by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
There is little doubt that the Bible teaches we are to have compassion for the poor. Whether in the Old Testament and verses like Amos 5:11 and Zechariah 7:10 or the New Testament with verses such as Matthew 25:42-45, concern and compassion for the poor is a theme that runs throughout the Bible.
As I discuss in my book, What is Wrong with Social Justice, I believe a key passage is to be found in 1 John 3:17-18,
Whoever has earthly possessions and notices a brother in need and yet withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God be present in him? 18Little children, we must stop expressing love merely by our words and manner of speech; we must love also in action and in truth.
While it is pretty clear how we must love in action, how can we tell if we are loving in truth? True compassion is concerned with results. It asks the question, are lives actually improved? Actions that you take that make you feel better, that allow you to feel you have done something, but which do not actually make an improvement in the lives of people, cannot really be consider compassion.
One example I discuss in my book is the issue of the minimum wage. Those opposing an increase are frequently labeled as heartless, and resistance is dismissed as resulting from corporate greed. Yet, as I write, “if one is concerned with the poor, there are several good reasons to oppose an increase in the minimum wage.”
Recently this was confirmed yet again. The last time this issue bubbled to the top of the political discussion, several cities heeded the calls of compassion for the poor and increased the minimum wage. Seattle was one such city passing a law that increases the minimum wage over time to $15/hour.
The Seattle Times reported approvingly, “Seattle City Council approves historic $15 minimum wage.” Seattle’s Mayor, Ed Murray, said “Today we have taken action that will serve as a model for the rest of the nation to follow.”
In 2016 an early study, limited to single-establishment firms, seemed to indicate that while the law may have reduced employment slightly, overall it had the intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers. In short, if you actually had a job, the minimum wage helped. But if you were one of those who were unable to find work because employers could not afford to hire you at the new higher wage, the law didn’t work as well for you.
A study by the Harvard Business School analyzed 10 years of data on 30,000 restaurants and found that for every $1 increase in the minimum wage, restaurant closures increased 14%. In short, 14% more restaurants failed, causing both the business owners and employees affected to have incomes eliminated instead of increased.
Recently a more compressive study commissioned for the city of Seattle and conducted by the University of Washington found the negative effects of Seattle’s increase went beyond those who either lost their jobs, or could not find one. The study found that while wages did go up, the average number of hours worked declined. The net result was that “total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.”
In short, the minimum wage increase hurt those who either could not find work or lost their jobs as a result of the increase. It certainly did help those who remained employed and received the increase when their hours were not reduced. But even for those who remained employed, on average, hours were reduced to the point that the net effect was not an increase, but a reduction in wages of $125 per month.
Now some are sure to argue that this reduction just demonstrates the greed of business owners. Yet the Harvard study shows the hard economic reality owners face less they go out of business. While, given our media culture that stigmatizes business owner as evil and greedy, it is easy to make business owners into stereotypes, stereotypes that can then be callously dismissed, this is hardly a Christian viewpoint, even though it is found among many Christians. The simple facts are that business owners are people and most business fail. Many that do survive struggle. Even large corporations have ups and downs. Just look at any list of the top corporations from the 1960’s and you will see a lot of names that today are shadows of their former size and importance, and many that are gone.
1 John 3:18 says “we must love also in action and in truth.” As we do this we not only act, but we must act is ways that truly helps those in need. When it comes to social policy, the number of people affected is so large, the issues and dynamics so complex, that for any given policy there will always be some who are helped and others who are hurt, and this is not just an issue of rich and poor, but even among the very people we seek to help. Social policy is not immune to the law of unintended consequences, and true compassion is a compassion that goes beyond our intentions.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]
Category: Christian Living
-
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.: Compassion?
-
Hold Them in Love
(July 4, 2017) 10:46 AM Shot this pic in Dallas.
You’ll notice that “community” is used instead of “church.” This is the high calling of the body of Christ, including your local church and mine: to live in community. (Some day I will stop using the word “church” to translate the Greek ekklesia. If people around me aren’t doing it, that’s no excuse for me not to try. An ekklesia is a group of people who have something in common as opposed to an ochlos, a “crowd.”) This illustrates something important for me. I am being lured back to the simple ways of Jesus. And I am finding the process so convicting. The humility of Christ doesn’t grant us permission on this Fourth to call out our fellow Christians for feeling patriotic or to harp about a revolution in 1776 that was probably at odds with Paul’s teaching about submission to civil authority in Romans 13. Oh my. This approach, it seems to me, is based largely on the habit of being negative — seeing only (or mostly) what’s wrong in our culture and even in our church culture. In Matthew 25, Jesus condemned those on His left not because of something they did but because of something they failed to do right. This is how simple the Gospel is. “Whatever you do for the least of these, My brothers and sisters, you do for Me.” In other words, Jesus is describing (as in the church sign above) a community, and a community that cares. If, on my website, I’m constantly calling out gays or liberals or Trump-supporters or Trump-haters, how can I ever expect to befriend them with a view to sharing with them the love of Christ? I’ve already alienated them. As my seminary evangelism professor once told me, “You’ve got to play the music, Dave, if you want to say the words.” We take our marching orders from King Jesus, and last I checked I don’t think He was asking us to defend homeschooling or eldership or a political brand. Believe what you want, but be careful of becoming apologists for your views. That’s the theme, by the way, of my little book Christian Archy. One example I used was pedagogy. Practice homeschooling if that’s your personal conviction (it was ours), but remember that other Spirit-filled Christians might view education differently, and you can both hold your convictions in love because you are in community, not pontificating from a keyboard. Following Jesus never comes with a permission slip to get up on our high horses. In their book The Tangible Kingdom, Hugh Halter and Matt Smay write, “People in America are not ignorant of Christianity…. They’ve seen so much of pop Christian culture that they have a programmed response to us: Ignore, ignore, ignore” (p. 125). Representing a kingdom alternative to the world does not require a boo-hooing of everything else in our culture.
Well, Dave, isn’t it time you stopped preaching to the choir and got real? How are you going to change? After all, aren’t you the greatest of sinners? (Answer: Yes.)
If I see a serviceperson today, I will thank him or him for their service without stopping to think (not even for a nanosecond) about politics. I will watch tonight’s fireworks and marvel at this Chinese invention. I will listen to Sousa and tap my feet. I will take a long walk. (I don’t need to be in “church” to experience God.) I will look for Him in a grandchild’s smile or in the reflection in a pond or in the scent of a gardenia or in feeding my puppy a treat or in taking a bubble bath. I won’t feel guilty that I live in a free nation. Instead, I will seek to leverage that privilege for Jesus. For starters, I will ask God to help me to make the most of every opportunity that lies before me both on the internet and at home, school, work, and every area of my life. I will ask Him to knock down a few of my defensive walls. Like Jabez, I will ask Him for broader horizons to share my faith. I will think long and hard about people I know who are not yet heaven-bound and will add them to my salvation prayer list and intercede daily for them. I will ask God to soften their hearts to the love and saving power of Jesus and to convict them of their sins. More importantly, I will ask God to make my life a light that points them toward heaven.
Friends, the amazing thing is that it’s within our power how we will view this national holiday. With a snub we can create enmity; with charity we can work miracles, even the miracle of leading someone to the Savior. A put-down, even if it seems well-deserved, might make us feel good for a while, but loving encouragement can heal a multitude of wounds. And boy could our nation use some healing right about now.
So ….- Have your convictions.
- Hold them in love.
- Act civilly toward all.
- Be Jesus to everyone you meet.
It’s a tall order, but it’s not one-sided. “Remember, I am with you, day after day after day.” The Lord has big-time plans for Americans who, on the one hand, value their liberty, but who, on the other hand, leverage it for the Gospel.
Happy Fourth!
(From Dave Black Online. Used by permission.)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2299′] -
Ron Higdon: Grace and the Correction of the Sinner
by Dr. Ronald Higdon, retired pastor and author of All I Need To Know I’m Still Learning at 80, In Changing Times: A Guide for Reflection and Conversation and Surviving a Son’s Suicide.
We have so much trouble with the word grace because it is such a wild and unpredictable word. Defined as “God’s unmerited favor” it seems simple enough – until in the divine economy it is put into practice.
The book of Jonah concludes with our hero sulking under a withered bush angry over God’s failing to unleash his wrath on the city of Nineveh. Jonah, by way of a great fish side trip, finally preached his mandated prophetic message of judgment and was taken aback by repentance on the part of the king and his people. God’s grace won the day and the city was spared. But Jonah knew they didn’t deserve to be spared.
When Jesus tells the parable of the workers hired at various times throughout the day to work in a vineyard, all goes well until compensation is dispensed. Those who worked only one hour all receive a full day’s pay. Those who worked all day expected a bonus but each simply received the agreed upon daily wage. They were furious. Those who had worked so much less didn’t deserve what the owner had given them. The parable ends with the question: “Are you envious because I am so generous.”
The parable of the Waiting Father (we usually call it the parable of the Prodigal Son) has the surprise ending of a O’Henry short story. The younger son is welcomed home with the full benefits of sonship restored. The older dutiful son confronts his father about how unjust this is. His brother does not deserve the party that has been thrown in honor of his return. The parable ends with the father pleading for the older son to join the festivities but he remains outside the door because he knows his wayward brother has not earned what he is receiving.
We might summarize these biblical accounts as a violation of what deep down too many of us really believe: grace should not go to the wrong people. It should not go to people who do not deserve it. Of course, we have made the decision about who should be on the receiving end of God’s favor and forgiveness. We unconsciously have drawn boundaries around God’s grace and only include deserving people – like ourselves. The biblical stories we cited are all illustrations of grace gone too far.
The irony of this kind of thinking is that it belies the very meaning of grace. Grace is that which cannot be merited, earned, bargained for, or deserved in any sense of the word. And it doesn’t belong to us, it belongs to God who seems determined to keep coloring outside the lines of our religious thinking. In his hometown of Nazareth, Jesus’ first (and perhaps only) sermon ended in a riot with the towns people attempting to throw Jesus off a cliff. His heresy? He made heroes of the wrong kind of people.
In the life and ministry of Jesus, God’s grace had no restrictions and no limits. No one was every told, “It’s not for you. Your kind won’t fit into the Kingdom.” From the scandalous theological conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well to the unheard of boldness in inviting himself to be a guest in the home of the tax collector Zacchaeus, Jesus just never seemed to be able to find anyone who shouldn’t be graced.
Jesus must never have heard of “hate the sin but love the sinner” because he never began any of his encounters with the “undeserving” by condemnation. Even in the disputed encounter with the woman taken in the act of adultery, his words to her were the first like it she had ever heard: “Neither do I condemn you.” It seems to be he came at “correction” through the avenue of acceptance and grace.
Almost all surveys of “outsiders” about what words they would use to describe Christians usually begin with the word judgmental. They never associate that word with Jesus. He never appears to have been afraid that people would believe he was “soft on sin.” Too often that seems to be the fear of those who want to be careful about how far grace and acceptance go. Jesus seemed to have the opposite worry: that God’s people would be too judgmental, too exclusive, too certain about who was in and who was out, too certain that they were the special ones who were God’s chosen and they could spot the unchosen a mile away.
I have always believed that what will make heaven truly heaven is that no one will believe for a moment they deserve to be there. All will confess they are there by the grace of God. It is easy to say an “amen” to All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and forget the important word all. None of us has any claim on God’s grace or forgiveness. They are his gifts to us for the receiving. And once they are received they are for the sharing. Everyone’s favorite verse, John 3:16, should spill over and include the rest of the thought in John 3:17: God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. To follow that model, we can never begin with condemnation or correction.
Does a word of correction never come? It seems to me that all of Jesus’ encounters with those deemed as needing correction, always began with their being graced by his presence and by his words. From that grace came salvation and healing and redirection of life. We can never do the correcting we feel necessary in another’s life. (Think how difficult it is for us to deal with those things that need correcting in our own lives.) Grace is always the necessary environment in which people find the place to begin the changes they know they need to make.
Those who were heavy on condemnation, judgment, and correction never receive commendation from Jesus. I believe that when we are the bearers and sharers of the grace we have received, we will discover that correction finds it proper time and place. We remember: grace can never go too far. We are grateful every day that it went far enough to include each of us – and that was pretty far.
[slideshow_deploy id=’3528′] -
William Powell Tuck: The Importance of Moral Living
by Dr. William Powell Tuck, friarsfragment.com, retired pastor, professor and author of The Forgotten Beatitude: Worshiping Through Stewardship, A Positive Word for Christian Lamenting: Funeral Homilies, The Church Under the Cross, and more!
In a recent Gallup Poll, it was noted that 80 per cent of persons in the United States said that moral ratings were at the lowest point in seven years. What does that say about the state of our country now? I believe that a part of the origin of our problem in morality is the belief in absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is a myth because no one can do anything that he or she may want to do at any moment without regard for other people. My actions and your actions involve others, and we are never totally isolated in what we say or do in any particular moment. Rules do have importance in life. Persons are, of course, more important than rules. Jesus indicated that persons were more important than regulations about the Sabbath Day. Persons were more important than the rigid legalism of the Jewish system that focused on minor details of the law. But Jesus did give us some principles about life in the Sermon on the Mount and in his other teachings. His teachings offer guidance on how we are to think about ourselves and how to relate to others in society. To say that there are no rules by which a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or an unbeliever lives, and that each is free to make up his or her own rules, is, in my opinion, to misrepresent that person’s faith or tradition. The Ten Commandments are still valid as basic guidelines for living. As a Christian, I seek to follow Christ and to incorporate the principles of his life and teachings into my own life, and I think persons of other faith traditions need to do the same with their teachings.
A father of twelve children who lived in a house with only one bathroom, once said: ”Rules are not an option here. They are a necessity!” And so are moral principles. When we try to live in the world, rules are not just optional, they are essential. This is true not only in individual relationships but most especially when we move to the wider dimension of society at large. What I do privately not only affects me, but it also touches other people. In society, I may live a private moral life but my morality must also move over into the business world where I work, and in the industrial and financial world in which I am involved. “He who claims he doesn’t need anyone is either ignorant or a liar,” Michel Quoist writes, “because he lives thanks to other people who have engendered life since the beginning of time. If he refuses to live for others, he is a parasite. He grows by feeding off his brothers.”
Over eighty years ago Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the great moral theologians of the last century, wrote a book entitled Moral Man and Immoral Society. In this book, he addressed the issue of morality in one’s private life and the difference in morality in our business, industrial, national, and other collective areas. Persons can often do very immoral things in the collective areas of life and never see how that is immoral. Niebuhr’s challenge echoes the biblical demand that morality is an absolute necessity in our business practice and in all our public as well as private relations with people. Morality is not limited to one’s private life, as important as that is, but moral values should permeate our relationships in business, industry, government, and other collective institutions. Walter Rauschenbusch has reminded us that “sin is not a private transaction between the sinner and God.” “Humanity always crowds the audience-room when God holds court,” he declares. Amos had cried for justice in the land of Israel, “seek good and not evil … Hate evil and love good; enthrone justice in the courts” (Amos 5:14-15, NEB).
Morality is not merely what one thinks is correct in the moment. Too many people depend on their conscience alone. They assume that if one thinks it is the decent thing to do that will make it okay. They declare that they will let conscience be the guide. I am sometimes very troubled by some people who want to follow their conscience, because their conscience does not seem strong enough morally to give them the kind of guidance which they need for a valid decision. When decency has no spiritual rootage, I believe, it is based primarily on what some individual thinks is right or wrong. I am very frightened of those who want to let their conscience be their primary guide. Some people have too easily and quickly let their conscience become twisted and distorted by all kinds of negative influences upon it.
I have often wondered if we would do certain things, if we would give it the publicity test. How would you like for certain acts or deeds which you have done to be reported in the local newspaper, or on the local television, or Facebook or to be reported in the paper of your church, or synagogue or in the community? None of us may want some dark deeds done in the shadows to be put into the public eye. But one of the tests for our morality might be, “Can it stand the test of daylight and exposure in the public arena? Can it stand the public test of those around me–my friends, and others? Do I want private acts to be known in public circles? “You won’t even achieve enduring external success,” David Brooks attests, “unless you build a solid moral code.”
Some politicians have later gotten into great difficulty because of indiscrete acts they engaged in earlier in life. So, you and I should seek to live in such a way that our lives are not destroyed later by the acts we may do in the darkness or in times of weakness. Learn to let the test of publicity remind us that our moral lives are evidence that we have been challenged to live morally in the light or dark places of our lives.
I heard about a woman who had lost her sense of touch. She could place her hand on a hot stove and be burned badly because she could not feel it. Her hand could be literally frozen to a block of ice because she could not feel the pain. A pin could be stuck in her hand and she could not feel it. That is a great tragedy and danger. What an even greater tragedy it would be for those of us who are supposed to be children of God, if we lose our sense of feeling for what is right and wrong. Injustice, immorality, and unethical behavior are too much evident in our land and around the world. We are challenged not only to do what is right and moral ourselves, but we must seek to see that justice and righteousness is directed and administered for all persons regardless of their race, sex or sexual preference, religion, creed, political alliance, economic status, belief, or non-belief.
-
Jesus’ Journey to the CrossPrice range: $8.44 through $12.99 -
The Church Under the CrossPrice range: $7.79 through $11.99 -
The Last Words from the CrossPrice range: $6.49 through $9.99
Featured image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay
-
-
Enough?
by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
The Left has become unhinged. Like some sci-fi robot spinning around spewing sparks as it is unable to process the data given it, the Left has been unable to process the fact that Donald Trump was elected president.
Even though they had been highly critical of Trump during the campaign when he would not commit in advance to accepting the results of the election, from the moment Trump’s victory was announced many on the Left refused to accept it and began working to overturn the election.
Of course, there were the obligatory but meaningless protests that are the staple of the Left. As if the protests of a hundred thousand on the streets could overturn the votes of millions in the democratic process. Then some sought to challenge the election result themselves by demanding recounts even in some states where Trump won by comfortable margins.
When it became clear that this was not going to work, others tried to persuade some electors in the Electoral College to change their vote and thereby deny Trump the Presidency. When that failed, there was an effort to review the 25th Amendment and its means of removing a President who is unfit for office. When that likewise proved to be a dry hole, the focus became the meme that Trump had worked with Russia to rig the election and therefore should be removed.
Now there is no question that Russia tried to interfere in the election. That is not, or at least should not be, anything new or surprising. This was reported during the election itself and frankly Russia, like most governments, tries to influence other nations, one aspect of which includes trying to influence their elections.
What was surprising in the Left’s charge was not that the Russia meddled, but that they did so with the help of Trump. In short Putin and Trump colluded to rig the election. This would imply that the election was illegitimate and thus invalid and in theory Trump would be thrown out.
The main problem for the left in all this, was that while there is certainly evidence that Russia meddled, there is no evidence that their meddling was significant, i.e., that it changed the outcome of the election. Whether your view is that Trump won the election, or just that Clinton lost, they did so on their own. The Russians did not send Trump to the key Midwest swing states, nor keep Clinton out of them, nor did they have Clinton set up a secret email server and then constantly change her story about it.
But even worse for the Left is the fact there is likewise no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. What currently passes as “evidence” are innuendo and assumptions that would make Joseph McCarthy blush. A recent example would be the story about how investigators discovered 18 undisclosed contacts between those in the Trump campaign and “Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties.” At least in McCarthy’s day you had to be or have been a communist. Now you just need to get a phone call or email from someone in Russia to be suspect.
Despite all the air play this supposedly shocking revelation had, for those who went past the headline and actually read a few paragraphs into the story discovered that those who had actually seen them saw “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.” But then why let such inconvenient facts get in the way of trying to undermine the Trump Presidency?
Nor is this story unique. While there are several investigations ongoing, those who have actually seen the evidence and have spoken up, have said so far there is no evidence of collusion. Such statements do not just come from the President’s supporters, but from his opponents like Democratic Senator Diana Feinstein, or Former FBI Director Comey. In fact, the lack of evidence has become so clear that at Comey’s hearing most of the questions on collusion came from Republicans, as Democrats seem to realize there is no evidence and have moved on to the much more nebulous and thus safer questions of obstruction. Meanwhile, other Democrats in Congress filed suit against the President because non-Americans sometime stay in Trump hotels and then also file an impeachment bill in the House just to top things off.
All of this would be little more that political theater except for the fact that increasingly overheated rhetoric and hate filled charges of traitorous behavior, undermining the country, stealing the election and the like, took a serious turn when a former Sanders supporter tried to kill Republicans at a baseball practice.
Neither side is completely blameless in the area of over-heated rhetoric and this event raises the question of where is the line? What is the difference between legitimate and illegitimate disagreement? I think there are two key factors to consider in the answer to this question.
First, particularly for Christians, is the truth. Are the charges made true or at least is there a basis for them beyond the political needs of the one making the charge? If this standard was applied to the Russian probe, it would disappear at least from the news, as there is no “there” there. One might argue that the investigations might come up with some evidence and while true, one could say the same thing about any charge made against anyone. Sure banks do get robbed, but there is no evidence that Obama robbed a bank, but the fact that in theory one might find some does not justify an investigation and Congressional hearings to see if any evidence could be found. Nor would it justify the changes of obstruction of justice if Obama complained about such an investigation. But that is essentially where we are with Trump and Russia.
The second, also an important one for Christians, is to love those you oppose and part of this is to give them the benefit of the doubt. Here the playing field is not quite as level. While there are certainly exceptions it has long been noted that while those on the Right tend to see those they disagree with as wrong, those on the Left tend to see those they disagree with as, in some fashion, morally corrupt.
Whether it be the minimum wage, Obamacare, etc, Republicans tend to argue that liberals are wrong and that their polices do not work or are harmful. Liberals, on the other hand, will tend to argue that conservatives do not care, are selfish, greedy, etc. In short that they are bad people. I would argue that being a bad person is significantly different than being a person who is wrong.
One would hope that the recent shooting would shake up the political leaders on both sides. The comment and actions of those in both parties following the shooting, including the statement of Ryan, Pelosi and Trump were a good step in the right direction.
Sure we will get back to our disagreements and arguments, but we should be careful to make sure that we value the truth more than our agenda and that we strive to see those on the other side of the
political spectrum as people who are just as good and caring as we are, but who have a different ideal as to what is the best thing to do. In short, that they are people with whom we simply disagree, and that is okay.
[slideshow_deploy id=2411]
-
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.: Unity
by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
Currently I am teaching through the book of Philippians, the central message of which I believe is not joy, but a call for unity for the sake of the Gospel. While the letter does not provide the details of what was going on, there seems to have been at least two factions, if not more striving for power/control among the Christians in that city. This power struggle was having consequences, the most serious being that it was threatening the spread of the Gospel. Thus, Paul’s letter, ostensibly to explain why Epaphroditus was being sent back, was at its core, a call to unity.
At the time, Paul was awaiting trial with a possible death sentence, still his focus remained on the spread of the Gospel. He points out that some were trying to preach the Gospel because they were “selfishly ambitious and insincere, thinking that they will stir up trouble for me during my imprisonment.” Given the stakes, one could easily expect Paul to be angry about this, after all his life was on the line. Yet instead, Paul’s reaction was, “But so what? Just this—that in every way, whether by false or true motives, the Messiah is being proclaimed. Because of this, I rejoice and will continue to rejoice.”
How could Paul do this? How could he rejoice that some people were trying to stir up trouble that could result in him being executed? He makes this clear a few verses later as he begins to transitions to the core message of the letter. For Paul, “The only thing that matters is that you continue to live as good citizens in a manner worthy of the gospel of the Messiah” (1:27).
The core of the letter is found in the first four verses of Chapter 2:Therefore, if there is any encouragement in the Messiah, if there is any comfort of love, if there is any fellowship in the Spirit, if there is any compassion and sympathy, 2then fill me with joy by having the same attitude, sharing the same love, being united in spirit, and keeping one purpose in mind. 3Do not act out of selfish ambition or conceit, but with humility think of others as being better than yourselves. 4Do not be concerned about your own interests, but also be concerned about the interests of others.
Note that this is not unity for unity’s sake. Nor is it a call for all to be the same. In places like Romans 14 Paul makes clear he is not calling for sameness. In Romans 14 Paul addresses some disputes that had arisen within the Church at Rome. Now he could have settled these by simply declaring the correct answer. After all, these were not trivial issues. One of them was what days should you worship (v 5). If Christians cannot agree on the day of worship, how can they worship together?
Yet Paul did not give us the “correct” answer. Instead what he writes is a much more difficult teaching, “let’s keep on pursuing those things that bring peace and that lead to building up one another” (Romans 14:19). Basically, he says stop bugging each other about the points of contentions, but rather focus on the points of agreement and build up one another.
Thus, this is not a call to sameness, or even to abandon our beliefs in these areas. It is a call to reorder our priorities. It is a call to put our own priorities and agendas second, and put the Gospel first.
How do we do this? After all, how can we work with “those people?” They are not even real Christians, they believe / do not believe X? Granted, there is a line here. I do not believe I could associate myself in any way with the Westboro Baptist Church, whose methods and tactics are flat out evil, and in my mind harmful to the Gospel. So, I am not saying that we should be completely nonjudgmental in such matters.
Aristotle in his ethics had what is called the Doctrine of the Mean (i.e., middle). He points out that too often we look at things in terms of opposites. One is either a coward or courageous. This false choice has convinced far too many people to do things that were truly stupid, lest they be seen as a chicken. Aristotle points out that what we see as a binary choice is really a range of choices from rashness to cowardice, where true courage is in the middle. Often, It takes courage to do not only what is right, but also not to do what is wrong, especially if our friends are doing it.
Furthermore, Aristotle points out that we all have tendencies, in the case of the example above, either to be rash, or to be a coward. We should therefore be aware of our own tendencies and factor this in when it comes to trying to decide on a course of action. Do we tend towards rashness? If so, we should err on the side of caution. Do we tend towards cowardice? Then we should err on the side of boldness. In this way, we are much more likely to be closer to where we should be.
While this will vary from individual to individual, when it comes to the question of unity for the Gospel, the history of the church is pretty clear as to where on the range of unity vs division Christians as a whole have fallen. Far too often Christians have divided over such fine points of doctrine that only the most theologically informed really understand even the disagreement, much less the significance. Thankfully that has greatly diminished in the last 50 years. But it is something we should be vigilant against. A question we should ask is are we letting our agenda take precedent over, and interfere with, the spread of the Gospel? -
Allan Bevere: Instruction and Indictment: The Sermon on the Mount and Discipleship – John Wesley
by Dr. Allan R. Bevere, pastor, professor and author of Colossians and Philemon: A Participatory Study Guide, The Politics of Witness: The Character of the Church in the World, and The Character of our Discontent.
John Wesley (1703-1791) believed the Sermon on the Mount was very relevant for the current age. Of his fifty-two standard sermons, thirteen are from texts on the Sermon on the Mount. Wesley says several things in his first sermon from Matthew 5:1-4. (All the following quotes are from this sermon of Wesley.)
First, Wesley suggests that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5-7 focus on showing the way to heaven. He says this not only from the context of the Sermon, but because of the one preaching it– “From the character of the Speaker, we are well assured that he hath declared the full and perfect will of God.” The character of the one proclaiming means that the words spoken are “true and right concerning all things.” Wesley is placing the Sermon in the larger Nicene-Chalcedonian theological context. Jesus’ words are true and right because the one speaking the words is divine.
(Read more)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]
-
C. Drew Smith: Ash Wednesday: Reflecting on the Vulnerability of Life
by Dr. C. Drew Smith, professor and Director of the Center for International Programs at Henderson State University, and author of Reframing a Relevant Faith.
from Dr. Smith’s blog, Wilderness Preacher –
Today, Ash Wednesday, marks the beginning of the Season of Lent. There are many practices Christians carry out during this holy season; practices such as fasting and praying that are meant to draw us closer to God as we reflect on the last days of Jesus on this earth. But often we neglect these practices, and I think we may be particularly inclined to neglect these practices during times of stress and uncertainly like we are facing in our current situation.
Yet, now is the time that we should be considering the Season of Lent as a period in which we reflect on the vulnerability of life, as represented in Jesus’ last days on earth. The time of Lent should be a period in which we remind ourselves that life is full of uncertainty, as well as the hope of new life God offers to us.
We sometimes shy away from talking about the uncertainty and vulnerability of life, however, for when we do we think we are being distrustful and even faithless. Yet, the reality of life is that it is full of uncertainties. Indeed, to put it simply, there is a certainty to life’s uncertainties. Problems will come upon us, whether these are caused by our own choices or the actions of others and some of these problems can challenge our faith significantly.
(Read more …)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2613′] -
Allan R. Bevere: God's Will – A Roadmap or a Canvas?
by Dr. Allan R. Bevere, pastor, professor and author of Colossians and Philemon: A Participatory Study Guide, The Politics of Witness: The Character of the Church in the World, and The Character of our Discontent.
Too many Christians often compare God’s will to a road map with very specific directions from the Almighty they need to discover– God wants you to turn left here and go right there– God only has one spouse in mind for you and only one profession you must enter. And while I do believe that at times God may call certain persons to specific things because the Bible itself contains such callings, God’s call is often more open and elastic.
I believe that most of the time, God’s calling is more like a canvas on which we are allowed to paint wherever we desire. We may not move off the canvas onto the walls, but anywhere on the canvas we express ourselves in daily living is acceptable and pleasing to God. God may call me to ministry, but that may be validly expressed in being a pastor, a missionary, or a professor. God will work God’s will through me regardless of the vocation I choose.
(Read more)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]
-
Doris H. Murdoch: God's Promise Fulfilled
by Doris H. Murdoch, teacher and author of Testify: By the Blood of the Lamb and the Word of our Testimony and Constructing Your Testimony.
Bethlehem
In God’s fulfilled promise of the Messiah, let us look at the Promise’s Names, the annunciation of the Promise, the Holy Spirit’s indwelling, and how all of this should affect us in our roles as followers of the Promise.
God’s promise was fulfilled through the Virgin Mary in the birth of His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus (Luke 1:31 “the Lord saves”) is described as the Promised Messiah, the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:32), Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14-16), and the Son of God (Luke 1:35). In Micah 5:2-5, the Promise was described as the Ruler in Israel, Peace, Great, Shepherd, Eternal and This One. His name continues in Isaiah 9:6-7 with Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father and Prince of Peace.
We know that the Virgin Mary lived in the town of Nazareth (Luke 1:26) when the angel Gabriel spoke to her and the Holy Spirit came upon her. Today the Church of the Annunciation marks this part of Nazareth. This event came about fourteen generations from David to deportation to Babylon and fourteen generations from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah (Matthew 1:17). God really has the details down in His plans, doesn’t He?
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit did not overlook other individuals involved in this story. We know the Holy Spirit moved in Elizabeth and her unborn son, John the Baptist, when the baby leaped with joy within Elizabeth’s womb (Luke 1:41, 44). With this indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth cried out with a loud voice, “Blessed are you, Mary, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” In Luke 1:68-79, we read how the Holy Spirit filled Zechariah (Zacharias) and revealed that John would “prepare the way” for the Promise of salvation and forgiveness of sins. Zechariah praises God in verses 68-75 and then gives a blessing on his newborn son in verses 76-79.
God’s favor or blessings don’t always bring immediate pleasure. Mary and Joseph had to be patient and forgiving for surely the two had to tolerate a certain amount of gossip and ridicule. Mary traveled to Bethlehem in the latter part of her pregnancy. Here she was, a young and probably petite girl about 13 years old when she gave birth to her first child in a stable or cave in extremely humble circumstances. After the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had to face the struggles of relocation in Egypt as they fled from King Herod. Mary had to face the death of her son Jesus as He was crucified on the cross in His adult years. Mary may not have felt blessed until after the resurrection of Jesus or possibly not until she sat at the feet of Jesus in heaven. We will face struggles also; belief in Jesus Christ does not free us from the struggles of life. We, too, may have to face death of family, persecution, relocation, discomforts, and so forth. We may not see blessings until we sit at the feet of Jesus! It may even be our children or grandchildren that receive the blessings of our faith while on earth.
Cherish the Promise and our role as a follower of Jesus Christ. Let’s offer ourselves wholly, joyfully and obediently to God, just as Mary did…”Here I am, Lord. Use me according to Your will or plan.”
[slideshow_deploy id=’2440′]