"I was." No, that isn't a misquote of the famous God "I Am" words. I'm talking about me. I'll explain the train of thought that took me to this post . . .
In my reading through the Bible I just finished Jeremiah and began Lamentations. I see so strongly the effect on a nation of turning from God, and the effect when God turns from a nation. I found myself in an internal back and forth that is too familiar to me, "God, have mercy on our nation. But if He does, then everyone will continue in their arrogant and successful life just as they are and will never come to Him. They need to be woken up. But, even 9/11 didn't do that. It only lasted for a bit." On and on that dialogue goes in me, back and forth. If God blesses this nation then everyone continues on just as they are, arrogantly assuming they or a nation are the source of their blessing. But even a true disaster only seems to send people running to God for a short time, until their lives are "blessed" again. I know, in my heart, that what our nation needs is for individuals in it to encounter the Holy Spirit and turn to Jesus. We will only truly change as a nation when the individuals in us change.
As I was thinking about our nation and its current condition I felt the familiar anger rise up. And then, suddenly, it hit me in a very powerful way. I was everything I am angered about in our nation today! I was intellectually proud, and I felt I was the one who could plot my life and make it a success. I was pro people being able to do what they wanted and not having other people tell them what to do—I remember arguing round and round with Mary Ann that prostitution should be legal because it was "their choice." I was pro abortion—not seeing a baby in the womb, but seeing only a women's body and others trying to tell her what to do with it (my perception). I thought I was a moral relativist, believing what was right for some was right for them, but it didn't mean it was right for others—that there was no absolute right and wrong across cultures. (In fact, a professor at West Point confronted me on my stand and it was a wake up moment for me. I write a lot about moral relativism in this blog, but I specifically mention that incident with my professor here, here, and here.) I mocked the Bible, God, and Christians (I flung profanity at a God I claimed I didn't believe in), and I believed in evolution and an old earth. On and on I could go, but I think the point is made. Everything that angers me today . . . I was.
And, as I look back, I realize that no law in the world could have changed me. In fact it would have angered me even more to have someone "shove" their beliefs onto my life in law (I am not arguing that laws shouldn't exist that reflect God's heart, just saying how it wouldn't have changed my heart, even if it forced my compliance). While laws have value—they regulate a society, they protect unborn and other defenseless, they model a moral code to youth—ultimately I don't believe they change a heart, and that is the only thing that changed me. God having mercy on me, an arrogant and blasphemous atheist, put Mary Ann and others into my life and the Holy Spirit drew me to Him and He changed me, from the inside. And that is, I believe, the only hope for our nation in the end—a personal encounter with Jesus by the ones who make up this nation. And then allowing Him to change our hearts into alignment with His. (Even God's Law wasn't an end in itself, it was a tutor or schoolmaster to reveal sin and point us to Jesus.)
I recognize that even among Christians not all agree on everything, but without that at least as a starting point I don't think a change is possible for us. He makes us new creations. He writes His law on our hearts. He teaches us truth. And that brings up then the question, what is my role in drawing people in this nation to Jesus, the ultimate changer of hearts? Because until He came into my heart and changed me, everything that bothers and grieves me today in others in this nation . . . I was.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Friday, August 5, 2016
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Make No Mistake . . .
This post is long, but I believe it will be of value to you, as a Christian, as you process the course of our nation and seek to understand things through a Biblical perspective. I believe it will help you clarify the true issue at work. —Erick
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage we can not make the mistake of assuming that this is simply about marriage, or even the rights of homosexuals. It is a decision that will affect most Christian institutions, colleges, businesses, etc. It will be a decision that forever alters the fabric of our nation, and Christians in it who stand on Biblical principles and world view.
And, we can't make the mistake of seeing this as anything other than what it truly is—it is our nation's decision on what the very essence of its (our nation's) being will be. This is a decision that defines this nation at the core of what it is, and as such it carries a weight that is larger than we can fathom . . . and, unfortunately, is a battle it seems we've already lost.
As soon as this issue became defined as a civil rights issue it was lost to Christians who actually believe the Bible is God's inspired, written word to us, revealing Himself and His nature and heart. As a civil rights issue, as a fairness issue, I don't see people having a right to deny marriage to homosexuals—just as they wouldn't have a right to deny polygamy, or any other thing or type of marriage or lifestyle in the future that society may not embrace now but will embrace later as it gets more "tolerant" and more "progressive."
The thing is, this is not a civil rights issue, and as Christians we must understand this, as our resolve will fade eventually under the withering bombardment of being called small, hateful, intolerant, old-fashioned, fundamentalist, etc. This is not a civil rights issue, it is an issue at the very core of how we define right and wrong: Is there a God, above all, Who defines right and wrong, Who gives rights, and Whom we choose to submit to . . . or are right and wrong and rights something a majority or a legislative body or a court can decide and confer?
This question defines our nation. Our Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This sentence, taken in part, could be used to argue for the right of homosexuals to be happy and marry. But it is not written in part, but in whole. These rights come from a Creator, therefore the Creator must be considered in them . . . and the Creator, the God of the Bible, has very specific things to say about what is right and what is wrong, and homosexuality is absolutely wrong in His eyes, therefore giving it legal blessing in marriage is only further going against our Creator. (Note: He also calls adultery, lying, fornication—sex outside marriage, etc., wrong, and the church is, sadly, inconsistent and much less vocal about these things, even in our own ranks.)
How we stand on this issue—and other values issues the Bible has something to say about—will define us individually and as a nation. The moment we leave the argument that God is God, and God is real, and the Bible is His written revelation, and He says something about the issue, we have entered the moral quicksand of morality being defined by the masses or a despot or a court. We have given morality over to legal briefs and influential people, and we have walked away from God.
Over and over in the Bible it talks about something being evil or good in the sight of the Lord. No matter what man thinks, what matters is how God sees something. That is all that matters. And whether our nation embraces that as the foundational truth of itself, or whether it rejects it, we as Christians can not leave that moral high ground and try and argue morality on "practical" levels or we have left the only rock of truth we have to stand on. And if our nation does go that way (and it seems it already has), we, as Christians, must be firm in why we believe what we believe. And that is why, I believe, God calls the church which is the body of Christ and His bride, a holy nation, His own special people, citizens of Heaven. We live in America, but our citizenship is the Kingdom of God. We are His, and that identity transcends lines on a map. We were His when America embraced Him as their foundation, and we are His when it turns from Him. We are His, and that is eternal, and He knows who are His and who are not, and He holds eternity in His hands.
This issue will write into law the future of our nation. It, like Roe vs. Wade, will absolutely solidify and codify that we, as a nation, have no regard for what God says is right or wrong. It will say, "We, as a nation, have risen above God, knowing right and wrong, and conferring rights on people." Whatever the court decides, we as God's children must know, He loves the lost and desires to draw all men to Him . . . and He will never leave or forsake His children, whether America a few decades from now loves Him, or whether we are living a persecuted minority.
A Side Note—But Important Note—On Genesis and All of This
If you've known me, or read this blog, any length of time you know that defending the first ten chapters or so of Genesis as a literal record of Creation and a global flood is a passion of mine. In these decisions our nation is wrestling with we are seeing one of the strongest evidences for that importance play out before our eyes.
If we discount those chapters as allegory—submitting them to "science" instead of submitting science to the Bible, we have begun down a slippery slope we can't recover from. The church in the early 1800s found this out. They collapsed on the age of the earth (inventing Day Age Theory, or Gap Theory, to try and reconcile "science" and the Bible) and then along comes Darwin and they've already, as the church, climbed into bed with the major requirement of Darwinian evolution—vast periods of time. Suddenly the church is left holding a bag with a hole in it. They've already embraced the unBiblical vast periods of time. They've already said a key component of Genesis is allegory . . . and so they had no leg to stand on arguing the creation of man in God's image from the start was literal.
When we embrace those things, putting "science" (I say that loosely since many brilliant scientists whose voices aren't heard embrace a literal reading of Genesis) above the Bible, we are then hypocrites to defend a virgin birth, a resurrection, angels and demons, a parting of a sea, a feeding of thousands from a few loaves and fish, the turning of water to wine, etc. Each of these are areas "science" has no room for, and we are inconsistent and hypocritical to fight for them as true when we've already let "science" define the Bible for us.
And so, down the slippery slope, the Bible becomes untrustworthy, and subject to man's interpretation and molding to fit man's "wisdom." Does anyone else see a correlation between a nation professing to be Christian but embracing values that the Bible clearly speaks out against? When we start to see the Bible as a childish book, not able to stand against the progressive wisdom and mind of man, then we really shouldn't be surprised when we give it no authority on moral issues as well. It is truly the next logical stage of descent off the high mountain of the Bible (hence God's) authority. Why, oh why, church, are we so surprised. We who've watered down the very book God gave us?
And . . . should it be any surprise to us, and could it underline the argument I am making any better, then to see the very side defending traditional marriage argue before the Supreme Court use evolutionary terms, ". . . the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology. Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution." (In fairness, he has made it clear the issue he was arguing is not about the definition of marriage, but if the people or the courts will decide it. Again . . . already lost . . . God is not even in that. He may be the reason the people—the states in court who are standing against homosexual marriage—voted against it, but whether or not their will stands is not about God, but about legality.)
Genesis does matter. Marriage hasn't "evolved," it is a God-ordained institution present in the first chapters of Genesis. It doesn't need to be defended on "practical" basis, it is what God has ordained and for us that is enough. And God has said certain lifestyles are wrong, and that should be enough for us as well. He is the only basis for the argument . . . and He is enough. For those who don't recognize that . . . those who may define much of our lives left here on earth . . . they will recognize it—on one side of the grave or the other.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage we can not make the mistake of assuming that this is simply about marriage, or even the rights of homosexuals. It is a decision that will affect most Christian institutions, colleges, businesses, etc. It will be a decision that forever alters the fabric of our nation, and Christians in it who stand on Biblical principles and world view.
And, we can't make the mistake of seeing this as anything other than what it truly is—it is our nation's decision on what the very essence of its (our nation's) being will be. This is a decision that defines this nation at the core of what it is, and as such it carries a weight that is larger than we can fathom . . . and, unfortunately, is a battle it seems we've already lost.
As soon as this issue became defined as a civil rights issue it was lost to Christians who actually believe the Bible is God's inspired, written word to us, revealing Himself and His nature and heart. As a civil rights issue, as a fairness issue, I don't see people having a right to deny marriage to homosexuals—just as they wouldn't have a right to deny polygamy, or any other thing or type of marriage or lifestyle in the future that society may not embrace now but will embrace later as it gets more "tolerant" and more "progressive."
The thing is, this is not a civil rights issue, and as Christians we must understand this, as our resolve will fade eventually under the withering bombardment of being called small, hateful, intolerant, old-fashioned, fundamentalist, etc. This is not a civil rights issue, it is an issue at the very core of how we define right and wrong: Is there a God, above all, Who defines right and wrong, Who gives rights, and Whom we choose to submit to . . . or are right and wrong and rights something a majority or a legislative body or a court can decide and confer?
This question defines our nation. Our Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This sentence, taken in part, could be used to argue for the right of homosexuals to be happy and marry. But it is not written in part, but in whole. These rights come from a Creator, therefore the Creator must be considered in them . . . and the Creator, the God of the Bible, has very specific things to say about what is right and what is wrong, and homosexuality is absolutely wrong in His eyes, therefore giving it legal blessing in marriage is only further going against our Creator. (Note: He also calls adultery, lying, fornication—sex outside marriage, etc., wrong, and the church is, sadly, inconsistent and much less vocal about these things, even in our own ranks.)
How we stand on this issue—and other values issues the Bible has something to say about—will define us individually and as a nation. The moment we leave the argument that God is God, and God is real, and the Bible is His written revelation, and He says something about the issue, we have entered the moral quicksand of morality being defined by the masses or a despot or a court. We have given morality over to legal briefs and influential people, and we have walked away from God.
Over and over in the Bible it talks about something being evil or good in the sight of the Lord. No matter what man thinks, what matters is how God sees something. That is all that matters. And whether our nation embraces that as the foundational truth of itself, or whether it rejects it, we as Christians can not leave that moral high ground and try and argue morality on "practical" levels or we have left the only rock of truth we have to stand on. And if our nation does go that way (and it seems it already has), we, as Christians, must be firm in why we believe what we believe. And that is why, I believe, God calls the church which is the body of Christ and His bride, a holy nation, His own special people, citizens of Heaven. We live in America, but our citizenship is the Kingdom of God. We are His, and that identity transcends lines on a map. We were His when America embraced Him as their foundation, and we are His when it turns from Him. We are His, and that is eternal, and He knows who are His and who are not, and He holds eternity in His hands.
This issue will write into law the future of our nation. It, like Roe vs. Wade, will absolutely solidify and codify that we, as a nation, have no regard for what God says is right or wrong. It will say, "We, as a nation, have risen above God, knowing right and wrong, and conferring rights on people." Whatever the court decides, we as God's children must know, He loves the lost and desires to draw all men to Him . . . and He will never leave or forsake His children, whether America a few decades from now loves Him, or whether we are living a persecuted minority.
A Side Note—But Important Note—On Genesis and All of This
If you've known me, or read this blog, any length of time you know that defending the first ten chapters or so of Genesis as a literal record of Creation and a global flood is a passion of mine. In these decisions our nation is wrestling with we are seeing one of the strongest evidences for that importance play out before our eyes.
If we discount those chapters as allegory—submitting them to "science" instead of submitting science to the Bible, we have begun down a slippery slope we can't recover from. The church in the early 1800s found this out. They collapsed on the age of the earth (inventing Day Age Theory, or Gap Theory, to try and reconcile "science" and the Bible) and then along comes Darwin and they've already, as the church, climbed into bed with the major requirement of Darwinian evolution—vast periods of time. Suddenly the church is left holding a bag with a hole in it. They've already embraced the unBiblical vast periods of time. They've already said a key component of Genesis is allegory . . . and so they had no leg to stand on arguing the creation of man in God's image from the start was literal.
When we embrace those things, putting "science" (I say that loosely since many brilliant scientists whose voices aren't heard embrace a literal reading of Genesis) above the Bible, we are then hypocrites to defend a virgin birth, a resurrection, angels and demons, a parting of a sea, a feeding of thousands from a few loaves and fish, the turning of water to wine, etc. Each of these are areas "science" has no room for, and we are inconsistent and hypocritical to fight for them as true when we've already let "science" define the Bible for us.
And so, down the slippery slope, the Bible becomes untrustworthy, and subject to man's interpretation and molding to fit man's "wisdom." Does anyone else see a correlation between a nation professing to be Christian but embracing values that the Bible clearly speaks out against? When we start to see the Bible as a childish book, not able to stand against the progressive wisdom and mind of man, then we really shouldn't be surprised when we give it no authority on moral issues as well. It is truly the next logical stage of descent off the high mountain of the Bible (hence God's) authority. Why, oh why, church, are we so surprised. We who've watered down the very book God gave us?
And . . . should it be any surprise to us, and could it underline the argument I am making any better, then to see the very side defending traditional marriage argue before the Supreme Court use evolutionary terms, ". . . the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology. Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution." (In fairness, he has made it clear the issue he was arguing is not about the definition of marriage, but if the people or the courts will decide it. Again . . . already lost . . . God is not even in that. He may be the reason the people—the states in court who are standing against homosexual marriage—voted against it, but whether or not their will stands is not about God, but about legality.)
Genesis does matter. Marriage hasn't "evolved," it is a God-ordained institution present in the first chapters of Genesis. It doesn't need to be defended on "practical" basis, it is what God has ordained and for us that is enough. And God has said certain lifestyles are wrong, and that should be enough for us as well. He is the only basis for the argument . . . and He is enough. For those who don't recognize that . . . those who may define much of our lives left here on earth . . . they will recognize it—on one side of the grave or the other.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Oh My . . .
Well, the distinction between the atheist and Christian world views has taken on even more clarity. Check out this article:
IRS Strikes Deal with Atheists to Monitor Churches
Churches aren't supposed to endorse candidates . . . but now we can't talk about abortion or gay marriage? There are a lot of articles out there on this agreement, and I've only read this one, but even if it doesn't cover the whole story what it does cover is scary enough. Here's a quote from the article:
This is at the core of it all. Again, it is world view. The issue transcends politics. It is not political. It is an issue of supreme truth. If God is real then we are fools to ignore Him or what He says. If we put ourselves or politics above allegiance and submission to God we have become fools. When we speak against something God speaks against, or stand for something God stands for (providing we are Spirit-led), we are not being "political," we are putting God forth as supreme. But to someone who doesn't recognize then we are, inherently, being political. It comes down to who we recognize and who we are serving in the action and words.
That is the ultimate question our nation faces. We can say nobody can be discriminated against for their religious or non-religious views, and that is fine (see next paragraph for caveat), but if we don't submit to some higher standard of right and wrong we will crumble in the decay of society as we inherently seek our own selfish good. The only other alternatives to determining right or wrong are things like a dictatorship, or majority rule, or simply saying that the strongest/biggest/baddest will prevail. All of these have been tried and are scary.
At some point we must decide, "What is discrimination?" This is a huge question, far bigger then we might realize. The reality is we all—even atheists—advocate discrimination at some level. We discriminate against people who want to murder and rape. We discriminate against people who want to steal. The issue isn't discrimination, it is what is right and wrong. Then, in the realm of right we don't discriminate, but in the realm of wrong we all do by forbidding that action. Where those realms divide is the question of the ages, but all the "tolerance" people are being hypocrites. They all have things they don't tolerate, they just have a different line then others do. The key question is who, or what, draws the line? That is at the heart of it all. For those who see homosexuality as OK then it is discrimination against them to forbid marriage. To those who see it as sin in God's eyes, it is legislation against a wrong (and everyone legislates against wrongs—the real issue is, "What is wrong?"). The same for abortion causing contraceptives. If you see the baby as simply a fetus then you see it as discriminating against women and their choices. If you see the baby as a life then you see it as legislating against wrong and sin and protecting the defenseless.
Atheists are ticked because churches have tax exempt status and can then talk about, in their eyes, politics. Well, can you imagine the pressure the government could bring on churches if they could tax them? Especially this government in this era? They could drive them out of existence as recognized organizations. But are we, as they see it, talking about politics when we talk about a candidate or issue in terms of God's laws and heart? Or are we, as we see it, talking about God and bringing His views into the issues we face? It is a key, pivotal question that there is no way to come together on with such divergent world views. No way. Period.
What kind of pastor could truly lead and equip a fellowship if he didn't talk about the issues that we face and how God sees them? If our faith is simply for stained glass windows and seminaries and funerals then we've missed the faith Jesus brought. He came into this world, into its pain and brokenness, into its people, and He brought the Father's heart and words and life into it. Our faith can—and it must—impact every area of our lives or we are not being true to it and our world view. If we compartmentalize God into the "proper" boxes then we've missed the God who breathes out stars and speaks life. My God can't be boxed, and He is interested in and involved in every issue of my life.
Who is right, or who is wrong, in this issue? It is a question that will define our nation and our future.
IRS Strikes Deal with Atheists to Monitor Churches
Churches aren't supposed to endorse candidates . . . but now we can't talk about abortion or gay marriage? There are a lot of articles out there on this agreement, and I've only read this one, but even if it doesn't cover the whole story what it does cover is scary enough. Here's a quote from the article:
A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit. The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.Here's the thing. This is about something far bigger than politics. It is about the moral fabric of our nation. If there is no God then there are not absolutes. Nobody has any right to say anyone else is right or wrong. And everything about any issue is simply "politics." But . . . if there is a God, then there are absolutes. We can choose to ignore them, but it doesn't make us right. God defines right and wrong, good and bad, truth and lies.
This is at the core of it all. Again, it is world view. The issue transcends politics. It is not political. It is an issue of supreme truth. If God is real then we are fools to ignore Him or what He says. If we put ourselves or politics above allegiance and submission to God we have become fools. When we speak against something God speaks against, or stand for something God stands for (providing we are Spirit-led), we are not being "political," we are putting God forth as supreme. But to someone who doesn't recognize then we are, inherently, being political. It comes down to who we recognize and who we are serving in the action and words.
That is the ultimate question our nation faces. We can say nobody can be discriminated against for their religious or non-religious views, and that is fine (see next paragraph for caveat), but if we don't submit to some higher standard of right and wrong we will crumble in the decay of society as we inherently seek our own selfish good. The only other alternatives to determining right or wrong are things like a dictatorship, or majority rule, or simply saying that the strongest/biggest/baddest will prevail. All of these have been tried and are scary.
At some point we must decide, "What is discrimination?" This is a huge question, far bigger then we might realize. The reality is we all—even atheists—advocate discrimination at some level. We discriminate against people who want to murder and rape. We discriminate against people who want to steal. The issue isn't discrimination, it is what is right and wrong. Then, in the realm of right we don't discriminate, but in the realm of wrong we all do by forbidding that action. Where those realms divide is the question of the ages, but all the "tolerance" people are being hypocrites. They all have things they don't tolerate, they just have a different line then others do. The key question is who, or what, draws the line? That is at the heart of it all. For those who see homosexuality as OK then it is discrimination against them to forbid marriage. To those who see it as sin in God's eyes, it is legislation against a wrong (and everyone legislates against wrongs—the real issue is, "What is wrong?"). The same for abortion causing contraceptives. If you see the baby as simply a fetus then you see it as discriminating against women and their choices. If you see the baby as a life then you see it as legislating against wrong and sin and protecting the defenseless.
Atheists are ticked because churches have tax exempt status and can then talk about, in their eyes, politics. Well, can you imagine the pressure the government could bring on churches if they could tax them? Especially this government in this era? They could drive them out of existence as recognized organizations. But are we, as they see it, talking about politics when we talk about a candidate or issue in terms of God's laws and heart? Or are we, as we see it, talking about God and bringing His views into the issues we face? It is a key, pivotal question that there is no way to come together on with such divergent world views. No way. Period.
What kind of pastor could truly lead and equip a fellowship if he didn't talk about the issues that we face and how God sees them? If our faith is simply for stained glass windows and seminaries and funerals then we've missed the faith Jesus brought. He came into this world, into its pain and brokenness, into its people, and He brought the Father's heart and words and life into it. Our faith can—and it must—impact every area of our lives or we are not being true to it and our world view. If we compartmentalize God into the "proper" boxes then we've missed the God who breathes out stars and speaks life. My God can't be boxed, and He is interested in and involved in every issue of my life.
Who is right, or who is wrong, in this issue? It is a question that will define our nation and our future.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Friday at Noon
In a recent post I mentioned a film Mary Ann and I had just gotten on DVD that we were looking forward to watching. It is called Friday at Noon. Last night I got home from our fire department drill earlier than I expected and we curled up to watch it. I wanted to share my thoughts about it and the issues it brings up. (I am not profiting in any way from recommending it, other than maybe playing a small part in encouraging the family that produced it and in strengthening the faith and defense of anyone who might watch it on account of my recommendation.)
As I mentioned in my previous post, the movie explores the issue of how we define or determine right or wrong in the absence of a God. While this is an issue I have enjoyed discussing, and one that played a strong part in my conversion, it is one I have rarely seen handled in a fictional format. This movie does a wonderful job of it, taking a man grieving over the murder of his son by young men who were acting out the evolutionary implications of life and having him kidnap the daughter of the professor who taught them the theories they lived out and telling the dad he can save his daughter only by answering one question, "Why shouldn't I do evil to her?"
As the professor struggles to give answers beyond the shallow and not thought through surface answers most people would give he realizes how inadequate the canned answers are, and how few people actually think through the implications of what they claim they believe. I don't want to spoil the ending or the conclusion, but suffice to say that it would be a very strengthening film for older youth and for adults to watch to either strengthen their conviction in God and how we can defend his existence, or to challenge non-believers to see the horrible, logical, moral extensions of their atheism. The movie does a great job of systematically demolishing the intellectual arguments for morals that sound so good in the "hallowed" halls of academia, but, when carried to their logical conclusions, end in horrifying places.
Made by a homeschooling family and the church the father pastors, the film is surprisingly well done considering what I can only imagine was resources at their disposal that were nothing like what a feature film can throw at a production. Do you laugh at a few scenes and see a few places the "Hollywood" experts would pick apart and criticize? Yes. Of course. But I can tell you that if my family, or our fellowship, produced anything remotely close to this I would be very proud. I'd recommend you get a copy of this to show your friends, to initiate discussions, to strengthen yourself, and to encourage a family and church who are seeking to glorify God in all that they are and do. I would not let Bethany and Abigail watch it yet as we have shielded them from more violent or stark scenes and a little of the imagery might scare them right now, but it won't be long until I do and I would certainly encourage it for high school and above.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the movie explores the issue of how we define or determine right or wrong in the absence of a God. While this is an issue I have enjoyed discussing, and one that played a strong part in my conversion, it is one I have rarely seen handled in a fictional format. This movie does a wonderful job of it, taking a man grieving over the murder of his son by young men who were acting out the evolutionary implications of life and having him kidnap the daughter of the professor who taught them the theories they lived out and telling the dad he can save his daughter only by answering one question, "Why shouldn't I do evil to her?"
As the professor struggles to give answers beyond the shallow and not thought through surface answers most people would give he realizes how inadequate the canned answers are, and how few people actually think through the implications of what they claim they believe. I don't want to spoil the ending or the conclusion, but suffice to say that it would be a very strengthening film for older youth and for adults to watch to either strengthen their conviction in God and how we can defend his existence, or to challenge non-believers to see the horrible, logical, moral extensions of their atheism. The movie does a great job of systematically demolishing the intellectual arguments for morals that sound so good in the "hallowed" halls of academia, but, when carried to their logical conclusions, end in horrifying places.
Made by a homeschooling family and the church the father pastors, the film is surprisingly well done considering what I can only imagine was resources at their disposal that were nothing like what a feature film can throw at a production. Do you laugh at a few scenes and see a few places the "Hollywood" experts would pick apart and criticize? Yes. Of course. But I can tell you that if my family, or our fellowship, produced anything remotely close to this I would be very proud. I'd recommend you get a copy of this to show your friends, to initiate discussions, to strengthen yourself, and to encourage a family and church who are seeking to glorify God in all that they are and do. I would not let Bethany and Abigail watch it yet as we have shielded them from more violent or stark scenes and a little of the imagery might scare them right now, but it won't be long until I do and I would certainly encourage it for high school and above.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Who Decides?
I just received a DVD I am looking forward to watching with Mary Ann when we have an evening where we can sit and do so. As best as I understand it, it is produced by a homeschool family and the church the father pastors. It is called Friday at Noon and one of the quotes associated with the movie's promotions is from Fyodor Dostoyevski, and it says, "If there is no God, everything is permissible." My understanding is that the movie will use a fictional story to explore if atheists can call anything wrong.
I think it intrigues me so because at West Point, in my pre-Christian days, I concentrated in philosophy and once considered myself a moral relativist (I believed that what was right for some was right for some, and what was right for others was right for them). My enjoyment of academic intellectual arguments was rocked when a professor there (who I many years later found out to be a Christian) told me that if he really believed I was he would do all he could to have me kicked out of the academy. It was too dangerous to him to have someone preparing for an officer's position of leadership and authority who didn't recognize there are absolute rights and wrongs.
I think that my encounter with that professor (which I have written about that encounter and moral relativism before in this blog) rattled me so much because up until that time things like philosophy, religion, etc., were just intellectual things to have fun arguing. But his intensity and passion was new to me. He really believed it mattered and had consequence and wasn't just fun and games.
Later in my journey toward Christ the argument for absolute right and wrong was a strong factor in my conversion. I came to realize that at my core I had a strong sense of right and wrong—it was one of the things that led me to West Point and the military—and if I was honest I couldn't explain that, or defend it, without an appeal to authority in it . . . God.
Tonight I had fun with our girls at dinner. I asked them to explain to me why some things are right or wrong without appealing to God. Needless to say it was quite a conversation! Each time something was brought up as right or wrong I could simply ask, "Why?" and then not let them use God in their argument. As we talked back and forth they came to see that, without an absolute authority, there is no true right or wrong. Some might say it is defined by popular vote, or majority opinion, or the strongest, or ??? But the reality is that there is no way to say one person is more right than another, or one thing is more right or wrong than another, without some appeal to authority that is higher than them all. Even a country that decides right and wrong by votes on moral issues or laws can be overrun by a country with a stronger army that decides right or wrong on its own moral compass—and the invaded country has no basis to say that they are right and the invaders are wrong.
It is truly a scary thought when someone denies there is a God by Whom absolute right and wrong is defined. If they are consistent in their logic from that point on then they have entered a realm where anything goes, and they have no basis or standing or appeal to say someone is wrong, even if that someone intrudes on their rights or safety. It is, I believe, a powerful approach to witnessing because it is a very rare person who will not acknowledge that inside them they have a sense of right or wrong. To pursue where that comes from and if it is absolute or relative is a powerful door to begin to talk about God, being made in His image, and His transcendence over all.
So, sit back, pour yourself a good cup of coffee, gather some friends, and try and define absolute right and wrong without including God. It should be an eye opening time! I'd love to hear about it! Blessings, and thanks for reading. —Erick
I think it intrigues me so because at West Point, in my pre-Christian days, I concentrated in philosophy and once considered myself a moral relativist (I believed that what was right for some was right for some, and what was right for others was right for them). My enjoyment of academic intellectual arguments was rocked when a professor there (who I many years later found out to be a Christian) told me that if he really believed I was he would do all he could to have me kicked out of the academy. It was too dangerous to him to have someone preparing for an officer's position of leadership and authority who didn't recognize there are absolute rights and wrongs.
I think that my encounter with that professor (which I have written about that encounter and moral relativism before in this blog) rattled me so much because up until that time things like philosophy, religion, etc., were just intellectual things to have fun arguing. But his intensity and passion was new to me. He really believed it mattered and had consequence and wasn't just fun and games.
Later in my journey toward Christ the argument for absolute right and wrong was a strong factor in my conversion. I came to realize that at my core I had a strong sense of right and wrong—it was one of the things that led me to West Point and the military—and if I was honest I couldn't explain that, or defend it, without an appeal to authority in it . . . God.
Tonight I had fun with our girls at dinner. I asked them to explain to me why some things are right or wrong without appealing to God. Needless to say it was quite a conversation! Each time something was brought up as right or wrong I could simply ask, "Why?" and then not let them use God in their argument. As we talked back and forth they came to see that, without an absolute authority, there is no true right or wrong. Some might say it is defined by popular vote, or majority opinion, or the strongest, or ??? But the reality is that there is no way to say one person is more right than another, or one thing is more right or wrong than another, without some appeal to authority that is higher than them all. Even a country that decides right and wrong by votes on moral issues or laws can be overrun by a country with a stronger army that decides right or wrong on its own moral compass—and the invaded country has no basis to say that they are right and the invaders are wrong.
It is truly a scary thought when someone denies there is a God by Whom absolute right and wrong is defined. If they are consistent in their logic from that point on then they have entered a realm where anything goes, and they have no basis or standing or appeal to say someone is wrong, even if that someone intrudes on their rights or safety. It is, I believe, a powerful approach to witnessing because it is a very rare person who will not acknowledge that inside them they have a sense of right or wrong. To pursue where that comes from and if it is absolute or relative is a powerful door to begin to talk about God, being made in His image, and His transcendence over all.
So, sit back, pour yourself a good cup of coffee, gather some friends, and try and define absolute right and wrong without including God. It should be an eye opening time! I'd love to hear about it! Blessings, and thanks for reading. —Erick
Monday, August 6, 2012
Monotheism and Gore Vidal
I have either written about, or alluded to, the arguments about moral relativism multiple times. Basically, either there are absolute truths and absolute rights and wrongs, or it is all relative and what is right for some is right for some, but not necessarily for others. This morning Albert Mohler published a very good blog on Gore Vidal and his war on monotheism called Gore Vidal and the Sky God. I would recommend reading it. You can see it by clicking here.
In his blog Mohler captures what Vidal realized—that the absolute of truth and right and wrong lies in monotheism. Apart from one god (I leave it lowercase because he is talking about multiple monotheistic religions) there is no case for absolute truth that says something is absolutely right and other things are absolutely wrong. I'll quote a few parts of the article below, but I recommend reading it and reflecting on it. I think this whole argument is also, probably, one of the reasons evolution is so appealing. If we take God out of the picture and deny His existence then we don't have to make our lives accountable to Him or to face the fact that what may seem right to us may, in fact, not be right to He who defines right and wrong.
In the blog Mohler writes:
It is a truth we must realize to fully understand why the enemy attacks our faith so much—a faith that unashamedly declares itself to be the only way to truth. Because, if we are right, then everyone in the world is accountable to it, whether or not they like it or believe it. With that said, may you spend this week deeply aware of God's great love for you, and how mighty and powerful He is and how completely worthy He is of our standing for Him against all that comes our way. Thanks for reading! —Erick
In his blog Mohler captures what Vidal realized—that the absolute of truth and right and wrong lies in monotheism. Apart from one god (I leave it lowercase because he is talking about multiple monotheistic religions) there is no case for absolute truth that says something is absolutely right and other things are absolutely wrong. I'll quote a few parts of the article below, but I recommend reading it and reflecting on it. I think this whole argument is also, probably, one of the reasons evolution is so appealing. If we take God out of the picture and deny His existence then we don't have to make our lives accountable to Him or to face the fact that what may seem right to us may, in fact, not be right to He who defines right and wrong.
In the blog Mohler writes:
In his essay, “Monotheism and its Discontents,” based on the lecture at Harvard, Vidal perceptively and blasphemously blamed the existence of a binding sexual morality on monotheism. "The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism,” Vidal asserted, “From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament three anti-human religions have evolved — Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These are sky-god religions.”And later he says:
Christians should pay close attention to Gore Vidal’s argument, but the mainstream media have almost uniformly ignored it. The obituaries have celebrated his literary gifts and noted his radical political ideas and rejection of Christianity, but not his call for “all-out war on the monotheists.” We should realize that Vidal’s rejection of monotheism, though blasphemous, was truly perceptive. He was certainly correct that a binding and objective morality requires a monotheistic God who both exists and reveals himself. He was also correct in pointing to the fact that a secularized Europe has largely abandoned a biblical morality when it comes, most specifically, to sexual behavior.
It is a truth we must realize to fully understand why the enemy attacks our faith so much—a faith that unashamedly declares itself to be the only way to truth. Because, if we are right, then everyone in the world is accountable to it, whether or not they like it or believe it. With that said, may you spend this week deeply aware of God's great love for you, and how mighty and powerful He is and how completely worthy He is of our standing for Him against all that comes our way. Thanks for reading! —Erick
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Good?
In Romans 3:9–12 Paul writes: What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” He ends that description in verse 18 with, “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Paul is describing both Jew and Greek, basically the “proper” religious ones and those totally ignorant of the true God (therefore, everyone). It is a stunning statement and it is a clear look at how God sees good and bad, Light and darkness. We must remember that he is including here even the man or woman next door who doesn’t hurt anyone and who helps others. None are righteous. No one does good. This is shocking if we are used to defining good and “righteous” by deeds and moral measuring sticks—the kind of defining that leaves us stunned that the “Son of Sam” (see “The Son of Sam and . . . You and I”) might be in heaven one day, and our neighbor or family member who has never done anything so horrific as he has be absent from there, and in hell.
If this reality stuns us, or bothers us, we are probably looking at good and bad as ranking or measured or rated, with people being compared and ranked by their “goodness” or “badness” of deeds. This is dangerous and it will draw us away from God and in to arrogance (or, in some cases, horrible depression if we start to believe we are so much more horrible than others). One thing must be clear in our understanding of the Gospel—the Law, the moral code, is not to encourage and build us up, but to point us to Jesus. Paul continues with verses 19–20 and says: Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
The Law convicts. The moral code convicts. It makes the whole world accountable to God. By the Law NO ONE will be justified in God’s sight! The Law brings the knowledge of sin, not unlike Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil and were suddenly ashamed and afraid of God. That is it. That is the Law’s purpose. It is a tutor to bring us to Christ. The Pharisees made the horrible mistake of letting the Law exalt them because they measured good and bad by it, and found themselves “closer” to it than others. That is NOT the Law’s role! It is not to show us we are better than another, but to show us how horribly separated we are from God and how unrighteous we are—to prepare us for Christ and to show us our utter need for Him and His work on the cross as our SOLE basis and claim of righteousness.
When moral works exalt us or puff us up or cause us to esteem ourselves better than another we have completely missed the point of the Law. We were created to live in an intimate, moment by moment relationship with our Creator and Father, led by His Spirit. We were not created to live by a moral code. The Law kills, the Spirit gives life and freedom. What we must understand is that there is no good apart from God. Romans 14:23 will go so far as to say whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and this is not talking about huge moral acts—but about eating! James tells us it is sin if we know what TO do and don't do it (so there is sin from doing, and from NOT doing!) We can start to see that there are NONE righteous—not one! There is no good apart from faith—none! This is so, so hard to absorb as long as we insist on defining good by works and not God. HE, alone, is good, and we must understand that. We become good and righteous in Him and through Him, only! It is only through a living, faith relationship with Him that we are found righteous—and it is only what is done by His Spirit through us that is good.
But, the amazing and awesome flip side of all this is that when we come to Christ, we become completely righteous! Christ has completely paid for our sin and we are completely crucified with Him at our born again moment, and completely raised with Him as a new creation, paid for and adopted, righteous and alive. It is not because of anything we have done, but all because of what He has done and what we have received in faith in our place. It is positional—just like we can travel at 60 mph in a car without doing anything ourself, but simply because we are in the car. Our righteousness is simply because we are in Christ, and that is the most wonderful news of all. If I didn't earn it by my works and can't lose it by my stumbles, and my God is perfectly able to keep me in Christ, no matter what the enemy might try and throw my way!
Thanks be to God! May the joy and freedom His grace and your total freedom from the Law fill you with joy today. —Erick
Paul is describing both Jew and Greek, basically the “proper” religious ones and those totally ignorant of the true God (therefore, everyone). It is a stunning statement and it is a clear look at how God sees good and bad, Light and darkness. We must remember that he is including here even the man or woman next door who doesn’t hurt anyone and who helps others. None are righteous. No one does good. This is shocking if we are used to defining good and “righteous” by deeds and moral measuring sticks—the kind of defining that leaves us stunned that the “Son of Sam” (see “The Son of Sam and . . . You and I”) might be in heaven one day, and our neighbor or family member who has never done anything so horrific as he has be absent from there, and in hell.
If this reality stuns us, or bothers us, we are probably looking at good and bad as ranking or measured or rated, with people being compared and ranked by their “goodness” or “badness” of deeds. This is dangerous and it will draw us away from God and in to arrogance (or, in some cases, horrible depression if we start to believe we are so much more horrible than others). One thing must be clear in our understanding of the Gospel—the Law, the moral code, is not to encourage and build us up, but to point us to Jesus. Paul continues with verses 19–20 and says: Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
The Law convicts. The moral code convicts. It makes the whole world accountable to God. By the Law NO ONE will be justified in God’s sight! The Law brings the knowledge of sin, not unlike Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil and were suddenly ashamed and afraid of God. That is it. That is the Law’s purpose. It is a tutor to bring us to Christ. The Pharisees made the horrible mistake of letting the Law exalt them because they measured good and bad by it, and found themselves “closer” to it than others. That is NOT the Law’s role! It is not to show us we are better than another, but to show us how horribly separated we are from God and how unrighteous we are—to prepare us for Christ and to show us our utter need for Him and His work on the cross as our SOLE basis and claim of righteousness.
When moral works exalt us or puff us up or cause us to esteem ourselves better than another we have completely missed the point of the Law. We were created to live in an intimate, moment by moment relationship with our Creator and Father, led by His Spirit. We were not created to live by a moral code. The Law kills, the Spirit gives life and freedom. What we must understand is that there is no good apart from God. Romans 14:23 will go so far as to say whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and this is not talking about huge moral acts—but about eating! James tells us it is sin if we know what TO do and don't do it (so there is sin from doing, and from NOT doing!) We can start to see that there are NONE righteous—not one! There is no good apart from faith—none! This is so, so hard to absorb as long as we insist on defining good by works and not God. HE, alone, is good, and we must understand that. We become good and righteous in Him and through Him, only! It is only through a living, faith relationship with Him that we are found righteous—and it is only what is done by His Spirit through us that is good.
But, the amazing and awesome flip side of all this is that when we come to Christ, we become completely righteous! Christ has completely paid for our sin and we are completely crucified with Him at our born again moment, and completely raised with Him as a new creation, paid for and adopted, righteous and alive. It is not because of anything we have done, but all because of what He has done and what we have received in faith in our place. It is positional—just like we can travel at 60 mph in a car without doing anything ourself, but simply because we are in the car. Our righteousness is simply because we are in Christ, and that is the most wonderful news of all. If I didn't earn it by my works and can't lose it by my stumbles, and my God is perfectly able to keep me in Christ, no matter what the enemy might try and throw my way!
Thanks be to God! May the joy and freedom His grace and your total freedom from the Law fill you with joy today. —Erick
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Son of Sam and . . . You and I
Note: If you have not read the Light and Dark series (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) I recommend you do as a context for what follows. I believe that an understanding of this truth will dramatically affect both our understanding, and our sharing of the Gospel.
A Fox News story today reports that convicted serial killer David Berkowitz, also known as "Son of Sam," said he has "no interest" in parole thanks to forgiveness by Jesus Christ. It reports that Berkowitz—who terrorized New York in the late 1970s, killing six people and wounding seven—will not seek parole during his next opportunity in May. According to the article, he wrote Fox News, “I have no interest in parole and no plans to seek release . . . If you could understand this, I am already a 'free man.' I am not saying this jokingly. I really am. Jesus Christ has already forgiven and pardoned me, and I believe this.”
Now, I recognize that there is a lot of scepticism about prison conversions (I have almost never met with someone in jail who hasn’t said God got a hold of them this time and it is the last, but few have made significant and lasting changes toward God when they are out). I don’t know David personally, but I do know that there is much more to be said, and read, about him and his conversion. He even has a web page where he writes devotionals called www.ariseandshine.org. But, setting any skepticism aside (and in NO way saying what he did was not horrible or that God doesn't think it horrible), and assuming for the sake of this post that his conversion is real, this is a story almost guaranteed to reveal deep down your and my understanding of the holiness of God, the condition of man, the Gospel, and of Light and Darkness.
If you, as a Christian, struggle with the fact that this man will share Heaven with you while your neighbor, who gives to charity and does “good” deeds won’t as of now, you may not fully understand how God sees Light and Darkness. Likewise, if you are not a Christian, and you struggle with the idea of this man being eternally in Heaven and you being eternally in Hell, you probably don’t understand Light and Darkness.
At this point in my life and studies I believe that the major problem and obstacle to our understanding of the Gospel lies in defining good and bad by a moral measuring stick and not by God’s presence in it or absence from it. We must remember that the Bible says that the Light came into the Darkness, and that men loved darkness because of their wicked deeds and so rejected the Light. There are only two kinds of people—those in the Light and those in Darkness, and God’s reign is the defining mark. Colossians 1:13-14 says of God, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The “domain [rule] of darkness” and the “wicked deeds” Jesus talks about in John, Chapter 3, apply to even those family and friends and neighbors who do “good” deeds. I believe we struggle with this because we want to measure ourself against others, and fail to see the vast distance we all are from God and the utter darkness of absence from Him.
I can not adequately explore this in a single post, and I will talk about this more in the coming days, but we must be very, very careful to not fall into the trap of looking left and right to define Light and Dark, and good and evil, instead of looking up to Him. He is the line, He is the mark, He is the litmus test, He is the measure. He is the life. We were created for relationship with Him, and we chose the knowledge of good and evil. WE chose a moral code. WE chose a set of rules that make it possible to live independent of His leading. HE created us for intimate, moment-by-moment relationship with Him and WE chose a path that made us “like God”—able to define right and wrong on our own. We MUST understand, HE is the measure, HE is life, and anything apart from Him and relationship with Him is Darkness and death. It may have the appearance, and even intention of good, but He alone is life. And, so, we come again to that place where “wicked deeds” are not defined by a moral measuring stick, but by His absence where we have replaced His rule with self-rule, and separated ourselves from Him. We will never grasp this if insist on believing good can exist apart from Him.
I know that this is a lot, and that I run the risk of offending people with such a limited explanation, but hang in there. More next time, but until then, may His love be felt strongly by you.
Erick
A Fox News story today reports that convicted serial killer David Berkowitz, also known as "Son of Sam," said he has "no interest" in parole thanks to forgiveness by Jesus Christ. It reports that Berkowitz—who terrorized New York in the late 1970s, killing six people and wounding seven—will not seek parole during his next opportunity in May. According to the article, he wrote Fox News, “I have no interest in parole and no plans to seek release . . . If you could understand this, I am already a 'free man.' I am not saying this jokingly. I really am. Jesus Christ has already forgiven and pardoned me, and I believe this.”
Now, I recognize that there is a lot of scepticism about prison conversions (I have almost never met with someone in jail who hasn’t said God got a hold of them this time and it is the last, but few have made significant and lasting changes toward God when they are out). I don’t know David personally, but I do know that there is much more to be said, and read, about him and his conversion. He even has a web page where he writes devotionals called www.ariseandshine.org. But, setting any skepticism aside (and in NO way saying what he did was not horrible or that God doesn't think it horrible), and assuming for the sake of this post that his conversion is real, this is a story almost guaranteed to reveal deep down your and my understanding of the holiness of God, the condition of man, the Gospel, and of Light and Darkness.
If you, as a Christian, struggle with the fact that this man will share Heaven with you while your neighbor, who gives to charity and does “good” deeds won’t as of now, you may not fully understand how God sees Light and Darkness. Likewise, if you are not a Christian, and you struggle with the idea of this man being eternally in Heaven and you being eternally in Hell, you probably don’t understand Light and Darkness.
At this point in my life and studies I believe that the major problem and obstacle to our understanding of the Gospel lies in defining good and bad by a moral measuring stick and not by God’s presence in it or absence from it. We must remember that the Bible says that the Light came into the Darkness, and that men loved darkness because of their wicked deeds and so rejected the Light. There are only two kinds of people—those in the Light and those in Darkness, and God’s reign is the defining mark. Colossians 1:13-14 says of God, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The “domain [rule] of darkness” and the “wicked deeds” Jesus talks about in John, Chapter 3, apply to even those family and friends and neighbors who do “good” deeds. I believe we struggle with this because we want to measure ourself against others, and fail to see the vast distance we all are from God and the utter darkness of absence from Him.
I can not adequately explore this in a single post, and I will talk about this more in the coming days, but we must be very, very careful to not fall into the trap of looking left and right to define Light and Dark, and good and evil, instead of looking up to Him. He is the line, He is the mark, He is the litmus test, He is the measure. He is the life. We were created for relationship with Him, and we chose the knowledge of good and evil. WE chose a moral code. WE chose a set of rules that make it possible to live independent of His leading. HE created us for intimate, moment-by-moment relationship with Him and WE chose a path that made us “like God”—able to define right and wrong on our own. We MUST understand, HE is the measure, HE is life, and anything apart from Him and relationship with Him is Darkness and death. It may have the appearance, and even intention of good, but He alone is life. And, so, we come again to that place where “wicked deeds” are not defined by a moral measuring stick, but by His absence where we have replaced His rule with self-rule, and separated ourselves from Him. We will never grasp this if insist on believing good can exist apart from Him.
I know that this is a lot, and that I run the risk of offending people with such a limited explanation, but hang in there. More next time, but until then, may His love be felt strongly by you.
Erick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
