Author: Joel

“I am not an animal!” This was the exasperated cry of a severely deformed human being called The Elephant Man in a 1980 film of that name based on the life of Joseph Merrick (1862–1890). Merrick’s appearance made him a visual spectacle and a source of perverse entertainment. In one scene, his futile effort to escape a crowd of curious tormenters acting like animals ended with his hood pulled off and Merrick desperately affirming his human dignity (quoted above). It was lost on the crazed mob.

One way to minimize the significance of human life is to deny the wondrous differences between us and animals. Darwinism theorizes on how animals become humans somewhere along an evolutionary scale. The differences are merely chemical and biological, developing naturally and randomly. This is dehumanizing.

If life is just an accident and humans are just one part of the animal kingdom, then how do we account for the profound differences we see? Here are a dozen differences from my perspective:

1. Only humans communicate with written language and use representative symbols as distinguished from signs.
2. Only humans intentionally plant crops and gardens, cultivate them and study agriculture.
3. Only humans design, make and wear clothes.
4. Only humans keep tract or seem to care about linear time (an abstract concept).
5. Only humans contemplate moral vice or virtue beyond the spectrum of consequences and experience guilt to the point of repenting of acknowledged sin.
6. Only humans direct worship to a god, gods or any abstract imitation, and celebrate holidays, religious events and festivals.
7. Only humans perform wedding or funeral rituals before their communities and families.
8. I’m told only humans have opposable thumbs.



9. Only humans are artists in the real sense of the word. I realize the “works” of monkeys find their way into museums but that’s another story.
10. Only humans have the ability to tell and respond to stories, keep track of history, honor ancestors, or build on things learned in previous generations. Each human generation begins not from scratch but with gifts of heritage. We pass on complex legacies, traditions and memories in pursuit of the notion of progress.
11. Only humans have abstract loyalties causing them to engage in mass warfare or organized sports. Animals compete and fight for mates or territory and may display presumed loyalty to a human or to their offspring (although some are brutal to their offspring or each other), but these loyalties are not “abstract” as with humans.
12. Only humans apply a consciousness of their existence and mortality to the quest for meaning in life or death. Humans commit suicide out of abstract despair or heroism. Animals are not apparently bolstered by religious hope (or crippled by its loss) as a response to this essential awareness.

This is a short list and some points may be debatable. But bigger questions still stand. Was there any merit to Merrick’s claim or was he no more special that an elephant or an elk? Did he have a soul? Could he honor God’s love and claim forgiveness? Were his tormenters “sinning” or just acting like animals? Was his life just a tragic accident? Is yours?

[hr]

Photo Credits:

The Elephant Man
The Cat and Beer
Animal Tea Party

“LGBTQ” is a new category for a special set of human beings now. I wonder, should marriage or civil unions be redefined so that each consenting adult “bisexual” (the “B” in “LGBTQ”) is free to have a spouse from each gender? For each partner in a “bisexual marriage” or “civil union” to have a partner from each gender, the union would have to include four people. How “inclusive” are you? Or are so-called “bisexuals” second-class citizens in terms of marriage rights? Why should “L”s and “G”s get to marry as they please and as they “love”, but not “B”s?

In our last election, many Minnesota, Washington, Maine and Maryland voters thought they were voting for “the freedom to marry.” May I ask, who’s freedom to marry? Should consenting adult “B”s have the same right and freedom to marry as they see fit as “H”s (heterosexuals, which may include bigamists and polygamists) and, in several states, “L”s and “G”s do?

I wonder, should same-sex triples or quadruples (consenting adults in love) get the same “freedom” as couples? Can sincere polygamist and polyamoristst adults in love get “marriage equality?” How about people who are already legally married but are sincerely in love with someone else who wants to marry them? Why use the law to force them to get a divorce first? Can we let churches do their own thing(s) but use an “anything goes” ethic for the rest of society? Can we legally restrict some people’s freedom to marry but not others? How and why?

Do we really want all consenting adults who love each other to be free to re-define marriage as they prefer and change society’s laws to suit their preferences? Should the age-old specific qualities of motherhood and fatherhood be minimized or devalued by redefining “marriage” in ways that displace either one or replace them both with “whateverhood”? After all, kids just need “love,” right?

The words “bride” and “groom” (along with “husband” and “wife”) are already being cleansed from some state marriage and divorce certificates. “Bride” and “groom” are being replaced with “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” or “Person A” and “Person B.” These cold impersonal changes cost tax-payer money. Look for furious fights over who gets to be “A” and who has to lower themselves to be “B”. Of course, how can we deny the marriage rights and liberties of “Spouse C”, “Spouse D”, and “Spouse E”?

I wonder, do kids need us to do our best to enable as many of them as possible (barring tragedies) to have a mom and a dad in the home? Or is “whateverhood” just as good as motherhood and fatherhood working together? Do we not at some point need a moral standard for marriage on behalf of our children and our future as a society?

I’m glad you asked. Jesus clearly gave us that standard:

From the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. (Matthew 19:4-6, including quotes from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24).

So, “from the beginning,” God intended for marriage to involve the following:

• Male and female…
• Leave father and mother…
• Two become one…
• God does the joining.
• Man should not mess with this sacred joining of one man and one woman.

We humans have not always lived up to God’s standard. But that’s no excuse for throwing it away. Whatever the media, Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians do now, I will simply continue to advocate for the integrity of marriage, motherhood and fatherhood in the interest of our children’s future. I stand with Jesus. If that makes me a “bigot” in your eyes, then you need your eyes checked… and your heart.

[hr]
Photo Credits
Four Wives?

Featured Image

Would you like to go back in time? When? Where? Why?

If you could go back to see the Red Sea part, would you also be willing to spend the next forty years wandering through a wilderness? Would you like to see Solomon in all his glory if you also had to fight in the civil wars that followed his reign? Would you like to see the storming of the Bastille (in Paris) if you also had to face the reign of terror?

How about seeing Jesus feed 5,000 hungry Galileans? Do you like fish? Could you contain yourself at the sight of a dove descending from heaven at Jesus’ baptism? What a thrill it would be to see the face of Jesus shine like the sun on the mount of transfiguration with Moses and Elijah. How inspiring to see Jesus heal a withered hand, cleanse a leper, heal the deaf, give sight to the blind, walk on water and calm a raging sea.

How wonderful to see Lazarus coming forth from his tomb at Jesus’ command! Learning the language would be worth the effort just to hear Jesus tell a parable. You could drink the fine wine Jesus shared at a wedding. You could cheer as Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Oh my!

However, there would be a price for these thrills. You would have to endure Jesus’ generation. Here are a few examples of how Jesus described them:

“Evil and adulterous…” (Matthew 12:39 and 16:4).
“Wicked…” (Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:29)
“Unbelieving and perverse…” (Matthew 17:17 and Luke 9:41))
“Adulterous and sinful…” (Mark 8:38)
“Unbelieving…” (Mark 9:19)

The apostle Peter called his generation “perverse” (Acts 2:40). The Lord’s church was born from the ranks of the perverse. Several years later, the apostle Paul did not shrink from such terms as “crooked and perverse” to describe his generation (Philippians 2:15). Would you still like to hear Peter preach or sleep in one of Paul’s tents? Would you welcome the same fate they faced—being hated and killed?

Perhaps it is just as well that we have no choice but to live in our own time. But guess what? Our generation is no less perverse, wicked, greedy, adulterous, crooked, unbelieving and evil than Jesus’. Ours hates truth just as much and we devalue fatherhood, motherhood and marriage even more! We cannot go back in time but if we wish to go forward into eternity, we must first be crucified with Christ. Paul understood this for all it is worth:

“Now if we die with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Romans 6:8-11

Sadly, most people choose sin as if Jesus came, lived, loved and died for nothing.

Wish you all a Merry Christmas. Hope this holiday brings you love, laughter, and joy.

The baby Jesus was not just any ol’ baby coming in the same ol’ way. According to the gospels, he was the Son of God, born of a virgin named Mary. And unlike the rest of us, Jesus actually chose to “empty himself” and leave the comforts of heaven to be born (Philippians 2:5-8).

This unusual arrival was not initially appreciated by all. When Joseph first learned of Mary’s pregnancy, he didn’t hang mistletoe, send out cards, get gifts or build a warm fire and sip eggnog. No, he contemplated a divorce. Thankfully, an angel arrived to help Joseph see a bigger picture.

This big picture, however, didn’t help many months later when Joseph was looking for a place in Bethlehem to stay for the night. They ended up in a stable where Mary had her first baby. Again, no cozy fireplace.

There was also grave discontent over this birth in high places. In 40 BC, Herod the Great was pronounced “king of the Jews” by the Roman Senate. He was not amused nearly 40 years later when the Magi came to Judea looking for another “king of the Jews” (Matthew 2:1). This news of a royal birth troubled Herod and all Jerusalem. He deceitfully asked the Magi to report back when they found this king. When they missed that appointment, Herod was furious. He ordered all baby boys in Bethlehem to be slaughtered.

Herod was a jealous and paranoid man. He used to dress as a commoner and circulate among his citizens to see what they thought of him and discover potential challenges to his throne. There was also great jealousy in Herod’s house. When his sister became jealous of the influence of Herod’s first wife, Mariamme, she told Herod that his wife was being unfaithful. The charge was baseless but he ordered Mariamme killed. The same fate fell upon at least three of his sons when they were suspected of rebellion. With such a willingness to kill family members over gossip and innuendo, the killing of other people’s babies would have been second nature to Herod. Jesus escaped Herod’s wrath after an angel warned his parents to flee to Egypt where they remained until Herod died.

Nearing death, Herod ordered the arrest of 70 elders of Israel who were to be put to death when Herod died so all Israel would mourn his passing. However, after his death, the 70 were released, transforming Herod’s funeral into a day of celebration.

Today, the birth of Jesus evokes widespread celebration because many of us see the bigger picture behind it. Yet, Jesus still troubles paranoid people. In fact, politicians still use baby-killing policies to stay in power. Like Herod, many still miss the big picture.

How are you doing with the big picture this Christmas? Holiday frustrations and disappointments can take a lot out of our joy. Christmas does not always offer us a “holiday” from life’s hurts and heartaches. Losing a loved one can make Christmas tough to bear. Here’s the BIG picture:

When Jesus was born, God’s plan to forgive our sins began. That’s why we can celebrate his birth as well as his life, death and resurrection. When God’s big-picture plan is clear, paranoia loses its power.

[hr]
Photo Credits

Joseph and Mary

Mariamne

Theory and practice are hard to reconcile, especially in the realm of war. The phrase “just war” originated with St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), an influential bishop in the fourth century church, in his work The City of God. He believed that war was always the result of sin. Yet, it might be necessary to wage a just war against the forces of evil. He saw God as more anti-evil than anti-war. Therefore, he sought to offer a practical and theological framework for waging a just war and preventing an unjust war.

Conditions for a Just War:

1. A just war must rise from a proper cause. The objective of a just war is to defend the innocent, punish injustice and/or restore peace. The cause of maintaining peace, for Augustine, was not merely proper, it was an obligation for a leader.

2. A just war must be waged by the proper authority. Augustine noted Paul’s instruction in Romans 13 about submitting to the God-ordained governing authorities. He wrote, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”

3. A just war must be waged with just motives, not vindictive motives. This point impacts both the manner of fighting as well as the motives. Cruelty, restlessness, revenge, and lust for domination are all unjust motives. Political motives should not extend beyond peace-keeping protection for the common good.

4. Unnecessary violence is forbidden. Force can be justified only as a last resort and because no other viable options are perceived. Negotiate first and exhaust all your options for peace.

As centuries passed, other principles for a just war were considered:

5. A just war demands that there be a reasonable chance of success. Even if the four conditions above are met but losing is a sure thing, then there is no excuse for driving men to their deaths. Human life is too sacred for that.

6. A just war must be proportional. The harm caused by a just response to evil must not surpass the harm caused by the evil itself. Dropping a nuclear bomb in response to a minor skirmish would not qualify. All is not fair in the name of war.

7. Non-combatants must never be targeted. In fact, pains must be taken to protect them. Indiscriminate killing of the innocent is prohibited as is using them as human shields.

Questions and Contingencies Remain:

1. To what degree can we respond to evil when we do not know its source? How do we pull terrorists out of hiding? Should the Geneva Convention apply to a lethal enemy who does not wear a uniform and hides behind innocents?

2. How far can we go to seek life-saving intelligence? What about covert action, enhanced interrogation or bribery?

3. When is it just to use pre-emptive force to save lives? Such actions are often based on speculation over threats. How can we assess the reliability of speculation?

4. Modern technology has complicated just war theory. The potential for mass destruction has increased dramatically. A tiny germ or chemical can do great damage. Can a modern army cross borders with peace-keeping motives to prevent technological progress in a rouge state?

5. When non-combatants are harmed; is it the fault of those who purposely use civilians as human shields or those who wield the weapon of harm?

6. If the use of force at home or abroad can be just to stop evil and Christians do serve as policemen or soldiers, how should they handle “gray-area” situations wherein they perceive unjust motives and methods at play?

7. Does loving our enemy mean we must let them slaughter the innocent?

I hope these thoughts have helped you to approach this vital issue with deeper concern and courage as well as greater humility and wisdom. Certainly, people who differ on just war theory can hate war and love peace with equal conviction. The two worst options, it seems to me, are the simplistic ones:

• To rush into war presuming that might makes right or that God is always on your side.
• To sweepingly rule out any or all uses of force in the face of lethal evil, regardless of any or all the real conditions and contingencies listed above.

[hr]

Photo Credits
Afganistan Soldiers: Featured Photo

How do you say, “How are you?” in biblical Hebrew? Answer: “Shalom.”

How do you wish someone peace? Easy, “Shalom.”

Can you translate the phrase “All is well” into ancient Hebrew? Yes; “Shalom!”

What’s the ancient Hebrew word for “prosperity?” How about “safety?” Or, how did they declare victory in battle? The answers: “Shalom”, “Shalom” and “Shalom!”

We encounter this versatile word 237 times in the Old Testament. All the above uses are included and then some. Okay, one more: How did many false prophets around 600 BC lie to the people of Judah? Jeremiah tells us:

“‘Shalom, shalom,’ [they say, when there is no] shalom.” (Jeremiah 6:14)

False security can prevent people from turning to God. Trusting a lie serves as a firewall against moral progress. Skipping repentance while whistling “peace, peace” was something Jeremiah could not tolerate.

Jeremiah was not known as an optimist. He contended bitterly with the optimists of his day, many of whom looked to cultic rituals, religious ceremony and sanctuaries as instruments of appeasement with God. Who needs repentance and moral reform if God’s “shalom” is in your pocket.

For Jeremiah, religion without repentance was a BIG lie. To challenge the abuse of “shalom,” he made use of the Hebrew word “seqer” (lie, fraud, falsehood) in his prophetic ministry. There are 37 references to “seqer’ in Jeremiah out of 113 in the Old Testament. Jeremiah often warned against trusting in “deceptive words that are worthless.” (Jeremiah 7:4 & 8 ) and nothing is more deceptive that using religion to skirt changing our ways and doing right. Jeremiah’s grave concerns in context included the shedding of innocent blood, the oppression of the fatherless and widows, theft, adultery and idolatry.

Today, as abortion, fatherlessness, greed, adultery and self-worship flourish, many turn to religion for “shalom.” They resent the “Jeremiahs” among us who refuse to sanction our peaceful silence in the face of flourishing sin. They presume God will protect and bless them regardless of their lifestyles. Strengthening a sense of security in an evil people is a theological falsehood. The same “shalom” talk today numbs our ears to the gospel of repentance and seduces us away from a Spirit-filled (morally reformed) life.

Truth told, nothing—not past promises, personal sacrifices, cultic rituals, religious symbols, political strategies, tons of weaponry, paid soothsayers, creedal confessions or anything—can protect us from God’s wrath if morality is shrugged off by smooth-talking “prophets” assuring us of God’s saving grace and everlasting “shalom.”

[callout font_size=”13px” style=”coffee”]

SALEM WITCH JUDGE:
The Life and Repentance of Samuel Sewall. Author: Eve LaPlante, Harper-Collins Publishers, New York, NY, 2007.

[/callout]

Eve LaPlante is the great-great-great… great-great-great-granddaughter of Samuel Sewall, a judge during the Salem witch trials. In her biography of Sewall, LePlante pictures her ancestor as a “follower of Christ” who “sought forgiveness and expiation from sin.”

HARD TIMES:

In the late 1600s, it seemed easy to perceive the devil’s handiwork in colonial life. One in two children perished before age five. Colonists lived in fear of Indian raids, droughts, epidemics, fires, and other tragedies. The Puritan ideal was to live to the glory of God until God glorified you. The average life span was 40 years. A popular perception was that “Satan was on the loose.” Fear loomed large in the hearts of those who began to accuse their neighbors of witchcraft–a fear of whatever was contaminating the community. New England was a “howling wilderness” and there was much to fear.

THE TRIALS:

In 1692, Judge Samuel Sewall (1652 – 1730) helped send twenty people to their deaths for witchcraft. It was a five- month ordeal that began when a few misbehaving girls found unexpected access to public power by accusing older women of “afflicting” them with the devil. Playing the victim led to bizarre fits, spasms and outbursts. The girls were pitied instead of punished. Pointing fingers of blame made sympathetic victims out of spoiled brats. Still, the more severe sins lie at the feet of community leaders who fed on the hysteria.

Coerced confessions lent public credibility to the accusations. Others got into the accusation act and a surge of suspects were named. A new governor came to office with the charge to drive out the devil. Local jails were full of accused witches, so he appointed a court of nine judges (five Harvard men).

Soon, outrage shifted to shame. Families began to move away. Local Puritan ministers began to preach against this court and made pleas for reason and restraint. Public opinion turned the tide. The Court was disbanded in October, a decision welcomed by nearly every local leader (but not by every judge).

All told, 144 women and 44 men were accused of witchcraft; 59 were tried and 31 convicted. Sadly, 20 were executed (14 women and 6 men). Many documents were destroyed–evidence of shame that fell short of repentance. Among those put on trial, only those who maintained their innocence ended up on the gallows. Of the nine judges bent on evoking repentance from innocent defendants, only one ended up publicly repenting himself (five years later). That judge is the subject of LePlante’s biography.

REPENTANCE!

By the time of the trials, Samuel and Hannah Sewall had buried five children and were about to lose a sixth and seventh. In 1696, Samuel’s son (Sam, Jr) read a passage from Matthew (12:7) that gripped his father with guilt: “If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” The preaching of Samuel Willard, Sewall’s minister, also cut into his conscience. At age 44, Sewall made the most influential decision of his life. At church, on January 14, 1697, he declared his repentance. He accepted the blame and shame of his actions on the court and pled for pardon from God and men. This was just the beginning of his lifelong repentance. LePlante wrote; “True repentance consists of more than a single act.”

New perspectives on other matters emerged. Sewall began to see a graceful place for the Indians in God’s scheme and had several Indian boys stay in his home and helped them go to Harvard. He began to advocate for the rights of African slaves, rooting his opposition to slavery in Matthew 7:12 (the Golden Rule). His pamphlet, “The Selling of Joseph,” was the first anti-slavery tract ever published in America. He took some grief for it too. His remorse gave rise to activism on behalf of the needy. He sought to, “Produce fruits in keeping with repentance.” (Luke 3:8).

HIS LEGACY:

Sewall spent the last three decades of his life seeking to restore himself in the eyes of God. By age 75, he had outlived two wives and 11 of his 14 children. He also outlived all the other Salem witch judges. He served New England as a judge for over 50 years. He represents the perpetrators of one of America’s most shameful moments, and yet he rises out of the dust and ashes of repentance to demonstrate much that is great in the American spirit of the past.

[button url=”http://www.amazon.com/Salem-Witch-Judge-Repentance-Samuel/dp/B005B1LWE6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353368968&sr=8-1&keywords=SALEM+WITCH+JUDGE%3A+The+Life+and+Repentance+of+Samuel+Sewall” target=”_blank” size=”small” style=”fire”]Purchase Book Here[/button]

[hr]

The views expressed on this blog are personal and belong to Joel Solliday unless otherwise stated. They are not, intended to characterize the views of the Lewiston Church of Christ or other organizations to which I may refer.

Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Some attribute this saying to Albert Einstein. Others credit the ancient Chinese, or Ben Franklin or Alcoholics Anonymous. Who knows? In any case, this adage has become ubiquitous in our time.

My Mom often admonished my brothers and me, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Was she driving us insane? Sometimes I think it’s insane to do the same thing over and over expecting the same result. In any case, the jury is out. As a believer in Jesus, I know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a new result can sometimes be called faith.

Is it really insane to…

1. …stick with the same old spouse day in and day out while expecting your lives together to yield fresh and new joys as you grow old together? If faithfulness to your family is insane, then Einstein was a very sane man.

2. …keep going to work at the same job as a reliable, punctual and responsible businessperson, working hard to be ready for new opportunities to strike that will make your business blossom anew? This may seem insane to those who live off of the toil of others, but I call it uncommon decency.

3. …raise each of six kids with the same time-tested values and still expect them all to turn out alike? Oops, now that really is crazy.

4. …pray for a child year in and year out to come to faith in Christ hoping that will happen before you graduate to heaven? Or, work with an addict for months on end with the belief that change is possible. Remember, the possibility of transformation is the essence of hope.

5. …share the gospel again after the last 30 people rejected it, fully knowing that this particular sinner might actually repent and incite rejoicing in heaven? I’ve actually seen such repentance in real life! But enough about me.

6. …stay faithful to one church family because it remains true to the gospel of Jesus (even though our culture disdains that gospel) ever expecting God to bless your long-standing faithfulness in ways that bring new spiritual health and growth to your church?

7. …vote for the same party that keeps losing simply because they are the only one you see consistently presenting decent candidates and offering a platform that respects human life, fiscal responsibility, honest work, marriage integrity, and basic liberties? Expecting to win with such candidates in today’s America may well be insane.

8. …visit day in and day out with a grouchy old complainer at the nursing home expecting to someday be surprised by a “thank you” out of the blue? Or, care for a loved one in a coma day in and day out and hoping for a squeeze of the hand?

9. …read the same Bible daily thinking that fresh new lessons that never occurred to you before will become clear?

10. …love a child unconditionally and persistently no matter how many times she says “I hate you,” while expecting her to love you with all her heart much farther down love’s long road?

Honorable Mention: …root for the Chicago Cubs every year expecting a game seven World Series victory. Okay, I had to toss a bone to the other side.

In the end, you get to decide for yourself whether something is insane or faithful. I’ll give author and radio preacher Chuck Swindoll the last word and you take it from here:

“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible.”

[hr]

The views expressed on this blog are personal and belong to Joel Solliday unless otherwise stated. They are not, intended to characterize the views of the Lewiston Church of Christ or other organizations to which I may refer.