such as Conservative Tribune. Now, I'm not knocking Fox, but when you know your news media has a bias, shouldn't you also read from another source - and not the conservative editorials of other sources - to find out the other side of the issue?
As for not having Syria's co-operation in completing the vetting process, yes that throws a wrench in the works, but it's one that, with a year and a half-long application process, should be worked over in time for the first wave to arrive. Hopefully
So, what does this mean? It means, we can take down the xenophobic posters we've just plastered all over our Facebook pages. You know, these ones:
Instead, we can respect our government (you know, that passage in Romans 13), trust that God will honour the good they seek to do, and trust that the plans set in place for our protection will work. After all, if we die, we see Christ. If we live, we have a greater opportunity for sharing the Gospel.
I don't know about you, but I'm with Paul on this one. "To live is Christ. To die is gain"
Monday, November 9, 2015
Faith and Poverty
So, today I had a rushed time studying my Bible. I just picked James 2 to skim through and call it done, to check my little box that said I had spent time in God's word today.
Little did I know God would stop me with a verse that I'm still sitting, struggling over, uncertain in myself. And it's such a simple verse.
Where impartiality meets faith-induced work, we see the above passage.
Earlier today, I tucked a small jab at the American church over its uproar about the design change of Starbucks' cups when there are such greater needs and far better ways in which to make Christ known in the world.
That being said, I cannot let this passage go so easily, or, rather, God won't let it let go of me.
You see, I'm beginning to think God is doing something in me. He works in interesting ways, prodding us towards aspects of faith that challenge our comfortability. When we get to a point at which we say, "God, I think I get this faith and works thing. I'm doing a pretty good job of it," He is quick to point out areas in which we could use a little more stepping out in faith.
During these last couple months, in my time studying the Bible and listening to my various pastors, God has confronted me with two large areas in which my faith is not being lived out.
It's my choice. I can walk away and God will wait, patiently. My faith will stay where it is, stunted, maybe even stagnant, as I join the rest of the world in worshipping themselves and giving lip service to God. That's the easy thing, the comfortable thing. It asks nothing of me.
God, well, he's asking. To act would involve me giving of my time - something I don't have a lot of, but I'm usually willing to chip in a couple of hours for a good cause. To act would involve trusting God for His plan - something I prefer to devise myself, of my own knowledge and understanding. To act would involve something of my money - something I also don't have a lot of, but it pays for all of my first world comforts, my food, my internet, my school.
God is telling me to shut up and put my money where my mouth is and I'm just praying and asking for the courage.
It's scary stepping out in faith. I can't think of a time in which I've ever been so torn or conflicted. I can see the way that is right, but I don't want to be uncomfortable.
As for me, tonight, I'll be talking to my wife, coming to one accord over what we can and should do.
Little did I know God would stop me with a verse that I'm still sitting, struggling over, uncertain in myself. And it's such a simple verse.
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" - James 2:14-16This passage lies right between two already challenging passages in James. Right before it is his statement on not showing preference in treatment of those in the church or even outside of it. Immediately following it is a passage discussing how deeds are the measure by which one's faith is proven, or, more classically, "Faith without works is dead."
Where impartiality meets faith-induced work, we see the above passage.
Earlier today, I tucked a small jab at the American church over its uproar about the design change of Starbucks' cups when there are such greater needs and far better ways in which to make Christ known in the world.
That being said, I cannot let this passage go so easily, or, rather, God won't let it let go of me.
You see, I'm beginning to think God is doing something in me. He works in interesting ways, prodding us towards aspects of faith that challenge our comfortability. When we get to a point at which we say, "God, I think I get this faith and works thing. I'm doing a pretty good job of it," He is quick to point out areas in which we could use a little more stepping out in faith.
During these last couple months, in my time studying the Bible and listening to my various pastors, God has confronted me with two large areas in which my faith is not being lived out.
- How am I working for the benefit of the poor and needy?
- How am I evangelising to my peers and passers-by?
You see, I do a lot of talk, trying to mobilise others to share the Gospel or to consider those in greater need than they, maybe even encouraging them to change the manner by which they see the world, but there's a stark lack of practicing what I'm preaching.
"You say you believe in God; that is good. Even the demons believe - and they shudder" - James 2:19, paraphraseThis is God's challenge to me right now. I say I have faith and God is showing me how the faith of believers led them to actions of generosity, of benevolence, selflessness, and charity. God has set the pieces in motion and He has me in check.
It's my choice. I can walk away and God will wait, patiently. My faith will stay where it is, stunted, maybe even stagnant, as I join the rest of the world in worshipping themselves and giving lip service to God. That's the easy thing, the comfortable thing. It asks nothing of me.
God, well, he's asking. To act would involve me giving of my time - something I don't have a lot of, but I'm usually willing to chip in a couple of hours for a good cause. To act would involve trusting God for His plan - something I prefer to devise myself, of my own knowledge and understanding. To act would involve something of my money - something I also don't have a lot of, but it pays for all of my first world comforts, my food, my internet, my school.
God is telling me to shut up and put my money where my mouth is and I'm just praying and asking for the courage.
It's scary stepping out in faith. I can't think of a time in which I've ever been so torn or conflicted. I can see the way that is right, but I don't want to be uncomfortable.
"So, whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is a sin" - James 4:17
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Matthew 7:13-14Sometimes, it's easy to forget we're not promised a comfortable life. Sure, we remember it when explaining why Christians in other countries are being killed, but we seem to forget it when God asks something tough of us.
As for me, tonight, I'll be talking to my wife, coming to one accord over what we can and should do.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
We Remember
A red sun sets upon the hill
The blood spilled on the ground
As hands which once held stones before
Stood angrily around
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As mothers torn, bereft
A song sung from a hundred lips
Echoes across the plain
As men and women raised on high
Sing praises through the pain
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As fathers torn, bereft
A silence filled the crowded square
Condemned upon the dais
A chop and thud cuts off the sound
Of the prisoner's last prayer
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As sisters torn, bereft
The women scream, the comfort breaks
Unsettled houses turn
Unwelcome violence cannot still
The praises from their lips
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As brothers torn, bereft
At last the final trumpet sounds
The grave gives up its dead
Tears will no more stain our eyes
In joy we'll live instead
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
A family born through death
The blood spilled on the ground
As hands which once held stones before
Stood angrily around
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As mothers torn, bereft
A song sung from a hundred lips
Echoes across the plain
As men and women raised on high
Sing praises through the pain
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As fathers torn, bereft
A silence filled the crowded square
Condemned upon the dais
A chop and thud cuts off the sound
Of the prisoner's last prayer
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As sisters torn, bereft
The women scream, the comfort breaks
Unsettled houses turn
Unwelcome violence cannot still
The praises from their lips
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
As brothers torn, bereft
At last the final trumpet sounds
The grave gives up its dead
Tears will no more stain our eyes
In joy we'll live instead
We remember you who go before
We remember you who've left
The name of God upon your lips
A family born through death
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Oh Jerusalem
"Disaster comes upon disaster; rumor follows rumor. They seek a vision from the prophet, while the law perishes from the priest and counsel from the elders." - Ezekiel 7:26
This verse, talking about Jerusalem during its fall due to sin, just really rang true to me.
We see disasters all around us - earthquakes, wars, genocides, tsunamis, and pandemics, to name a few.
We hear rumours abounding, about celebrities, politicians and pastors.
We seek spiritual solace from prominent bloggers, speakers, YouTubers, or writers.
Churches and pastors compromise on the uncomfortable parts of the gospel.
The older generations, though they may still desire to do so, no longer give counsel to the newer generation - they are neither valued nor heard.
Jerusalem was a city who felt the hand of God in many ways for many years. She was a city who flourished under the presence of God during the reigns of godly rulers, like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, and yet, at this point in her history, she had completely forgotten about God and was instead pandering to the idols of the nations and peoples around her.
Foreign gods
Money
Political power
Social status
Acceptance
I want you to re-read that list. Scroll through your Facebook or Twitter feed for the last few months.
The church is fast becoming the last place people look for spiritual help.
Our society has become increasingly focused on either the earning, receiving, or spreading of money.
How many individuals are currently running for the Republican presidential bid?
How often do we try for the greatest Instagram post, the house with the most curb appeal, the fastest car?
How often does society scream for valuation, whether it's of ideology, lifestyle, or person?
Oh Jerusalem,
Who saw you in your infancy and had pity on you?
Who raised you into the full flower of womanhood?
Who entered into covenant with you in full flush of love and affection?
Who provided your every need and adorned you with beautiful stones?
Who fed you with the finest of foods and clothed you with the smoothest of silks?
Oh Jerusalem,
When will you see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)