To Stay or To Go

I've been thinking about quitting facebook. After a year or so on there, the stream of stuff "friends" send out seems just as much a spiritual sewer as ever. I see daily the same kinds of belligerent forwards from "conservative" websites about their "rights" (especially "gun rights"), the same rebellious spirit towards government, the same idolization of America's military, the same violent hatred of their faction's enemies (especially President Obama), the same kinds of lies, anger, nationalism, repeated endlessly. My "friends" grieve me every day with their eager willingness to be manipulated by the enemy's spirit.

Interspersed with all of that, my friends also daily post scriptures: how great is God's grace, how much we should love one another as Jesus loves us, etc. I can't say with certainty where anyone else's heart is: but I don't see any evidence my "friends" are aware their violent "conservative" posts are of a spirit absolutely contrary to their sentimental "Christian" posts.

The commonsense reaction to standing in a flood of sewage is to get out. I've been considering it: but there's another aspect to the matter.

Among my "friends," there seem to be few voices challenging lies, or calling "conservative" filth to scriptural account. There's a temptation to feel sorry for "poor lonely me:" but I trust that God has yet kept thousands who have not bowed their knee to this Baal of our time (I Kings 19). Indeed, there are occasional friends who will "like" some comment I make challenging a lying post on facebook.

But the question isn't whether many or few agree. That's the guiding principle of "democracy." and has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. God assured Elijah that he was not alone in serving God: and then told him to get on with it. (ibid)

So there's the operative question. Stand in the facebook sewage, or get out of it ? I feel like God is giving me assurance I'm not alone in hating the enemy spirit rampant there: so now, get on with it.

Reinforcing that decision: even if I were the only one on facebook witnessing to truth, it would be my place to continue doing so. The call on every Christian's life is to witness to Christ, "the Truth." And was there really only one witness to Truth, how extremely important it would be for that one to continue speaking out when all else was lies. I think God is telling me to stay on facebook, as distasteful as that is, at least for now.

There are certainly times and places when God calls us to flee the spiritual filth. There are certainly times and places He calls us to stay. It all comes down to discerning God's timing.

Discerning is always hard for me. It requires listening; and I'm deeply aware how flawed my listening, and my hearing, can be. So I'm deeply aware I may flat-out be wrong making this choice between staying and leaving. But I know I can trust God to correct me, if my attempts to discern and to choose come from an honest heart.

Praise Him !!

Bumper-sticker

What does a bumper-sticker prove about a car's performance or value ?

I've never heard anyone say they bought a car because of the bumper-sticker on it.

But millions of American Christians buy their worldview and operative heart-attitude from politicians...POLITICIANS !!!...because they slap a Jesus bumper-sticker on it.

God forgive us !!

"The War to End War"

The hubris of the times promoted World War I as "the war to end war." With the hindsight of a century, we know how ridiculous a claim that was. Indeed, the way human "solutions" always cause more problems, we now look back at World War I as the origin of many which followed, and the solution to none which were its causes.

With the benefit of retrospect, we recognize "the Great War" as prelude for a greater; for Hitler, who came to power on his promise to restore German pre-eminence after the "crime" of the Versailles peace-treaty. The Balkan internecine conflicts which sparked the war at Sarajevo continue to this day, and have increased. Likewise, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire gave rise to the modern Middle East, with heightened long-term tensions, and new ones.

In this centennial year, there is renewed attention to "the Great War." I've read several excellent histories recently on different aspects of the war: on Gallipoli, on the cascading diplomatic miscalculations in the weeks after Franz Ferdinand's assassination that inevitably led to war, on the flu epidemic, and on the Sarajevo assassin Gavrilo Princip. Currently I'm reading Philip Jenkins' "The Great and Holy War," on the war's religious and spiritual currents.

Most pointedly, all the western nations involved framed the war as a Christian crusade: none moreso than Germany. The coded diplomatic message that gave the go-head for the Kaiser's declaration of war was Isaiah's prophecy of Christ, "Unto us a son is born." German soldiers' standard-issue belt-buckle bore the slogan "Gott mit Uns" ("God is with us"), scripture's "Immanuel." But every other western nation also promoted the slaughter as God's Own purpose. Most European and American citizens of the time were quick, and PROUD, to buy into, and echo, their leaders' religious rhetoric: as did almost-all of the participant nations' church organizations.

There were many other resonant spiritual events, from sentimental fakelore (the purported "Angels of Mons," which morphed from an Arthur Machen short-story to an event people claimed to have witnessed) to the radical Christianity of warring soldiers' spontaneous "Christmas Truce" of 1914. More than a few people, and not just the unsophisticated, perceived the war as the Biblical "End of Days:" particularly after the outbreak of the flu epidemic completed Revelation's "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" archetype with "Plague."

But amidst the propaganda, co-opted churches, fakelore, and transitory public perceptions, there were events that seemed genuine spiritual milestones. Some I was familiar with, some not: probably because (like for most Americans) World War I was a largely-forgotten episode. For our parents, in whose perceptions my generation grew up, World War II was "The War" (and even "the Good War"), overshadowing all wars before or since. Added to that the fact that, even in their own time, military events in the east (especially for the uninvolved United States) were seen as a side-show to the great drama of the Western Front. Except for the horrors of Gallipoli and the adventures of Lawrence of Arabia, little attention was paid to what was happening beyond Europe.

Attention should be paid. The same way He changed history by sending His peasant Son in a far province of the Roman Empire, God seems to have worked His large purposes of World War I in the same distant place.

If nothing else, British General Allenby's capture of Jerusalem in December 1918 had incalculable symbolic significance. The city God claimed as His Own, after 700 years in Moslem possession, was in Christian hands again. British newspapers nationalistically hailed it as the fulfillment of Richard the Lion-Hearted's unfulfilled crusade. Catholic churches around the world were instructed to add a special "Te Deum" to their services in thanks for Jerusalem's liberation.

Approaching Jerusalem, Allenby had led Britain's troops to victory against the Turks at a village called Megiddo. In his dispatches, however, Allenby referred to the battle-site, probably with an eye to Christian audiences, as "the field of Armageddon," its Biblical name. The name captured the apocalyptic view of the war in western Christendom, and Allenby was thereafter often styled "Allenby of Armageddon."

I'd read, and been impressed, that on his entry to Jerusalem Allenby, a cavalryman, dismounted to enter the holy city on foot. Some adduce a Christian spirit of humility to the gesture, that he would not enter in military pomp the city Jesus had entered on a donkey. Jenkins presents Allenby as "quite secular," which may discount a personal Christian motivation for Allenby: but he was certainly quite aware of the symbolism of his gesture before the Christian war-audience. Jenkins points out that Allenby might also have intended a deliberate contrast to Kaiser Wilhelm's visit to Jerusalem some 20 years earlier, when the German ruler made a point of entering the city mounted in military array, as if in conquest.

Nor was Allenby unaware that Jerusalem was revered by all three great monotheistic faiths. His respectful gesture of entry could be expected to impress Moslems (both Britain's Arabian allies and Turkish enemies) and Jews, as well as Christians. Allenby's personal secretary and biographer, Raymond Savage, attempted to deny the many pious fables that had grown up around the General (for example, that he entered Jerusalem with a Bible in one hand, and a crucifix in the other). But he reports as true that Arab rulers considered Allenby's coming a signal event for Moslems, construing his name as "Allah Nabi," Arabic for "God the Prophet."

For Jews, Allenby's entry into Jerusalem on December 9th 1918 was even more heavily symbolic. The night of that very day marked the beginning of Hanukkah ("The Festival of Lights"), celebrating the Maccabean rededication of the Temple after liberating Jerusalem from the Seleucid (Syrian) Empire in 165 B.C. (Interestingly, Hannukkah is the only Jewish festival besides Passover mentioned in the Christian gospels, in John 10:22-23.) British and American Jews quickly drew the parallel between their historic liberator Judah Maccabee and General Allenby (Jenkins reproduces one such contemporary lithograph on his p. 164.)

But Allenby's campaign had more than symbolic value to Jews. So confident of victory over the Ottoman Turks was the British government that Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour in November 1918 issued to Baron Rothschild, a leader of British Jews, the famous official Declaration that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." Before it came to pass, the world would be racked by a second, greater, World War, and European Jewry would be all-but-wiped out in the Holocaust: but in the Balfour Declaration God began the restoration of Israel as a nation.

"The Great War," possibly the epitome of humankind's warring madness, was foundational to all that's happened in the world's last century. It could not be other than a spiritual sign-post: first as exemplar of man's complete inability to "solve" problems by his own wisdom and means. What impresses me most, however, is that even in that pointless slaughter, God created hope, restored His people, and advanced the appearing of His Kingdom.

Amen !

Obama-bashing

A friend posted this picture on facebook. I "liked" it, and re-posted it on my "timeline."

It's interesting: the simple statement of these facts, that Obama has done some good things, violently offends people whose entire political "principle" is he can't do a single thing right. But the hatred "conservatives" (including many "Christians") bear Obama goes beyond politics, and beyond reality.

It seems commonsense to me that Presidents are human; and like every other human being, are never all good nor all bad. That seems simple reality. Richard Nixon was probably one of the most flawed men, and one of the sleaziest politicians, who ever became President. Even so, he did some good things. However mixed his motives, he was first to have the courage against hardline conservatives to recognize communist China (after building his entire career on sharing their rabid hatred of Communism).

To deny that Nixon ever did a single thing right would be to ignore facts. It would say more about the person making such a statement, than about Nixon. It would tell me, for one thing, that person had little love for truth, and was not trying in the least to make an honest judgement.

It would also tell me that person's heart was so filled with hatred that violent lies had become his religion. It's interesting, again, that people of that spirit can only see others as they themselves are. Delusional haters can only perceive any contradictory statement of fact as violent, partisan attack.

More than a few "conservatives" in America today have worked themselves up to that level of Obama-hatred. More than a few of them call their violent delusional hatred "Christianity."

May any who can still hear the Spirit, hear Him cry "Repent !!"

Amen.

God Loves the Honest

"...[we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (II Corinthians 4:2, KJV)

A forwarded meditation by David Wilkerson was in my e-mail today, on the above scripture. I was struck by the word "dishonesty," which I don't remember having seen in scripture previously. So I had to look it up, and check it out.

Part of the reason I'd never seen "dishonesty" before was because my favored New American Standard translation always translates the Greek word in this passage (aischune) as "shame." I rarely consult the King James' translation: but looking at the lexicons and other references, and the context, I can credit the KJV's alternative reading here of "dishonesty."

More than a particular word, however, this verse resonated for me with Jesus' characterization of Nathanael as a man "in whom there is no guile." The straightforward character this verse commends seems to be what Jesus perceived in Nathanael: a man in whom there was no hidden agenda, no craftiness, no deceitfulness: one whose straightforward truthfulness commended him to every man, and to Jesus Himself.

Incarnation

Robert Rohr, a priest who heads The Center for Action and Contemplation, sends out a daily e-mail devotion I've recently begun subscribing to. Some of his writings are a bit too self-consciously "mystical" for my tastes, but no matter: he often shares a piercing light of Christ in Truth.

His recent meditation on the eucharist highlighted such a truth, of our being the Body of Christ:

"It is not just Jesus’ own sacrifice that we are recalling, but also our agreement to participate in the same! It is not just the human incarnation in Jesus that we are remembering, but that this mystery of incarnation is continued in space, time, and the physical universe itself..."

AMEN !!

Letter to a facebook "friend"

Hi, B----:

Thanks for being open to some comments. You can understand why I wasn't sure you would.

Was hopeful after your facebook response was civil and straightforward. But we naturally associate people with their facebook (re-) posts:
an implied "I'm (whoever), and I approved this message," like the tag on politicians' ads. Isn't that what we intend to say with our facebook re-postings ?

So I was glad you didn't respond in the spirit of that post. I'm not at all implying hypocrisy: I get that you despise President Obama, and you don't ever pretend otherwise. But neither do you seem filled with raging hatred like the writer of your post.

For all I know, the writer himself may actually be a decent person, and only using violent rhetoric to make his opinions more striking. Political views these days have to be pretty extreme (as you agreed his post is) to stand out from the negative chorus we've gotten used to. He may simply be trying for some kind of notoriety among the crowd.

It's otherwise hard to understand why a decent person would choose to strike a pose so much more evil than his actual character. You and I both know the scriptures, especially Christ's teachings. We both know the admonition to "put on Christ." Isn't spewing hatred putting on the contrary spirit ?

So where are you with that ? You're obviously not filled with malevolent violence like the writer is (or at least pretends to). How does your re-posting his rantings not imply your approval: and associate your own character with the spirit his post manifests ?

Those questions are meant as hostile only to that enemy spirit, and his deceiving the Church away from its Head. Between us Christians, they are questions of purposefully "putting on Christ."

Thanks for welcoming my thoughts, and I'll very much welcome yours.

In Jesus, Steve

Partisanship

Another observation about my recent interaction with my "facebook friend."

His response seemed civil and rational, so I'd like to talk further (in more than the bumper-sticker or postcard-sized "thoughts" facebook promotes); but I'm rather hesitant to approach him. People striking belligerent poses invariably perceive any approach as hostile. Picknickers in Ukraine are well-advised these days to not stroll through fields near a military outpost, even if it's manned by "our side." Whatever ordinary or innocent purpose may be in your heart, or even if you're on the same "side," partisans can only see, and react to, everyone else in terms of their violent mania.

And it is very much "mania," the madness of sin's self-ishness, to operate as if the world entirely and actually conforms to one's personal world-view. A person who attacks others with a knife in the belief that everyone is trying to kill him, we deem criminally insane. Acting out the sin of partisanship (Galatians 5:20) is the same kind of madness: and produces the same raging spirit of murder.

Facebook Again

A "facebook friend" posted one of those personal attacks on President Obama that factionalists so love. His post was more vile than most: which is saying a lot in a society that's come to regard vicious personal attack as acceptable political discourse. Very much analogous to our deadened acceptance of people spewing profanity in public places.

This particular post was more vile than most because it was filled with hatred not just for the President, but for every person who voted for him (a majority of voters, in our political system), their reasons for voting for him...and as my "friend" put it, anyone who "thinks he is O.K." That's a lot of hate.

The format was something like: "If you voted for Obama...because of his qualifications, then you are ignorant...of his economic plan, then you are a moron...;" and so on, through "delusional," "a racist," "greedy," "a tool," "an idiot," etc.. The kicker (for the approving choir of factionalists, anyway) was, "if you voted for him because you TRULY know what he stands for, then you are a traitor."

Only five or six sentences: but lots of hatred, towards lots of people.

Spiritually, such stuff is of more substantive sin than someone ranting profanity in public. I have to guess the writer of this post is ignorant of what God says about speaking evil of rulers, or what Jesus said about calling people "fool;" and doesn't realize he's pouring forth sin. Or maybe he knows what God says in those scriptures, and just doesn't take it seriously, in practice.

But there's a spiritual consideration besides foundational belief and practical obedience. In this time of intense spiritual warfare, I've learned to weigh all things in those terms. It was a no-brainer in this case: spewing hatred is manifestly spiritual attack.

What impressed me, when my facebook "friend" replied to my disapproving comments, was that his response was more civil and thoughtful than the hate-filled post he'd copied to facebook under his name. He clearly despised Obama (which he professed to believe was the issue), but without the belligerent rhetoric: and agreed the post's attacking so many other people was uncalled for. It brought the spiritual warfare into focus for me.

I doubt President Obama, or those who voted for him, or anyone who "thinks he is O.K." is harmed by the vitriol my "friend" 's copied post directs at them. Maybe the original writer of the post operates on the voodoo belief that he can wound and kill people by targeting them with words of hatred: I'm a Christian, and don't. Indeed, as a Christian, I'd consider the spiritual effects of such a diatribe runs the other direction, wounding and (ultimately) killing anyone whose heart is so hate-filled.

The matter of posing also came to mind. Speaking as himself, my "friend" was clearly much more honest, temperate...decent...than the post he approvingly copied to facebook. NOT that his "posing" was hypocritical whatever: he truly despises President Obama, and doesn't pretend otherwise. But neither is he a creature of violent malevolence like the writer of the post (who might himself be striking a pose more demonic than his real character).

Indeed, I don't use "posing" here in any negative sense. Few of us are so completely authentic that we don't pose some times, in some degree, as someone not exactly who we really are. In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis even points out that "posing" is part of how we become fully Christian. Beginning with the first words of the prayer Jesus taught us to say, "Our Father...", we are enjoined to talk and act as if we were the Son of God: knowing we're only "putting on Christ" (Romans 13:14) like a mask of One much better than we are, over our true faces. In Lewis' understanding, Christ fulfills the ancient myths in reality, as our faces grow into the likeness of the Son-mask He bids us wear.

It seems to work the same way in the other direction. Decent, "good" people: perhaps Christian people: may also pose as something much worse than their real character. It's beyond my understanding WHY a good person would want to be seen as evil: but many of my facebook "friends" seem to, usually as a "political" stance. Some even seem to be growing into that mask, if their love of "enmity, strife, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions" (Galatians 5) are good indicators.

God is liberal in mercy: maybe He'll call back to their first Love some who've chosen to pose in "the deeds of the flesh." But there are masks worse than that carnal one. Scripture says flatly that those who profess to love God, but hate their brother, are LIARS. (I John 4:20) It seems a cautionary scripture for Christians who choose to pose as something less (and every pose but Christ is something less). The most fearful thing I can imagine happening to any person would be choosing the pose of hatred: and taking off the mask to find one's face grown into the likeness of the father of lies.

Nathanael

It came to mind in Sunday School recently, and I’d been thinking the last couple weeks about the time Jesus called Nathanael.

It's a curious episode. We don't quite know what Jesus is referring to when He tells Nathanael, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." (John 1:48) I can only guess that God somehow supernaturally impressed Nathanael's heart as he sat under the fig tree, preparing him to meet Jesus.

Whatever the case, Jesus' words immediately destroyed Nathanael's initial skepticism. ("Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ?")

But I was impressed at what Jesus saw in Nathanael: “an Israelite in whom there is no guile” (or “deceit,” or “craft” -iness). The One True Judge of human hearts saw in Nathanael an honest man; a man without pretense, mixed motives, or hidden agenda.

I was impressed too that an honest heart immediately “got” Jesus. We often think of Peter's confession (Matthew 16) as the point when the disciples began to perceive Who Jesus IS. But before his first conversation with Jesus ended, Nathanael was already proclaiming, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God ! You are the King of Israel !” (John 1:49)

On his "A Call to the Remnant" blog, beloved brother Frank McEleny gave me the word I was looking for in meditating on Nathanael: authenticity. He perceptively writes of our walk before God,

"... mature saints have one thing in common in my estimation, they are transparent, what you see is what you get. Now this is rarely a way to make friends and influence people but it is the road to authenticity." ("All the world is a stage," http://acalltotheremnant.com/)

I've always been impressed with the prayer a good friend offers in acknowledging his failings: "God, you know my heart." It's authentic prayer: honest about Who God IS, honest about our failings...and that God still knows our deep love toward Him, despite our failings.

Praise Him Who KNOWS our hearts so completely: praise Him Who makes hearts who love Him as authentic as He Himself IS.

Amen !

Comfort

My daughter had been having problems in her pregnancy. Her twins, about whom we literally danced for joy when she told us, were growing unequally. The doctors kept close watch on the situation, and this week decided to do a surgical procedure so each twin would have equal placental nutrition and blood-flow. They told us the procedure was 85% successful.

She had the surgery Wednesday, and they kept her in the hospital to monitor for 24 hours. Everything was O.K., so she was allowed to come home Thursday, and scheduled back at the hospital Friday for continued checking.

She called Friday afternoon, barely able to say, "Elijah didn't make it." When she got home, I just held her and we cried together. I later asked her husband some of the particulars, but didn't talk to her about it. Neither of us could have.

It's been on my mind continually. I have to think of Abraham, able to trust God even with the death of his son because "he considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead..." (Hebrews 11:19). God quickly gave me His grace to say in my own aching and mourning heart, "So too will I trust God."

Today I had my regular time to be in God's Presence. I desperately needed Him today, even more than I usually feel (or at least, admit to) that need. I had determined to worship Him without my emotions intruding: but once in His Presence, I completely fell apart.

He let me. For a long time, He let me blubber and pray, without saying anything. He didn't have to. He was there: He was enough.

Eventually he said, "Those I love live forever."

It was the deep comfort He knew I needed. As deep as His everlasting BEING: I AM comfort.

God, Father, thank you !!

Derek Prince on Pride

As always, Derek Prince' teaching nails it: simple, Biblical, straightforward, logical, Spirit-given.


The essential nature of the sin into which Adam fell...was the same as Satan's own sin. It was the sin of pride, leading to rebellion against God.

In Genesis 3:5 Satan presented his ultimate temptation to Adam and Eve. What was it ? To disobey God and eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden than God had forbidden to them. Satan, in the person of the serpent, said to them:

"For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The motivation that prompted Satan's own rebellion in heaven is summed up in the self-exalting statement, "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:14). Subsequently, Satan's ultimate temptation to Adam and Eve was, "If you eat of this tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will be like God--equal to God." It is the same motivation, producing the same disastrous consequences--pride that led to a fall.

What is, therefore, the intrinsic nature of pride ? It is most important that we see this. I can sum it up in one simple sentence: Pride of this kind is seeking to be independent of God. It was not a denial of God's sovereignty in the universe. It was simply a personal decision by Adam and Eve that they could do without God. They didn't need God. If they could acquire the knowledge of good and evil, they would no longer need to depend upon God...

"The people are the rightful masters of Congress and the Courts"

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts,not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

The tea party controversialists are currently sending around the above quote by Lincoln. I've seen it recently posted twice by facebook "friends."

Any quote "conservatives" send around, I try to verify. The Library of Congress' transcript of Lincoln's words, from notes he made in 1859 for speeches in Kansas and Ohio, is slightly different:

"the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it."

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/abraham-lincoln-papers/history3.html

But the slight difference of wording isn't the point here. This isn't the kind of fabricated or deceptively edited quote we usually get from "conservatives" in support of their agenda. This quotation attempts to reverse American history, and its current application.

Lincoln's "men who pervert" the Constitution were southern conservatives promoting the institution of slavery. That rhetorically-violent minority had imposed their evil agenda on the country for decades, in Congress' legislation (The Fugitive Slave Act, for example) and in Supreme Court decisions (the Dred Scott case).

Lincoln's beef with "the men who pervert the Constitution" was that they usurped America's constitutional government to thwart the will of the nation's majority. They effectively blocked the operation of constitutional government in its attempts to rein in their power. And at the time Lincoln spoke, they were threatening to destroy the nation, unless they got their way.

Lincoln conceded that slavery, which southern politicians made the cornerstone of their "states rights" argument, had constitutional standing. But he refused to concede any minority's constitutional right to tyrannize the nation, or threaten to destroy it.

Lincoln's words indeed have current application. Tea partiers would like that to portray themselves as the "rightful masters" of constitutional government, against those who (in their eyes) pervert it...i.e., our constitutional government. It says a great deal about their ignorance of American history, and their lack of self-awareness, that they apply Lincoln's words in self-congratulation.

Any rational view of American history, past and current, would acknowledge that "the men who pervert the Constitution" are still with us: and still attempting to impose the evil agenda of their violent. destructive minority on the nation. That tea partiers fail to recognize themselves in that description is an act of willful self-delusion, stunning even by "conservative" standards: and hubris supreme.

Patriotic Thoughts

Nobody...with the exception of God Himself... could possibly be more contemptuous than I am of "patriotism." The "patriotism" so-called: we all know it when we see it, and we see it most of all on the 4th of July. That my country does no wrong: and if it does, I vehemently SUPPORT its wrong-doing. That each and every one of my country's military people are "heroes." That mine is the greatest nation on earth: indeed, the earth's greatest nation EVER.

It's all a "higher" form of self-righteousness, self-justification, self-congratulation: egoism enlarged to encompass MY nation, MY people, MY culture. So-called "patriotism" lets me follow on MY own way, disguised (and proud) in the selflessness of devotion to a "greater good."

There's no better example than the Omaha pro-war rally N.P.R. covered in 2003, when invading Iraq was in the offing. The fans had gathered in a large outdoor sports-stadium to hear "patriotic" speakers urge war on Iraq...where the President and his Secretary of State told us Saddam Hussein was building "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on good people (that is, ourselves)...just as he had the 9/11 hijackers. (And lest we forget, both those justifications for going to war proved to be lies.)

As the reporter described the rally with its thousands of waving flags, and spoke with participants, the crowd could be heard continually in the background roaring its "patriotic" sports-cheer: "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!", "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!", "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!", "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!".

"Patriotism," so-called. We all know it when we see it...and most times, we join in. We join in more vehemently if we harbor any suspicion it's all hollowness and deceit: such thoughts are not "patriotic." Our mouths are quite practiced at shouting down the unacceptable thoughts of our heart.

My problem with joining in is knowing what patriotism means. That's no real glory to me: just what happens with the reflective tendency God has given me to search out and ponder definitions, before pontificating (like this) about a subject. LOL.

"Patriotism" is not a hard definition: it is "love of country" (or more properly, love of one's "father-land".) Nobody can have any problem with that meaning, or fail to understand it. Our problem comes in what we (or more often, professional manipulators) make "love of country" in practice.

Rallying for war, in which the wealth and lives of one's country's people are destroyed, isn't what I call "love." Real people should at least have the wisdom of the fictional Vulcans, and wish that our friends "live long and prosper." Indeed, the nationalistic pride that masquerades as "patriotism" is usually a curse on a nation, destroying rather than blessing. Everyone's seen the pictures of Berlin in April 1945.

Jeanette Rankin had unique standing to speak to the question. Her wisdom was that "You don't win a war any more than you win an earthquake." What kind of unnatural malefactor, then, wishes an earthquake kill his neighbors and friends, and destroy their property ? Who but a psycho murders his own family and sets fire to destroy his home...and says he acted from "love" !?! But the "patriotism" of nationalistic pride asks us to accept that reasoning for war: and we do.

If those outward consequences of such "patriotism" aren't convincing enough, there are spiritual ones. We serve a God who hates pride above all else. He hates its self-congratulation and its self-worship, He hates its disdain of Himself, He hates its rebelliousness, He hates its lies, its hypocrisy, its deceit. God hates pride for opposing and denying all that He IS...and for arrogating His righteous sovereignty to itself.

Pride is the quintessential character of satan: the quintessential "enemy," in Jesus' characterization. How much more hateful to God that Man...His creature, most beloved by Him, and most dependent on Him...vaunts his feeble, dependent self in pride against the King of Glory !!

God hates man's pride with consuming hatred. We know "God opposes the proud" (James 4:6): but "oppose" doesn't begin to convey the force of the Greek antitassetai. "God sets Himself in battle array to besiege to destruction the proud" might come closer. He hates it even more (if that is possible) for vaunting itself on a superiority (personal, racial, familial, national, doesn't matter) that is arrogant vain emptiness. Walking in pride...in opposition to His great command in Micah 6:8...pits us against The One Who governs all: and ensures His implacable judgement against us. What Nazi Germany suffered at the hands of human enemies was child's-play by comparison.

I feel the "thrill of pride" everyone references when they hear the national anthem, the same as anyone else. That's O.K.: it's a natural reaction of my natural man. But it will NOT (by God's mercy) enter into my spirit and heart to poison God's life in me.

The real "love of country" is (in another well-known definition) "wishing and doing the best for" one's country. And the best for my country, or anyone else's country, is easily discerned: God's blessing...which is to say, His Presence. But He will NOT dwell with those proud in their own strength and own way. He will not bless liars, men of violence, deceivers, the unrighteous and unholy. Such are "patriots," so-called.

If we truly mean anything when we mouth the slogan "God Bless America," we must mean God humble America: God make America honest to Him: God teach America to hear Him, and (most of all) obey Him. Since none of those are encompassed in our glib "patriotism"...the greatest patriotism is to entreat God that He give America a heart of deep repentance.

Amen !

Now and Always

I want to tell a shameful story, about my daughter's life.

Sarah got married yesterday, and baptized. Both made us so full of JOY at God's working that we couldn't hardly contain it !!

Sarah is a rebel. She's my examplar of rebellion. When she was 3, she brought home her pre-school report-card, and we read it eagerly. One of the items the toddlers were "graded on" was "Follows Directions." Sarah's very perceptive teacher had checked the "Yes" box next to it...and written out to the side, "IF she agrees with them."

Rebellion.

She lived a rebel from the time she was 13 or 14: every bad choice, she chose. We feared for her safety, her sanity, her life, her happiness, her body, soul and spirit: especially since we knew it was ALL available to her in Jesus Christ, any time she WOULD.

It didn't seem that time would ever be. She was raised by believers, in church, in Sunday School: but she WOULD not. And any mention of her spiritual choice usually caused her rebellious anger to flare up at us.

One of the most terrifying dreams I ever had was about her. Set on the street where I had lived as a kid, I dreamed that a carfull of people who wanted to kidnap and harm her: sex-slavery, murder, it wasn't clear: were prowling the street. I saw her playing across the street, and tried to cry out a warning to her. She didn't seem to hear me (or wouldn't hear me) as they stopped to talk to her: and she WILLINGLY got into the car with them. I chased the car, but it sped away and I was left knowing there was nothing I could do to find and rescue her.

The dream scared me so deeply I woke up in panic: so deeply that one time when we were talking and she seemed more receptive than usual, I told her what I'd dreamed. It affected her enough that she cried a tear or two at the moment: but I didn't notice any change afterwards.

Many times she would talk more with her mother than with me, and her mother would share that with me when we talked about Sarah's life. Once her mother told me somewhat-comforting news. Sarah had seemed receptive and the conversation wound that way, so my wife urged her to find a "good church" where her spiritual needs would be ministered to. Sarah had said (not flippantly) that she expected she'd "go to church a lot" some day. As vague and superficial a possible intent as it might be, that was one of the few causes we had for hope, for many years.

One time I so despaired, of her and her brother both, that I fiercely prayed God would lead them through whatever hard experiences He knew they needed in order to really "GET it." It may not have been a completely wise prayer: you ordinarily don't want your kids to go through hard experiences. At the time, it seemed the only possible hope for one who went willingly with destroyers.

God is faithful. He answered that prayer (even if unwise), and other prayers, and not my prayers only. He IS as He says...faithful in mercy to a thousand generations of those who love Him. Today...having learned better to love Him...I might be inclined to pray to love Him still more...and less about people (even the most-closely loved people of our human lives) and circumstances.

Here's the shameful part. As wayward as she was at the time, my daughter understood at some level that God had His hand on her for good...at a time I who believe, was despairing. While I was suffering terror that her life was lost, she knew in some sense that she would "go to church a lot some day."

Today JOY overflows that God has been faithful to make that day today. Our continuing joy is that His faithfulness never ends: that day is ALWAYS.

Today is encompassed in His "always"...as is every yesterday. I'm chagrined I believed so little in His faithfulness even as I prayed: and "GOT" His everlasting mercy so little, even as I prayed it for Sarah and her brother.

Live and learn: and "...to live is Christ..."

Amen !!

Following Tradition II

It seemed necessary to begin with some definition and foundation on "tradition." But as long as that blog became, it really said nothing except what believing Christians have always universally affirmed, what C. S. Lewis called "mere Christianity:" that God has given us His full counsel in scripture, and we should obey Him. That is very much what I understand as "the tradition" Jesus taught: to put it in His chosen terms, the Kingdom of God.

If we recognize scripture as God's word, that's good: and not enough. The operative question for hearers of His word, even (especially) believing hearers, is what we DO to obey it.

The answer seems to be "not much."

One small "tradition" comes to mind, because we were formerly members of a congregation which practiced it. The "holy kiss" (or "kiss of peace") is repeatedly taught in the New Testament: in Romans 16, I Corinthians 16, II Corinthians 13, I Thessalonians 5, I Peter 5. I'd frankly never heard of it: those scriptures were hurried-over, if read at all, in the mid-American evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" tradition I grew up in. It was a revelation to be among believers who did attentively read those scriptures: and simply did what scripture said.

It's a very small thing, of course: and we tend to consider small things unimportant. But wisdom is that small things are often the most important.

Jesus' teachings, even to the very words He used, embodies that wisdom. Derek Prince pointed out, for one example, that Jesus rarely used multi-syllabic words. Especially in His parables, He almost always spoke about ordinary one-syllable things like salt, seeds, coins, fish. We like to think that deep understanding only comes by mastering complexities: but I doubt greater spiritual wisdom and edification is found in the 12 volumes of The Fundamentals' theologizing (for example), than in Jesus' few sentences about a lost sheep.

The holy kiss is not even on most Christians' radar. That's largely because it's a scriptural tradition that hasn't been taught to believers. (And if my experience is any indicator, even where taught, only a few do it. In that regard, the kiss of peace is very much like prayer. Both are traditions uncomfortably intimate for us.)

The "kiss of peace" is a very small thing. Our shame is that we don't do even this small thing God commands. In Jesus' terms, we want to say we follow Him without even being "faithful in a very little thing" (Luke 16).

We'd much prefer He be pleased with our smug cleverness in working out the "right" position on "immanent sanctification" (or some other arcane theological construct no one can possibly know with absolute certainty)...and defending it violently against every Christian who thinks otherwise. But Jesus instead simply commands that we "greet each other with a holy kiss." He reserves His highest praise: "Well done, good slave:" for the one who obeys Him, "because you have been faithful in a very little thing..." (Luke 19).

Worship, however, is not a small thing. It's the outpouring of the love-for-God that Jesus said is the first and greatest commandment. Jesus says the Father seeks those who will worship Him "...in spirit and in truth..." Jesus says His Own appearing signals that time "now is" that we worship the Father as pleases Him: and those who worship in spirit and in truth He calls "true worshippers." (John 4) That's a very pale and flat recap of all that Jesus says in these few sentences: but we undoubtedly speak truth when we say man's whole purpose is to worship God. It's no small thing.

Surprisingly, some (teachers of scripture among them) have told me (and I believe, sincerely) that they don't find scripture teaches how we should worship !! I'll testify whole-heartedly that I do. Indeed, I'd find it completely unbelievable that scripture NOT teach us what pleases God in His foremost desire for us !

In most basic terms, I understand that worship "in spirit and truth" is scripture's explicit teaching in I Corinthians 12-14. (And taught in other scriptures as well...for those who can see it. Of course, there are many professed Christians today who take a theological position that refuses to see it.) In most basic terms, the manifestations of God's Spirit given to each believer (charismata) all have their primary use in worshipping Him. I don't think there's any better, clearer, or simpler way to understand what constitutes "worship in spirit and in truth" pleasing to God. Amen !

But whether or not we will make that identification, Spirit-powered worship is clearly what scripture teaches. With reference to the scriptures in the first part of this blog, we can be certain that this is the worship Paul taught orally and by letter in all places. We can be certain that the "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem unanimously approved this worship as in accord with Jesus' teaching. The worship we read about in I Corinthians 12-14, led and empowered by the Spirit, is manifestly the Church' worship tradition.

Some just don't see it. If they are sincere in saying so, I trust God will open their eyes, in His time, in His love toward them.

Some refuse to see it. But God is immeasurably loving: He may even open the eyes of some deniers. His wisdom and mercy are greater, and His power stronger, than man's nay-saying. Or in His absolute sovereignty, He may let deniers continue to tie themselves in the self-constructed theological knots they love more than Him, to await the time He treads His enemies underfoot.

Whether He wills to glorify Himself by showing mercy, or glorifies Himself by crushing His enemies...God will be glorified in His unsearchable RIGHTEOUSNESS. The only question for us is whether His Glory in our life will show in His mercy towards us, or in His judgement: and that comes down to what attitude we adapt toward Him, our operative theology.

Theologies can be believing or unbelieving: and everyone has a theology. For most of us, it's not an actual academic study: thankfully, since academic theology seems so often to embody disbelief more than belief. But disbelief is also embodied in the theology of "ordinary" Christians.

The best example I know is the comment of one older lady in our Sunday School class, when we were studying I Corinthians 14:26ff: "Well, we don't do that." (I'd hasten to add this was in response to my, I think, rather mild comment that this was one of the places scripture "let us in on" how the early Church worshipped.)

She was absolutely right, of course. That "we don't do" the traditions scripture teaches, is the exact point of unbelief in many "ordinary" Christians' theologies. It may be only my fore-shortened perspective and experience: but that unbelief seems to be the general mid-American white evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" worship-tradition.

If that perception is true to any extent: is there any regard in which we more show ourselves rebels against The King than "turning to our own way" of worship !? If that perception is to any extent true, the Church' deepest need in our time is to hear, really hear, Jesus' first teaching again: "Repent; for the Kingdom...is at hand." (Matthew 4:17)

Our Father still seeks and still delights in any who will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Our confession must be that "we don't do that."

God forgive us !!

Following Tradition I

We are studying the book of Jude this week.

Jude says he felt compelled to start his letter by appealing that we "...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 3)

I was reminded of a study I did many years ago, sparked by I Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you because you...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

When I first saw that verse in the Spirit...saw past the mid-American evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" reflexes I grew up in...I was dumb-struck that scripture commended "traditions" in any way. What about all those times Jesus condemned tradition: aren't "traditions," as I'd been taught, by definition contrary to the gospel?

And of course, it comes down to discernment: something the mid-American evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" tradition I was raised in (and yes, that's also a "tradition") didn't teach about at all. And there's the problem of doctrine-based or issue-based "Christianity:" we reduce the faith, indeed Christ Himself, to a "FOR" and "AGAINST" check-list...and never need hear the leading of His living Spirit.

Jesus vehemently condemned the "traditions of men." Like every word He taught us, that's the way it is: no need to explain it away, or make it one end of an either/or theology, if we insist, as He did, on the "... of men" qualifier.

But Paul calls Christ's teachings "traditions" too: and uses exactly the same word Jesus used for what He condemned. Check-list Christian, what do you make of that !?!?

Paul commends "traditions" again in II Thessalonians 2, urging us to resist the spiritual deceits of "the man of lawlessness:" "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." We know then that "the traditions" of our faith are embodied in Paul's letters as much as they were in his oral teaching. In II Thessalonians 3 he further urges us to "...keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." What greater exhortation to walk in "the traditions" can there be, than that not doing so amounts to false Christianity !

In my study years ago, it became clear that tradition is similarly commended to us in virually every New Testament letter: if not by the exact word irself, by formulations like Jude's above: "...the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Indeed, Strong's finds "transmission" the core concept of the word Jesus and Paul used: teachings (good or ill) passed on.

Some today, as in Paul's time, claim Jesus gave secret oral teachings that are not in scripture. And it's a certainty that not every word He ever spoke is contained in the gospels: John closes his gospel saying that if everything Jesus did (which must include His speaking) were written down, the world could not hold all the books written. (And commonsense is that he same could be said of any person. We know, for example, that not every word and deed of Abraham Lincoln has ever been written in the many hundreds of biographies about him.)

So the writers of the ancient "lost" gospels, and those who extoll them to our attention today (the "Gospel of Thomas" seems a current favorite with academics), urge us that the traditional scriptures of Christianity don't tell us everything..and therefore don't tell us enough. On that basis, some hold that there are Christian "traditions" which have been forgotten, ignored, or even suppressed. (Professor Elaine Pagels, for one, promotes such a view.) As with the first-century Gnostics, the "religious" spirit still likes to flatter us that we possess superior "secret knowledge" of which others are ignorant.

And when the Christian "traditions" of Spirit-illumined scripture are not sufficient for us, unbelief in the guise of "new scholarship" also piques our love of "modernity" and novelty. But it is simply unbelief...the enemy's way with us since Eden ("...hath God said...?"). It's unbelief in Jesus' words to the High Priest at His arrest, that "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret." (John 18: my emphasis) It's disbelieving Him when He told the disciples that His teachings would be vouchsafed to them not only as "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14)

Those who allude to "secret" traditions not in scripture show their disbelief of Jesus' plain words which are in scripture, disbelief of the Spirit's ability to bring His words to the apostles' remembrance, and disbelief that the Father wills that we have His complete word in Jesus !! God help our profound unbelief !!

Likewise with His word inspired to Paul. We already know that Paul taught "the traditions" orally and in his letters to the churches (II Thessalonians 2). There's no honest reason to believe he taught a "secret tradition" any more than Jesus did. He tells the church at Corinth that he is sending Timothy to them to "...remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church." (I Corinthians 4; my emphasis)

Any honest reading of Paul's letters sees differences in the topics he addresses, and in his approach. He makes no bones about tailoring his teaching to people's spiritual needs "...so that I may by all means save some" (I Corinthians 9:22b). His claim is rather that when he taught the Corinthians to be united in a shared devotion to Christ's teachings (I Corinthians 1 and 3), he did not teach, "...by word of mouth or by letter..." that Galatians or Romans should divide and vaunt themselves on which teacher they followed. He claimed that when he taught it was unacceptable that one in Corinth's fellowship married his father's wife (I Corinthians 5), he did not teach believers in Ephesus it was acceptable. Reading the body of his teaching we have, there's no honest reason to doubt Paul's claim.

Beside the "secret knowledge" theory, many scholars have taken the view that there were two differing strains of early Christianity: the original gospel taught by Jesus, and a "Pauline Christianity." This too bears on the question: lacking a uniform tradition, how can we obey the repeated exhortations to follow "the tradition" ?

And again, it comes down to belief. If we believe Luke's history in Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem accepted that Paul and Barnabas were teaching the same gospel Jesus taught. Peter and James were the primary spokesmen for fully accepting Paul's teaching, and the council wrote that in their decision they were "of one mind." Paul's account in Galatians 2 says he "...submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles...:" and that the council recognized that he had been "...entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles)..." (my emphasis).

Paul says that "...James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." The human leaders of the Church found no disparity between the gospel they had personally heard from Jesus' lips, and that which Paul taught. I tend to accept their judgement over that of modern historians and theologians: both as the testimony of contemporary eye-witnesses, and (especially) as the perception of those the Spirit signally qualified to discern.

Paul and Luke agree that the Jerusalem leaders' were fully convinced the Spirit at work in Paul's ministry was the same Spirit working in Peter's. If they were right, it was the fulfillment of God's words to Ananias in Acts 9 that Paul (not even yet baptized at the time, and known to the Church only as its persecutor) would be "...a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel." God too is witness that "Paul's" gospel was His word to us, the same as it was Jesus'.

Unless we believe that scripture has no historical (much less spiritual) validity, it's impossible to speak of a tradition of "Pauline Christianity" different than Christ's teachings. On scriptural grounds, I don't buy it. And the belief that God sent His gospel only to watch powerlessly as Paul wrested it in a direction He didn't intend or approve, completely mistakes our God, the King !

The gospel is a unitary "tradition." God's repeated exhortations in scripture that we follow "the tradition" all refer to The Way He has given us and taught us: and Jesus has said HE is "The Way."

It's that simple for the believer: God has given us His Way...and commands that we walk in it.

Praise Him !! Amen !

I, Rebel

Praying for forgiveness last night, after giving in to a temptation without even a token fight.

The Spirit asked, "How is it you know God's way, and don't do it ?"

I recognize that formulation as quintessential rebellion. I recognize that formulation as too, too often my own innermost heart.

These years of spending deliberate time in God's Presence have been spiritually exalting. Doing so in obedience to Him, I can easily let it exalt my sense of my own obedience.

The Spirit challenged that: gently, but directly.

In His presence, I've learned to hate rebellion as He does, and recognize it as the sin-of-sin. Learned in His Presence too (or rather, re-learned in power) that obedience is His perfect way, and the only way a man ever perfectly pleases Him.

But all that learning is what a friend called "head-polish," mere cognitive assent, unless we walk in it. How is it we know God's way, and don't do it ?

I, rebel.

God, forgive me !!

"In God We Trust" and "under God"

One of the perennial lies that goes around in "Christian" e-mails, and appears on "Christian" blogs, is that THEY (the federal government, the American Atheists association, liberals, President Obama, the A.C.L.U., etc.) are trying to rob America of its "Christian nation" standing, by doing away with our national motto, "In God We Trust." In 2010, this took the form of a letter from the Congressional Prayer Caucus correcting President Obama when he referred to "E Pluribus Unum" as America's national motto. It's worth sifting through this controversy to find out what truth it contains.

I've independently researched the "national motto" question over several years. Snopes.com's research on the 2010 incident summarizes the facts well:

"In 1782, the U.S. Continental Congress proposed the use of the Latin phrase E pluribus unum (commonly translated as "out of many, one" or "one from many") on the Great Seal of the United States as a reference to the original thirteen American colonies' having joined together as a single united entity. The phrase is still a component of the Seal of the United States and has appeared on U.S. coinage since 1795.

"However, although E pluribus unum was long considered the de facto national motto of the United States, it was never officially established as such by legislation. The only legislatively established national motto the United States has ever had is "In God We Trust," a phrase which first appeared on U.S. coinage in 1864 (and is now a part of all U.S. currency and coinage) and which was adopted as the official U.S. national motto through a law passed by Congress in 1956." (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/mottoletter.asp#hRDuUHaYoRJFjkJj.99)

Those are the simple facts. But the controversy is (of course) political: and that always involves shaping facts to a partisan purpose. The Congressmen's 2010 letter is an example. Suffice it to say that the "Congressional Prayer Caucus" is an almost-exclusively Republican "conservative" outfit. Some might consider this proof that Republican "conservatives" are the only Christians in Congress. I find rather that the "Prayer Caucus" mostly functions to manipulate "Christian issues" to "conservative" purposes.

The signators of the 2010 letter (one of whom I know personally, having been part of the same congregation in the 1980s) had the obvious purpose of dinging President Obama...dinging him especially as "anti-Christian" for failing to cite "In God We Trust" as the national motto. Interestingly, Snopes' research mentions that other presidents: including the "conservative" demi-god, Ronald Reagan: have referred publicly to "E Pluribus Unum" as our "national motto."

But in point of one fact, "conservatives" are correct: "In God We Trust" is America's official "national motto," so designated by Congress in 1956.

"In God We Trust" has a long association with American government. It's first appearance was in the fourth stanza of "The Star Spangled Banner" in 1814: "And this be our motto, in God is our trust." The phrase was first added to American coins during the Civil War when a Pennsylvania minister wrote Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase, that in that crisis our coinage should acknowledge God. The minister suggested the mottoes "PERPETUAL UNION" and "GOD, LIBERTY, LAW." At Chase' order, the Director of the Mint proposed "OUR COUNTRY, OUR GOD" or "GOD, OUR TRUST." Chase re-worked the latter to "IN GOD WE TRUST," which first appeared on the two-cent coin of 1864. (http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx) In all these permutations, the motto was a not-so-subtle claim that God favored the Union side in the war.

The motto did not appear continuously on all coins and bills until 1938, by act of Congress. In 1956 it became our official national motto. The first of several constitutional challenges to the motto, all unsuccessful, was Aronow v. United States in 1970. In that case a federal Court of Appeals held that "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." In 2004, the Supreme Court decision in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow cited the Aronow ruling in finding the pledge of allegiance' phrase "under God" and other such governmental and patriotic references to God are not unconstitutional, "... hav[ing] lost through rote repetition any significant religious content...", and are only expressions of "...ceremonial deism."

More salient to these phrases' use as "Christian" shibboleths was the public protest after "In God We Trust" was omitted from the $10 and $20 gold coins of 1907. President Theodore Roosevelt publicly opposed restoring the motto to coins, writing that "To put such a motto on coins or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege.” (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E2D8103EE033A25757C1A9679D946697D6CF). In 1908 Congress nonetheless legislated that the motto should thereafter appear on all gold and silver coins: in 1938, that it should appear on all U.S. coins and bills. And in 1956, that "In God We Trust" was the official national motto of the United States.

Just two years earlier, Congress had added the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. I'm old enough that my life spans the before and after of that official piety. The summer of 1953 was my first year in Vacation Bible School at Kensington Avenue Baptist Church in Kansas City, where my folks were members. My mother saved my certificate of attendance that year. The certificate (printed by the official Southern Baptist publishing house) was imprinted with the pledges to the Bible, to the Christian flag, and "to the United States Flag." The latter (see the image below) lacks the words "under God"...which only became part of the pledge of allegiance the next year.

Granted I'm a bit on the old side now: I can't help viewing any event that took place during my lifetime as "recent." By that criteria, America's official "godliness" is neither actually "Christian" (according to a "conservative" Supreme Court's decision), nor long-established: yet those are the operative assumptions on which "conservatives" vaunt themselves as defenders of "America's Godly Heritage" (as the false "historian" David Barton formulates the "Christian conservative" Big Lie).

God has certainly blessed America with some men after His Own Heart in our national history: even a few in our political history. We have had times when the Spirit fired the people of our nation to levels of fervent worship much greater than today; and times of disbelief much greater than today's. But always God has kept for Himself a remnant for His Own possession, as He promises. He does so even now among us, and does always, in all nations where His Name is worshipped. And He upholds His Own always, by His sovereign mercy over all who love Him ! Praise HIM !!

But those spiritual realities have no real bearing on America's official national "godliness." That shibboleth has always been what it is now, a creature of political pretense, in the spirit of proud hypocrisy.

Wikipedia notes, for example, that "The 1956 [national motto] law was one of several legislative actions Congress took to differentiate the United States from atheistic Communism." As in the Civil War's coinage, we still want to believe, and assert, that God is on our side. (Lincoln aptly skewered that prideful attitude, when he told a delegation of clergymen that he thought it more important to be sure we were on God's side.)

The 1954 legislation adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance was another such case. The author of the legislation, Michigan Congressman Louis C. Rabaut, argued for its passage in Congress, that "... the unbridgeable gap between America and Communist Russia is a belief in Almighty God. From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C._Rabaut)

Interestingly, Rabaut was a Catholic, and a Democrat. On either count, today's "Christian conservatives" would doubtless find him persona non grata.

Even more interesting, the original pledge of allegiance, containing no reference to God, was written by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892. The absence of God in his formulation may seem surprising, but Bellamy's account of the pledge's origin (entered in The Congressional Record in 1945) emphasizes that its purpose was entirely patriotic:

"At the beginning of the nineties patriotism and national feeling was at a low ebb. The patriotic ardor of the Civil War was an old story ... The time was ripe for a reawakening of simple Americanism and the leaders in the new movement rightly felt that patriotic education should begin in the public schools."
(A Brief Synopsis of the Story of the Origin of the Pledge taken from the Detailed Narrative by Francis Bellamy, Author of the Pledge. Congressional Record 91 Cong. Rec. (1945) House. pp. 5510–5511.)

The "new movement" of which Bellamy was a leader was "Christian socialism." Given those origins, I'm surprised our current "conservatives" so vehemently embrace the pledge (George Bush Sr. campaigned for president on little else than being "for" the pledge of allegiance !). But ignorance of facts is a great shield against reality. Even were they aware of those facts, I'm sure "conservatives" would be able to deny it was true. Like all factionalists, they love truth only so far as it corresponds to their own worldview: in which "socialists" are America's greatest enemy, not "patriots."

But the only question that matters a whit in it all: what says God, Whom "conservatives" make the adjunct of their political posturing ?

God hates hypocrites. He hates most fiercely those who practice hypocrisy in HIS Name.

May God uphold His Name in power ! May He glorify Himself in the righteous judgement Jesus pronounced repeatedly, "Woe to you,...hypocrites !" (Matthew 23)

All praise to You, our King, for YOUR righteous rule and YOUR righteous judgement on evil-doers !!

Amen !!

Play-acting

"Middle voice from hupo and krino; to decide (speak or act) under a false part, i.e. (figuratively) dissemble (pretend) -- feign." -- Strong's Exhaustive Concordance


"ὑποκρίνομαι;

1. to take up another's statements in reference to what one has decided for oneself (middle κρίνομαι), i. e. to reply, answer (Homer, Herodotus, others).

2. to make answer (speak) on the stage, i. e. to personate anyone, play a part (often so from Demosthenes down). Hence,

3. to simulate, feign, pretend (from Demosthenes and Polybius down)..." -- Thayer's Greek Lexicon



"HUPOKRISIS...primarily denotes a reply, and answer...; then, play-acting as the actors spoke in dialogue; hence pretence, hypocrisy..." -- Vine's Expository Dictionary


It's a word Jesus used a lot, calling-out the social/political/religious fakers of His time. How are "religious" pretenders of our time, false in their hearts toward God, any less false in their "spin" towards man (His creation) and government (His rule) ?

And not those only who deliberately set their hearts to deceive. Every one of us who practices the scriptural discipline of monitoring our words, thoughts, and deeds to measure them against and keep them in line with Jesus' teachings, learns to keep a keen eye out for hints of hypocrisy. The beloved teacher Bob Mumford said one time he was convinced that any of us could turn hypocrite in an hour...or a minute.

I think of this every time I handle money. Every American bill and coin I pass proudly boasts, "In God We Trust." And every time I see that "national motto," I know in my heart, "No, we don't." Hypocrisy.

Of all Jesus' unchanging and unrelenting words to men, maybe the most relevant to America are those He addressed to social/political/religious fakers: "Woe to you !!"

If no one else hears Him, may the Spirit at least awaken the CHRISTIANS of America to repent !

Do You Hate the Government ? Link

It is such refreshment to hear God's voice ! Not only on the page of scripture, in the counsel and comfort of the Spirit, in worship, in meditation: but even from the fleshly lips of wo/men whom He (literally) in-Spirits to speak...as He promised in Power He would. I testify, what He promises, He DOES.

I've mentioned and/or linked to sites of these beloved servants: beloved by me for the refreshing and renewing of my own spirit by their speaking God's word: and beloved even more by God, Who fills them with His Own Spirit to speak !

In the sewer of American "Christian" blather, His true witnesses seem few, a remnant: and so each is all-the-more precious, to Him, to me. I love brother Tim, Onesimus of Australia; sister Susan in New Brunswick (despite my sometimes-sharp disagreements with her); brother Rick, Judah's Lion in Florida.

Through Susan's site, I today had the joy of "meeting" another who speaks God's refreshing word boldly: brother Frank, a Scot now living in the States. I am pleased to link to and recommend one of his powerful and thoughtful posts:

acalltotheremnant.com/2014/04/19/do-you-hate-the-government/


May God be glorified in the words and lives of all these His faithful servants !

God's Pleasure

About 5 years ago, God impressed me that if I wanted to draw closer to Him, I needed to set aside a time to be with Him and listen to Him. Since then I've followed that discipline, spending time with Him, usually in our church' sanctuary on Saturday afternoon.

I've learned in that experience mindfulness of Who He IS: to not rush into the King's Presence, but to approach Him in all reverence, and wait to be called into His Presence. Waiting hopefully, it's joy each time He receives me in Jesus' Name. Received in His love for The Son, I know and rejoice in Him as my own Father, when He joyfully bids me approach.

In His Presence, I try to open my heart to listen for whatever He wants to speak to my spirit. Sometimes it's that I pray for fellow-Christians; specific people, or our poor congregation, or the back-slidden American Church. Sometimes it's worship, praising Him to His Face for His great power, for His mercy extending eternally. Sometimes it's to sit in wordless reverence before His all-encompassing Majesty. But sometimes I spend most of the hour frustrated, trying to bring my own intruding thoughts under control so I can hear Him.

This week, He chose to impress on me His pleasure. It's not that He never has before: but this time it was His entire purpose toward me, and surprised me. I seldom think of God being pleased with me.

I know the theological theory: that pleasing God is the absolute HIGHEST purpose anyone can ever aspire to, or achieve. And perhaps because I know it is the ultimate, I tend to think of it happening only extremely rarely...and then only to the spiritual giants of the past: Moses, Isaiah, Paul, John. I know that's false; but still operate often in that attitude.

So it caught me completely by surprise to hear He is pleased with me.

The only thought that came in my surprise was, "Why, Father ?"

He impressed on my mind, "That you obey Me."

But for my wrong mindset, it should have been no surprise: it's the only way any human being ever has or ever can please God. It was everything that Jesus claimed for Himself; that He came "...to do...the will of Him Who sent Me" (John 6:38).

Meditating since, Praise Him !! The Only integral sovereign BE-ING, I AM THAT I AM from everlasting to everlasting perfect and complete, sovereignly deigns to receive even our least tentative faltering attempt to obey Him as worthy of HIS pleasure !

Again I say, PRAISE HIM !! PRAISE HIM !!

Murder as Political Gain

Sunday of this week, 3 people were murdered in broad daylight in a nearby city. The victims were killed entering a local Jewish community-center, and a Jewish nursing-home. They were murdered by a lifelong anti-Semite and white-power activist.

The grandfather and grandson shot at the Jewish Community Center were going to a singing contest in which the grandson was competing. The woman shot at the nursing-home, a wife and mother, was there to visit her own elderly mother. None of the victims were Jewish.

For the past few weeks, our church has suspended Sunday School classes to watch a video series by Adam Hamilton about Jesus' last days. Hamilton is a pastor in a local city, whose solidly-biblical teachings have made his congregation the largest in our Methodist district. He is much-admired in our congregation. (Hamilton was the speaker at a Presidential prayer-breakfast a couple years ago: the same year a video of a violently anti-Obama sermon was filmed in front of a Presidential seal, and circulated by "conservatives" who falsely claimed it was given at that year's prayer-breakfast.)

The grandfather and grandson murdered on Sunday were members of Adam Hamilton's congregation.

The murderer was well-known to state and federal law-enforcement. He'd been discharged from the U.S. Army Special Forces for distributing racist propaganda. He founded The White Patriot Party in North Carolina soon after. He'd run for state and national elective offices, in North Carolina and in Missouri, on anti-Semitic and white-power platforms. His political party was put under court-injunction when it was found to be plotting the assassination of an anti-hate group leader. He'd done time in federal prison when he and 3 like-minded men were subsequently arrested in possession of large quantities of military-level weaponry. He's said to be an Odinist.

On our church' e-mail list, we regularly receive prayer requests: for upcoming church activities, members of the congregation who are ill, the families of local folks who have passed away, etc. There are also prayer requests for victims of various natural disasters and violence, national and international.

We received a request in December 2012, for example, that we pray for the families of the 28 people killed at Sandy Hook, Connecticut. I remember that time vividly, because of the great evil done to children; and because one of our church-members responded to the prayer-request with a forwarded defence of gun-rights by the father of a Columbine High School shooting-victim. He argued that mass-murders happen because of evil in human hearts; so "...you who would point your finger at the NRA...examine your own heart before casting the first stone !"

I was aghast, and rather angry, that the friend who sent that politically-inspired response could be so warped by the N.R.A.'s relentless propaganda that she thought it important for Christians, in the face of Sandy Hook's horror, to not lose sight of the inviolability of gun-rights. I wrote that friend, and cc:ed the mailing-list:

"What spiritual problem of a fallen
society is remedied by having more guns,
and more unrestricted access to guns ?

Romans 13 is clear. One of human
government's mandates from God is to
restrain evil. Murder is evil."


This week so far, the church' e-mail list had had no prayer-request for the families of the folks killed on Sunday: even though two of them were part of a local congregation known to, and admired by, our church' people. I trust there's not a political motive behind that omission: for example, that mention of those murders might seem to favor gun-control.

I sent a prayer-request to the church' list this morning: for the victims' families, and for the murderer and his family. No mention of "gun-rights" one way or the other. There is NO place in our spiritual warfare for grinding any political ax.

Amen.

David Barton

I think I became aware of David Barton when a local pastor I knew slightly wrote a piece for our newspaper's 4th of July edition, about the founding fathers' fervent Christianity. His piece was full of factual errors, much less erroneous interpretation, so I wrote him privately. After all, his piece had been presented to this university town as representing the local Christian community: and there were academic historians reading it, knowing even better than I do that most of his assertions about American history were false.

He was kind enough to write me back, defending what he'd said as true, and citing his source: David Barton's "Wallbuilders" website. I'm a longtime student of American history, so I looked at "Wallbuilders" to see if it had some worthwhile information I'd missed. Quite the contrary: the site's "information" was simply untrue, to an obviously-dishonest purpose. Such stuff has to offend anyone who values accurate history: but there's little that can be done to counter it. There are always people who will buy into fringe beliefs like the Atlantean age, or British Israelites. Honest history never seems to dissuade people who want to believe lies.

I just wrote off David Barton's crack-pot history as undeserving of serious attention. Others didn't take that view. The Republican Party of Texas elected Barton its Chairman eight times. The Republican National Committee named Barton its "liaison to social conservatives" during the 2004 Bush presidential campaign. In 2005, Time magazine profiled Barton as one of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." (Barton frequently refers to this honor on his "Wallbuilders" website and in his Who's Who entry, but without quoting Time's biography: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1993235_1993243_1993261,00.html. More on that below.)

But unlike some of Time's "Influential Evangelicals," whom I respect as spiritual leaders (Billy Graham, Joyce Meyer, J. I. Packer, Chuck Colson, Rick Warren), Barton was singled out for his political influence on American Christians (see above). Barton's influence grows from his role as the founder of (in Time's words) "what might be called Christian counter-history," and its power to sway Christian voters. That influence continues: I understand that in 2012 Barton was chosen to help write the Republican platform...on which a Mormon priest ran for President.

But though his influence on Christians (and the country) is political, Barton studiously avoids mentioning politics. His high political achievements are the kinds of things anyone would ordinarily cite proudly in their Who's Who biography, or on their own website. Barton doesn't. Even his "Wallbuilder's" mention of Time's honor as an "influential Evangelical" links to that issue's cover: not to its biographical sketch detailing his work as a professional Republican operative. That reticence seems very curious, unless Barton wants to appear non-political...which he's emphatically not.

Barton's also been deceptive in claiming to be a "historian," and has only recently stopped referring to himself that way on his website. If his (self-written) Who's Who biography can be believed, he has a bachelor's degree in Christian Education. That in itself is not damning. Many amateur historians have done excellent and important work, despite having no formal training in history: Barbara Tuchman (with a degree in journalism) and David McCullough (English) come readily to mind. But Barton's version of America's "Christian heritage" fails AS history on that discipline's most basic standard, applicable to amateur and professional alike: factual accuracy, and honest interpretive methods.

More importantly, Barton's politically-skewed "history" doesn't meet Christians' most basic standard: love of the Truth/Jesus. Barton cites events which never happened, or didn't happen the way he portrays them, and quotes people as saying things they never said or wrote (his own website has a large section of "Disputed Quotations" where he attempts to defend the latter); and interprets it all in manifestly-biased ways that amount to "conservative" propaganda.

I used to pray that God would convict David Barton of his lies and his deceptive practices. But when a person's worldly success is based on untruth (Glenn Beck, for example, or Rush Limbaugh), it's particularly hard for them to repent: even if they are still able to recognize Truth. (And if I understand scripture correctly, men can so obstinately refuse to "receive the love of the Truth" that God sends on them "strong delusions," so that they can no longer recognize saving Truth. II Thessalonians 2:7-12)

All I know is that David Barton has taught, and continues to teach, lies. His lies are specifically intended to deceive Christians, for base political purposes. That much is manifest to any honest examination of the man and his teachings. But God examines the heart: He Alone is the sovereign Judge of David Barton's heart.

I can testify, however, that I no longer feel God leads me to pray for Barton to repent. Toward him, I feel led instead to pray that God will glorify Himself in destroying the enemies of Truth. That in His mercy, He will protect His people's hearts from the lies by which the enemy tries to lead us away from His Beloved Son ! That He will stir His people's love of Truth to intense flame ! I pray (as right now) that God will exalt His Name, putting to shame the father of lies and his evil-workers !

It's a prayer every Christian should pray. It's a prayer of protection for every one who loves our God and His Chosen; and of destruction on every enemy of Christ. It's a prayer pleasing to God. And He alone, the only righteous Judge of mens' hearts, determines who He is pleased to protect, and who He wills to destroy.

Whatever God determines toward David Barton, His judgements are righteous altogether, and are Glory to our King ! Praise Him !!

Amen !!

Drawing the Line II

Ted Williams was the last man in major-league baseball to bat over .400. He credited his hitting ability to his visual acuity, which tested at 20/10 when he entered the Navy in 1942. Williams claimed that he could see the spin of the ball's stitches from the moment it left the pitcher's hand, which told him the ball's future motion and placement when it reached home-plate.

An interviewer asked Williams about his legendary batting skills. It was simple, Williams said: he didn't swing at any ball except those which touched the strike-zone.

"But with your eyesight," said the interviewer, "surely you could have hit pitches that were only a sixteenth of an inch outside, or an eighth of an inch. Couldn't you have gotten even more hits that way ?"

"NO !" Williams said. "If I did that, where would I draw the line ?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cited this anecdote in a previous blog-post, that American Christians also need to draw the line: in our case, against the creeping worldliness that has led us far astray. It came back to mind today in a different connection: who draws the line ?

Ted Williams understood the strike-zone was built into the rules of the game. He simply determined to observe those rules.

So who draws the line ?

When I started work for the Post Office in the late '70s, they were still talking about a recent employee who'd been convicted of murdering her boyfriend. The testimony was that she'd shot and killed him after an argument one hot afternoon. Her defense ?: "I told him not to move that fan."

If "every man does what is right in his own eyes," who can say I'm wrong to kill anyone who displeases me ? I draw my own line, for my own reasons: and don't you dare move that fan.

Or if the armed anarchistic autonomy some clamor for today is not to our taste, are the brawling tribes of the earth better able to draw the line ? Don't we have the example of all history, that they will do as they have always done in their national moral autonomy, and find it laudable to murder in defence of "national interests" ?

We who believe that God Alone Fathers life, Creates "the game" and its rules: is He not Alone the Only righteous Judge fit to rule when the life He has given should be forfeit ?

No Light in America

My wife and I got a chance to actually talk this morning. It doesn't happen often. We're both on the verge of formal "retirement," with all that entails: and raising a 3-year old and 2 teenagers. We seldom get a chance to really talk to each other.

We have some different ways of viewing things, but mostly the same way as regards the faith. And we have many of the same disappointments regards our nation, and state, and church. The welcome opportunity to talk clarified again the simple outlines of that disappointment.

In broadest terms, disappointment that so many in our country are looking to politics for their truth: for the personal attitudes, deeply-held beliefs, and talking-points they choose to embrace ! Politics can be many things, and not all of them are evil: but looking to politics for truth is so profoundly foolish it must qualify as true insanity.

More grievous is that Christians look to politics for truth !! And infinitely more grievous, that Christians trust in politics...the world's method...to put the world's evils right.

If seeking truth from politics is insanity, trusting politics for spiritual and moral wellbeing is the most profound deception and unbelief. And both are the operative ways of most "evangelical" American Christians !

May God send His Spirit of DEEP REPENTANCE on His deluded people !! Amen !!

Reality Check

I've looked at the Church' danger in hundreds of different ways God reveals. He's awakened me to hundreds of deceits the enemy works to destroy Christ' Body and Christ' witness in us.

It still all comes down to this: Jesus IS the Truth. If we follow lies, we are not following Jesus.

Amen.

Cursing your ruler

"You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people." (Exodus 22:28)

Just another of the miscellaneous laws Moses laid out for the Israelites in the wilderness. How seriously are we supposed to take that ? Isn't cursing our rulers just par for the human course ?

But God obviously considers cursing a ruler a very great sin: He links it with cursing Himself. He doesn't specify the punishment: but we know He ordered a half-Egyptian Israelite stoned to death for cursing His Name. (Leviticus 24:10-16) Job's wife also understood death to be God's judgement for cursing Him, advising her husband to "Curse God and die." (Job 2:9)

Paul obviously took the law against cursing a ruler seriously. When he was brought before the Jews' ruling council in Jerusalem, Ananias, the High Priest, ordered someone to punch Paul in the mouth. Paul "reviled" his persecutor as a "whitewashed wall," until he was told Ananias was "God's High Priest." He backed down immediately, pleading ignorance of Ananias' office, "...for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.' " (Acts 23:5)

We know at least part of how Paul understood God's command to not curse (or, per Acts, "revile," or "speak evil of") a ruler. Romans 13 makes clear the Church' understanding that Christians should "be subject to" human rulers (even, in the book of Romans' time, the legendarily evil ruler Nero), because they rule by God's sovereign choice, and in His authority. And those who "resist authority" (no doubt including cursing the ruler) opposes God's law, and will suffer the consequences.

Whether or not Paul wrote the book of Romans, he was a Christian, and a leader of the Church: it's inconceivable that he would have rejected that teaching. Indeed, his actions before the Jerusalem council show him practicing that teaching. Upon learning that Ananias...who had personally played a key role in condemning Jesus to death...was "God's High Priest," Paul immediately, publicly, repented of his "reviling" words against him.

God puts His command to "...not...curse a ruler of your people" on some kind of equality with not cursing Himself. The writer of Romans gives us further insight into why God views that as sin. The Church taught that this was God's commandment, and that Christians should obey it even when the ruler de jour was Nero. Paul acted in obedience to that commandment.

And what do you say about the ruler of your people, American Christian ? That America's President in any regard tries to obey God's mandate that human rulers be "a minister of God to you for good" ? Or does mention of the name "Obama" raise in your spirit a stream of the vilest hatred and slander ?

Do the words that flow from Christians' mouths, e-mails, facebook posts, and blogs show what spirit is in them ?

If so, may America's Church learn what God means when He commands "You shall not...curse a ruler of your people;" and deeply repent.

A Praise

Very creation sings His Presence: His ravishing beauty, His power.

Does anything He's graced, not ?

He Fathers Life; and all life lives giving and receiving, expends as He IS, Love, in Love.

Man, His creation, beautified in Him, lives graced by Love for Love.

He IS, in all, His Presence His Love, His Praise, Life.

All, sing love praise live HIM.

Amen, Amen.

The Problem With Democracy

During World War I, the U.S. Secretary of War decided that prostitution was a danger to the health and moral fiber of soldiers and sailors. Red-light districts near military bases were ordered shut down. Martin Behrman, political boss and mayor of New Orleans, reluctantly complied by shutting down the city's legendary Storyville district: famously remarking, "You can make prostitution illegal in New Orleans, but you can't make it unpopular."

The problem with democracy is a moral problem: sin is popular. Government of, by, and for the people will be as people are: and people are sinners.

Today we're seeing majority popular opinion becoming more accepting of abortion and gay marriage: so we increasingly have laws protecting those evils as "rights." Public opinion is being professionally manipulated to view gun "rights" as sacred: so legislators (politicians who keep their jobs by giving people what they want) rush to make it so in law.

But the deeper problem of democracy is that "people rule" (as "democracy" means) is the exact opposite of the government God desires, intends, warrants, decrees, empowers, pledges, and guarantees among men: His Own Kingdom.

In this choice, this head-to-head confrontation of governments, Jesus cries to followers of democracy the first word He cried to this fallen world, and cries today and always,

REPENT !!

I'm Not Sure

I'm re-reading James 1. Had recommended that as a starting-place for a new believer who's never really read the Bible before, and I wanted to hear it again myself before talking about what he got from it.

One of my favorite verses is in that chapter: "If any man lack wisdom..." I certainly know that's me. But I can still remember when the full import...the operative reality...of that verse hit me 10 or 15 years ago: and I did what James said.

One time when our men's group was studying James, I asked the guys if they'd ever asked God for wisdom. They all said they had, of course. But as we talked about it, it became clear they meant they'd asked God for wisdom in some particular circumstance. It struck me at the time that that was true and good, as far as it went: but that my understanding of the verse was somewhat different.

I put it aside to think about, like other somewhat-differences I note between my own thinking and other believers'.

Maybe I have a handle on it now...maybe not. But I understand James to mean we can ask God for wisdom as a lifestyle (an over-worked word, but the right one here). That's not to say prayer for circumstantial wisdom is at all inapplicable, or any kind of error. It's also not to say that it's either/or: even those who pray for a life of wisdom doubtless have circumstances arise which require particular prayer.

So where does the shade or increment of difference lie ? Prayer for circumstantial wisdom is as obedient to the scripture as prayer for a wise life: and I don't doubt, as fully honored by God. Yet there is something greater in God's pleasure with Solomon's asking for wisdom: and I understand Solomon was asking for wisdom in all that God had given him, more than to act wisely in a particular circumstance (I Chronicles 1:10-12).

I'm not sure: but perhaps God's greater pleasure is in Solomon's trusting Him for more: for all time, rather than one time. That seems to accord with James' words regards wisdom: that God gives generously to any who ask Him without doubting. It makes sense to me that His pleasure, and His generosity, is greater when we trust Him, act-in-belief toward Him, for all things. The latter is how I understand Jesus' Own walk, and His teaching...the Kingdom of God.