Nearly every day something strikes me as being “bloggable.” In other words, I want to give my two cents’ worth to the world via my blog, knowing full well that only a very, VERY tiny percentage of the world even knows of my existence, and even a smaller percentage of the Patrick-knowing world actually reads my blog. But it still seems cathartic to have on public record what my opinion is, for all the difference it makes. And as many times as something bloggable presents itself, so do numerous other life things that either are, or appear to be, more important than shouting from a virtual street corner in a neglected neighborhood of a small town bypassed altogether by the information superhighway, and so I end up just telling my wife, or a friend who unwittingly crosses paths with me, or sometimes even a random stranger who happens to be at hand long enough in a public place.

Today’s bloggable thought hit me while I was writing the study guide for our church’s small groups, and I decided to actually blog it. The sermon was about the letter to the church in Laodicea, in Revelation 3. We were studying how this church’s self-sufficiency had led them to believe they were rich, and well-clothed, and needing nothing, when Christ’s assessment of the church was that they were poor, naked, and blind. By way of personal application, I was asking for discussion about how we might have blind spots in our lives, where we seem to be doing great, but in fact, are destitute, and needy, and weak spiritually. And then I asked this question: What percentage of your life is truly dependent on Jesus Christ? And, taking it a step further: If Jesus were to completely disappear from your life, how much of it would continue working as it always had? (The implication, of course, that if we can remove Him from our lives without effect, we truly don’t depend on Him for much.)

It’s a sobering thought. People survive this life without Jesus Christ all the time. They are all around us. They sleep, they wake up, they work, they have families, they play, they eat, and they sleep again, all without any contact with Him, and do so with varying degrees of success (by earthly standards). Some of them with way more financial success and better organization and more productivity and, sadly, greater benefit to mankind (again, by earthly standards) than many Christians. And it stands to reason that if we can do the same, we really aren’t dependent on Him, we just say we are. Any part of my life that could continue “all systems green” without His presence, influence, control, and/or guidance is simply me, on human autopilot, pretending to be led by Him.

When Jesus told the Laodicean church that He was at the door, knocking, He wasn’t making a salvation altar call; He was speaking to a group of believers. I picture it like the tail end of the Flintstones closing credits, where Fred is inadvertently placed outside of the house and locked out, and is left shouting “Wilma!” at the top of his lungs. Here’s this church, doing great financially and materially, and as it continues its daily routine, it simply locks Jesus outside, and continues about its affairs without noticing that He’s missing from there midst! And no, he’s not a bellowing caveman, but sadly, there He is, outside the door to His church, trying to get invited back in.

So what about you? Have you seen Jesus lately? Or is life going on happily “in His name,” while He is nowhere to be found?

It’s very convicting.

Well, I gotta run, I think I heard someone knocking at the door.

I thought it sounded catchy, but naturally they couldn’t be my last words. I’m a stickler for expository preaching. This led me to think about several people whose last words are recorded for us in Scripture. Not surprisingly, I picked Moses (whose last words are the basically the whole book of Deuteronomy), Paul (whose last words aren’t necessarily recorded, but 2 Timothy gets pretty close), and of course, Jesus.

I won’t go into all the details of each message because I want to get to a point (and I’m sure you want me to do so as well).

There are a number of ways to approach the last words of Jesus Christ. One can take it literally: the last thing He said on the cross (there is no lack of “The Seven Sayings of Jesus” material out there). The idea can be broadened a bit, and focus on His final words to the disciples before His crucifixion. But as I considered how I was going to handle it, it hit me:

Jesus will never speak His last words.

When speaking of Jesus’ “last words,” we always have to qualify a context. His last words to His disciples. His last words on the cross. Death has a way of rendering men speechless, but Jesus has a way of rendering death powerless. He rose again. So we must resort to more qualifying: His last words before His ascension. His words to Paul at his conversion. His words to John in Revelation. Surely, way at the end, in chapter 22, where He says He is coming quickly—those are his last words! Well, possibly the last ones recorded, but still not His last, because I imagine we will be doing most of the listening in eternity.

The Bible speaks of two different words as eternal: God’s Word, as in, the Scriptures (Is. 40:8; the same of Jesus’ words in Mt 24:35), and Jesus Himself, the incarnate Word (John 1:1; 14). Over the course of human history, God has revealed the written word to mankind, with the goal of pointing to the incarnate Word. It is God’s revelation, pointing to God revealed—God with us. Jesus is God’s ultimate and final word (Hb 1:1-2). Everything we need to know about His final Word is found in His written word. And neither will ever pass away.

I have already spoken on Moses and Paul at church, so I’m looking forward to the final Sunday in the series, as I speak of Jesus’ “last words.” It is encouraging to think that Jesus will never speak His last words; and yet humbling to think that He will always have the last word.

I can only hope that my last words—when the time comes for me to say them—will ring with a passion for God’s written Word as they point to God’s ultimate and final Word, Jesus Christ.

I must begin by warning you: in this post, I make a lot of references to the original geek language. Should you have trouble relating to or understanding anything, consult your local techie.

Sunday night, at church, our senior pastor was preaching from Matthew chapter 6. At one point he referred to v.24: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money” (ESV). In order to explain this, he said that our hearts can’t be divided. For some reason, he didn’t use the more common Portuguese word dividir—which is quite similar to our English word “divide”—instead he used partilhar. Because of this word choice—and the weird way my brain works—I immediately thought of the word “partition” and how it is used in the computer world.

Whether you are aware of this or not, your computer’s hard drive can be divided into a number of different parts, called partitions. In order for a computer to work, it needs an operating system (OS), and for an OS to work it needs a certain amount of space on the drive set apart specifically for its use—a partition.

Most people operate quite happily and obliviously with a single partition on their drive, because they only use one OS—Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, etc. But other people have reasons to work with more than one OS, and, in order to save themselves the trouble of working on multiple computers, they can partition a hard drive to run multiple operating systems. There is even software that can run two or more operating systems simultaneously.

In other words, any hard drive can be partitioned to run as many operating systems as you can fit on it, even if they are totally incompatible with each other.

My point is: your heart doesn’t work that way!

Unlike the computer world, there are only two competing spiritual operating systems. God installed the original OS when He created us, but through our sin and disobedience we hopelessly corrupted it. God has continually offered tech support over centuries, and man has consistently refused it, opting for the snazzy, feature-fat, operating systems our adversary has to offer. We even blindly assume that there are many different operating systems out there, but if we look deep enough, it is either God’s or the competition’s. The only solution to our heart drive problem is drastic: we need to let God shut it down, and swap it out for a new one that has the original, uncorrupted OS on it.

Mankind didn’t like that solution, so we have sought other ways around it: partitions.

“I will divide my heart drive! God can even have the lion’s share of memory. But I will keep a little partition over here, that runs my favorite competing OS.”

Error: your heart drive cannot be partitioned.

“Well that’s frustrating! I have all the tools here to do it. I have done all the steps. This should work!”

Error.

“But what if I…”

Error.

Your heart is hard-wired by the Manufacturer to run only one operating system at a time. It cannot be partitioned. You cannot serve two masters. This truth is so hard-wired in man that even in our fallen state we express corrupted versions of it. We feel jealousy and betrayal as children when a friend starts spending more time with someone else; as young people, when that special person goes out with someone else; as adults, when a spouse leaves us for another. We want people’s undivided attention, but are more than happy to give God only part of ours!

The bottom line is this: If you are not glorifying God, obeying Him, and serving Him, then you are glorifying, obeying, and serving someone or something else. There is no middle ground here. Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for a piece of our heart real estate—He bought the whole thing with His life!

It is time to check what operating system your heart is running. If it isn’t God’s OS, or if you find yourself trying to partition your heart drive, it is time to call on Him to help you.

You cannot serve two masters.

Your heart cannot be partitioned.

When I watched this video this week (linked on a friend’s Facebook page), I felt that it was comment-worthy, but not for the reasons you might think. It would be easy to argue against his attacks on the Bible, but there really is no point. What he says about the Bible is offensive to any Bible believer, but that’s to be expected from someone who ignores what the Bible has to say.

What I thought was noteworthy was how he shows his true colors in this speech. Remember, his whole campaign is against bullying. And yet here he is, the anti-bullying spokesman, appealing to ad hominem attacks against Callista Gingrich. This is the man who speaks against beatings, referring to his own speech as  “beating up the Bible.” When kids silently walk out (rather than confront him) he calls them “pansy-a**ed.” Would he rather they attack him? He states that they don’t like “being pushed back.” This implies that someone pushed first, and yet he is addressing teenagers, listening to a speech he was invited to give.

Is bullying okay when it’s against the bully? Or, in his case, against high school kids who don’t hold his views and have done nothing to him? Observe how he even says he has a “right to defend himself.” Against whom? He wasn’t under attack: he had the floor! And—oh, the sweet irony—he used the opportunity to bully people!

This is just more evidence that “tolerance” is a tricky message: even the most tolerant advocates of tolerance are going to reach a point of intolerance. Not surprisingly, they will be most intolerant of those who most oppose their view of tolerance.

Apparently, when it push comes to shove, bullying is okay if you as long as you perceive yourself as the victim.

Dan Savage has a message for you: “It gets bitter.”

(Leia este post em português.)

I had planned on riding the giant wake of newest book-made-into-blockbuster-movie craze by saying something about The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. I wrote out my personal opinion of the book, along with some of the pros and cons, and so on, and then I realized: I don’t have to do this. No doubt someone has already produced a better written, and certainly more read, review. So here is what I am going to say:

It’s nothing new.

In terms of literature, there isn’t anything here that George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Anthony Burgess, Ray Bradbury, Philip K Dick and scores of others haven’t already done, and done better, more shockingly, more sickeningly, and more disturbingly than Collins. Even the idea of children as tributes in sick games is a page taken unapologetically from Greek mythology. In terms of shock value and violence, there isn’t anything here that modern video games and movies haven’t already surpassed, in HD, or even in 3D. And in terms of teenage romantic angst, which Collins treats pretty lightly (at least in the first book—I haven’t read the others)—again, there is nothing that hasn’t been done before, either.

So what’s all the hype about?

The blistering speed of communication between teenagers worldwide has also accelerated the formation (and subsequent passing) of trends and fads. Hence, something doesn’t even have to be that good for one group to proclaim its praises via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media, and suddenly it goes viral. Collins book has just enough of the shock value (Kids killing kids?! The horror!) and teen romance (she didn’t even opt for a different geometrical shape—it’s the classic triangle) to make kids jump at it and make it famous. Just like Harry Potter and Twilight and whatever else before it, it is surging to the forefront, particularly because of the recent movie launch.

I’m not going to talk about it.

Like I said above, I had a whole thing planned out, but then I realized: The Hunger Games today, something else tomorrow. Christians don’t need sites to inform their opinion, they need to have enough biblical knowledge to let God inform it.

When I worked as a teller at a bank during my college years, we would hear a story about how the people at the Federal Reserve that handle counterfeit money don’t study counterfeit money—there are too many variations. No, instead they study the real money; they get to know it so well that anything counterfeit gives itself away by not measuring up to the real deal. I have no idea if this story is based on truth, but it makes sense. Not only that, I experienced this myself. During my time as a teller, I developed a habit of counting the money for a deposit multiple times before putting it in my drawer. On one particular occasion, as I returned to my drawer across the teller area, away from the counter, I was absently recounting the money I had already checked in front of the customer, and something didn’t feel right. Literally. I wasn’t looking at the bills, I was moving them from one hand to the other, counting out five one hundred dollar bills. And something—two of the bills—felt different than the others. We weren’t required to check every bill with a counterfeit pen, but I immediately tested my hunch, and, sure enough, I had snagged two counterfeits. My habitual contact with the real bills had given me an unconscious awareness of the difference between real and counterfeit.

My point here is that I don’t need to be an expert in The Hunger Games to know if it is good, bad, or other. I need to be an expert in what God’s truth is, so that when something—whatever it might be—comes across my path, I recognize its virtues and its vices, and am able to discern if that something should be part of my life. Paul exhorts us, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Phil. 4:8). If my mind and heart are nurtured by God’s Word, and my thoughts are consumed by these qualities, I should know immediately if a book, a song, a movie, or, for that matter, a preacher, are legitimately worthy of my time.

I’m sure we are all familiar with the tired old concept about eating fish: “you have to eat the meat and spit out the bones.” My father, who led a more rural existence in his formative years, had his own version: “When you are walking in a cow pasture, you have to watch your step.” But he was always quick to add, “There are some pastures that are so full of manure, that you’re better off avoiding them altogether. You try to walk in there, and you can’t help but step in it.”

It seems the modern (or maybe postmodern) trend in Christianity is to consume everything, ostensibly in order to “pick out the bones,” yet very little bone-picking happens. From comments I see on Facebook and other sites, Christians are waist-deep in manure, triumphantly holding up a tiny kernel of truth or near-goodness they found for their efforts. It isn’t even picking out bones—it’s grasping at straws.

God’s truth is not a scavenger hunt in a rubbish heap. Rather than sifting through the garbage pile for something of value, we are better off pursuing what is clearly wholesome and good. The Corinthian Christians argued with Paul, saying “All things are lawful,” and he answered, “But not all things are helpful.” They said, “All things are lawful,” and he answer, “But not all things build up.” (1 Cor. 10:23). As a good friend of mine wisely said, we really need to avoid the question, “What is wrong with this?” and start asking “What is right about it?”

So, whether it is The Hunger Games, or the next big thing, read your Bible. Make it your delight. Meditate on it day and night. That’s how you avoid listening to sinful counsel, keeping bad company, and eventually sitting right alongside the scorners as they sin and enjoy sin. That’s how you will recognize counterfeit values when they pop up. They won’t hold a candle to the real thing.

“Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say”

This article, which appeared in The Telegraph on February 29, came to my attention this week via a friend’s Facebook page. At first, I thought it was a step in the right direction—science admitting to what pro-lifers had been saying all along. But read it again. It doesn’t say that abortion is same as killing a baby. That would lead to the conclusion that abortion is morally wrong. No, this, unbelievably, is saying precisely the opposite: killing babies is no different from abortion (which, in their minds, is acceptable!).

No, this isn’t a joke, or an urban myth trailing around the internet. It’s a legitimate article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Go to their site, download the article (PDF) and read it yourself. It reads like something straight out of a sci-fi novel. It’s the sort of thing you read, thinking there will be some punchline, sick and twisted as might be. Because it would be easier to believe it is someone’s disturbed sense of humor than to accept that this is actually happening.

If you’re in a hurry, just read the abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. (Again, from the Journal of Medical Ethics)

I have read it over and over, and still sit here in shock:

“…the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

“Killing a newborn should be permissible”!

And lest you think this is an isolated argument by a few people, read this statement that the editor of the Journal offered to defend their publication of the article:

The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

In other words, this is just reiterating what others have said. The arguments are “largely not new.”

If there was any doubt that allowing abortion was a slippery slope, this should remove all doubt. The slippery slope is gone. We are in complete free-fall. Anyone who defends the idea of killing an infant in any stage of its development is only setting the timeline back far enough that they don’t have to face (or hold) the child they are killing. These men are insanely wrong, but they are, at least, honest in their stand. If one accepts their (incorrect) definition of what constitutes a person, then one must also accept the permissibility of terminating these nonpersons. Go ahead, join the ranks of Hitler, Mengele and like, because it is no different from what they believed and carried out.

At the same time one group of people is doing all they can to make Joseph Kony famous for his killing of innocent children in the jungles of Africa, we are witnessing educated people come to the conclusion that it is “permissible” to do so in a hospital setting.

God help us if we don’t cry out against this.

God help us if we don’t cry out to Him to protect us from this.

God help us all.

I thought of writing this post the second I heard the hit Lady Gaga song, “Born This Way.” Actually, thinking back, I guess it was when I watched a few minutes of the red carpet interviews for last year’s Grammy Awards. The big hoopla was about Lady Gaga, who arrived in a giant egg, from which she would hatch on stage to sing that she “was born this way.” All the talk was about her arrival in an egg, and how many hours she had spent in there, how uncomfortable it was, and how she was breathing through a tube, etc. In any reasonable setting, the conclusion would be that this person is nuts, or, at best, a comedian. We would expect this from, say Robin Williams, and laugh at him. I marveled at the fact that the general consensus seemed to be that this somehow showed how “dedicated” she is to her art form. I suspect it was a script they had been handed by her PR people—all the interviewers were using the same key terms. Hours in the egg. Born from the egg. Dedicated to her art. It was disturbing on many levels.

I thought I had missed my chance to post this when I waited for over a year to say anything. It’s ancient news now, right? Well, in one sense, it is; in another…you get the idea. It remains current for two reasons:

Born this Way Foundation

The song may be over a year old, but it is clearly a mission statement for this singer. On Feb 29, Gaga launched (at Harvard, no less) the Born This Way Foundation, founded last year. Its mission:

“to foster a more accepting society, where differences are embraced and individuality is celebrated. The Foundation is dedicated to creating a safe community that helps connect young people with the skills and opportunities they need to build a braver, kinder world.

We believe that everyone has the right to feel safe, to be empowered and to make a difference in the world. Together, we will move towards acceptance, bravery and love.”

It is easy to browse the site and get the idea that it’s an anti-bullying, “can’t we all just get along” kind of thing. But just skim through the fourteen “stories of bravery,” and you will find six stories that define bravery as accepting that homosexuals and/or transgender individuals were “born this way.” The other eight stories deal with other issues, but again, the message is clear: you are who you are, embrace it, believe in it, stand up for it. You were born this way. Gaga is clearly doing more than singing a song—she’s preaching a message. And her message is being heard, and accepted. How do I know that? Because my second reason for thinking this post is still current is that today’s headline was:

Lady Gaga hits a record 20 million Twitter followers.

Twitter has become the measure of popularity in our time. It’s not surprising that the top “most followed” tweeters are entertainment celebrities, but even political figures, like President Obama (who currently holds the 8th spot with 12 million followers), figure into the mix. Having a record-breaking following in Twitter doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I mean, Justin Bieber held the spot for a while, and he has no message at all. (Oh wait, he said he’s “down for Jesus,” didn’t he? I won’t go there.) The issue with Gaga is that her popularity is rising hand in hand with her message. Unlike Katy Perry’s believe in yourself song, “Firework,” Gaga’s “Born this Way” has become an anthem for those who would seek to justify anything and everything they do. And the launch of her Foundation, with serious supporters such as Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, the MacArthur Foundation, and the California Endowment, demonstrates that this is picking up steam.

Lady Gaga is right.

Shocking, isn’t it? This was my first thought when I heard this song last year: Lady Gaga is right. We were born this way. It’s just that it’s not the way that she (or her millions of followers) think. The Bible is clear: we were born sinners. Adam’s sin in Eden (Gen. 3) spiritually damaged his entire lineage; mankind, in other words. Paul makes this abundantly clear when he says, “therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—” (Romans 5:12, ESV). In Adam, we are all born sinners. There is no blank slate; it’s marred from conception. The concept that we start on level ground and either build up or dig down from there is false: we start in a pit so deep we can never climb out of it ourselves. David put it this way (when lamenting over his greatest sin): “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:4, ESV). That is why Paul can make such a blanket statement: “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10), and later in the same chapter “for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (v. 23, ESV). Yeah, baby, we were born this way.

And yet, Lady Gaga is dead wrong.

Gaga’s message is this: “I was born this way. I’m going to embrace. You have to accept it. It’s who I am.” And, coupled with her foundation’s message, it becomes: “You are brave to embrace this person you are.” Look at these lyrics from the song:

Don’t be drag, just be a queen
Whether you’re broke or evergreen
You’re black, white, beige, chola descent
You’re Lebanese, you’re orient

Whether life’s disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
‘Cause baby, you were born this way

No matter gay, straight or bi
Lesbian, transgendered life
I’m on the right track, baby
I was born to survive

No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made
I’m on the right track, baby
I was born to be brave

I’m beautiful in my way
‘Cause God makes no mistakes
I’m on the right track, baby
I was born this way

The “born this way” message clearly lumps together ethnicity and disability, things we cannot choose, with homosexuality and transgenderism. In her mind, there is clearly no choice—you are born that way. And for good measure, she includes “God makes no mistakes,” meaning, if you are one of these people, it must be because that is the way God made you.

At the risk of making this post longer than most people are willing to read, I want to cite God’s view on sinful choices man makes:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. —Romans 1:18–32, ESV

This is not just a message against homosexuality and transgenderism. Look at that list in the last paragraph! It covers anything we choose to do in our depravity. Oddly enough, even those bullies that Gaga created a foundation to protect individuals from are making a choice to be bullies. I don’t see Lady Gaga insisting that they were born that way. No, because undoubtedly she thinks they chose to be that way. If you believe the media, even what I am saying here is “hate speech.” Just ask Kirk Cameron.

So here it is, in a nutshell.

Lady Gaga stumbled very close to a biblical truth when she declared to the world that we are “born this way.” Unfortunately, rather than understanding that this “way” is our sinful nature, which God put to death in Christ to offer us spiritual and eternal life, she understands the “way” to be the manifestation of our sinful choices. As a result, she and her foundation advocate outright idiolatry: self-acceptance, self-love, self-promotion, and, ultimately, self-worship.

So yes, you and I were born this way: sinners all. And while God hates—yes He hates—sin, He loved us sinners enough that He sent His only, perfect, sinless, Son, Jesus Christ, to die a horrible death as a sacrifice in our place. Why? So that we could be born another way: from above (of the Spirit). Spiritual new birth (John 3:1–8). A completely new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). A slave no more (Rom. 6).

So it doesn’t matter what your ethnicity, disability, social or economic condition; it doesn’t matter what your sinful choices have been. Have you gone down the entire Romans 1 sin list? He doesn’t care. He will accept you, not your sinful choices, and He will transform you in Christ.

Then you can stand proud, ’cause baby you were born His way.

In this post I wanted to focus on John’s remaining purpose statement, found in the first verse of chapter 2: “I’m writing this so that you may not sin.”

Not sin? Has John lost his mind? That’s crazy talk!

The context of this verse tells us that we are sinners (1:8) who have sinned (1:10) and will sin again (2:1). John is not being naive when he states this as a purpose; he realizes what people are like. The big difference between John and the post-modern Christian is that he isn’t settling for mediocrity. He isn’t going to sit back and say “I’m human. I’m going to fail. God just has to deal with it.” In our desperate attempt to free ourselves from the slavery of legalism, our contemporary answers swing that pendulum way in the other direction, and we find ourselves accepting unacceptable behaviors, as well as deeper, unacceptable heart attitudes.

What went wrong? Interestingly, John actually addresses the two key attitudes that plague our current situation: the idea that nothing is wrong to begin with (we have no sin), and the idea that we haven’t done anything wrong (we have not sinned).

“I’m okay.”

No one seeks a solution when they don’t see a problem. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. You only have to watch a random sampling of television to see that society has moved the slider way over to the “dark side” in relation to what it declares as “sick and wrong.” There are comedies that accept all forms of immorality and base behavior as normal; or crime-solving dramas that expose the dark underbelly of human evil and blame it on anything but human depravity; or the current love affair society has with vampires, werewolves, and zombies (because apparently there are only three categories of mythical night creatures)—all of them pointing to the evil in our hearts. But watch closely: the line between good and evil is seriously blurred. Under the guise of being more “true to life,” these forms of entertainment both condone and lead the audience to accept all sorts of ideas that are clearly contrary to God’s Word. We aren’t talking about the infamous “gray” areas; it’s the outright acceptance of wrong as “okay.” John doesn’t mince words: “If we say that we’re sinless, we are only fooling ourselves, and the truth isn’t in us.” (1:8, my paraphrase). The concept that we’re “only human,” and therefore must regard all the flaws as acceptable is a self-deception. We are not okay, folks. We are utterly and irreparably broken (Rm 3:10; 23). If we will not admit this, we will not seek a solution to our problem.

“I haven’t done anything wrong.”

Now we cross the line from self-deception to making God out to be a liar (1:10). Not only is our condition sinful, but we are inveterate sinners. John says this in the context of confessing sin in v. 9, so it carries the idea that confession isn’t going to happen if we don’t admit to wrongdoing. Since the moment Adam pointed to Eve and Eve pointed to the serpent, man has perfected the art of pointing his finger at something—anything—besides himself. But true confession will only come when we own up to it: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight” (Ps 51:4). There is no salvation without the admission of sin; there is not repentance without the turning away from it; there can be no forgiveness without owning up to it.

But how does this help in John’s goal that we “sin not”? He uses the rest of his letter to explain the dynamic, but here it is in a nutshell: “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). As followers of Christ—those who understood the message of the Gospel that we “might believe”—we should be walking a path characterized by the polar opposite of sin. Light and darkness do not coexist in beautiful, tolerant harmony. Read it again. “God is light. There is no darkness in Him. None. Nada. Zip,” says John. “My goal, if you’ll listen, is to help you live so close to the light that you reach the point that sin is no longer an issue in your life. That you sin not.”

“Sin not.”

“That’s impossible!” we cry.

“I thought you might say that,” comes God’s answer. “I said this more than once, but let me say it again for good measure: ‘With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.’” (Mt 17:20; 19:26; Mk 10:27; Lk 1:37; 17:1; 18:27).

Time to roll up the sleeves, strap on the battle-scarred armor, and storm Hell’s gates. We have a whole lot of “not sinning” to do!

]]> http://patrickmcclure.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/has-john-lost-his-mind/feed/ 0 Kiko http://patrickmcclure.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/meanwhile-in-a-cave-outside-of-eden/ http://patrickmcclure.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/meanwhile-in-a-cave-outside-of-eden/#comments Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:10:14 +0000 Kiko http://patrickmcclure.wordpress.com/?p=273 ]]> Some time ago, I had one of those “what if” thoughts, and imagined what our civilization would be like if the relativism of our postmodern era actually were possible. I know, some of you might wonder, “Wha-? Who thinks these things?” I do, apparently. What would our life be like, for instance, if both evolutionsts and creationists were right, and lived side by side with their antithetic views? It doesn’t work, of course, because even our “back stories” are very different—one set would have to evolve in an ever-improving cycle over billions of years, while the other set would be created in sinless perfection, disobey God, and be plunged into roller-coaster of ups and downs as they stray and are brought near to God’s plan for mankind.

But bear with me for a bit. Imagine Adam and Eve, the pinnacle of created human perfection, leaving Eden in disgrace and running into a band of cavemen fresh out of an evolutionary step that finally gave them the ability to stand upright and effectively use those opposable thumbs. Would those cavemen, sitting on their haunches on the brow of hill, chewing on raw meat, look on in awe (and a little envy) as Adam nonchalantly (still by “the sweat of his brow,” of course), felled a tree, built a small shack, started a fire, and went about the day to day of life outside the Garden? How stubborn these budding evolutionists would have to be, to observe Cain domesticating plants, or Abel domesticating herds, or Tubalcain conquering the use of brass and iron, or Jubal mastering musical instruments, all the while refusing to learn these techniques because it didn’t fit in their evolutionary timeline? I can just imagine their teenagers complaining: “But Dad, the creationists get to do this hard work with cool metal tools! Couldn’t we just borrow some for a while?” To which Dad would answer, “Hush, and keep sharpening your spear with that rock! We still have thousands of years to go before we use those. Why, back in my day…”

There isn’t a real point to this mental exercise, of course. Relativism—all beliefs being equally true—works only in theory, because when one actually carries its principles to their logical conclusion, two opposing ideas can’t coexist. If evolution is true, then creation can’t be, and vice versa. If a third, opposing option is true, then neither of the first two can be. And we will all continue to look across the gap at each other, wondering how on Earth those others can be so foolish, crazy, uninformed, etc. to believe their position. To the evolutionist, freeing oneself from the slavery of theism is an enlightened step. To the creationist, the “enlightened step” is being freed from the slavery of sin, and accepting the mind of Christ. I know which one I’ve chosen.

(Leia este post em português.)

A friend of ours shared a link today to a Fox News report concerning some pornographic and violent images that have been appearing in the Facebook newsfeed. Several people spoke of accessing the giant social network only to be embarrassed in front of family members as these images assaulted them. I mention this as a recent example that illustrates a greater issue in world culture: shamelessness. The barrier walls that once protected the innocent from the barrage of speech and behavior not deemed “suitable for the public” are crumbling. In places, they are eroding away from lack of upkeep; in others, they are being obliterated by social wrecking balls—the popular kid, the brazen celebrity, the “enlightened” lecturer—smashed to smithereens and allowing all sorts of evil to run amok in situations we once thought safe.

This used to be the talk about TV and movies. Yes, since the beginning of onscreen entertainment, we have seen a decline of morals and appropriate speech. Profanity, obscenity, hatefulness, vindictiveness, lack of forgiveness, and flat-out lying saturate today’s entertainment. Extramarital sex is so commonplace that people act embarrassed for you if you respond negatively toward it. Seinfeld’s “not that there’s anything wrong with that” describes pretty much anything out there. I realize there is a simple solution for these forms of entertainment—don’t watch them. Unfortunately, as I said above, these barriers aren’t crumbling only in the media.

I remember a few years ago, standing waiting for my luggage in the Springfield, MO airport, listening in amazed silence as pretty much every major “cuss” word popped out of a woman’s mouth as she spoke to another woman (both adults beyond their forties). And she wasn’t mad at anyone—this was apparently her usual way of talking! The other woman didn’t even flinch at her language. Every day, both in the States and here in Brazil, we encounter examples of people who have allowed these forms of speech and behavior into social settings we once thought safe. It is appalling to see what people choose to post or link on Facebook. People are going on public (and nearly permanent) record, saying things that at one time would have embarrassed them to even think. And there isn’t an MPAA rating, however flawed, that protects people from the what one encounters in everyday settings.

Here’s what God asked and answered about His people: “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush” (Jer 6:15; 8:12). God was talking about a different sin, but what is particularly powerful to me is the idea that these people were not only doing something “abominable,” but they were not ashamed, and couldn’t even blush about it! Completely shameless!

How is this different than we are now? We are exposed. Our collective, social Jiminy Cricket is lying battered and bruised in a back alley, if he’s not already dead. And we are so used to this, that we can’t even blush about it. It is truly—we are truly—shameless.

There was a time in human history when shamelessness was a good thing. Think for a moment about the shamelessness of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. They were completely, physically and spiritually, naked; exposed, both to each other and to God, and they were not ashamed (Gen 2:25). When did this change? The moment they disobeyed God. They immediately saw that they were exposed, and made an effort to hide this both from themselves (with clothing) and from God (by hiding) (Gen 3:6-7, 10). The truth is that now, in our present condition of sinners in a sin-cursed world, there are two situations in which we will feel no shame (or fear): when we are truly without blame, or when we foolishly fail to admit our blame. In the former, we have no shame because we have done nothing wrong. (Blameless of specific individual sins, not without sin in a general sense. The person that drives the speed limit has no need to let off the gas when they see a police officer.) In the latter, we simply don’t care. It is foolish in that we act like the fool, who doesn’t acknowledge the existence of God, therefore no one to whom he is accountable (Psa 14:1).

Here’s an interesting twist: God actually calls us to be shameless! No really, He wants us to talk unashamedly of His Gospel (Rom 1:16); to unashamedly believe in Him (Rom 10:11); to unashamedly suffer for Him (1 Pet 4:16); and to unashamedly believe and hope for Christ’s return (1 John 2:28)! Naturally, this is referring to the former type of shamelessness—the kind that comes from being blameless. And it is necessary to add that this blamelessness only comes through Jesus Christ; we are incapable of achieving it on our own. The kind of shamelessness God calls us to is not that which ignores God’s standards, but that which upholds them! His constant call to holiness, and His plan to offer it to the unholy through belief in Jesus Christ, is His way of giving us a life without shame.

Are you struck by the shamelessness of our generation? Then it is time to respond with some shameless behavior of our own! Shamelessly believe in God and Jesus Christ, shamelessly await for His return, shamelessly proclaim His message, and even shamelessly suffer persecution by those who won’t accept His message!

This is, after all, the message of Christ: that through Him, we can be transformed from shameful sinfulness to shameless obedience before God.

“And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight…” (Colossians 1:21–22)

]]> http://patrickmcclure.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/shameless/feed/ 0 Kiko We Wear the Cone of Shame!