A Touch of Humor - Over

How can we keep the busyness of Christmas from spoiling the celebration? Are there practical suggestions to help with this?

Old Erich Proverb - Own Body

None of us have the right to do what we want with our own body; it was provided for us by our Maker and does not belong to us.

A Voice from the Past - Luther

I hate myself because when I see him laid in the manager, in the lap of his mother, and hear the angels sing, my heart does not leap into flame. With what good reason should we all despise ourselves that we remain so cold when this word is spoken to us over which all men should dance and leap and burn for joy! We act as though it were a frigid, historical fact that does not smite our hearts, as if someone were merely relating that the sultan has a crown of gold.

Martin Luther, 1483-1546, The Martin Luther Christmas Book, Shepherds (translated and arranged by Roland Bainton, The Westminster Press, 1948, p.46)

Can Christmas become something we are used to and makes no impact when we hear of it? How can we avoid this?

Political Extremes

Ours seems to be an age of extremes, of people pushing principles to their questionable conclusions. I have to ask why this is so. I believe the answer can be found in G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. He says that purely naturalistic processes can only progress in an obvious direction. But progressing into a complex pattern implies an artist making the pattern. If my computer screen got darker and darker until it was pitch black or more and more purple until it was dark purple, it might be a purely mechanical malfunction. But if a face appears speaking to me, I must conclude that someone, somewhere, created what I was looking at.

For example I can hold strongly to independence until I see myself as an isolated individual, beholden to almost no one, and see it as the end of a natural process. I can see myself being made more and more a cog in an interlocked societal machine and see it as a result of simple progress. I can believe in more and more equality until no one can be distinguished from anyone else. Or claim some higher individuals or master race should exercise more and more power over others. But a complex Biblical picture of unity in diversity and servant leadership requires an Architect (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Luke 22:24-27; Ephesians 5:21-6:9),

On purely naturalistic grounds we can hold to an ethic of work and success that despises those who fail. Or we can believe in an ethic that offers the same goods to everyone regardless of effort. But to maintain the need of work while helping those in need requires more (1 John 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:12; James 2:15,16; Ephesians 4:28). We can, from a naturalistic viewpoint, claim that almost any sexual activity is all right and it is wrong in almost all cases to restrain it. Or else claim that sex is a dirty thing and should be avoided except when necessary to propagate the species. But to see it as good within an appropriate, committed relationship and wrong outside this requires a Designer (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7:1-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; Proverbs 5:15-23).

This problem appears over and over again in various issues. And Christians are in danger of falling into one or the other of the extremes rather than standing where we should. For we believe the world is not an accident, but the work of a Creator. And the right answer to the issues is the picture intended by the Artist.        

Do You Have to Be Cold-Hearted to Be a Calvinist?

 Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

Do you have to be cold-hearted to be a Calvinist? Or does it just help?  To deal with this we first need to ask, What is the point of Calvinism?  As I see it, this is that though we were sinners and in rebellion against God so that we would not have come to Him if left to ourselves (Romans 3:10-12; 8:8; John 6:44), God chose to bring us to Himself (Ephesians 1:4-11; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29,30).  The point of this is the greatness of God's grace and the realization that there is absolutely nothing we could do to contribute to our salvation.  Far from being a reason for pride, it is a reason for humility, and the description given of those He chooses is hardly a basis for boasting (1 Corinthians 1:26-31).  Therefore, it should cause us to have compassion on those still enmeshed in the darkness of sin.

But there is a danger here of making God's choosing into an abstraction totally divorced from the fact of the fall and the price of redemption and of seeing God as choosing between people as casually as a socialite chooses outfits.  We need to recognize that God is beyond our understanding (Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 3:18; Isaiah 55:9), and we cannot fully comprehend how God's sovereignty fits with human responsibility or  how or why God chooses.  But He did not have to save anyone, and He paid an enormous price to do it (Romans 5:6-8; 8:32; John 3:16).

Calvinism can be confused with Stoicism, which says life is tough and God made it that way because He wants us to be tough. Rather, the Christian says life is tough, so we need to realize we cannot deal with it ourselves, but must trust God.  (Note that the original Stoicism had no clear idea of a Fall, which distorted their idea of God and the world.)  Calvinism is also confused with psychological determinism, which says our behavior is completely the result of our heredity and environment. But it is one thing to say our behavior is controlled by a personal God and another to say we are merely the result of background influences.  Psychological determinism leaves us in doubt as to whether we can know anything at since all our thoughts are the result of irrational causes.  It also can leave us looking at other people as just mechanisms determined by their programming.

All these misconceptions can influence Calvinists or be read in by opponents. Also, Calvinism in our culture, and in some parts of the Christian church, carries with it a considerable stigma.  Therefore, only those who have or who develop considerable determination and strength of conviction can hold to it.  Such people may be perceived, fairly or unfairly, as cold-hearted.  Sometimes you produce what you perceive in people.  But to be kept in perspective, predestination must be considered in connection with the Fall and redemption.

What the Bible Does Not Say

I am convinced that what the Bible does not say is as important as what it does say and that it is wrong to add to it. (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6; Revelation 22:18,19). But part of our problem is we can start by framing a question apart from Scripture and then expect Scripture to answer it. Now there are occasions where this is legitimate. If I am facing a particular moral dilemma that Scripture does not address directly, it is appropriate to look for principles that pertain to the situation. A book that addressed every obscure moral question would be too cumbersome to use, so I believe God wants us to apply principles to dealing with issues. But it is one thing to do this in unusual situations and another to add as clear-cut commands something the Bible never said. But the real problem can come from framing theological questions and straining for some Biblical basis to supply an answer, when it should have been obvious if God thought it was important.

A good example is the question of what way Christ is present in the Lord's Supper. The Scripture never directly addresses this question. The only question is what the word "is" means, and it is putting too much of a burden on this word in any language to claim it must mean "is physically" or some other specific meaning (Revelation 17:18; Isaiah 5:7; Hosea 10:11). Now I am not claiming this proves communion is symbolic. I am merely claiming Scripture does not say. Now I do not forbid the individual to speculate on it, but I have a problem with being dogmatic on something and dividing over it when Scripture does not clearly teach about it. (Notice that 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is about the practice of the Eucharist and not the theory of it. Turning it into a drunken feast where everyone brought their own food and drink and nobody shared was disrespectful no matter what your theory of the Supper is.)

Other good examples are church government and the order of the worship service. While there are general principles given, there is no detailed description found (1 Corinthians 14:40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Hebrews 13:17). However, there is a detailed description given of such things in the Old Testament. I can only conclude that if God did not include such things in the New Testament, it is because He did not intend to. Therefore, we have freedom as long as we stay within the principles.

I am convinced that God is not shy and that what He intended to say, He said. Now He may not have spoken on every obscure issue; to deal with all of them would make Scripture impossible to use. But I do not believe He left any critical issue to be ferreted out by reading  between the lines.   

A Touch of Humor - Preferences

How do we avoid fights over personal biases? How can we deal with them when they occur?