A Better Man

I recently saw a commercial on TV that was revealing of the shrewdness of the present, consumerist culture, and its underlying claim to a non-Christian morality and ethic.  A young boy and his father were shown in their family’s bathroom, changing a light bulb.  The father took out the older-style bulb and replaced it with a newer, energy-efficient, florescent bulb.

“An energy efficient florescent bulb, three dollars,” the boy’s voice said.

The next scene showed the boy drinking a glass of water from the tap, his father watching.  “A plastic, reusable drinking glass, two dollars,” said the boy.

Next they were in the hardware store being some other reusable, environmentally friendly item.  Perhaps a water-saving adjunct? Again the boy quoted the item and its price.

Then, the camera zoomed in on the faces of the little boy and his father, smiling at one another.

“Making your father a better man, priceless.”

What?!  Using economically responsible light bulbs, not using throw-away drinking cups, using cloth lunch sacks to save our forests, okay.  Those things are good for the earth, smart decisions for those who take seriously the divine will that we humans dutifully care for the world, and leave it in better shape for our grandchildren.  But “making my father a better man”?! 

It seems that American industry has tapped into the environmental ethic and begun to elevate it to the status of family religion.  Morality expressed in environmentalism.  Treat the earth well, don’t burn up too much carbon fuel, and you’re a “better man.”  Drive a pickup or a van, and you’re a profligate, a user, a morally questionable man—a worse man, I guess.  Use a plain, old-fashioned light bulb, and you’re probably setting a bad example for your children.  (Who, according to the makers of this commercial, are in a position of teaching proper, moral behavior to their folks.)

Did I mention the product that this commercial was selling?  MasterCard, the folks who brought usurious interest rates, hidden fees and penalties, and mailboxes stuffed with their “pre-approved” credit lines offered on an almost daily basis to college freshman and to those who have recently claimed bankruptcy.  What does MasterCard have to gain by the fathers of our land going eco-friendly?  Nothing.  Nothing, that is, until those Dad’s use their plastic to purchase re-usable sacks and long-life florescent bulbs.  Tapping into our love of our families, our desires to be good parents and role models, and the legitimate commitment to graciously care for and preserve creation, the guys in suits have figured out yet another way to get their hands into our pockets.  Brother, whenever Madison Avenue decides to weigh-in on how to make you a “better man,” keep your hand on your wallet.

You Can Love Your Daughters Before They’re Born…Part 2

Apparently the technological ability to select our children by gender has a dark side that has cast its shadow over the United States.  According to the New York Times article of June 14 , 2009, headlined U.S. Births Hint at Bias for Boys in Some Asians, US census data suggests that Asian, Korean, and Indian communities in the United States have a “statistical variation” that is “significant” in its apparent evidence for a preference of male over female children (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/nyregion/15babies.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all).

It seems that the trend indicates a growing tendency for these families to “embrace sex-selection techniques, like in vitro fertilization and sperm sorting, or abortion.”  In short, the selective aborting of female babies that I previously wrote about (April 15, 2009) is not isolated to a country or a specific political system, but seems to be a part of a (portable) world-view of life that attributes greater worth to a person based on their gender alone.  The idea is horrid, but understandable in our current materialistic, “success” oriented culture.  In a land like our own, that tragically views children as commodities that are managed and arranged around the life goals of the parents, should we be shocked or incensed that newer citizens would take things a step further, and simply abort the babies that would not (in their estimation) further the goals and aspirations for success of the parents?  This isn’t a sci-fi novel issue, and it isn’t something that is isolated to totalitarian, atheistic cultures.  It’s here, just down the street from you, just over there.  It’s your neighbors and friends.  It’s their children.  If we’re thinking correctly about this issue, it’s actually OUR children.

Perhaps the most puzzling statement quoted in the article was by Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg of Fertility Institutes in California (which does not offer abortions), a clinic that advises couples in the options involved in sex-selection procedures.  “Culturally, there are a lot of strange things that go on in the world,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Whether we agree with it, it’s not harming anyone.”

Anyone, that is, except our daughters.

Literally speaking…

“Do you guys take the Bible literally?”

That is a question that I am sometimes asked about our church.   I give the answer (which is “Yes”) with hesitation, not because I doubt that a consistent literally interpretation of the Bible is the only meaningful, logical way to do it, but because I am rarely given the opportunity to truly understand what they mean by “literally,” and to clearly explain what I mean by the word.  One takes the Bible literally in the same way one takes a stop sign literally–there are no hidden messages in that red, octagon sign on the post–it simply means what it says, “Stop.”  But I also read the Lord of the Rings in a literal fashion, as high-quality fantasy-fiction, with many examples of bravery, cowardice, good, evil, hope, and despair (though all of these are fictional).  The Lord of the Rings is fiction–you can’t travel to Tom Bombadil’s for a chat, and then have lunch at the Prancing Pony.  You’d have to search for a long, long time to find those places…and if you did, you’d probably be able to buy a T-shirt and refrigerator magnet to commemorate your visit!  In the same way, I take the morning newspaper (here, The Oregonian) literally, too.  Its front page is usually objective, propositional truth (although the fact of daily retractions for prior issues leads me to take even the front page with a grain of salt!), I take the sports section pretty literally, especially the bare facts of numbers (scores, hits, runs, averages, etc.).  But the “living” section–now that part isn’t so propositional or objective, nor does it claim to be.  It’s where I find movies reviews, television programming guides, advice columns.  I read this section literally by knowing that it is not claiming to be the end-all truth for my life–it’s just trying to get me to go to a certain movie, or try a new recipe for garden tomatoes. 

Taking the Bible literally involves a reasoned approach similar to the above applications I’ve laid out.  It means assessing and valuing each particular type of literature in it that I am reading, and interpreting it accordingly.  Well, the whole reason I’ve written all this today is to refer you to another site if you are interested in reading and excellent piece of writing on how to interpret the Bible.  I am impressed with the ministry and writing of Dr. James Emery White, Senior Pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Please give this site a read, and let me know what you think!  http://www.serioustimes.com/

Blessings,

Ken

Family gods (Joshua 24:14)

 “Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.”   

The implications of this verse are chilling.  Joshua is giving his farewell to the nation of Israel.  They have entered into the Promised Land, conquered its armies, and occupied its cities.  The future looks bright for Israel—she finally has her own land, her own place to grow as a nation, and to live out her very unique faith before the eyes of the surrounding pagan, lost world.  But it seems that she has carried with her a dark habit from her distant past—idolatry.  The gods that their forefathers served beyond the River were those of the Mesopotamians, from whom the father of Judaism, Abraham, came.  The gods that their fathers served in Egypt were the idols of the nation that they had been enslaved to for over 400 years, and had been miraculously delivered from just 40 years earlier.  The reason the verse is chilling is because this people, God’s redeemed, covenant people, still had such idols with them as they entered the land of Promise!  The Hebrews had secretly clung to the worship of idols from Mesopotamia for as much as 600 years, and the worship of Egyptian idols for over 400 years.  An idol is something—anything—that people turn to in obedience and deference with the expectation of having their most cherished hopes and needs met.  It seems that the Lord was not fully trusted by the nation, throughout its entire history, and so other gods (little “g” gods) were packed along the cultural suitcases on the trip to and from Egypt.   

What is particularly alarming about such idolatry in God’s chosen people is that the way it must have been, had to have been, practiced and preserved was through the intimate lines of family connections and marriage, through your fathers, Joshua said.  This is the reason for the Bible’s pervasive concern that children be raised in households of genuine faith, and marriages be entered into only by those of the same faith.  It wasn’t the mixing of diverse bloodlines that concerned the Lord, as in cross-racial marriages—it was the ultimate degradation of the one true religion with the idolatry of another.  And so, the problem that Joshua put his finger on was that while God had miraculously delivered the nation from their Egyptian slave masters, many in the nation had chosen to remain enslaved to Egyptian idols—and they secretly practiced their enslavement through the countless family decisions and values that were made and communicated to their children down through the generations. 

Today, such little-g idolatry may exist even in Christian families where the decisions of life (schooling, finances, marriage, time-management, housing, etc.) are made according to the standards and beliefs of our surrounding culture, without consideration and obedience to the Word of God concerning such matters.  For idols aren’t funny looking statues that sit on our mantles, and they aren’t cars, houses, boats, and vacations—they are the ideas and demands that we create and serve  in order to gain the things we want in life, particularly the things that we are unwilling to trust the Lord to provide.  And while such idols do often seem to provide such perishable items and soon-to-be-forgotten experiences, no idol provides what you and your children desperately need—forgiveness for your sins and reconciliation with God.

Gagging the Faith (Joshua 1:8)

 ”This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success.”

Moses’ instruction to Joshua concerning his relationship to the Word of God is instructive for Christians today who seek to live faithful, obedient lives. Joshua was to maintain an equal, three-pronged commitment to the Word.

First, his speech not simply to be Bible-based, but Bible itself. I don’t think this means that Moses felt Joshua should spend his life simply quoting Scripture at every turn, but that he was to be a man whose speech continuously reflected the specific message of God’s Word, verbally proclaimed as the truth-source of every significant consideration in life.

Second, Joshua was to meditate on the Word of God—he was to make a habitual, personal discipline of mentally “chewing” on the Word, considering its application, meaning, and significance. He was to purposefully saturate his mind with the Word of God–a constant consideration and repetition of it that would naturally lead to memorization, I imagine.

 Finally, the purpose behind Bible rooted speech and thought was so that Joshua would live a life that corresponded with the teachings of the Bible. These aspects of his relationship with God’s Word were like the legs of a three-legged stool—take away one of them and he would find failure, instead of a life that was prosperous, and marked by success.

Today, believers are constantly challenged to live their lives with one or more of the stool’s legs taken out from under them. We are tempted to think a lot of the Word, but not diligently obey it. We are applauded by our surrounding culture when we obey the Word—especially when our obedience directly benefits the culture through our services—but carefully scrutinized to insure that we are not guilty of speaking the Word, particularly in a way that confronts the culture with its desperate need for forgiveness and restoration to God through the blood of Jesus Christ. Christianity, a faith that prays for and promotes the proselytization of every human being on the earth to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, becomes unrecognizable as itself when it no longer actively seeks to proselytize. Our spiritual forefathers did not suffer for doing good deeds for the communities they lived in—they suffered for refusing to cease preaching that Name without which no one could hope to be saved (Acts 4:12). But today, it seems we are often tempted to volunteer to gag ourselves, so desperate are we to be thought of as reasonable, friendly, even “cool” Christians.

Should anyone reward or commend your “faith-based” actions, for the good of your community, while at the same time requesting or even requiring that you in any way curtail or postpone the clear, verbal, sharing of the message of the gospel, politely excuse yourself from the “conversation” because it’s not a conversation, really.   The gagging of your faith is too high a price to pay for the momentary applause of the surrounding culture.

Your Hungry Brother (Deuteronomy 15:7-8)

 ”If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; 8 but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

A loophole is a condition or application of a law that allows for a person to subtly circumvent the law itself—all without formally breaking that law.  We’re pretty good at finding loopholes in our tax laws here in America, come April 15^th!  But let’s put ourselves in the sandals of those to whom this text was originally written—the Jewish people of Israel, approximately 1400 BC.  Let’s pretend that we’re just finishing breakfast, and are preparing to head to our field to put in a long day’s work.  We look out the door of our small, stone house and see a poorly dressed man, standing.  He’s obviously waiting for us to come outside.

I say, “Oh, great.  There’s another one of them today.  What are we going to do?  We can’t become village lunch ticket!”

You say, “He’s poor, we’ve got to help him. ““If there is a poor man with you…””

“How do you know he’s poor,” I say.  “He’s got shoes on his feet, clothes on his back.  He walked here; he could just as easily have walked down the road to the next farm.”

You say, “But he’s a brother, like it says, “one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you…”

“Let’s not get literalistic or fundamenalistic here!” I say.  “How do you know he’s a Jewish brother, or from this town?  And sure, God may have giving the nation this land…but we’ve worked it ourselves, and own it, and need to be good stewards of it, not giving its produce away to every guy that comes along looking for a handout.  I don’t think the Bible wants us to just throw common sense out the window, do you?”

You say, “It’s commanded, “you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother.”

“Well,” I say, relieved and a bit offended, “you certainly don’t know my heart, do you?  This is an issue between me and God.  Remember, “Judge not!”

“Right,” you say, “…but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

“Yes!  I’m glad you quoted that verse,” I say.  Lend!  Lend!  We’re supposed to lend him what he needs—NOT give, but lend!

“Yes, but—“

“But how can you lend something to someone who doesn’t have any way to repay it?  And how can you even know that he’ll be around to repay it,” I say.

“But you just said that you don’t know that he’s really poor.  You said, “He’s got shoes on his feet, clothes on his ba—“ 

“Right!” I say.  We can’t know, so how can we really apply this literally, without some sort of verifica—“

Suddenly, I don’t have your attention anymore.  You’re looking out the doorway.

“He’s gone now,” you say.

“Just as well,” I say.  But I mean, “Mission accomplished.” 

And I say, as if changing the subject, “Tomorrow, let’s eat breakfast on the back porch.  It’s pretty there in the mornings.”

 

Checking in…

Sharon and I are in SF this weekend, after a week in Reno at the National Foster Parents Conference.  It was a great conference, and I was further strengthened my convictions that one of the most powerful ministries that we, as Christians, can do is to take a part in caring for the many children in our country who are removed from their birth families, and need a safe, loving home to live in.  We’ve made a lot of noise about abortion, stem-cell research, abstinence training, etc.  Actually caring for these hurting children is a practical way of putting some action with our words.  

You can love your daughters before they’re even born…

…or, you can NOT love them, apparently.  I’ve included this  article to simply underline the direction that our world-culture seems to be taking.  It is actually more accurate to say our world is simply following the direction of many other cultures in history that tolerated gender selective infanticide.   It seems that Moloch is alive, and still has an insatiable appetite for children.

New Study Shows China’s Population Seriously Skewed

Chinese males under the age of 20 outnumbered females of that same age range by more than 32 million in 2005, due in large part to the government’s one-child policy and its citizens’ use of sex-selection abortion and even abandonment, according to a new study in the British Medical Journal. The study of 4.7 million people under the age of 20 in China covered every county in the country. It also found that in 2005 there were 1.1 million more baby boys born than baby girls. The study was published April 9. “Sex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males,” the study says. Technically, China has a policy prohibiting sex-selective abortions, although the policy is largely ignored. China’s government instituted its one-child policy in the late 1970s in an effort to slow the birth rate of the world’s most populous country. Penalties for violations of the policy have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes, as well as forced abortion and sterilization. Infanticide, especially of females, also has been reported. Because China’s culture has a strong preference for sons over daughters, the one-child policy has led to a sex imbalance. The program generally has limited couples in urban areas to one child and those in rural areas to two, if the first is a girl. The male-to-female ratio for births in urban and rural areas is 119 to 100, the study said. But that ratio increases for second births in rural areas, where it is 146 males to 100 females, with nine provinces showing a ratio for second births of 160 to 100. (The normal ratio is about 105 to 100.) “China will see very high and steadily worsening sex ratios in the reproductive age group over the next two decades,” the paper said. “Enforcing the existing ban on sex selective abortion could lead to normalization of the ratios.” Baptist Press 4/13/09

In every instance of sin I can think of, pragmatism (“what works to get me what I want?“) is chosen over ethics (“what is the correct behavior, regardless of what I want?”).   Any form of pragmatism that would lead a person to kill an unborn infant is tragic.  A pragmatism that leads to killing an infant because of her gender?  Perverse. 

How should we respond to such barbarism?  I can think of at least three ways…  First, we should pray that God would grant our world a growing, universal value for all human life in all its stages. Our world is worth caring about, praying for, and not giving up on.  Second, we must see to it that we, as Christians, practice what we preach–we must always seek to value and protect all human life in all of its stages and circumstances.  (And I really do mean ALL.)  This means that people don’t lose their intrinsic value because of their sin, politics, gender, nationality, sexual practices, religion, or any other variable.  Finally, we should commit ourselves to speak of the simple truth whenever and wherever we can.  I don’t mean harangue people with opinions and statistics, but intead, simply state the truth–ie, “China seems to be valuing the lives of male infants more than female infants, as suggested by the following statistics….”  Simply tossing a morsel of truth into a sludge pond of darkness and lies will (Solzhenitsyn would say must) inevitably defeat the lies, and clean up the pond.

Leviticus 19:19

19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Okay, I’ve got to write something here, at least so it doesn’t look like I’m afraid to!  This verse is a bit of a curve ball to me, to tell the truth, and I think it would be even if I had grown up on a farm or ranch.  Why the agricultural, animal husbandry, and textile related commands?  I’m not sure.  I’ve looked in a couple of commentaries and found one theory has to do with the holiness of God—that to mix the breeds and seeds somehow communicates a want of respect for the “separate otherness” of our transcendent Creator.  (Holiness = separateness, etc.)  Another approach is that these three commands are all actually common-sense rules for running a good farm:  The mixing of cattle weakens the breed; the mixing of seeds diminishes the crop and presents harvesting challenges, etc.  One commentator mentioned that to mix wool and other types of fabric for clothing was actually dangerous to the wearer—resulting in an increased skin temperature, which could cause boils to break out on the skin!  These explanations aren’t very compelling to me.  God’s people may have been stubborn and spiritually immature, but they weren’t stupid.  There is plenty of evidence that the surrounding peoples of the land of Canaan had a developed farming industry.  To tell the truth, if I were to see a herd of all cross-bred cattle, or one field or varied types of grain, I don’t think the word “unholy” would come to mind…  Lazy, perhaps…but not unholy.

So, why these three commands?  Perhaps they are given to aid the Israelites in forming a culture that is different in its treatment of animals and land.   Perhaps a blurring of breeds would create a singularly unique animal, but would erase the beauty of one particular type of breed.  Perhaps God likes different breeds of cattle.  Perhaps to sow your field with two different kinds of seed would make you look like a desperate, foolish farmer instead of a person who worked hard, played by the rules, and trusted God for the outcome.  Perhaps wearing clothing from two different kinds of cloth….   Well, I’m open to suggestion on that one!  Whatever the exact reasons for these divine commandments given to the Israelites, we can say with relative certainty that God cares about how we treat the animals we raise for food, the land that we sow our seed on, and how we put to use the resources that we gain from land and animals.   

(Whew…  Glad I’m done with that one….!) 

MyLoveMyNeighborMy (Leviticus 19:17-18)

17 ‘You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. 18 ‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

 

“What I think of him is no one’s business by mine and mine alone!” 

“As long as I’m not hurting anyone, it doesn’t really matter how I feel about anyone, does it?”

Have you ever thought these types of thoughts?  The one inviolable space that each of us owns, and that no one else can lay a claim to, is our hearts.  It’s the place where we do our feeling, thinking, and deciding.  What comes out of our mouths (or keyboards) may or may not be in true conformity to the reality of what we’re thinking in our hearts.  Our faces can conceal truth to the degree that only the most astute observer can detect incongruity between our words and our faces—but no one can truly get into our hearts.  No one, that is, but God.  Not only does the Almighty have the power to know our most intimate thoughts, but He also claims the right to be obeyed in our most inner sanctuaries—our hearts.  Despite external appearances, or even words—He knows the truth of what we think of our brothers and sisters.  He knows our motives, and can clearly see when we are being “painfully honest,” and enjoying the painfully part of it more than the honest part.  So, in the community of belief, of faith—grudges are to be routinely discarded like the trash.  They are not to be given asylum in our hearts, but instead are to be replaced with actions and words of love.  Why go to the trouble of such exacting inner scrutiny and righteousness where no one can see?  Simply because there is One who can see, and has a right to demand that He not see grudges and hatred in the place that He has claimed for Himself alone—our hearts. A community that lives by such standards will find peace and security as its members discover the joy of true, lasting, secure friendships.