Set Your Mind on Things Above

Feeling frustrated by all you find on your social media feed?

Bothered by the barrage of brutish babel spewed by the media broadcasters?

Tired and tormented even by television ads and entertainment that used to be turned to as an escape from troubling times?

I've found a secret source of solace I want to share. They are wise words from a sacred text that has stood the test of time.  The counsel these words contain will calm your soul in the current crisis. The message contained in these words has the power to produce peace in the midst of political turbulence and courage in a culture of chaos.

What words am I referring to? They come through the pen of the apostle Paul, but their origins flow from heaven itself. First written to a small, struggling church nearly 2,000 years ago, they ring true today as much as ever. You will find them in the book of Colossians, chapter 3, verse 2. 

Here they are: "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth."

Read it again.

Read it again.

Here is the antidote to our anxiety. Here is a prescription for all our problems. 

Christian, you can do this. You don't HAVE to think about what comes through your radio, TV or social media platform. You don't HAVE to pay attention to every ad, every news broadcast, every discouraging word from your surroundings. Rather, you can decide to think on something else. You choose your thoughts. You hold the steering wheel of your mind in your hands. Your thoughts do not have to go down every bleak and bumpy boulevard you discover. Shift gears. Turn around. Your mind is a telescope. You decide what you want to look at and what you don't. "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth."

Christian, you should do this. The contents of heavenly contemplation are much better than the material you will find here on earth. This is a more pleasant path. Everything in this world is passing away. It's rotting as we speak. Everything in heaven lives forever. The ruler of this world is only evil. The King of Glory is only good. Earthly things frequently disappoint. Heavenly things can always be trusted. The Word of God is heavenly...think on that. Forgiveness is heavenly...think on that. Righteousness, truth, love, holiness...all are heavenly...think on them. Most of all, Christ Himself sits in heaven. Think on Him. Meditate upon Him. Consider Him and all He has done, all He is doing, all He will still do. "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth."

Christian, lastly, you must do this. You have to. Because this is who you are. "For you died," says Paul in the following verse, "and your life is hidden with Christ in God." You see, believer, you no longer belong here in this world. You're a stranger here. Your citizenship is in a better place. This is not your home. We are only passing through. You don't park at every intersection to approach. You pause and go through it. You are looking ahead. That isn't your destination. And you will never reach your journey's end by building your home on the side of the highway. Look up. Lift your thoughts. You must "set your mind on the things above, not on things on the earth."

Coronavirus IV - 3 Questions I'm Thinking About

The past few weeks have certainly given us plenty to think about. Not that I have had more time to think. I haven't. As someone working in health care this pandemic has resulted in several very difficult weeks of long hours as we have been planning how to manage the ever-changing situation. My heart goes out to the many who have been impacted by this virus.

I think it was mostly the unexpected nature of our situation that has been the hardest on people. We have gotten used to people dying from the flu, from heart disease, from cancer. It is not so much the "numbers" that are the most scary about the coronavirus, but the unknown. If I tell you 10,000 people will die this month from the flu, we can accept that. If I tell you 10 people will die from an alien attack, we freak out. We don't have a category in our mind for "alien attack." This is new. This is unexpected. This sounds dangerous. How do we know if it will only be 10?

But now that we have gotten more accustomed to the concept of a coronavirus, I have found my mind beginning to ask some fundamental questions about all of this. I don't know that I have the answers. Just a few pickled thoughts at best.

The main 3 questions I have right now are:

1) Were We Ready?  Were we ready for this virus as a nation? I'm not asking if we responded quickly enough to the Wuhan situation. That will be debated forever. I just mean in general...were we ready for something like this to happen. Seems like we should have been. A virus is not a new thing. Even a pandemic is not a new thing. This wasn't our first go-around with an infectious disease. In all fairness, it seems like we were ready in some ways, but not ready in some other ways. To not have enough masks and other PPE seems almost inexcusable. It felt like we were inventing how to respond on the spot. Did anyone ever use the terms "social distancing" before now? Have we tried this amount of "shutting down" before? Did we debate this type of response publicly long before we actually had to pull the trigger and do it? I don't recall it. It sounds silly, but even the run on toilet paper has happened in the past. Still, we couldn't respond in a timely way, and weeks later our stores still can't keep up with the demand. I guess from the perspective of a citizen, I would give us a "C" in our readiness overall.

2) Did It Work? The next question I'm wondering about is whether our response as a nation has actually worked. Did it save lives? If so, how many? The answer isn't obvious or easy. How do we know what the results would have been if we had done nothing? Models tried to answer that question. But models are just guesses with data, and as the data keeps changing, the models keep changing. I honestly don't know how we ever really get to know the answer to this question. Scientifically the answer would require clinical trials, a control group, blinding, crossovers, etc. Since that is unlikely, we will mostly just be left with opinions. My opinion? Yeah, it helped. Less people got sick and died as a result or our efforts. We flattened the curve a bit. How much? I don't know. I'm not sure anyone ever will.

3) Was It Right? Specifically, is what we have done as a country with respect to mandatory social distancing and the closing down of businesses just and fair? Was this the right response? Is it consistent with our fundamental beliefs, our constitution, our liberty and our notion of freedom? Did we have to respond this way? Here I am a little more sure of my own answer to this question at the moment. My answer is no.

I am honestly struggling with how our approach to this could be right. I believe it saved lives. And the philosophy of pragmatism says "if it worked, it was good." But I don't live by an "ends justifies the means" worldview. Does the lesser evil of what we did compensate for the greater evil of lost life? I just can't wrap my head around it. I'm open to being shown I am wrong. I hope to remain open minded. I surely wouldn't wish death on anyone. But I just can't see how a free society can do what we did.

What did we do? As I see it (I'm open to reconsider), we basically said to 1 group of people "You are in a non-essential job. Therefore, you must stay home. You must close up. You must give up working. You must give up your business, your livelihood, your employees, your products, your means of providing for yourself. Give up your health insurance. You must stop getting paid, you must give up all sense of dignity that comes from employment. You may lose your home, your car, your property. Everything you worked years to build you must dismantle for the sake of others." Make no mistake, that is what we did. Not to 1 person. Not to a few dozen. But as of the writing of this post there have been 17 million unemployment claims in 3 weeks as a result of our social distancing rules. Will all suffer equally? Of course not. But some will be severely hurt for sure.

And to another group we said: "You are essential. You can keep working, keep getting paid, keep your dignity, keep your homes, cars and all your stuff. Work in a hospital or pharmacy? You're fine. Work for the government? You're fine, keep working. Work in a job that was already or easily converted to remote work? You're fine, paychecks may keep flowing in. You all get to keep your jobs."

It bothers me deep in my soul that the most vocal people about the importance of mandatory business closings and social distancing are those who are not impacted at all  by the rules. Politicians are not impacted. The media is not impacted. Whenever I see people say "just stay home" it is almost assuredly someone who has seen little to no economic impact themselves. I'm sure there are exceptions. It is just a bit too convenient  in my opinion to vote for and promote restrictions that only impact other people.

Yes, I'm glad that unemployment benefits will help a lot of people. But I'm also pretty sure that a check can't fix everything. It just doesn't seem right.

Conclusion: I've run out of thoughts for now. My heart goes out to the sick. My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones. My heart goes out to those who have lost jobs, income, a business, their savings. This isn't really a conclusion. It is only the end.

Tomorrow is Easter. I'm reminded there is hope. I'm reminded that what my sins did to Christ on Good Friday, God's Grace overcame on resurrection Sunday. This world was in a mess long before coronavirus. There is a bigger debt than our national debt: the debt we owe to God for our sin. And His recovery plan was accomplished at Calvary. See you at the cross.

Coronavirus III - You Cannot Be Moved

In this my 3rd post motivated by the coronavirus I have deliberately tried to stay away from strong pronouncements about what we should do. These have not been especially "medical" posts. There are plenty of those. This blog is a place where I think out loud. Maybe my thoughts will change over time. They often have.

In my first post I stated that we simply do not have enough data to predict with any accuracy what will happen in the U.S. as the virus spreads. This is still true. Though we have many more cases confirmed, we still cannot really know what the hospitalization or mortality rate of this virus will turn out to be. More time and more cases and more testing are needed.

In my second post I stated we need to strike a balance between health, economy and personal freedom. The balance is hard to find. But I do continue to question that an extended and mandatory closing of non-essential businesses is the right approach. I continue to point out that this strategy is being promoted entirely by those who have virtually nothing to lose by this method. Medical people are not out of work. Politicians are not out of work. The media are not out of work. I only point out that it is at least reasonable and fair to question the "balance" of this when it is being enforced by those who are not financially impacted by the rules. Have we polled the 3.28 million individuals who applied for unemployment this past week? It appears many more people have lost their jobs than lost their health from this virus so far.

Today I'm thinking about all the distress and fear that COVID-19 has caused. And a verse that I read gave me something comforting to think on. In particular, this post was prompted by Psalm 125:1 which reads "Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but abides forever."

The Psalmist begins with a comparison. Comparisons are helpful tools for teaching. To compare two things is usually to say "this" (some new thought or idea) is like "that" (something well-known and understood). We see this all the time in the Bible. The Book of Psalms, for example, opens by saying that the man who "delights in the law of the Lord" can be compared to a "tree, planted by rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season."  Do you want to be fruitful? Do you want to be spiritually healthy? "Delight in the law of the Lord."

The comparison in Psalm 125:1 is another such teaching tool. The Psalmist is saying that "God-trusting people" are like Mount Zion which is stable, firm, unshakable and immovable. They "cannot be moved." Those who trust the Lord stand firm. Those who trust the Lord are on sure ground. Those who trust God aren't shaken by circumstances. You could sooner move Mount Zion than you can move the man that trusts the Lord.

But in what sense is it said of these people that they "cannot be moved"?

Well, surely it is not that their opinions "cannot be moved." Opinions change. Thinking changes. Paul says "when I was a child, I thought like a child." But that changed. He grew up. Opinions change.

Surely it cannot be that our physical location "cannot be moved." We move all the time. Christ Himself moved from town to town and sent His disciples to move and spread out and bring the gospel to all nations.

In what sense, then, is it true that those who trust in the Lord "cannot be moved?"

What the Psalmist seems to have in mind is safety. He is saying that those trusting in God cannot be moved away from or outside of His protection.  Those trusting in the Lord have His promised protection, such that no enemy can so much as touch them without the express permission of God. The verse immediately following verse 1 says that "the Lord surrounds His people." Christian - God Himself surrounds you. What can possibly harm you?

Are you in Christ? You are more safe than you can possibly know.

I'm reminded of that episode in the life of Elisha where he prayed for the Lord to open the eyes of his servant to see the great company of horses and fiery chariots all around. But the situation for the Christian is even better than this. God Himself surrounds you. Nothing can take you out of that circle of His protection. No, nothing, not even the coronavirus. Believer - you "cannot be moved."

No wonder this short Psalm ends with "Peace be upon Israel!"

How can we not be at peace when Christ has promised to "never leave us or forsake us"? How can we not be at peace when "neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing [virus' included], shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39).

Christian, I cannot make it any more plain than the text itself. God surrounds you. You are safe. You are secure. And as a mountain which cannot be moved, so you cannot be moved outside of the His protection. You are in the very hand of God. No one can snatch you away. You are in the fold of the Good Shepherd, and no one can steal His sheep.

But, my dear reader, note that this promise of Psalm 125:1 does have 1 very important limitation. Note that it only belongs to believers. It is exclusively given to "those who trust in the Lord." They, and they alone, "cannot be moved."

Do you trust Him? If not, your current place of imagined protection is going away. You will be taken out of it. You will be moved. Your sense of safety is temporary. Sadly, everything you count on for peace will one day be gone. Your money will go, your health will go, your friends will go, your peace will go, your life will go. Every protection you have surrounded yourself with will be gone. Then what will you do? Yes, you will be moved. The Psalmist himself in this very Psalm acknowledges this, saying ominously, "the Lord shall lead them away (vs. 5)." You will be moved from life to death, from death to judgement, and from judgment to hell itself.

The application is simple: trust in the Lord. Those who do are under the protection of the Almighty, and "cannot be moved."

Do you trust Him?

Coronavirus II - Love Thy Neighbor: Isolation & Striking the Balance

The current Director General of the World Health Organization is Dr. Tedros Adhanon Ghebreyesus. He was elected to serve his 5-year term in 2017. In some opening remarks to the media about the recent COVID-19 pandemic, he made the following noteworthy statement:

"All countries must strike a fine balance between protecting health, minimizing economic and social disruption, and respecting human rights."

If someone could summarize the challenge that lies before us right now as a society with respect to coronavirus containment, the above words (in my opinion) could hardly be improved upon.

Strike a fine balance. Therein lies the great challenge. And here is where extremism, panic, exaggerated reaction, and simple ignorance all lead us astray.

Maybe the most obvious example of the difficulty we have to "strike a fine balance" is in the area of isolation, or social distancing. By separating ourselves from one another, the virus is limited to those already infected, and will simply run its course, most will recover fine, and the pandemic will be done. To read the advice coming from some news sources...this is the absolutely most brilliant and perfect idea. Everybody just hunker down, work from home, and ride this out on your stocked-up supplies for 14 days (or longer).

Sounds perfect.

And it is no surprise that this sort of advice tends to be promoted heavily by journalists and media who have jobs that frankly can be done from anywhere (to a large extent). It seems perfect to them. And it seems to also be the preferred solutions to thousands of others who already work from home or who have jobs that will not be materially impacted if they simply stay home and work.

But that solution fails, from my perspective, to "strike the fine balance" we need. It fails to take into consideration that millions of Americans work in jobs that simply cannot be done from home. Shall we tell all our law enforcement officers to work from home? All healthcare workers? Hospitals? Pharmacies? Nursing homes? Should we simply shut down all retail operations for a month? Power supply? Auto mechanics? Medical supply distributors? Do people even realize that this would mean bankruptcy for hundreds of thousands of small businesses and hourly employees?

Radical social distancing sounds good in theory. But for many it is simply impractical. For a civilized society it is impossible.

I have read well-meaning religious leaders telling people that staying home for 2 weeks is the way "to love your neighbor" so they don't get infected. If you love your neighbor, they say, you will isolate yourself and prevent the spread of this virus. Even if you aren't sick, you may be carrying it, so stay home. Don't risk it, just because you are young and healthy and will recover...thy neighbor may not. So stay home. It is the "loving" thing to do.

Really? Is it that easy to say? Is the choice really that simple? Are those who choose to employ radical social distancing "loving" their neighbors, and everyone else does not? My question is this: which neighbor are you referring to? The neighbor who survives on tips at the local diner to pay her rent? The neighbor who lives paycheck to paycheck at the local donut shop? The neighbor who runs a small business in town for whom the reduced customer levels have already pushed him to the brink of bankruptcy?  The neighbor who didn't have the funds to stockpile and hoard food or paper products and actually needs to get to an open grocery store to replenish staples in her home? Is your voluntary isolation from the community for a couple weeks a way of loving THEM? 

The problem with the radical isolation, or the social distancing solution, is that it simply does not strike the balance needed to maintain our economy, though it would likely reduce the rate and lower the peak of coronavirus infection. It loves some neighbors, but not others. It promotes infection control, but is economically unsound. I do not believe it is appropriate if our goal is also to "minimize economic and social disruption."

People are free to think this through on their own and come up with their own plan. But if I were to be asked about how to respond to social distancing it is this:

1) Stay home if you are sick, coughing, sneezing, have a fever or have had direct contact with a confirmed coronavirus patient.

2) Practice very good personal hygiene. Wash your hands a lot. Break the habit of touching your face with your hands if at all possible. Cover coughs and sneezes.

3) If, in fact, you work in a job that you CAN work from home...great! Do it.

4) Please do not forget that many individuals and businesses are on the verge of financial collapse because of this pandemic. Love them too. Patronize them when you can and how you can.

I know that striking the balance is hard. I know that unfortunately a lot of people in our society won't take the common sense approach of staying home if they are sick. Maybe some can't. The result will be the spread of the virus and more sickness and more death. I'm grateful that well-meaning individuals promoting radical isolation do not want to see our hospitals and health systems overrun with sick patients that we have no room to treat. I get it.

But social isolation has it's limits. There is a balance to strike. There is more than just the medical health of our society at stake. I'm sure I don't have all the answers. I'm sure that striking the balance is a moving target. These are hard decisions to make as individuals let alone as a nation.

Pray for our nation, for our world and for all who are sick or caring for them. God bless!

Coronavirus - I Will Say What No One Wants to Say

This past week the World Health Organization has declared the coronavirus infection (AKA COVID-19) a pandemic.

As a result, some radical measures have been taken to prevent the further spread of this virus here in the U.S. Those measures include, but are not limited to, school closings, public gathering cancellations, stadium event cancellations, and entire sports seasons being cancelled or postponed. Health systems have taken significant steps to help protect both our patients and our staff. Additionally, we have observed some pockets of panic with respect to the hoarding of supplies and food and medicine.

All the while the American public has been listening to news reports that seem to gravitate toward one of two extremes. On the one hand are the news reports that suggest we are facing the apocalypse itself. Predictions have been made suggesting we are going to overwhelm our healthcare system, millions will be infected, tens of thousands will die, and our economy will collapse.

On the other hand there are those who seem to think we are all overreacting. They compare this simply to the seasonal flu. They wouldn't cancel any events, schools, or meetings. They think it is purely a hyped-up political scare tactic to make the current administration look inept.

So, what is REALLY going to happen over the coming weeks and months with respect to COVID-19?

We don't know.

I'll say it again: We don't know.

Nobody knows.

Our predictions are as bad and unreliable as forecasting the weather for next year.

And the simple reason is this: This EXACT scenario hasn't happened before. COVID-19 is new. It is not SARS. It is not Swine Flu. It is not Ebola. We are simply not scientifically advanced enough to plug in the data on this virus and predict the results.

Not only that, but we have no way to predict the exact effectiveness of the social distancing measures we are currently taking. How much will cancelling the NBA season help? We don't know. How much will cancelling college classes help? We don't know. What, exactly, is the benefit to moving employees to remote work vs. on site? We don't know. Yes, we DO know that social distancing helps. But no one can tell us for certain just how much it will help in this particular case.

We.Simply.Don't.Know.

People hate that. I hate that. As humans it grates against our souls to think we don't know something. We have an innate and natural desire to know all! On the one hand that is not a bad thing. It fuels science and promotes knowledge. But when uncoupled to humility we are prone to think we can predict just about anything. We can't.

Saying we don't know is terribly unpopular. It feels like a cop out. It feels unworthy of our great accomplishments in the realm of science. It feels like we are ignoring all sorts of evidence to say "I don't know." Can't we just look at data from China and Italy and Korea and use that evidence to tell us what will happen here? No. All that evidence tell us is what happened THERE.  Our culture is different. Our people are different. Our measures are different. The date is different. The virus itself may be different. There are simply too many factors to make guessing reliable. The problem is not a lack of data. The problem is that we are not God. Maybe that is what we hate most of all.

We are afraid of "I don't know." And fear makes us all do funny things. As a result, we prefer predictions, even wrong predictions, to the uncertainty of the future. We gravitate toward the extremes because it is more comfortable than "time will tell."

But guess what. Time will tell. Tomorrow we will know more than we do today. Next year we will know more about COVID-19 than we did in 2020. And we may learn something about the value of social distancing, the value of good hygiene. the value of immunizations, the value of being prepared.

In the midst of much uncertainty about coronavirus, I would remind people that there is much we DO know.

We know we should love one another.

We know we should be kind, considerate, patient, respectful and humble.

We know that missing a few public events is really no big deal in the end.

We know the economy will recover.

We know that God is good.

We know that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life."

I hope you know these things. I hope you know that panic is no way to live your life. I hope you know you should wash your hands, don't cough on others, and use common sense when it comes to your risk of illness.

Mostly I hope you know that this life, with or without the coronavirus, is fleeting and fading. None of us are guaranteed another day. Are things well with your soul? Have you considered the gospel of Jesus Christ? Have you dealt with your sin? What a shame to survive a virus but lose your soul to sin.

I don't know what will happen tomorrow. But I know what happened in the past. I know what Christ did for my sin. And I know what that means for my future. How about yours?

The Power of Patterns

I read an article recently on the ways that "privilege", in particular, "white privilege" shapes the world. The author cited examples and made her case that something as simple as the color of our skin can impact the quality of the opportunities that come our way, and ultimately the outcomes that we experience.

While she made a good point, I think she failed to demonstrate that skin color is only one of hundreds, if not thousands, of things that impact the way we get along in the world. In fact, our skin color may not be anywhere near the most important.

I have been thinking about another set of factors that have a large impact on our overall quality of life (however you choose to define 'quality'). These factors are the "patterns" or "habits" that become part of our daily, weekly and life-long approach to doing life.

Take, for example, the pattern of weekly church attendance and the decision to largely disengage from the regular weekly activities of work and entertainment for a single day. I'm talking about Sundays, or what some would refer to as a "Sabbath rest." I think it is fair to say that this pattern has been largely abandoned today, even among Christians. I say that not to scold or condemn, but only to point out that your actual approach to the week and to life will be significantly different if you choose to set Sunday apart for worship and for rest. Your Monday-Saturday will probably look different if you make a conscious decision to take Sunday off and devote much of the day to worship-gatherings and spiritual care for your body and soul.

My point in bringing up this particular pattern is that, in my experience, there is a substantially different quality of life enjoyed by those (no matter what their skin color, race, economic or social status is) who have put this pattern into practice. It is not that they don't have troubles. But there is a notable difference in, shall we say, the sort of "drama" that accompanies the lives of others that I either work with or know. Maybe it is an accountability thing. That could certainly be a part of the wisdom that God Himself determined would be good for mankind.

This pattern of a weekly day of rest ends up doing all sorts of things to the rest of our lives. It impacts, to some degree, the friends we keep. It impacts how we work on the other days. It influences the types of activities that we give our hearts to (will they intrude, regularly, into our day of rest?). It certainly forces us (in the best sense of that word) to take both a mental and physical break with such regularity that I wonder about the positive health implications that are enjoyed. I think there are arguably benefits that flow to families, children and marriages from this pattern of rest.

So, while the color of our skin may have some impact on the way in which we experience society and opportunities, I think it is unfair to ignore the impact of other things, like patterns of behavior and activity, which also influence our life. Our approach to Sunday is just one of those.

Of course, most readers will know that this pattern has its roots in the Bible. It appears to be something that God put in place from the very beginning, using His own example of a 6-day Creation to set the pattern for mankind to follow in our daily lives. The was re-affirmed in the 10 Commandments. Sanctified by the example of Jesus Himself in the Gospels. Followed by the early church, with the noticeable change of that "rest" day to Sunday, in honor of Christ's resurrection.

I wonder what other patterns impact the quality of the life we live. What daily habits influence our outcomes, or at least enable us to react to circumstances with maturity, grace and patience? It is tempting to think that things outside our control (like skin color or birth place) are the real reason for the quality of our lives. I suppose it is equally tempting to totally ignore those factors too. But I think we would do well to spend more time thinking about the things we can do, and have had consistent results, in the lives of those who do them. A pattern of Sunday rest and worship is just one of those things. But it may be worth thinking about.

The Beauty of Endurance

"But they who endure to the end shall be saved." Matthew 24:13


Endurance delights God. Christ specifically praises the Ephesian church in Revelation 2:3 saying "you have persevered and have patience...and have not become weary."

Endurance is not so beautiful to us. It is often painful. It isn't pretty. It isn't flashy.

Endurance has been called "long obedience in the same direction." Endurance means continuing in the faith even when, especially when, that faith is not popular with our culture.

John Bunyan in his classic Pilgrim's Progress wrote of those who enjoy religion, faith, church, prayers...only when they provided an advantage. He introduced Mr. By-ends who would profess his faith only when such actions were acceptable to those around. Mr. By-ends compares himself to others by saying "They are for Religion when in rags and contempt; but I am for him when he walks in his golden slippers, in the sunshine, and with applause."

Endurance means faith in Christ when such faith is viewed culturally "in rags and contempt."

I like what John Piper had to say about endurance, particularly about endurance within the church even when you are not in the limelight.

"Absolutely indispensable in the ongoing life of the church of God is the power to keep going month after month, year after year, even decade after decade in the path of obedience. And for many of us that will mean long-haul endurance in a particular ministry in spite of emotional and relational and spiritual and financial obstacles, even when the encouragements of the limelight and the attention and the glory and the admiration are gone, and we feel like the joys of life are passing us by.”

Churches can go through seasons of blessed growth. Things are exciting. Revival is grand. People are coming to faith, being baptized, following the Lord. Every meeting seems to have the aroma of joy and the Spirit's power. Thank the Lord for such times.

But endurance means continuing in faithfulness even when the numbers are declining. Interest is lagging. The excitement has died down. What happens then?

Endurance.

Christ delights as much in the enduring, though despised, church as He does over the church enjoying the blessings of growth, hearty fellowship and fruitful ministry. In fact, I think it pleases Him even more to see His children endure under seasons of affliction than it does when they obey in times of abundance. Paul calls the Lord in Romans 15:5 "The God of endurance...".

C.H. Spurgeon said "Faith healing is grand, but faith enduring is grander."

What about you and me?

Are we prepared to endure even when faith is unpopular? Will I keep going to church even if my particular ministry gets no attention? Do I have to be in the limelight to endure? Will I keep praying even when my prayers "appear" to go unanswered?

Endurance is the sweetest smelling flower of grace in the believer's garden. It is planted by God Himself. He waters it with grace. Christ loves endurance. He modeled it for us. "Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted."

Statistics suggest that suicide is a growing matter for concern. And it is. But I wonder if what we are seeing in the natural world is simply mimicking what has already occurred in the religious world. People are committing spiritual suicide by leaving the faith, quitting on Christ, giving themselves up to the world. The natural effects may be flowing from spiritual causes.

When you are tired, and feel like giving up, remember the beauty of endurance. Christ sees it differently than we do. From our side it looks rough, difficult, hard. It is. But from Christ's view in heaven endurance is a glorious thing. And what he promised to Paul, He promises to you: "My grace is sufficient, for My strength is made perfect in weakness."

A Word to Preachers

Though some might not call me an old man, I am surely no longer a young man. As such, I've learned some things. And one of the things that I have found true thus far in my Christian walk is the need in my soul for preaching. My innermost being needs it. My mind, soul and body needs to be preached to. My spiritual life is so very often fueled by the power of sermons. 

Conversations are pleasant. Reading is a treat. I'm grateful for the various channels of communication we have access to through television, radio, newspapers, email and the internet. But the one thing my soul desperately needs and cannot flourish without is preaching. A well-delivered sermon will pierce my heart in a way that no human book has ever done. Songs and music are pleasant. God bless the hymnists and accompanists that lift my spirit. But give me a man in the pulpit with a Bible in his hand, the Word of God on his lips, and a sermon flowing from his heart, and I shall be satisfied to set aside every other means ordained by God for the perfection of my soul. 

Oh I thank the Lord for the many means of grace He provides. Let no one mistake that I mean to discount the reading of the Word, public worship, the priority of prayer, the partaking of the sacraments, the usefulness of fasting, the blessedness of fellowship, the joy of singing and the many ways employed by the Spirit of God to shape us into the image of Christ. But I must acknowledge a special, God-ordained priority to preaching. 

Preaching has always been God's way. Noah, that ancient builder of the Ark, is not called a "craftsman" or "carpenter" but a "preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5)." The prophets of old did many miracles, but preaching "Thus says the Lord" was the greatest part of their holy work. Even David, the sweet Psalmist of Israel, says "I have preached righteousness in the great congregation (Psalm 40:9)." When John the Baptist came on the scene, he came preaching. "And he preached, 'There comes One mightier than I, after me (Mark 1:7)." The apostles were told to go into all the world "and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15)." Christ Himself declared the reason for His coming into the world and described it this way: "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent (Luke 4:43)."  This is no mere personal preference I am promoting. It is the Bible, not me, that says "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace (Romans 10:15, Is 52:7)."  

Because all this is true, I wish to speak a very brief word to those who have been called to be preachers. I hope that a word from the pew will not be mistaken as presumptuous, wearisome, or rude. I dare say that a good chef will care about the appetite of the diner, though that diner be untrained in the culinary arts. A sheep may not know everything about the work of a shepherd, but it knows when it is being sheared. Though I do not know all the depths of the struggles of the preacher's life, I know when a sermon has blessed my soul, and when it has not. 

With that in mind, I humbly make the following requests of all preachers today. 

First, I implore preachers to come with a text of Scripture. Let me know what portion of God's holy Word you are serving me today. Show me where it is, read it to my ears, define for me the borders of your message. No man can preach the whole Bible in a sermon. Pick a text. As the Promised Land was carefully carved out for the 12 tribes, with exact dimensions and limits, so you must show me the Scriptural territory you intend to divide to my soul today. Don't tell me you have a topic, if you do not have a text. I frankly do not care much about the message on your heart if it is not based on a passage in the Word. The creative titles you give to your sermon series would probably be better served by the book, chapter and verses you plan to expound. Preach THE Word. 

Second, I insist you speak to me with the authority that is appropriate of a herald of the King. If you hope to be listened to like a prince, do not stand before me as a court jester. Unto you has been granted the privilege and power to proclaim the Word of the Lord. You are an ambassador of Christ sent to me with news from my Master. Proclaim it! Away with your whispering of the truth, your casual chats, your comical show. Stand before me as a messenger of the Lord of hosts. The authority of His Word matters to my heart. Does it matter to you? I come ready to hear what my Savior says, what the Holy Spirit wrote, what the Father wants me to know. The eternal Trinity has stooped to speak to my soul through preaching, do not dare disrespect His dignity by your flippancy. You, preacher, have nothing to be proud of. But you have plenty of reason to be bold.  Handle your text with the reverence and respect due such holy words. Show me that you are prepared to submit to whatever your text says, because it is the very Word of God, and I will submit with you most gladly.

Third, I demand you to be clear with me. Let me say it again: be clear! Preach the point of your text, and get to it as quickly as possible. Life is too short, eternity too long, and my soul too needy to waste 30 minutes on your jibber-jabber. Let me know what the Lord is saying. Convince me that you have understood the Scripture and are about to explain it to me. Leave your messy study notes in your office. Your sermon must be an arrow: straight and sharp. Get to it. If you bumble your way through the passage your hearer's hearts won't be blessed, but by a miracle. Don't just walk me through the text. Preach it. Have a point and make it. If your hearer does not walk away having better understood the Scripture as a result of your sermon then you have not preached, you have only talked. Preach the Word clearly. This is the hard work you have been called to. Do it. Study, pray, weep, and think hard to know the meaning of your passage. Make it plain to me. Help me to understand. Use illustrations or quotes appropriately to nail the meaning in my mind. Do not assume my brain and heart are ready in an instant to understand what took you hours and days to discover. Preaching sloppy sermons is easy. Preaching pointedly is hard. I beg you from the bottom of my soul: do that difficult work.

My dear preacher friend, you have been called to the most noble work in this world. The rest of us may do good work, important work, appointed work...but you alone are doing lasting work. Heaven and hell will forever display the results of your holy employment. Christ alone will have the glory. And every man must answer in eternity for their own response to your gospel. But you have been set aside as a special instrument to preach to immortal beings about the only thing that truly matters in life. May the weight of this responsibility drive you more and more to Christ who is more than able to hold you up. Preacher, you are a gift from Christ to His church. I am sorry if you are not told that often enough. I commend you to the Lord and desire only that you stir up that gift that is in you to the salvation of many souls. 

To God be the Glory. 

A Sabbath Day's Journey...

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey" Acts 1:12


"They" were the apostles, and they had just witnessed the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Mount of Olives. What should they do now? Jesus told them. He commanded them "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father," that is, the Holy Spirit. Christ's body had left, but His word and authority remained. They obeyed their departed Savior's instruction. They returned from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem.

Then comes this strange little tidbit of information. Luke tells us that from Olivet to Jerusalem was  "a Sabbath day's journey." What does that mean, and why include it here?

What it means is impossible to know from the Bible alone, as this is the only place this phrase occurs in Scripture. But Jewish historians have confirmed from other sources that the distance is precisely 2,000 cubits, or just over half a mile.

At some point in Jewish history it appears to have become acceptable to travel this short distance on the Sabbath, but no further. Thus the distance is termed "a Sabbath day's journey." Maybe it was an attempt to further clarify the meaning of Exodus 16:29 where Moses commanded the wandering Israelites saying "let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." The context there was the gathering of manna. But maybe to accommodate the walk to the tabernacle for worship, a distance of 2,000 cubits would have to be permitted. Anything beyond that was apparently "work," and forbidden by the 4th commandment.

So maybe this "Sabbath day's journey" is a leftover expression from the OT era, important to a manna-gathering, tabernacle-visiting people but no one else.

But if so...why would Luke, and more importantly the Holy Spirit Himself, preserve this curious phrase for NT readers like ourselves if it was to become irrelevant to our modern situation?

Maybe because the phrase is not irrelevant at all. Maybe it is more important now and to our generation than ever before.

Think about it. The "Sabbath day's journey" was an attempt to limit the intrusion of busyness into a day designed for God's people to rest. We need this reminder too. The concept of a weekly day of rest was God's idea from creation. Jews practiced this on the seventh day. Today Christians celebrate this on Sunday. But the ordinance comes from creation, and found expression in the very moral law of God alongside other perpetual commands concerning things like idolatry, adultery and murder.

Are we not living in a culture that offers us 24/7 opportunities for a hurried, busy, constantly-going lifestyle? And has not the church bought into this mentality by virtually abandoning any notion of a "Lord's day" in our preaching and teaching to modern Christians? We have adopted the mindset that as long as you can make it to church (most of the time), the rest of the day is yours. Shop, play, work, exercise, entertain...whatever you want. The concept of a restful day to care mostly for the needs of our souls has vanished.

We don't want to become legalists. The scribes and Pharisees apparently took this notion of a "Sabbath day's journey" and found ways to extend their travel by randomly assigning any spot, such as a tree, as their "new home" and could thus travel an additional 2,000 cubits further to get to wherever they wanted to go. This is hypocrisy, not piety. They entirely missed the spirit of the rule. What was designed as a practical way to encourage a peaceful, restful, God-centered day, they took as nothing but a burden, and looked for loopholes to get around it.

What is our "Sabbath day's journey?" What are the practical restrictions we have prayerfully placed in our lives to promote the Lord's Day as a day of resting in Christ, both physically and spiritually? Maybe not doing routine housework and yard work on Sunday is a good one. What about committing to both a morning and evening worship service, to protect the day from other intruding obligations? What about refraining, as much as possible, from activities which require other people to work for the sake of our entertainment or refreshment? What about asking the boss to have Sunday's off?

Again, I don't think we become legalists simply by seeking practical ways to promote piety and the keeping of the 4th commandment. Modern conveniences and technology such as cars allow us to travel greater distances without the day become excessively busy or exhausting. But they can also easily become a convenient way to avoid the rest which the Lord has wisely prescribed for our body and soul.

Our culture wants us to bear the yoke of perpetual activity. We feel the need to be constantly "moving and doing" or our lives are simply not worth living. The horror of inactivity is implied by advertisers and social media which tell us if we are not constantly doing something worth sharing...we are unimportant and insignificant as human beings. Oh how much better is the yoke of Christ, who said "my burden is easy" and in Him "you will find rest for your souls."

Shall We Indeed Accept Good from God...

"Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" Job 2:10

The hand of faith accepts what God gives, be it good or bad. The eye of faith looks mostly upon the Giver and not the gift. Our comfort is not in our lot but in our Lord.

Notice...

Note that Job not merely "experienced" adversity, but "accepted" it. To accept adversity is an act of faith. Many experience trials, but do not accept them. The Christian must give lodging to every affliction sent by the Lord as he would his closest friend who needs a room.

Note also that Job did not "enjoy" adversity, but "accepted" it. Job was no lover of pain. He did not pretend it pleased his flesh, but he nevertheless receives it willingly into his heart. Christ Himself felt the agonies of the cross, but accepted the thorns and nails. So every Christian must accept every affliction given by God, though the pain is deeply felt.

But how? How does one accept adversity in this way?

1) See God's hand in it For Job, this was all "from God." It was not fate, or chance, or luck. It was not man's doing ultimately. Every affliction of God's people is by His design. His hand has measured it out. His arm delivered it. His mind planned it. Every attribute of the Triune God was employed in the creation of this affliction: His sovereignty, omniscience, holiness, justice and love. Our trials live on earth, but they were born in heaven.

2) See God's heart in it. Every affliction is intended for our good. Every trial flows from His love. Behind a frowning Providence He hides a smiling face. When He gives weeping for a night, He plans joy for the morning. His tender affection accompanies even the toughest affliction.

Oh my soul. Look up. He who has given us His Son, will He not also give us all things? Can the Lord ever forget those for whom His Son gave His life and died? Accept this affliction from Him. Receive it. Make room for it. Even welcome it as He truly intends it for our good, and not for evil.

3 Types of Sermons

I have been reading again one of my oldest and dearest books on preaching entitled "Preaching & Preachers" by the London pastor, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981). The book is actually a series of lectures he gave to theological students of Westminster Seminary. Although I first bought this book when I thought I myself might be heading toward the ministry, I have found it to offer much valuable information, encouragement, and instruction to myself as a non-preacher as well.  I highly recommend it to anyone who listens to preaching. 

Lloyd-Jones, by the way, was a medical physician who left that profession to enter the ministry in 1927. He is known, affectionately to many, as just "the Doctor." 

What has struck me in this re-reading are his thoughts on what he calls 3 types of sermons. He suggests that a balanced ministry will include all 3 types, and that the preacher should organize his ministry in a way that all 3 types are being regularly preached. These 3 types of sermons are:

Type 1: Evangelistic

Type 2: Experimental (focus on issues, problems, life in general)

Type 3: Instructional, doctrine, theological

To put it in the words of the doctor himself:

"In other words, every Preacher should be, as it were, at least three types or kinds of Preacher. There is the preaching which is primarily evangelistic. This should take place at least once a week. There is the preaching which is instructional teaching but mainly experimental. That I generally did on Sunday morning. There is a more purely instructional type of preaching which I personally did on a week-night." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 63).

Now, Lloyd-Jones himself would emphasize that these distinctions "should not be pressed in too absolute a sense." In other words, good preaching will probably have at least something of all 3 types in every sermon. 

That being said, I think Lloyd-Jones is right. Most sermons I have heard could probably, overall, be put into one of those three categories. 

And here is the problem - it is possible (and I think fairly common) for preachers and churches today to get into a habit of only preaching just ONE type of sermon week after week. 

THE TYPE 2 CHURCH:

For example, I believe that vast majority of preaching that goes on in our Protestant churches today is the type 2 sermon above. It is a type of experimental preaching. The focus is generally on problem-solving and dealing with issues Christian's face. Look through the sermon list of many church websites and what you find are sermons about marriage, divorce, suffering, grief, parenting, living strong, being a better Christian, life in the church...

For the most part, these are all type-two sermons. They focus on the Christian and how he or she experiences life both inside and outside the church. And the sermon gives instruction on how to live that life. 

Absent are sermons entitled something like "Christ's Divinity - Defined and defended" or "modern heresies" or "The Trinity" or "Justification by Faith Alone" or "God's eternal decrees" or "limited atonement explained" or "the second coming" or "implications of the virgin birth" or "God's holiness explained." Doctrine is absent. 

Absent are also the more truly evangelistic sermons - in the truest sense of the word. I'm not talking about the "give Jesus a try" kind of talks. This is not Biblical evangelism. True evangelistic preaching exposes the real danger mankind is in due to sin, the consequences of sin, the remedy for sin and the only way to obtain that remedy - which is by faith in Christ.

THE TYPE 3 CHURCH:

On the other hand, there are other circles in which the type-two sermon almost never happens. For this church it is all about type-three: Doctrine. The preaching relies heavily on systematic theology, the confessions and foundational instruction. Maybe the Reformed circles are more prone to falling into this trap than any other. This is just an observation from a layman. So I admit my perspective may be skewed. 

However, if there is any truth to the fact that "type-three" churches exist, then the result could be Christians who are well instructed in the foundational doctrines of the Bible but very ill-equipped to live out that faith in their lives. The preacher may say things like "this is very important" but in reality the people in the pew have no idea why it should be so important to them. It makes no difference in their everyday life when they have to go home to a bitter spouse, rebellious children, chronic pain, an ungodly workplace, loneliness, personal addictions or any number of other real problems. 

THE TYPE 1 CHURCH:

Finally, I suppose that there are also type-one churches out there. They preach the gospel to sinners every week. Maybe this includes an altar call (no comment on that practice at the moment). I think this type of church probably existed more in the past than it does today. Maybe I'm wrong. But my own little and limited perspective on our evangelical situation is that true Gospel-preaching is a rare exception, a special-occasion-only event, and not the week to week menu in most churches.

APPLICATION:

So what? A couple closing thoughts come to mind.

1) Preaching a balance of these 3 different types of sermons is, it seems to me, especially unlikely today because most churches rarely have "preaching" more than once a week. This, we have to admit, is a failure of the modern church. I'm guessing I could get a lot of "preacher" friends upset at me for such a comment. But frankly, I think preaching once a week (or less than that for some places) is at least a very strange (historically speaking) way to do ministry. Lloyd-Jones said "I contest very strongly and urge that there should always be one evangelistic service in connection with each church every week. I would make this an absolute rule without any hesitation whatsoever." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 151).  But with only one sermon per week...this is impossible if you wish to maintain a balanced ministry.

2) Hearing a balance of these 3 types of sermons is unlikely today because we "hearers" are now accustomed to only listening to 1 sermon a week (at best). Maybe this habit could be changed if hearers got used to knowing that an evening or week-night sermon was going to be of a different "type" and therefore understood it to be part of a "balanced spiritual diet." I don't know. But it is worth thinking about at least. Here is what the Doctor says in this book "We must convince them [church goers] of the importance of being present at every service of the church. Every service! Why? If they are not present at every service they may well find one day that they were not present when something really remarkable took place." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 153).  

3) I think we need reminding that Christians need to hear evangelistic preaching too. Every true believer loves to hear the gospel faithfully preached. It is the message that saved us. And a preacher makes a grave mistake in thinking ALL his congregation is saved, so he doesn't need to preach the gospel like that anymore. Not to mention the fact that our churches are probably filled with "professing" Christians who are not actually believers at all. To put it in Lloyd-Jones words "There is something essentially wrong with a man who calls himself a Christian and who can listen  to a truly evangelistic sermon without coming under conviction again, without feeling something of his own unworthiness, and rejoicing when he hears the Gospel remedy being presented." (Preaching & Preachers, p. 150).

4) Finally, for any preacher who is either offended or discouraged by this post, I highly recommend picking up Preaching & Preachers and reading it (again). You have been called to the highest and most important work that goes on in this world. Businessmen build companies that will one day be sold or collapse. Doctors and medical professionals (like myself) help treat illnesses, but everyone is ultimately going to die anyway. Every job is, in some sense, just killing time. But preaching is an eternity-focused endeavor. The grass withers and the flower fades, but God's Word endures forever. 

In the words of the Doctor "To me the work of preaching is the highest and greatest and most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called." 

R.C. Sproul Goes Home at the Age of 78

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them." Revelation 14:13.

Dr. R.C. Sproul (2/13/39 - 12/14/17) passed away today at the age of 78 from complications related to COPD.

When I became a Christian in 1989 the first theologian I began reading was Dr. R.C. Sproul. Actually, it is more appropriate to say that I began "listening" to R.C. Sproul. His teaching ministry was available on tape cassettes. I ordered just about every teaching series he produced and listened to them while I drove back and forth to college for 5 years. I also bought his books and fell in love with his style of teaching and his way of understanding the Bible.

It is no exaggeration to say that his ministry has impacted me more than any other theologian, past or present. While I love the Puritans and still have so much to learn from the likes of Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, Dabney, Edwards, Turretin, and many others...R.C. taught me the Reformed faith. 

But he did more than teach me the Reformed faith. In a sense, he taught me how to think. He had a rigorous mind. He was never afraid of the hard questions about God, life, truth, evil, death, eternity, Christ, faith and so much more. And he never settled for the easy answer. He taught me how to make distinctions. How to be careful with our definitions. He believed that words were meaningful, and when listening to him you always had the feeling you were listening to a man who took life and truth seriously.

He also taught me how to teach. I make no apologies for the fact that I have tried to imitate his style of teaching over the years. He was effective. He was interesting. He understood his subject deeply but made sure his teaching was accessible to the average Christian in the pew. He could take very deep subjects and simplify them...without making them simplistic. He approached every subject he taught on with a deep sense of awe, humility, and grace. 

I had the great privilege of meeting R.C. in person once. I will always remember what I said to him. With gratitude welling up in my heart I said to R.C. at a conference "R.C., thank you for teaching me the Reformed faith.  Would you mind if my wife took my picture with you?"

He smiled widely. He said, "of course not." He welcomed me around to the other side of the table where he was sitting and he put his arm around my shoulder as if he had known me for years. This was the first and only time I saw R.C. in person. But I will never forget that day the rest of my life.

Dr. Sproul will be missed. His legacy, in the form of Ligonier Ministries, will remember his contribution to the promotion of the Christian gospel for many years to come. He was a man who loved Christ, served Christ and has now gone home to be with Christ. But more than Ligonier ministries, his life's work will echo in the lives of the tens of thousands of Christians like myself who were helped along our way to heaven by this precious servant of the Lord.

R.C. - you will be greatly missed. My heart goes out for your family and close friends. But, like Able, "he, being dead, still speaks." His teaching ministry echoes on. His works will follow him. He has entered his rest from his labors. And may the Lord be pleased to raise up more voices like his for this and future generations. 

Marshmallows and Making Good Choices

“Do not let your heart envy sinners, but be zealous for the fear of the Lord all the day; for surely there is an end; and your expectation will not be cut off.”

Proverbs 23:17-18

What is your capacity for delayed gratification? 

An interesting study was done on children in the early 1970's that has been called the “Stanford Marshmallow Experiment.” The test offered children an immediate treat (like a marshmallow) with the option to eat it now, or of waiting a short time (like 15 minutes) to get a larger treat.  The children were followed up on in years to come and it was found that those who could wait for the larger reward were generally more successful academically and in other ways.

The point is clear enough. Delayed gratification, though hard, is better in the end. And what makes it so hard is that all around us everyone seems to be eating their marshmallows now. 

Let’s be honest. Most of us are doing the same. Zig Ziglar once put it this way “Be careful not to compromise what you want most for what you want now.”

But it’s hard. It is hard to watch people eating their "marshmallows" while you wait. It goes against the grain of our nature. Socrates was asked what the most troublesome thing was to good men. He replied “the prosperity of the wicked.” I think Socrates knew the doubts and fears that assault the soul that says “no” to the instant pleasure in exchange for a lasting one.

Almost every day we are presented with choices which give us the option for immediate pleasure, or a more distant, long-term benefit. We have the choice between spending and saving. We choose be eating the cheese fries or the salad. We play the video game or we work out. We hit the snooze button or we wake up and go to church.

The Bible presents the Christian life as a daily commitment to delayed gratification. That is what this Proverb is talking about. Don’t envy those who are eating their marshmallows now. Rather, choose “the fear of the Lord all the day.”

There are many aspects to the Christian life that do not bring the immediate pleasure which is offered by sin. Reading your Bible may not provide the immediate thrill of a video game. Prayer doesn’t satisfy our craving for amusement like Facebook does. Honoring the Lord’s Day doesn’t instantly satisfy like a day at the beach or amusement park. Note, these alternative enjoyments are not sinful in themselves. But when they are substituted for things that would benefit our souls, they are dangerous.

I don’t think Solomon had any one particular “sin” in mind when he advised against the envy of sinners. The Proverb does go on to talk about “drunkenness.” But this, it seems, is simply an illustration of a larger principle. The unbeliever simply doesn’t think in terms of “sin” or “holiness.” As long as no one else is hurt, anything (for the most part), goes. But the Christian is concerned with offending God. That is what the “fear of the Lord” is all about.

Sometimes concern for the fear of the Lord brings about tangible persecution, ridicule or pain. It was said of Moses that he chose “rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin [Hebrews 11:25].” In this case it was not merely delayed gratification, but the embracing of present suffering that Moses was called to endure.

How do we make better spiritual choices? Solomon suggests thinking about future: “for surely there is an end; and your expectation will not be cut off.” The Hebrew seems to be saying something like “Be patient. This life is a marathon, not a short sprint. The real winners can only be determined at the finish line. Don’t try to pick who has made the best choice by their present circumstances. Godliness pays off in the end.”

He says "do not LET your heart" do this. In other words, we have the personal responsibility to master our thoughts. You can decide what you want to dwell on. You can either think about what you are "missing out on" or you can think about the end reward. Your thoughts don't wander anywhere that you don't let them. You can choose what to consider and what to ignore. 

This is a big theme in the Bible. 

For example, the whole of Psalm 37 seems devoted to this theme: pleasure now, or pleasure later. You choose. But the Psalmist advises to “not be envious of the workers of iniquity” because, even though now they seem to be having fun, “they shall soon be cut down like the grass [Psalm 37:1-2].” The Psalmist tells the believer to “rest in the Lord” and to “wait” and not get discouraged because others are prospering right now (vs. 7).  Though it doesn’t look that way, he says, remember that “the meek will inherit the earth (vs. 11).”

Christ modeled this. He chose obedience over pleasure. Every day. He chose affliction rather than comfort. “Who, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross (Heb 12:2).” Not for present pleasure, but future joy. “He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Phil 2:8).”

So which are you choosing today? Is it immediate pleasure, gratification, happiness, satisfaction and pride? Or will you do something for your long-term good? One hundred years from now the only thing that will matter is how you cared for your soul. Paul warns that “in the last days” men “will be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Tim 3:4).”

May the Lord bless your good choices today my friends. 

Bernie, Christianity and the Death of Truth

Bernie Sanders appears to have stirred up quite the hubbub over his conversation this past week with Russell Vought. Mr. Sanders questioned Vought's Christian beliefs and specifically suggested they should disqualify him for public service. He didn't like the fact that Vought believed that the adherents of other religions were "condemned." 

Christians across the country have responded with outrage. They didn't like Mr. Sanders'  opinion that Vought's views are incompatible with what this "country is supposed to be about."  Fox News reporter Todd Starnes called it a "viscous attack." Others have quoted the Constitution Article VI about "no religious test" being required for public service in office. 

Frankly, I think all these responses have utterly missed the point.

Please.

Calm down.

Take a breath.

We need to step back for a moment and realize what was really going on in that conversation.

Mr. Sanders was NOT attacking Christians or Christianity. Someone please pick up a copy of Fox's Book of Martyrs. Or visit the Christian Martyr's website. Or read the Gospels and Acts. You will find plenty of examples of attacks upon our faith. This wasn't one of them.

But Mr. Sanders was attacking something. 

Mr. Sanders was attacking truth.

You see, what Mr. Sanders fails to realize is something which ALL Christians and Muslims BOTH know: we can't both be right. 

Bernie said “In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.” 

But the hilarious irony of Mr. Sanders statements is that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Atheists all get something that Bernie does not.  We ALL know that we can't ALL be right. 

This principle isn't fundamental to Christianity.  This principle is fundamental to truth itself.

If Christianity is true, then Muslims are condemned. If Islam is true, then Christians are condemned. If Atheists are right then we are ALL condemned for the foolishness of our faiths. This is a plain and incontrovertible fact which the sacred texts of all religions assert.

And, with all due respect to Russell Vought, he missed an opportunity to explain this.

When Bernie Sanders asked him if he thought all Muslims and Jews were condemned, he should have answered with an enthusiastic, unmistakable, loud and clear "YES! Of course! Just as they think that I'm condemned!"

Vought could have quoted the Quran if he liked:  "But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment."

Or he could have quoted the Bible "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not PERISH but have everlasting life." 

Religion assumes the existence of truth. 

Thus Christianity, as nearly ALL of the major world religions, is an exclusive religion. 

This is because truth, all truth, is exclusive.

If anything is true, then something is false. And things cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. 

So when Mr. Sanders balked at the idea that anyone could hold to a faith that claims exclusivity, he was actually taking his aim at a far more fundamental idea than Christian doctrine. He was questioning the very possibility of truth itself. 

And, my friends, when we reject the idea of truth, we reject hope.  Where there is no truth, there can be no true comfort.

C.S. Lewis said it well "If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair."

PoC Chpt III - On Marriage - Part 1

From Principles of Conduct by John Murray.  Chapter 3: The Marriage Ordinance. Part 1.

What causes the most pain, disappointment, frustration, sorrow, anger, anxiety and aggravation in the lives of individuals today? I suppose someone might say "illness" and that is certainly a problem of no small nature. Others might suggest finances, and no doubt money problems impact huge numbers. But it would be hard to argue against the idea that "relationships" and in particular "marriage" problems constitute a significant portion of the pain and problems people experience in life.

Think of the circle of people around you. If you were asked to think of some who have either "marriage" or "relationship" issues that are really causing serious problems in their life, do you have any trouble coming up with some names? These problems are all around us. If nothing else, think about how many movies and songs are produced that have relationship issues at the core of them.

My point is simply this: there is enough evidence that our culture is frustrated with our modern approach to marriage and relationships. Something is broken. It's at least worth a look at what the Bible says about marriage to evaluate if maybe...just maybe...we are doing something wrong. I'm not suggesting that following certain "rules" will ensure a perfect marriage. But on the whole, it is at least possible that God's plan for marriage has been twisted and obscured, and that this is behind many of the troubles we experience.

John Murray spends about 40 pages in his book, Principles of Conduct, covering many of the Biblical principles related to God's plan for marriage. We might think it strange that a book on "ethics" starts with marriage. What does marriage have to do with ethics? But this approach reminds us that, from a Biblical perspective, marriage was God's idea. Therefore, to approach it in any way that is contrary to His design, is an unethical way to live. When we take an institution of God's and re-design it for our own purposes, then we are in violation of His pattern for life, which is the very definition of unethical.

PART 1

In Murray's review of Scripture about marriage, he starts with a few episodes found very early in the history of the world as recorded in the Bible. Scholars call it the "patriarchal" period. And he shows that we find hints that certain ethical standards for marriage were understood by people from the very beginning.

For example...

Digamy or Polygamy (Genesis 4:19). The Scriptures record that a man named Lamech "took 2 wives." This fact is recorded along side the fact of his boastful murder of another man. Murray concludes, I think rightly, that "the desecration of marriage is complementary to the vice of violence and oppression [p. 46]."

Mixed Marriage (i.e. believers marrying unbelievers) from Genesis 6:1-3. Murray offers insight on a passage which has confused many. It is the text which speaks of "the sons of God saw the daughters of men" and they married them. Some have thought this referred to some sort of strange marriage between angels and mankind. But Murray argues it is simply an expression to indicate marriages between the Godly and the ungodly. He concludes "When the interests of godliness do not govern the people of God in the choice of marital partners, irreparable confusion is the result and the interests, not only of spirituality, but also of morality, are destroyed [p. 46]."

Murray shows that the natural, healthy and God-given desire for sex is to be managed within certain boundaries established by God.

Other episodes from this period in Biblical history also highlight certain well-understood principles of marriage.

Joseph and Marriage Integrity (Genesis 39:9) - Joseph refused to sleep with his master's wife, even though she urged him. He understood that this would be a sin in God's eyes, saying "how can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?"

The rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) - The sons of Jacob took vengeance (not that this act was condoned) on those who raped their sister. The point is that it was clear, even then, that such a violent act forced upon another, was inconsistent with sexual purity.

The king of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) - The foreign king understood that taking another man's wife was improper. It is an ironical passage. Here Abraham was to blame, for saying that Sarah was his "sister" and not his "wife." But this goes to show that the sanctity of the marriage relationship was not something merely understood by God's people. In fact, in this case, the ungodly actually understood that principle better than Abraham himself.

Parent's concern for the marriages of their children - Murray points to the lengths that Abraham went to help secure a godly wife for Jacob, and he mentions how Rebecca was burdened by the "mixed" marriage of her son Esau to Hittite women. These passages just further illustrate that these parents understood the difference between a "good" marriage and one that was in violation of God's design.

CONCLUSION

Murray's review of the marriage ordinance is far from over. But he lays down some basics here which are important. At the very least I think his teaching is a necessary restraint upon our concept that "all we need is love." The Biblical account suggests that "ethical" behavior requires that we engage our minds, and not just our hearts, when it comes to thinking about relationships and marriage.

PoC Chpt II - Work is God's Idea

For many people the very concept of "work" conjures up distasteful thoughts. Ugghhh...Monday! Our culture seems to have taught us to live for the weekends, and just muddle through the other 5 days. In addition to that, work, and our attitude towards work, has been subjected to numerous stereotypes. Those who have done financially "well" are assumed to be workaholics who have their priorities misaligned and who only care about profit not people. On the other hand, those living at or near the poverty level are assumed to have a poor work ethic, and if only they worked harder they would be in a different position in life.

Think of how much political debate and social discussion revolves around the issue of work! What should be the minimum wage? How many hours per week should we have to work? We have labor unions and a Department of Labor and calls for labor reform. Work-issues surround us every day.

Is there, however, a Biblical view of work? Is there such a thing as a Biblical work-ethic? Does our very concept of what work is need a sort of modern reformation?

In John Murray's Principles of Conduct (PoC) he introduces the subject of "labor" as a Creation Ordinance.  Work, along with the institutions of Marriage and the Sabbath, were part of God's initial design and plan for mankind. God created humans to be working, laboring beings.

THE INSTITUTION OF LABOR

Murray argues that the institution of labor is inseparable from the Sabbath institution. You can't have a day of "rest" apart from a concept of "labor." If we were meant to rest one day, then we were obviously meant to work the other 6 days. Additionally, Murray reminds us that God gave Adam and Eve a very specific type of labor to be involved in when we are told in Genesis 2:15 that "the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it."

THE DIGNITY OF MANUAL LABOR

Murray draws an immediate conclusion from the above text which he suggests we have sadly lost sight of today. His conclusion is that there is a fundamental dignity to what we might call "manual labor."  He calls the work of gardening (we might extrapolate and say 'farming') "highly worthy of man's dignity as created after the divine image [p. 35]."  He speaks of the "nobility of manual labor [p. 36]."

Murray suggests that we as a society have suffered by disparaging the dignity of such tasks. He suggests our automatic insistence on and pursuit of "professional" employment may reflect "an unwholesome ambition which is the fruit of impiety [p. 36]." He reminds us that "culture" can be developed in conjunction with tasks which are not professional in nature such as those of the farmer, the tradesman and the laborer. And the fact that we do not assign sufficient nobility and dignity to such types of work, in Murray's view, simply displays how far we have fallen.

THE VARIETY OF WORK

Murray reminds us that mankind's call to work would eventually have involved a variety of tasks since he was commanded to "replenish the earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:28)." This, he says, "must imply the expenditure of thought and skill and energy in bringing the earth and its resources under such control..." [p. 37]

Murray also points out the way in which the earth itself "is fashioned and equipped to meet and gratify the diverse nature and endowments of man" and that man in pursuing such things would "magnify God's glory" through the "discovery and exhibition of the manifold wisdom and power of God [p. 37-38]." Murray imagines man investigating and discovering the wonders of this planet while ascribing all the glory to our Creator.  He quotes Psalm 104:24 as reflective of this where the Psalmist says "O Lord, how manifold are they works...the earth is full of Thy wisdom!" This puts "work" on a much higher level than we are accustomed to doing. There was no sense of drudgery in God's original design.

WORK AS COMMAND AND DELIGHT

Finally, Murray points out that this work that man was called to do was a command. We are, however, too apt to think of anything "commanded" as being burdensome. We equate "duty" with "displeasure." But Murray suggests that "duty" was intended to go hand-in-hand with "delight." Man, prior to sin entering the world, would have found no disconnect between our calling to work and our enjoyment of it. In the absence of sin, there would be "the perfect complementation of duty and pleasure [p. 39]."

APPLICATION

As with the subject of marriage, Murray is going to devote a whole chapter to the concept of work. It is central to man's ethic. But here in this chapter he just shows that work was part of God's original creation-plan.

I do wonder what our places of employment would look like if we all, each and every one of us, began to look at work as a divine calling, sanctified by God's blessing and endorsed by His very command. We have this twisted view that God Himself only smiles on us on Sundays while we are in church. But what if we imagined God watching us work with the same delight He watches us worship?

What if every job was approached with this sort of heavenly dignity and delight? What if we saw our jobs as part of our fulfillment of the "subduing" the earth mandate? What if I thought of my employer as God Himself? Would the quality of my work and attitude about work improve?