About "Issues"

 I'm skeptical of "issues."  They primarily serve the purposes of politicians, who manufacture them at every opportunity.

Manufacture them because issues are a guaranteed way to get people to take "sides:" the work-of-the-flesh that Galatians 5:20 calls "factions."  As I've noted many times here, the Greek word is haireseis, from which we get our English word "heresy."  Strong's glosses haireseis as "a self-chosen opinion:"

If scripture classes "factions" as fleshly sin, we must know it has no place in a Christian's life.  The fact it manifests "self-chosen opinion" should tell us where taking "sides" about issues positions us in regard to Christ, The Word and The Truth.

Capital punishment has been one such "issue" in our society all my life.  I was thinking about it today: thinking especially that the worst thing that ever happens to a moral question is that it be framed as an "issue," subject to politicians' self-serving manipulation.  The worst thing we do with a moral question is take it on politicians' terms, and take a partisan "side" towards it according to our "self-chosen opinions."

I certainly have an "opinion" about capital punishment, and probably most people do.

But I was thinking of the times I hear a news-story about some murderer's sentencing.  In their "victim-impact statement" to the Court, it's surprising how often families of murder-victims use that opportunity to tell the murderer they forgive him.

More than once, I've heard family-members say they forgive because "I have to," as did some family-members of the nine Bible-study victims of white-supremacist murderer Dylann Roof.  Their desire to obey Jesus compelled them to forgive others, as they know they are forgiven in Him.

More than once I've heard families of murder-victims even ask that the Court not sentence the murderer to death.

When that happens, it's delusional to respond by "opinion," or even think opinions matter.  At such times, followers of Jesus will be powerfully moved in their spirit by the manifest working of His Spirit.  Amen.

Being Misunderstood

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Nothing infuriates me more than being misunderstood.

I know that "understanding" is the other person's job.  If I say what I mean as clearly as I can, that's all that I can do, or be expected to do.  I can't "understand" for someone else.  

My problem (and it is my problem) is thinking that if I explain things again, in a slightly different way, the person I'm talking to will be able to "get it."  And if they don't, maybe another try, from a different angle, will get across to them what I'm saying.  In library-school terms, I tend to "re-package" information to make it "accessible" to the "consumer."

But I know that amounts to trying to make another person understand, which isn't in my control.  And it always has something of manipulation to it, when you try to make another person's cognitive processes work the way you want them to.

That kind of "manipulation" isn't always a bad thing.  Anyone who teaches (formally or informally) is manipulating another person's cognitive processes, to a desired end.  It's the process we call "learning," and human society could not exist without it.

And anyone who has ever tried to teach another person something, formally or informally, knows that there are people who simply don't will to, or even consciously will NOT to, learn.  Many times the frustration of talking to people who "don't get it" is that they clearly don't want to understand, or want to "understand" only in their own terms.

Yesterday in Sunday School we were talking (after watching a rather "pious," in the not-best sense, Max Lucado film about the resurrection) about forgiveness.  That isn't it wonderful God forgives us; and doesn't He command us to forgive each other; and how many times did Jesus say we should forgive others ?

My thought was that forgiving people who do wrong is one thing: but that there are people who are wrong.  That forgiveness is redemptive toward those who recognize right and wrong, and can see that they've done wrong; but wasted toward those who vest their identity in wrong character.

In John 8 Jesus confronted some of "...those...who had believed Him," telling them they were children of the devil, because they wanted to lie and murder, just like their father.  In II Thessalonians 2 God says He eventually writes off those who persist in refusing to "...receive the love of the truth so as to be saved:" and at that point Himself sends them a "deluding influence" ("strong delusion," KJV) so they will believe a lie.  

Obviously none of us manifest Jesus' "seamless" Character (Lucado talked at great length about how Jesus' seamless garment was like His Character)...but people unmistakably show what they are by whether they love truth, or love lies.

One gal in the class disagreed, as she has before, by saying people had certainly fooled her before.  Which is true, for any of us.  People have certainly fooled me before.

But it seemed to miss my point, which was that everyone is unmistakably of one character or the other.  The way God sees it is that human beings are either of the spirit of truth, or that of lies.  We have to say God sees it rightly...and we have to see it the way He does.  That simple.

It also seems simple to do.  We have the Holy Spirit, Whom Jesus called "the Spirit of Truth:" we only need to listen to Him to see it as God sees it.  And to hear what He says, we only need to ask Him.

What I replied to my sister was something like "The Holy Spirit doesn't get fooled."  I didn't mean it that way, but thought later she may have taken that as a put-down: that she wasn't spiritual enough.  She may have even taken it as "I'm spiritual, and you're not," and been offended.  I don't know.

I doubt she's one of those people who choose to misunderstand, because they don't want to hear what you're saying: but I think she misunderstood.  She was talking about person-to-person perception, and I wasn't.  There can only be understanding when two people are talking about the same thing.

Nonetheless, it was frustrating to be misunderstood.  Quite apart from the fact I felt like I was saying something important about how God sees things, and how we must see things, it was frustrating on a person-to-person level.

Frustrating that I said what I meant as clearly as I could, and it evidently didn't get across to people.  Frustrating that people will "understand" my words the way they choose to, and I can't do anything about it.

Frustrating that my sister may have been offended because of the way she "understood" my words, and if so, there's nothing I can do about that either.  If offended, I hope she'll remember that our context was God's command we forgive each other.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Repentance

In the first gospel, it was the first word Jesus spoke as He began His public ministry: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17). It's the very first step by which the unrighteous and unholy (ourselves) must approach Him Who IS Righteousness and Holiness: and a continual requirement of a continuing relationship with Him. But how do we get there ?

Meditating on that question, there seem two requirements. I'm not sure of their order, or ranking: or if they should be ordered or ranked. Indeed, the two work so closely together I'm not sure they're separate things at all, except for convenience in talking about them. In themselves, they seem more like intertwined aspects of one reality.

Honesty with ourself, about our self, seems crucial: how else can we unrighteous and unholy ever perceive, much less admit, that's what we are ? But, apart from Sovereign grace, how can malefactors such as we are even conceive a measure perfect enough to gauge our own depravity ?

Yet we do. C. S. Lewis points out in opening Mere Christianity that we all behave as if we believe there's a universally-recognized moral standard: we appeal to it, as if certain everyone knows the rules, when we are wronged by someone flouting it. And more to the point, we go to elaborate lengths to justify our own shabby behavior in terms of that standard: arguing that we did not really transgress its rules because (insert excuse here).

Unrighteous and unholy as we are, we yet seem to believe there is a "right" and "wrong," which others (at least in their dealings with us) should adhere to. Our choice for honesty comes in how we personally relate to that moral standard we believe incumbent on all...do we believe it incumbent on ourself ? If we except our self from its authority, we lie to ourselves that we acknowledge its absolute force. Honesty with ourselves begins in acknowledging that we are limited beings: and limited first as subject to a standard of righteousness independent of our own desires and purposes.

If we are not thus honest with ourself about our self, how honest can we be with God ? The only possible honesty to God is acknowledging we are NOT God. If we hold ourselves only to a standard whose highest "good" is our self, how truly do we acknowledge One more righteous and holy than ourself: or how honestly desire His forgiveness, if we're satisfied with our own ? The dishonest heart's repentance and forgiveness are hollow; a lie; self-deceiving religious form; hypocrisy. Only fierce honesty can repent as God requires, in spirit and in truth.

Repentance also requires (in the wonderful title of Derek Prince' seminal teaching) agreeing with God. First, that HE IS GOD: that His rule and His law (present in attenuated form in Lewis' "universally-recognized moral code") are infinitely more righteous than our own. In the same honesty, our heart must agree with God's that we have transgressed against His righteousness, rule and law: no excuses. Repentance.

If we agree with God that He IS The King and The Authority, honesty must acknowledge Him as the One against Whom we transgress. If we agree, as He says, that He is the Judge, honesty must recognize His right to condemn and His power to punish. Unless we agree honestly with God that "I AM" is Sovereign- and True-Alone GOD as He says, our repentance is empty: and worse than empty, it is the stench of fleshly self in His nostrils.

With any honest heart which agrees in Him, God is pleased: His pleasure, the highest honor granted by The King. And to any who thus pleases Him, He is pleased to give more of HIMSELF: His mercy-to-forgive, His Fatherly care...even adoption as His sons. To honest hearts, He grants the greatest desire to which man can aspire: God's Own PRESENCE, now and forever.

All praise to HIM Who IS all in all. Amen.