Thursday, March 23, 2006
"There are very many kinds of theft. One consists in violence, as when
a man’s goods are forcibly plundered and carried off; another in
malicious imposture, as when they are fraudulently intercepted; a third
in the more hidden craft which takes possession of them with a
semblance of justice; and a fourth in sycophancy, which wiles them away
under the pretence of donation" (Institutes of the Christian Religion,
Book II, Chapter 8, section 45).
Aside from the depth of formal intelligence ingrained in the great old
works on theology (I speak of the language structure), I really
appreciate the fact that here justified is a great understanding of the
eighth commandment. What is stealing? It is taking something from one
man, to whom it belongs, and giving it to another man, to whom it does
not belong (paraphrase of Walter Williams).
Herin, among other problems, is the problem for those Christians who
back a redistributionist attitude toward society, and in particular the
government. It is just as wrong for Robin Hood, no matter how endearing
the movie, to steal at arrow point in the road as it was for Prince
John to steal from the castle. Prince John wanted to hoard the taxed
riches to himself, but had the tables been turned, and Robin Hood had
by law taxed Prince John to give to the poor, he would have been just
as wrong.
The problem for free market Christians is that we want the government
to let the market be whatever it is. We then stand in danger of losing
a society wide impact on morality and the family structure. Outside of
government, can we affect social morality on issues such as poverty
without engaging in fraud, that "semblance of justice," or
"sycophancy"? This is further complicated by the market's inclination
to provide abhorrent services like prostitution, abortion, pornography,
deception (layers of fraud), divorce, mind-tripping drugs, grand
theiving and murderous gangs for hire, false teachers, bad science,
antitheism, etc, etc, etc. I recognize the fact that the government is
in the business of making moral decisions, and if so, it ought to use
biblical morality. However, since it consists of sinful men, it will
reflect that corruption. That show of social morality will then be the
great fraud of the country and farce to the world. Furthermore, we see time and again
reminders in the New Testament that Christ came to establish a kingdom
not of this world, and that the role of the church is to affect social
norms by winning converts not by passing laws. We are not in the
business of setting up a millenial kingdom age with the hope of
bringing about o regresso do Rei.
Jesus had plenty to say about the sins of the rich men of His and any
time. He never told us that it is our duty to steal from them to feed
the poor. They stand before God's judgment for their neglect,
manipulation of society, and misuse of God's blessing. Furthermore,
when I see men like Bill Gates giving a huge portion of his huge
fortune to serious needs in Africa, I cannot help but wander what our
government has done to discourage this by giving the false illusion of
being the greatest social cherity on earth and doing so coercively.
The Bible was written to teach about God, not the details of a
sociological theory. Clearly, people can find verses to back up some
variant views on society. At the founding of America, it was the
Christians forcing the separation of church and state and the free
market. In the years since then, Christians have emerged with multiple
views on this. I think that it is really not as clear from Scripture as
redemption, for example. Paul, when he had an audience with Felix the
governor did not direct apologetics for the purpose of getting
Christian morals in government. He had the same action with Festus and
Agrippa. His appeal was "I would pray to God, both in a little and in
much, that not only you, but also all hearing me today to become as I
also am [Christian], except for these bonds" (Acts 26:29 MKJV). He
wanted conversion and not assimilation.
I have wandered a little today. I started with a discussion of what
stealing is. I wanted to demostrate why I really do not agree with
government's endless desire to tax society. However, I moved from there
to what the role of government is and the role of Christian morality is
in government. Ultimately, we have discovered that apologetics exist
with the end of conversion and not assimilation. This is perhaps the
greatest discovery of all. The church laments its loss of relevancy and
scrambles to find the best way to regain it. However, it fails to
recognize that that relevancy is gained by earnestly contending for the faith. The focus is the
message. The church has lost its relevance because it has lost its
voice. Ask any Christian to defend family values, and they will have no
problem. Ask any Christian to defend their faith, and they will
probably not even be clear on what the gospel is. Furthermore, their
best defense will be a "this is how I got saved" story, and not a
contention from history and theology. Paul gave his testimony, but
ultimately he said in reference to the history of Christ's resurrection
that these were historical facts that "were not done in a corner" (Acts
26:26 MKJV). Indeed, they were not done in a corner, and that is why I
am confident in my faith.
a man’s goods are forcibly plundered and carried off; another in
malicious imposture, as when they are fraudulently intercepted; a third
in the more hidden craft which takes possession of them with a
semblance of justice; and a fourth in sycophancy, which wiles them away
under the pretence of donation" (Institutes of the Christian Religion,
Book II, Chapter 8, section 45).
Aside from the depth of formal intelligence ingrained in the great old
works on theology (I speak of the language structure), I really
appreciate the fact that here justified is a great understanding of the
eighth commandment. What is stealing? It is taking something from one
man, to whom it belongs, and giving it to another man, to whom it does
not belong (paraphrase of Walter Williams).
Herin, among other problems, is the problem for those Christians who
back a redistributionist attitude toward society, and in particular the
government. It is just as wrong for Robin Hood, no matter how endearing
the movie, to steal at arrow point in the road as it was for Prince
John to steal from the castle. Prince John wanted to hoard the taxed
riches to himself, but had the tables been turned, and Robin Hood had
by law taxed Prince John to give to the poor, he would have been just
as wrong.
The problem for free market Christians is that we want the government
to let the market be whatever it is. We then stand in danger of losing
a society wide impact on morality and the family structure. Outside of
government, can we affect social morality on issues such as poverty
without engaging in fraud, that "semblance of justice," or
"sycophancy"? This is further complicated by the market's inclination
to provide abhorrent services like prostitution, abortion, pornography,
deception (layers of fraud), divorce, mind-tripping drugs, grand
theiving and murderous gangs for hire, false teachers, bad science,
antitheism, etc, etc, etc. I recognize the fact that the government is
in the business of making moral decisions, and if so, it ought to use
biblical morality. However, since it consists of sinful men, it will
reflect that corruption. That show of social morality will then be the
great fraud of the country and farce to the world. Furthermore, we see time and again
reminders in the New Testament that Christ came to establish a kingdom
not of this world, and that the role of the church is to affect social
norms by winning converts not by passing laws. We are not in the
business of setting up a millenial kingdom age with the hope of
bringing about o regresso do Rei.
Jesus had plenty to say about the sins of the rich men of His and any
time. He never told us that it is our duty to steal from them to feed
the poor. They stand before God's judgment for their neglect,
manipulation of society, and misuse of God's blessing. Furthermore,
when I see men like Bill Gates giving a huge portion of his huge
fortune to serious needs in Africa, I cannot help but wander what our
government has done to discourage this by giving the false illusion of
being the greatest social cherity on earth and doing so coercively.
The Bible was written to teach about God, not the details of a
sociological theory. Clearly, people can find verses to back up some
variant views on society. At the founding of America, it was the
Christians forcing the separation of church and state and the free
market. In the years since then, Christians have emerged with multiple
views on this. I think that it is really not as clear from Scripture as
redemption, for example. Paul, when he had an audience with Felix the
governor did not direct apologetics for the purpose of getting
Christian morals in government. He had the same action with Festus and
Agrippa. His appeal was "I would pray to God, both in a little and in
much, that not only you, but also all hearing me today to become as I
also am [Christian], except for these bonds" (Acts 26:29 MKJV). He
wanted conversion and not assimilation.
I have wandered a little today. I started with a discussion of what
stealing is. I wanted to demostrate why I really do not agree with
government's endless desire to tax society. However, I moved from there
to what the role of government is and the role of Christian morality is
in government. Ultimately, we have discovered that apologetics exist
with the end of conversion and not assimilation. This is perhaps the
greatest discovery of all. The church laments its loss of relevancy and
scrambles to find the best way to regain it. However, it fails to
recognize that that relevancy is gained by earnestly contending for the faith. The focus is the
message. The church has lost its relevance because it has lost its
voice. Ask any Christian to defend family values, and they will have no
problem. Ask any Christian to defend their faith, and they will
probably not even be clear on what the gospel is. Furthermore, their
best defense will be a "this is how I got saved" story, and not a
contention from history and theology. Paul gave his testimony, but
ultimately he said in reference to the history of Christ's resurrection
that these were historical facts that "were not done in a corner" (Acts
26:26 MKJV). Indeed, they were not done in a corner, and that is why I
am confident in my faith.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
God's Promises
God made a promise to Adam and Eve. He said that if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they would surely die. Did God keep His promise? Adam and Eve stayed alive long enough to make some clothing out of leaves and hide. They stayed alive long enough to be evicted from the garden. Adam lived to be over 900 years old. Did they surely die. They did. They died spiritually, in that they were separated from God, and they eventually died physically. God kept His end of the bargain. He always does.
God did do something special, though. He clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins. Those animals had to die for that to take place. We do not know the details of this event, but I am pretty sure that this was also the first institution of blood sacrifices for sins. At any rate, something else had to die, for their nakedness to be covered. This is an important biblical point. Substitution is this act of changing places. The fact that animals were used can be a bit complex, but quite simply, the animal sacrifice was a picture and a promise. This picture and promise would be used for many years, and God would elaborate on that for some time.
God's first elaboration was with the introduction of the term "seed," in particular the "seed of the woman." "And Jehovah God said to the serpent, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every animal of the field. You shall go upon your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" (Gen. 3:14-15 MKJV). What exactly was God talking about? He was promising that someone would come along in the future (as a part of the human race) to "bruise the serpent's head." This promise, so vague at this point, is the central course of biblical history. God now shows how that He brings this about. I also notice (for which reason I included verse 14) that God was actually speaking to the serpent at this point.
However, Adam and Eve could take great hope in the fact that God was promising not to let the sin nor the serpent win in the end. God was also illustrating that ultimately, non-humans cannot deal with human problems. Despite the hope of the animal sacrifices, Adam and Eve still had sin in their lives, they still had to die. But, this promise spoken to the serpent gave great hope to them because they could be assured of a future victory. God did not fill in great details, but He gave them a great promise. This is God's true answer to sin, a Savior.
Who that Savior is remains to be seen, but once again, the biblical history is setting the stage and arguing for God's character. The record argues that God is faithful; He keeps His Word. The record argues that God is sovereign (and not chaos or Satan or man). The record argues that God is righteous, in that He cannot leave sin un-judged. The record argues that God is good and loving, because He dealt with the sin in such a way that man could be saved out of that sin rather than be destroyed in that sin. The record argues that only God's way is the right way. The record argues that ultimately, God wins, no matter how complex sin gets between devils and men and rebellion.
God did do something special, though. He clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins. Those animals had to die for that to take place. We do not know the details of this event, but I am pretty sure that this was also the first institution of blood sacrifices for sins. At any rate, something else had to die, for their nakedness to be covered. This is an important biblical point. Substitution is this act of changing places. The fact that animals were used can be a bit complex, but quite simply, the animal sacrifice was a picture and a promise. This picture and promise would be used for many years, and God would elaborate on that for some time.
God's first elaboration was with the introduction of the term "seed," in particular the "seed of the woman." "And Jehovah God said to the serpent, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every animal of the field. You shall go upon your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" (Gen. 3:14-15 MKJV). What exactly was God talking about? He was promising that someone would come along in the future (as a part of the human race) to "bruise the serpent's head." This promise, so vague at this point, is the central course of biblical history. God now shows how that He brings this about. I also notice (for which reason I included verse 14) that God was actually speaking to the serpent at this point.
However, Adam and Eve could take great hope in the fact that God was promising not to let the sin nor the serpent win in the end. God was also illustrating that ultimately, non-humans cannot deal with human problems. Despite the hope of the animal sacrifices, Adam and Eve still had sin in their lives, they still had to die. But, this promise spoken to the serpent gave great hope to them because they could be assured of a future victory. God did not fill in great details, but He gave them a great promise. This is God's true answer to sin, a Savior.
Who that Savior is remains to be seen, but once again, the biblical history is setting the stage and arguing for God's character. The record argues that God is faithful; He keeps His Word. The record argues that God is sovereign (and not chaos or Satan or man). The record argues that God is righteous, in that He cannot leave sin un-judged. The record argues that God is good and loving, because He dealt with the sin in such a way that man could be saved out of that sin rather than be destroyed in that sin. The record argues that only God's way is the right way. The record argues that ultimately, God wins, no matter how complex sin gets between devils and men and rebellion.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The Ides of March and Puke
If I were to just say nothing about the woes of my beloved Jayhawks, I
would be failing in my role as a fan. The Ides of March com and go
every year dissappointing. The sorry performance of the Hawks March in
and March out with little hope of a championship. The end of season
surge had me all hopeful, but it was a false hope. The tradition at
Kansas has long been dominate the Big Eight (now the Big Twelve) and
choke in the national tournament. This has caused many of us skeptical
fans to take that famous Phog Allen Fieldhouse chant "Rock Chock
Jayhawks, KU" and exchange it for "Upchuck Jayhawks, PU." I am still
for the blue team (not the baby blue team), but I would just once like
to get a glimpse of those Danny Manning years. Until then, I will have
to settle for the "PU."
While I am on the subject (PUKE), I would like to reference you to a
couple of news items which, when juxtaposed, are really quite sad
and funny at the same time. One, an editorial in the Washington
Post Online complains about the fact that Pres. Bush is too much of
a man. The other is of the alternative.
While I do not agree with everything the Pres has done or said, I think
that I prefer a manly man, and not a womanly man.
Here
is a good commentary on bird flu and the scare in Europe.
And, if I was not sick enough, here
is one to take the cake. There was once a time when parents were
begged, commanded, lured, and whatever else it took to get involved in
their children's education. Uncaring parents were the reason that super
teachers had to emerge, drawing in their students from the streets.
Now, educators are fed up with parents involved in their children's
education. They want to do whatever it takes to get those nosy,
ignorant parents off their backs, to get those controlling nuts to let
their children go, and to let the educators do their job. Gag me with chalkboard! Education
begins and ends with the home. I do not believe that home schooling is
morally obligatory, but I do believe that in every case, concerned
parents should at least partner in education and pay attention to what
is being taught. Unlike what I hear from the socialist model
(children's education is an investment "society" makes for future
production) I like to think that children ought to be real people,
individuals whose parents love and care for them and prepare them for
the future with a grounding in truth, justice, morality, and practical
ordinary things too, like look both ways before you cross the street. I
thank God that my parents did not stay out of the classroom.
would be failing in my role as a fan. The Ides of March com and go
every year dissappointing. The sorry performance of the Hawks March in
and March out with little hope of a championship. The end of season
surge had me all hopeful, but it was a false hope. The tradition at
Kansas has long been dominate the Big Eight (now the Big Twelve) and
choke in the national tournament. This has caused many of us skeptical
fans to take that famous Phog Allen Fieldhouse chant "Rock Chock
Jayhawks, KU" and exchange it for "Upchuck Jayhawks, PU." I am still
for the blue team (not the baby blue team), but I would just once like
to get a glimpse of those Danny Manning years. Until then, I will have
to settle for the "PU."
While I am on the subject (PUKE), I would like to reference you to a
couple of news items which, when juxtaposed, are really quite sad
and funny at the same time. One, an editorial in the Washington
Post Online complains about the fact that Pres. Bush is too much of
a man. The other is of the alternative.
While I do not agree with everything the Pres has done or said, I think
that I prefer a manly man, and not a womanly man.
Here
is a good commentary on bird flu and the scare in Europe.
And, if I was not sick enough, here
is one to take the cake. There was once a time when parents were
begged, commanded, lured, and whatever else it took to get involved in
their children's education. Uncaring parents were the reason that super
teachers had to emerge, drawing in their students from the streets.
Now, educators are fed up with parents involved in their children's
education. They want to do whatever it takes to get those nosy,
ignorant parents off their backs, to get those controlling nuts to let
their children go, and to let the educators do their job. Gag me with chalkboard! Education
begins and ends with the home. I do not believe that home schooling is
morally obligatory, but I do believe that in every case, concerned
parents should at least partner in education and pay attention to what
is being taught. Unlike what I hear from the socialist model
(children's education is an investment "society" makes for future
production) I like to think that children ought to be real people,
individuals whose parents love and care for them and prepare them for
the future with a grounding in truth, justice, morality, and practical
ordinary things too, like look both ways before you cross the street. I
thank God that my parents did not stay out of the classroom.
Monday, March 20, 2006
International Movie Star?
This past weekend, my church here did a special program for Portuguese Father's Day (Happy Portuguese Father's Day, Dad). In that program, one of the guys in my Sunday School class made a film of sketches, and I was in one of them. Okay, I did not have to say anything, and I did not have a big lot of things to do, just type on a computer. However, it was a bit of a fiasco, as I was rushing to finish the shooting, but I still missed the train for another meeting on Saturday and arrived late. Oh, well, next time I will schedule things farther apart. However, it is another opportunity to be involved in local church ministry with limited language ability. One day, I trust that I will be able to speak publicly as I do in English. Until then, I like to find creative ways to be involved.
Praise the Lord for much needed rain here in Portugal. Praise the Lord for a good week of classes. Please pray for the next several weeks of classes. Sometimes I really feel like I have made good progress, and other times I have difficulty with very basic pronunciation. Please pray for the field of Mozambique as the people here look forward to arriving and the people there are learning languages more difficult than Portuguese.
Praise the Lord for much needed rain here in Portugal. Praise the Lord for a good week of classes. Please pray for the next several weeks of classes. Sometimes I really feel like I have made good progress, and other times I have difficulty with very basic pronunciation. Please pray for the field of Mozambique as the people here look forward to arriving and the people there are learning languages more difficult than Portuguese.
