The Real Problem!
(Suffering Vs. Temptation)

God’s word does not teach that you will never be called on to suffer more than you can endure. Sorry.

Instead of promising that your suffering will always be bearable, the Bible promises that you will not be tempted beyond your ability to endure. There is a difference. Listen to the apostle Paul:

    No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

So, while there may not always be an assured escape from our suffering, God does promise to provide an escape from our temptation. Well thanks a lot! Does the God who inspired the Bible actually take the problem of temptation more seriously than the problem of pain?

Let that question settle in.

I’ll ask another way. Does God know that temptation is a bigger threat to drive us away from faith in Him than suffering is?

Let’s face it. It was from sin more than from suffering that Jesus came to set us free. Listen to the apostle John: “You know that He appeared in order to take away sins” (1 John 3:5). And to do that, He suffered greatly.

Jesus understood the problem of temptation. In his parable of the soils, the “rocky” soil represented those who joyfully receive God’s word but fall away in the face of temptation (Luke 8:13). Satan tried his temptation tactics on Jesus directly in the desert, without success. Jesus advised His disciples to pray thusly: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” (Matthew 6:13). Near the end, as Jesus agonized in the garden of Gethsemane, he warned his sleepy disciples on the dangers of temptation, saying; “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” (Matthew 26:4). I’ll say it is!

How about you? Do you have a problem with temptation?

I hope so.

Why would I hope so? Because the people without a problem with temptation are usually those who just let it win. Temptation is a serious problem only for those who actually don’t want to sin. Oscar Wilde testified to the easy out, saying, “The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it… I can resist everything but temptation.”

I prefer C.S. Lewis. In his classic Mere Christianity, he wrote, “Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is.” Lewis observed this when World War II was raging (1942-44). He continued, “You find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in.”

But Germany is not the enemy now. Rather, it is lies, self-righteousness, lust, greed, laziness, profanity, stinginess, adultery, narcissism, homosexuality, abortion, gossip and hate. These enemies are much closer to home and they are winning far too many battles lately. It’s high time to fight back!

I hope you see temptation as a serious problem because I believe in God’s promise that you will not face temptation beyond that which He can help you to endure. But we do need His help, badly! Only those willing get God’s help in our battle with evil impulses make progress toward the good.

Let’s give C.S. Lewis the last word: “No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good.”

Painting the Plight of the Poor

For the first time since the ‘60s, one in seven working-age Americans live in poverty (46.5 million Americans in 2012 or 15.9 percent). In 2000, it was 11.3 percent. For children, our 2012 poverty rate was 21.8 per¬cent. Ouch!

Of course, statistics can point our concerns in different directions. For example, 97 percent of poor households (by today’s standard) have a color TV; 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player; 76 percent have air conditioning; 73 percent own a microwave oven; and nearly three-quarters own a car.

While poverty can often be a matter of perspective, it remains a matter of serious concern. Pain and deprivation come to human beings in many different ways that defy measurement with statistics. It is helpful to also turn to the arts for a richer perspective (pun intended). Art pulls the heart into the “composition.”

To picture poverty, let’s go first to 19th century Russia. Ilya Repin (1844 –1930), a Russian/Ukrainian realist, was the son of a soldier (a private) who grew up in poverty and hardship. His Barge Haulers of the Volga (see above) was finished in 1873 and it led the way for other painters to portray the harsh realities of peasant poverty in Russia. This powerful work made Repin a leader of a new movement of critical realism in painting. Each character in the composition is a metaphor for Russia. For the leader, Repin painted the portrait of an unfrocked priest he knew to represent the wisdom of the people. He also includes an ex-soldier, a Siberian, a Greek, an old prizefighter and more. These characters are diverse in age, origin and nationality but they are united in a common role as human beasts of burden.

On the Road, the Death of a Resettler; (1889, Tretjkow Gallery, Moscow), by Sergey Vasilyevich Ivanov (1864 –1910).

Sixteen years later, Sergey Ivanov, another Russian realist, painted On the Road, the Death of a Resettler. It portrayed an expired day-laborer with his family in despair on a lonely road to who knows where. It was conceived at a time when many Russians were refugees seeking to escape the ravages of a famine.

Across the English Channel in the land of Dickens, many Victorian painters rose to portray the poor in a sympathetic light. Sir Hubert von Herkomer (1849 –1914) was a British painter of German descent who knew poverty as a child. He recalls the time his mother gave him the family’s last half sovereign to go shopping but he lost it, adding to the misery of his family. He recalled, “We were constantly in want of money.”

Hard Times (1885), by Sir Hubert von Herkomer (33.5 × 43.5 in).

Herkomer’s classic, Hard Times, depicts a homeless family of four near his home town of Bushey (England) where migrant farmers often sought work. The wife copes with present uncertainty while the husband looks down the road with equal concern for a sign of future hope.

Bird Scaring (1896), by Sir George Clausen (1852 –1944), Harris Museum.

Children bear a heavy share of the burden of poverty. Sir George Clausen (1852 –1944) devoted himself to portraying English farm life. His work, Bird Scaring (below), reveals the rustic character of a boy charged with protecting seeds and crops the old fashioned way—by scaring off birds. His job required long and lonely hours in the fields, shouting, shaking a “clapper,” and stoking up smoke to scare off crows. His forlorn face tells a compelling story of determination amid fatigue. Many British writers recorded the miseries of bird-scaring.

Pauvre Fauvette (1881), by Jules Bastien-Lepage (1848-1884).

Finally, we come to Jules Bastien-Lepage (1848 – 1884), a French naturalist painter highly revered by fellow artists. After some schooling in Paris and serving in the Franco-Prussian War, he turned his highly refined academic skills to painting simple peasants and common folk with profound sensitivity and respect. Sadly, he died too young at age 36. In Pauvre Fauvette (1881, Poor Warbler Continue reading “Painting the Plight of the Poor”

Where ARE the parents?

This is based on a true story.

A church committee, in hot pursuit of a new look, replaced the old wooden pulpit and communion table with Plexiglas products. This did not escape the notice of the children who, after church, swarmed over the stage checking out the fancy new see-through furniture. With a new minister also moving in (me), this new look marked a new era for the congregation. Out with the old, in with the new!

But there was a problem. The corners on the new furniture were as sharp as they are clear (hard to see). The four pointy ends on the table were about as high as a four-year-old’s ears. Several concerned members speculated about possible bloodstains (from children) on our new rug near the communion table. Yes, that table should remind us of spilled blood but not that of our children.

What should be done?

One parent on the committee opined that the safety of our children is the parent’s responsibility. “Children have no business playing on the stage,” he declared, and then asked: “Where are the parents?”

Okay, parents do indeed need to take responsibility. However, the solution to our Plexiglas problem had to go beyond assigning blame even before an accident occurred. We need vigilant parents but we better round off the edges too.

First, we resorted to duct tape, forging cardboard covers and taping them to the corners. Later, we shipped both items to a plastics company to shave off the sharp edges. The new era for the church was preserved! I wish all church problems were so easily solved.

Protecting children is imperative. Good church leaders identify hazards on the front end, including those that do far more harm than just draw blood. Our young people are increasingly vulnerable to pied pipers who promote sexual experimentation, pornographic entertainment, abortion rights, homosexual marriage, anti-Christian stereotypes, rank profanity and more. Our kids are running into sharp arguments from adult teachers, celebrities or politicians and ending up with injured minds that duct tape won’t fix.

The world is after our kids, church, especially their innocence. If we don’t teach them to follow Jesus, the world will teach then not to.

So, where ARE the parents? Who is transmitting virtues, vices and values to our kids? Morality must be taught (and lived), or it won’t be caught. The primary “school” for such teaching is the home (then, the church). Sadly, the American home is falling apart.

Marriage is what makes a home. As Jesus defined it, marriage is sacred. “A man shall leave his father and mother,” he preached, “and cleave to his wife.” He explained, “And the two shall become one flesh.” Then, Jesus added, “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:5-6).

Let no man recompose or decompose it either.

Clearly, the words, “I now pronounce you husband and husband,” should never come from the lips of a Christian clergyman. Neither should, “I now pronounce you husband, wife, wife and wife.” Creative contemporary renditions of marriage simply do not qualify–at least not if you follow Jesus.

I do not qualify to play in a Super Bowl. I cannot vote in France. When they ask veterans to stand at Memorial Day services, I qualify to keep my seat—and applaud those who stand. The standards for a PhD exclude me from claiming the title, “Doctor.” In the same way, the definition of marriage excludes a bunch of roommates looking for tax or health insurance benefits or seeking social status. When standards exist, some options don’t qualify. Everyone is free to marry but not to redefine what marriage is: a union between a man and a woman who have mutually consented to live as husband and wife in wedlock.

Homosexuals in America are free to behave in ways that displease their Maker. But forcing others to sanction such behavior with the ordinance of marriage is a desecration of decency. Various experimental constructions of “marriage” must find other names.

As with the dangerous communion table, parents must be the first to take responsibility. Then comes the church. Looking beyond the Plexiglas, children are the first and worst casualties when marriage is decomposed. We all play a part in protecting children from physical or spiritual dangers. Let us teach children to honor marriage on God’s terms. Take tangible measures against the mutilation of marriage. Changing church furniture is fine but changing Jesus’ definition of marriage is deeply dangerous for kids.

What Baptism Demands!

There is a river that connects the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel with the Dead Sea in the south. It has a history.

  • On the banks of this river some 3,300 years ago, the children of Israel listened to the entire book of Deuteronomy recited before entering the land of promise. Finally, when the priests carrying the Ark of the Covenant stepped into that river, it dried up for the people to cross.
  • About 400 years later, in the days of the prophet Elisha, a highly respected captain (Naaman) was healed of leprosy in the waters of this historic river.
  • Nearly 900 years later, Jesus Christ was baptized in this river by John the Baptist in order to fulfill all righteousness.

Great moments of promise, provision, healing and hope are connected with this river. It is tiny compared to the Amazon and the Nile. Most of it runs under sea level making it one of the lowest rivers on earth. Yet, no river is more famous. It is the Jordan River, but you already knew that.

Still, not everything about this river is glorious. It flows from a freshwater lake teeming with life into a lifeless sea of salt. Its lyrical legacy in poetry and folk music reminds us of the death we all must meet before Michael rows us to the other shore. So, whether you float down the Jordan River to the Dead Sea or cross over it, it carries a connotation of death.

This, of course, makes it a perfect place for baptisms.

Baptism demands your death:

    Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (The apostle Paul, Romans 6:3)

This is not about the inevitable death we pay doctors to help us put off, but a death some people fear far more: death to our sinful self! Preachers call it repentance! We pay entertainers, politicians, celebrities, journalists, psychologists and other soothsayers (including some preachers, sad to say) big bucks to help us put off that “death.” We prefer slavery to sin over death to sin. Baptism, however, declares that there is new life on the other side this death to sin. Listen to Paul:

    Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

No one wants to die. Even Jesus, praying in the garden of Gethsemane, did not want to die. Nevertheless (I love that word), because He knew it was God’s ultimate solution to the sins of humankind, He did. And by participating with Jesus in His death through our baptism, we find the key to new life–eternal life—through His resurrection. Before He died and rose again, Jesus offered the following ultimatum:

    If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me. (Luke 9:23)

Jesus’ reference to a cross, even before he died on one, raises the stakes beyond mere denial to death itself. Stakes don’t get higher than that.

In 1937, German pastor and author Dietrich Bonhoeffer described the cost of Christian discipleship this way: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” This is an invitation to repent and be baptized, the same invitation the apostle Peter offered on the day Jesus’ church was born (see Acts 2:38). Baptism is the water grave where the old man is put to death and a new man comes to life. Unless we die to self, however, baptism is nothing but a bath.

As Jesus decided to die, so must we. As Jesus trusted in the power of God to raise him up again, so must we. Like the Jordan River, baptism leads us not around death but straight through it to the promise of eternal life—God’s gift. Baptism may chill the body but not the soul.

_____________

Dare to Discipline Your Dreams

In America today, dreaming is the ticket. It’s the current key to every city and many hearts. For example:

  • To sell a product, first sell the dream.
  • To run for an office, promise dreams.
  • To build a lavish movie-making industry, call it “Dreamworks.”
  • To pass a law that enables immigrants to bypass the law, call it the Dream Act.

And so on.

In 1939, a popular fantasy film about following a yellow brick road was really about following your dreams. Dorothy sings;

    Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high;
    There’s a land that I heard of once in a lullaby.
    Somewhere, over the rainbow, skies are blue,
    And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.

    (E.Y. Harburg and Harold, sung by Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz)

The next year, the world’s most famous fictional cricket crooned:

    When you wish upon a star
    Makes no difference who you are
    Anything your heart desires
    Will come to you…
    Like a bolt out of the blue
    Fate steps in and sees you through
    When you wish upon a star
    Your dream comes true

    (Ned Washington and Leigh Harline; introduced in 1940 in the Disney classic; Pinocchio).

Anything your heart desires?

Jiminy Cricket, as narrator and guide, tells of a carpenter named Geppetto who makes a wish that his wooden puppet could become a real boy. A blue fairy grants to Pinocchio the breath of life but he remains a puppet with dreams of his own. The fairy informs Pinocchio that to become real, he must prove himself to be brave, truthful and unselfish–virtues that are by no means automatic. Soon, Pinocchio was diverted from school into a life of chaos, lies, gambling, smoking, drinking and vandalizing. There are consequences, as every reader “nose.” Finally, a brave deed leaves Pinocchio washed up on a beach no longer alive. It’s a conversion by death. The fairy grants him a second chance (like Jonah), this time as a real boy. Clearly, dreaming can be dangerous when separated from honesty, loyalty, study, discipline and sacrificial love.

Hollywood is the consummate dream factory. There have been exceptions (like Pinocchio, perhaps) but romantic dreaming is often Hollywood’s sparkling alternative to such boring realities as faith, family, truth-telling, sacrificial love and courage.

Actually, I am a big fan of dreaming when done in conjunction with faith, family, truth and godly hope. Without these qualities, however, all dreaming has to offer is “empty consolation.” (Zechariah 10:2). I am not a fan of those who appeal to our dreams apart from godly values to seduce us into selfishness and exploitation.

For instance, President Obama appealed to unlimited dreaming to celebrate and encourage legal abortion. Here’s what he said on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:

    On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere. (January 22, 2009).

In other words, we shouldn’t let human life itself stand in the way of our dreams. This sort of dreaming holds too many Americans in its toxic and deadly clutches.

There is nothing demonic about dreaming unless or until we use it to flee from moral conviction, godly discipline and from the real world filled with real people who need us. In his brilliantly practical book, Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “By sheer grace, God will not permit us to live even for a brief period in a dream world. He does not abandon us to those rapturous experiences and lofty moods that come over us like a dream. God is not a God of the emotions but the God of truth.”

There is a better alternative to undisciplined dreaming. Nearly 3,000 years ago, a wise man made this clear: “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore stand in awe of God.” (Ecclesiastes 5:7).

[hr]

I did not designate it as “Part One,” but here is a previous article titled “Why Not?” on the same topic:

“Why Not?”
(Dangerous Dreaming)

“Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.” ~

George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950), Irish playwright.

This statement is dangerously unwise. It feels great to dream of an ideal world and lament its absence but effective leaders resist this temptation preferring to focus on reality.

G.B. Shaw (quoted above) was a devout Fabian socialist. He advocated equal pay to everyone and condemned private land ownership as “theft.” He righteously called non-vegetarians “cannibals” despite the fact that he believed in eugenics for humans. Arguing for a scientifically planned society, Shaw called for the development of deadly but “humane” gas for exterminating undesirables who are “not pulling their weight in the social boat.” His defenders claim such statements were satiric irony, but such was never made clear. No wonder he supported one of history’s greatest (and deadliest) dreamers—Joseph Stalin. As an avowed atheist, Shaw advocated the self as “God.” He was also known for many affairs with married women.

In today’s pleasure-pursuing, luxury-loving culture, Americans don’t like to think in terms of limitation. We want to have it all. We enrich and elect those who promise we can. We are addicted to dreaming. Magic Johnson concluded his autobiography with the following invitation: “Whatever your dream is, go for it.”

“Whatever?”

I am not ready to tell this to the thugs, liars, cheats, exploiters, oppressors and con-artists of the world. They dream too and their dreams become our nightmares. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and other tyrants went confidently in the direction of their dreams and lived the lives they imagined. No! All dreams should be subject to moral scrutiny and refined by reality.

Remember President Obama’s election victory speech in January, 2009? He proclaimed:

    I am absolutely certain, that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation.

Absolutely certain? The fans went wild.

President Obama’s policies, foreign and domestic, have been based on how he thinks the world should operate rather than on reality. Every major promise he made to pass the “Affordable Care Act” did not come to pass in reality, but I’m sure he wanted them to be true when he made them. He thinks our enemies simply need to be convinced that we mean well. This, he dreams, will minimize their resentment toward us and curtail their ambition in the world.

Meanwhile, pro-Russian forces just overran yet another Ukrainian military base unopposed. Responding with mere words, President Obama told a Dutch newspaper, “The United States does not view Europe as a battleground between East and West, nor do we see the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum game. That’s the kind of thinking that should have ended with the Cold War.”

“Should have?” Sorry sir, but it didn’t.

He continued, “As I’ve said, the future of Ukraine ought to be decided by the people of Ukraine.”

“Ought to be?”

Our president’s naiveté is not safe for the free world. Mere words can get a candidate elected easy enough in America, but they cannot make him into a leader.

President Obama is the antithesis of George Washington. Our first president resolved to see and deal with things as they were in reality rather than how he desired or dreamed them to be. Leaders pay greater attention to actions than to words or intentions. On December 15, 1779, the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army wrote:

    A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man, that actions, not words, are the true criterion of the attachment of his friends, and that the most liberal professions of good will are very far from being the surest marks of it. (Letter to Major-General John Sullivan)

As president in 1795, Washington wrote the following to Edmund Randolph: “There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” All leaders pay lip service to this pursuit but Washington actually ran that course.

Finally, check out the following quip attributed to comedian George Carlin:

    Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.

[hr]

Photo Credit
Obama’s Speech

The Monster!
(Eleven years in Hell)

My title was easy but my subtitle had competition. Here were the other options:


“Blame anything but yourself”
“The helpless addict defense”
“Depravity or disease?”
“Language Matters!”
“Sin or sickness?”
“Nevertheless!”

On August 1, 2013, the Cleveland kidnapper (rapist and baby-murderer too) who held three women captive for over a decade, told the court, “These people are trying to paint me as a monster. I’m not a monster. I’m sick.”

He thinks self-pity sells.

“I have an addiction,” he continued, “just like an alcoholic has an addiction. Alcoholics cannot control this addiction. That’s why I could not control my addiction.”

Wait. For over a decade, this monster was in TOTAL control of three other human beings. Everything they saw, smelled, tasted, touched and heard was under his complete control. Yet he had no “control” over himself and his alleged “addiction”?

Sorry, but I’m not that stupid.

The Cleveland kidnapper (who shall remain nameless) lured his first victim into his clutches with the promise of a puppy for her son. Two more victims were targeted and captured. He chained them down in dark rooms, boarded the windows from the inside and deployed multiple locks on heavy doors.

A decade disappeared. But he was helpless, right?

WRONG!

Dead wrong.

Expletive-deleted wrong!

I don’t buy the dehumanizing notion that we have no control over our attitudes, compulsions, actions or even our addictions. I realize every case and heart is different. Also, there may be some physiological or external factors adding to one’s struggle, but they do not trump free moral agency in human beings, nor should they minimize moral accountability in society. No man made in God’s image is “born” to rape. It’s a choice.

Blaming anything or anyone but yourself always creates a monster. Human depravity thrives on self-pity. Innovative excuses for sin abound to those unwilling to come clean and take the blame. Some can fool everyone but God.

This monster in Cleveland blamed his “addiction” (not himself) for his behavior. Then he blamed others for his addiction, including some relatives and the authorities. He cited pornography as a factor. Then he claimed the sex was consensual, saying, “We had a lot of harmony that went on in that home.”

Language matters, people! It was a prison, not a “home.” It was predation, not “harmony.” It was total control, not mutual “consent.” It was willful sin, not “addiction.” He is not just “sick,” he is evil.

While we are at it:

  • Abortion is not just a “choice.”
  • Adultery and pedophilia are not “love.”
  • Terrorists are not merely “militants” or “gunmen.”
  • Illegal aliens are not “guests.”
  • Tax-hikes are not “investments.”
  • People who disagree with you are not always “bigots.”
  • Rapists are not “unplanned lovers.”
  • Sexual harassers are not just “huggers” (as one alleged abuser labeled himself)

In the same courtroom with the monster, one of his victims gave voice to her solace. She bravely said, “I spent eleven years in hell. Now your hell is just beginning. I will overcome all that happened, but you will face hell for eternity.”

It’s not often these days that such talk of hell gets traction. That’s probably because few of us have spent eleven years in isolation and in chains being raped and tortured by an “addict.” Nevertheless (I love that word), I hope she can discover deeper levels of peace over time and that bitterness will have no hold on her. It sounds like she’s choosing to overcome her victimhood and re-claim some control.

Why is it that those with the best excuses available rarely use them?

It is morally monstrous to enslave human beings for selfish and abusive purposes. Nevertheless (there’s that word again), God’s mercy is available to those who truly repent, inside and out. God once transformed a ravaging monster named Saul into Saint Paul, the missionary! If the Cleveland kidnapper ends up in hell, it will not be because he sinned. We all do that. It will be because he cherished his sins, blamed everyone but himself and carried his “helpless addict” defense all the way to God.

“If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.”
(Psalm 66:18).

A Pretty Pass

“Things have come to a pretty pass . . . when religion is allowed to invade public life.”
Lord Melbourne (1779 – 1841)

Okay, who was Lord Melbourne and why didn’t he want religion in politics?

His given name was William Lamb, born in 1779 to an aristocratic Whig family in London. As a young man, he knew such “romantic radicals” as Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. His wife took up a public affair with the “mad, bad and dangerous” Lord Byron (her description), the talk of Britain in 1812. His wife and father died in 1828, the same year William inherited the title, “2nd Viscount Melbourne.”

After 25 years as a backbencher in the House of Commons, Lord Melbourne served as Britain’s Prime Minister from 1834 to 1841. In 1836, after a blackmail attempt failed, he was accused of an affair with the socialite wife of a fellow politician. He survived the scandal but allegedly did not stop seeing the woman. In 1837, he became a political mentor for Queen Victoria when she first came to the throne at age 18.

As a politician, Lord Melbourne often opposed reform and usually sought the middle ground. Compromise was his hallmark. A champion of the status quo, his most famous dictum in politics was, “Why not leave it alone?” Perhaps his rocky and radical Romantic youth is what made him a die-hard moderate in politics.

By contrast, William Wilberforce (1759 – 1833) was a passionate and principled reformer. In Parliament, he led a campaign to end England’s slave trade that took a quarter century to complete with the Slave Trade Act of 1807. It took another quarter century to end legalized slavery itself with the Slave Abolition Act of 1833. Wilberforce died three days after his lifelong mission was accomplished. With few allies, he fought both public indifference and moneyed opposition to end slavery. Despite many set-backs over nearly fifty years, his determination and patience paid off.

It all started in 1785 when Wilberforce experienced a life-changing conversion to evangelical Christianity. As a new Christian, he questioned whether he should remain in public life. An evangelical Anglican rector named John Newton (author of “Amazing Grace”) encouraged him to remain. Wilberforce’s faith transformed his priorities and made him a political force to be reckoned with. First, his personal life was transformed. He began to spend less money on himself and more on others, including the needy and various mission and educational causes. In public life, he established the Society for the Suppression of Vice, created a free colony in Sierra Leone, West Africa, founded the Church Mission Society and worked to prevent cruelty to animals—all in addition to his ongoing fight to emancipate slaves. His Christian faith stood as the foundation for all this, making him a statesman-saint and a role model for putting faith into action in both the private and public arenas of his day.

It was during Wilberforce’s campaign against the slave trade that Lord Melbourne took to the floor of Parliament and said, “Things have come to a pretty pass . . . when religion is allowed to invade public life.”

Over 200 years later, author and Prison Ministry leader Chuck Colson offered his perspective on tLord Melbourne’s quote above, saying, “Thank God religion did invade public life, because it brought an end to slavery.”

Religion invaded public political life again over a century later with the work and words of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 – 1968). The “Lord Melbournes” of the 20th century again complained. They wondered what right do preachers have to participate in politics? Thankfully, King stepped up, although he paid dearly for it.

In Western politics on both sides of the pond today, there are many more Melbournes than Wilberforces. In America, there is no shortage of politicians, professors, pundits, preachers and thought leaders who frequently and loudly voice dismay over the invasion of religion into public life. This serves to protect many ongoing forms of corruption and injustice, like the ongoing erosion of the family, the dramatic rise in out-of-wedlock births, the institutionalization of abortion (including born-alive “abortions”) and the willful decomposition of marriage itself. The “moderate” Lord Melbournes of today relish the marginalization of faith from public life.

America’s founders made their conviction clear that politics needs religion a lot more than religion needs politics. They knew better than to legislate this relationship but they saw clearly the indispensable value of faith, freely expressed and practiced in public. Not all Christians are called into public life, but those who are stand on solid constitutional, moral and scriptural ground (which I plan to explore in a future blog post).

An invasion of faith and love into public life would be a “pretty pass” we can celebrate.

Loving Sinners: Part Two
(The Same-Sex Wedding Dilemma)

(See part one here)

Jesus was more than willing to eat with sinners. The apostle Paul was the same way, although he drew the line against associating with “a so-called brother” who remained immoral and unrepentant (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

Jesus was also willing to tell sinners to repent. This call constituted His main challenge to humanity as a teacher.

Matthew remembered the gist of Jesus’ message this way: “From that time on Jesus began to preach, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.’” (Matthew 4:17). But let’s let Jesus speak for Himself:

  • It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:31-32).
  • But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Luke 13:5).
  • [There] will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (Luke 15:7).

Jesus, who never sinned, was kind and loving to sinners. Yet, he hated sin with a passion. He was especially outraged with those who caused children to sin. He understood what sin did to people He loved. On several occasions, He recalled God’s judgment on Sodom as entirely just. He warned of even worse judgment for those who refuse to repent (see Matthew 11:20-24).

Charles H. Spurgeon, the 19th century “prince of preachers,” understood Jesus’ love for sinners. He preached:

    Christ came to bring healing to those who are spiritually sick—you say that you are perfectly well, so you must go your own way and Christ will go in another direction—towards sinners.

A good physician would never base a prescription for a sick person on a desire to be liked or to make the patient feel better about himself. Good doctors don’t tell patients to simply follow their whims or take whatever medicine tastes good. Spiritually speaking, nothing tastes worse than repentance. And nothing prevented Jesus, the Great Physician, from His prescription for sick sinners to repent. Refusing this charge is like hiding from the good shepherd who longs to find us and carry us home.

Repentance means to change one’s mind and turn from sin. It transforms both our inner orientation and our outer lifestyle. It is incompatible with a conscious identification with our temptations or sins. Defining yourself by your sin or your inclinations to sin is the polar opposite of repenting.

Those who define themselves as homosexual need Jesus. In Him, they would see love for the sinner and hatred for the sin. We all see this simultaneous love and hatred in the cross. Jesus would eat with sinners but never put his carpentry skills to use to build an altar for idolatry or a sanctuary for sin. He would never call adultery “love,” or celebrate a same-sex or polyamorous marriage. The apostle John made it clear that “[Jesus] appeared in order to take away sins” (1 John 3:5), not to join forces with sin. He spent time with tax-collectors but never participated in their theft. Instead, he insisted on repentance.

Should a homosexual musician or photographer be forced to provide her services to the Westboro Baptist Church where gay hatred ruins rampant? Of course not. Why not respect the same right of refusal for Christians who oppose same-sex marriage?

Christians who refuse involvement in same-sex “weddings,” either as ministers, musicians, photographers, bakers or otherwise, are standing tall with Jesus. However, cultural and political pressure is increasingly depriving Christians of their legal right to say “no” to something they deem sinful. Even the National Football League recently threatened to punish Arizona if their governor allowed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to pass. Nevertheless (I love that word), Christians honor God above legality, money and political correctness. No politician, CEO, professor, celebrity or journalist can force a real Christian to join in with sin.

They cannot stop us from loving sinners either.

LIFE TOGETHER:
The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community

The church has her fair share of critics. Some are unbelievers but others are spiritual leaders putting a noble spin on their points, as if their passion for intimacy with God is the reason they criticize the church, or leave her. Loving Jesus and serving the needy, some claim, are such full time jobs that little time is left to commit to a church with programs, services, budgets and “churchy” people. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s classic Life Together (1937) takes a different view and I want to share it with you here.

BONHOEFFER’S LIFE AND DEATH:

At seventeen, with a brilliant career in theology ahead, Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) began his studies at Tubingen, Germany. He earned his doctorate in theology from the University of Berlin at age 21. Soon, he qualified to teach there. In 1930, he crossed the Atlantic as an exchange student to study at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.

When Adolf Hitler took power, many pastors and theologians yielded to Nazi interference in church affairs. Not Dietrich. For him, there could be no “Christian” compromise with Hitler. In 1934, he signed the Barmen Declaration, which declared independence from Hitler’s state and from the co-opted church. He helped create the independent “Confessing Church” in Germany.

In 1943, Bonhoeffer’s record of resistance and his involvement in smuggling Jews out of Germany (the “U7” operation) finally got him arrested. Just before going to prison, he became engaged to be married. He wrote love letters from his cell but his plans were never to be. After two years in prison, it was learned that he played a part in a failed Hitler assassination attempt. He was executed by special order of Heinrich Himmler on April 9, 1945, just a few weeks prior to Hitler’s death and the end of World War II. Combining scholarly brilliance with moral courage, he showed the world that real Christianity is not just having correct ideas about God but also following Him at all cost.

LIFE TOGETHER:

In 1935, Bonhoeffer created and directed a clandestine seminary in Finkenwald (Pomerania) for training young pastors in Christian discipleship. There, he shared life together with about 25 young men devoted to God. It was closed down by the Nazis in 1937 but not before he wrote The Cost of Discipleship and Life Together. He was officially forbidden to publish or speak publicly but he continued to work for the resistance to the Third Reich.

Life Together (1938), was forged in the backdrop of the pre-war German underground. With Hitler’s hate on the rise, Dietrich was lifting up Christ’s love in a small community of faith. He believed that God bestows brotherhood upon us for a reason: We are our brother’s keepers. Getting a life is something we cannot do alone. Bonhoeffer began his book by quoting the Psalmist; “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” (Psalm 133:1). There was precious little in Germany that was good and pleasant but the sweetness of Christian fellowship flourished at Finkenwald and you can taste it in Bonhoeffer’s classic: Life Together.

Don’t look for fanciful dreaming about the bliss of fellowship from Bonhoeffer. He warned, “He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial.”

Instead of dreaming about greater intimacy, Bonhoeffer praised the daily practice of Bible reading, prayer, table fellowship and work. He recognized the impact of the truthful tongue, the listening ear, the helping hand, and other practical resources that sweeten Christian fellowship. Belonging to a community shows how the hand speaks louder than the mouth. It teaches us not to place too much trust in verbal proclamation if our lives do not measure up.

Bonhoeffer’s Christ-centered premise was clear: “Without Christ there is discord between God and man and between man and man . . . Christ opened up the way to God and to our brother.” In Christian fellowship, we mediate the presence of Jesus to each other. The Christ in one’s own heart is weaker than the Christ found in fellowship.

Let that resonate. It’s not a common concept today.

Life together calls for singing together. Bonhoeffer wrote, “It is not you that sings, it is the church that is singing.” Singing builds fellowship even if the guy next to you is blind, off key and loud.

Life together also requires regular intercession. Bonhoeffer wrote, “A Christian fellowship lives and exists by the intercession of its members for one another, or it collapses. I can no longer condemn or hate a brother for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me.”

Bonhoeffer ends his book calling for more confession of sin. There can be no Christian fellowship where sin is smothered or concealed. He believed the worst sort of loneliness grips those who are alone with their sin. We cannot have real life together without honest confession. Bonhoeffer asked:

    If my sinfulness appears to me to be in any way smaller or less detestable in comparison with the sins of others, I am still not recognizing my sinfulness at all. … How can I possibly serve another person in unfeigned humility if I seriously regard his sinfulness as worse than my own?

No wonder the German church that resisted Hitler was called the “Confessing Church.”