What's Wrong With This Picture ?

God delegates His Authority to human government with a moral mandate: that it be "...a minister of God to you for good..." (Romans 13:4).

American Christians today are fierce partisans of a political faction whose agenda includes


contempt for the poor;

more armed people with attitude on our streets;

restricting the right to vote;

low wages for the working-poor;

less affordable health-care for all.



As a simple moral judgement, how is that faction's agenda good towards people ?


What's wrong with this picture of American Christianity ?

My Opinion

The Greek of the New Testament seems to distinguish two kinds of opinion.

The first word translated as "opinion" is dialogismos in Romans 14:1. It's the word from which we get "dialogue;" as Strong's says, it denotes man's internal " '...back-and-forth reasoning' – reasoning that is self-based and therefore confused..." The word is more often interpreted in the New Testament as "reasonings;" but also "thoughts," "motives," "speculations," "doubts," "dissensions." It's frequently used of the teachers of the law who posed hostile questions to Jesus about His teachings.

(And indeed, His listeners were amazed that Jesus' teaching had none of this kind of opinion..."for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Mark 1:22; also Matthew 7:29 and Luke 4:32. The near-contemporaneous Mishnah, first part of the Talmud, exemplifies the teachings of the scribes: "Rabbi Akiva taught...on the other hand, Reb Meir said..." Jesus taught no such human "reasonings:" and when the One Who IS "the Truth" affirmed Truth, His authority was manifest to His listeners.)

The second word translated as "opinion" is gnómé, in I Corinthians 7: 25 and 40, and II Corinthians 8:10. It is the usual Greek word for "to know:" as Strong's says, "...a personal opinion or judgment formed in (by) an active relationship, the result of direct ('first-hand') knowledge." The most frequent interpretation of the word is "judgement:" but it's also translated as "decision," "counsel," "view," "purpose."

As used in Romans, we are told to accept weak believers, but not for the purpose of judging their "opinions/reasonings." In the I and II Corinthians passages, Paul gives his "opinion/judgement" on marriage, and on making a collection for the saints.

The New Testament view of "opinion" is very much as we use the word today: that it's a (wo)man's personal view, from internal reasonings and personal experience. In view of Isaiah 55:8-9, opinion has to be deeply mistrusted, as man's thoughts rather than God's. But by Paul's usage (though "judgement" seems a better translation of the word he uses), we have to allow that "opinion," when one's personal thoughts have been transformed by personal experience of God, may be worth taking into account.

It's noteworthy, however, that in all his uses of "opinion" when writing to the Corinthian Church, Paul draws an explicit line. He makes a clear demarcation of "my judgement" (my emphasis), and goes so far as to remind readers that his "judgement" is "no command of the Lord."

With that scriptural understanding of "opinion:" what God tells us about "opinion:" I give my opinion, from personal experience. Sunday School is usually a place people go to spout their differing fleshly "reasonings." "Bible studies" likewise. To that extent, neither edifies the spirit of believers, or builds up the Church.

Keeping It Light

"This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." -- I John 1:5


Meditating today on the first chapter of First John, this verse hit me: that God's first creation was light...revealing and giving Himself to creation, before creation even existed.

The verse also called to mind a recent comment on "Following Judah's Lion" by brother Rick Frueh: "Instead of seeing a remarkable light, the fallen culture sees its own shadow in the church."

Thinking Straight About Everything

It's truly said that everybody has a theology. Even atheists have "ideas about God" that they operate on. Indeed, they, like Satan, are created beings in rebellion against God...which makes Him as much the Center of their lives as He IS for the most-dedicated believer.

It's also true that we all have our beliefs about human beings.

Those two belief-systems, I think, are where we get all our thinking right: or, it seems more often, wrong.

My beloved brother Tim, in his "Onesimus Files" blog, has been writing about many aspects of the "cessationist" controversy, newly stirred up by John MacArthur's anti-charismata "Strange Fire" book and conference. In reading and musing on his posts, it seems clear to me that MacArthur and his followers base their beliefs in basic false ideas of God, and of man:

that God may withdraw His "charismata and calling," as Romans 11:29 specifically says He does not;

that when men do not receive God's grace (and "charismata" denotes "manifestations of grace," charis), it is God's fault.

All false ideas come from some error-of-concept in our thinking about God, or about man. But it's hard to think of a false idea so deeply grounded in both kinds of error as "cessationism" is.

Sin and Sinner

The rule-of-thumb we always hear seems a good one: "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." I'd take that as the governing attitude of Christian practice: possibly even an absolute for Christians' relationship to other people.

I've been musing on a related question: not our relationship to a sinner, but a sinner's relationship to his sin. Wondering especially if sin and sinner can always be regarded as discrete entities.

This wisdom of God's power in free will being as sovereign as He IS, I'd hesitate to say that any human being...even a Nero or Hitler...is ever completely unable to turn away from, and separate himself from, his sin. I'm convinced deathbed conversions do happen.

At the same time, we know that anyone who devotes his life completely to a sin has so ingrained it in his being, in all his patterns of thought and behavior, that it is almost impossible for him to think of, much less act, any other kind of life. The fact that a rare few do is only by the mercy of God...Who rules over near-, as well as absolute, impossibilities.

But there does seem to be a line that can be crossed. Scripture is very clear, for example, that God hates pride...a sin. At the same time, scripture denotes some people as "the proud:" as if their behavior (and it's always a matter of what people do) so manifests pride that the sin virtually becomes the identity of the sinner.

It's a frightening fact of the freedom of free will. As C. S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce, "All that are in Hell, choose it." I see that frightening freedom as well in what II Thessalonians 2:10b says of those who follow the end-time's man of lawlessness, calling them "...those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." Love of truth can be received: it can also be rejected.

That verse sends me back again to the matter of identity. When I read in scripture the words "the truth," I have to understand it as meaning "Jesus:" since He so identified Himself. Here, then, those who perish, perish because they choose not to receive the love of Jesus' Person. By His "I AM...The Truth," He claims that "The Truth" is His identity.

The enemy in this passage also has an identity, "the man of lawlessness;" as if so completely of that character that it is the sum of who he is. That identity makes sense in this context: lawlessness is rebelliousness, and satan has constituted himself the great cosmic rebel against God's authority and rule. Who else could the end-time's deceiver be ?

We all sin, and have sins to our (dis-)credit. But I think most of us can ask God forgive our sins with the wise words a friend of mine prays: "Father, please forgive me my sin. You know my heart, and you know that's not me." (my emphasis) We pray as if we fear so identifying with our sin that it becomes our very being.

Where Are the Disciples ?

Re-reading J. I. Packer's Knowing God, and enjoying again its great practicality. He's not writing theology, Packer is quick to point out. Nor does he intend to feed our curiosity about God, which we too often try to substitute for knowing Him.

Rather, Packer writes commonsense of what it means to know God, and how a man can know Him.

"Practicality" and "commonsense" are the tip off. Knowing God is an action; and not a reflex-action. Knowing God is the choice of a free will...which God has given us in preparation.

Choice has been looming larger and larger in my thinking of late. It seems more and more that everything is, particularly in our spiritual being. It rings true for me, as C.S. Lewis said, that everyone in hell, chooses it. Even moreso, that all who know God, choose to.

Choice is a function of directed intentionality. It's a good definition of "discipline."

In language as in life, "disciple" comes from "discipline." A disciple sets his intentions on Jesus. There's no other way to know God.

Christians' "Rights"

The beloved brother Rick Frueh recently posted the following on his "Following Judah's Lion" blog:

“Let the government refuse to allow a nativity scene in front of some government building and Christians complain loudly and clothe themselves in martyrs’ robes. Beside the fact that Christmas is an idol, and beside the fact that not allowing a nativity scene is not persecution… how can people complain, when Jesus Himself said we should rejoice in the face of persecution?

We watch our Savior suffer for us but we are unwilling to receive the slightest disrespect ourselves.”


Thinking through the question many years ago, it seemed that what we call "rights" are quintessentially "entitlements:" treatment we deem we are entitled to. An added benefit of framing "rights" in those terms is that it shocks the Political-Christianity thinking of our nation and time, which despises "entitlements:" in their terminology, government help given to people (they consider) unworthy of mercy, such as the unemployed, poor, disabled, or non-citizens.

Rick's post highlights another aspect of "rights." Inherent in the concept is respect we deem we are entitled to.

In both facts, "rights" are clearly rooted in our self-concept, with accent on "Self." Not a mindset Christians can indulge and still follow Jesus.

And He is the best argument I know against Christians' "rights:" what entitlement did the Suffering Servant claim for Himself ? What respect did He demand that He be accorded ?

Knowing God

“…we must say that knowing God involves, first, listening to God’s Word and receiving it as the Holy Spirit interprets it, in application to oneself; second, noting God’s nature (sic) and character (sic), as His Word and works reveal it; third, accepting His invitations and doing what He commands; fourth, recognizing and rejoicing in the love that he (sic) has shown in thus approaching you and drawing you into this divine fellowship.”

-- J. I. Packer, Knowing God (1973; Intervarsity Press), p. 37

Tea Party: Definition

I often think Ambrose Bierce got the political factions right in his Devil's Dictionary:


"Conservative. (n.) A politician enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."


But we don't yet have a good definition of "Tea Party." Given that faction's prominence, we need one.

I provisionally offer the following.


"Tea Party. (n.) a heavily-armed irrational faction following lies; including that they are the best guardians of America's peace and safety."

You have the right....

I don't THINK I'm particularly acerbic in pointing out to friends when they are spreading some lie in their blog, or e-mail, or facebook posts. I hope not. My problem has always been rather being too deferential, and low-key.

That being so, I can only lay the rage that often follows, when a lie is challenged, to our human desire to always be RIGHT: or at least, to never have our own pronouncements questioned as if they could be wrong.

What God has brought me to over long years, is that questions of what's true are never personal: that is to say, they are not about me. They are however definitively PERSONal to Jesus, Who claimed to be, Himself, "the Truth" (John 14:6).

In that consideration, anyone who points out when we are following (or worse, spreading) some lie does us a great kindness, warning us that our walk is straying from following the One Who IS also Himself "the way" (ibid). That's "the way" God has brought me to see it (again, over some years): and I think and operate that way pretty consistently (entirely God's doing, over those same years).

Since every question about truth is about Jesus, I'm learning also that I don't need to defend myself against fire-back when people are offended. Knowing I'm human and fallible, I'll double-check what I witness is Truth. But if it checks out on re-checking, Truth is Truth: and He hardly needs me to defend Him.

Sometimes, as today, double-checking even turns up further evidence it is the truth. I shared that with my facebook "friend" who attacked my first witness to truth: and I'll leave the double-verified truth with him, take it or leave it. Those who don't want Truth can't be made to hear Him.

It may be a particularly American thing, but those who feel I'm attacking them (rather than the lies they choose to spread) often seem to fall back on some assertion of their "rights." I might paraphrase that attitude as "I can believe what I WANT to !!"

It effectively moves the question away from Truth...which is probably the intent. We know in our hearts a lie cannot stand, but don't want to admit it is a lie: so we change the subject away from the uncomfortable question "what is Truth ?"

But making it instead a question of "rights" seems such a very odd defense: as if challenging anything we WILL to believe somehow violates our freedom.

Perhaps so. But from my perspective: knowing on Jesus' testimony that He is "the truth," and that satan is "the father of lies:" leaving Truth out of the matter seems a guaranteed way to make disastrous choices. Or perhaps there are people who are always and absolutely "right"... ?

And that's our the problem. We know good and well there are no such infallible people. But when we demand our "right" to make choices without being challenged, we act as if we are such autonomous creatures: indeed, as if we are a god, and need answer to no one...even Truth Himself.

I'll formally affirm here my confession of Christ: every human being, in every human way, is ACCOUNTABLE to The One Who IS The Truth.

That accountability extends even to "Christians" writing lying blogs, lying e-mails, and posting lies on facebook.

Amen.