Why I'm not Anxious about 2018

When I was a kid, I used to be afraid of taking communion. I grew up in church, and was taught to respect the sacrament. And then there's the verses in the Bible that say disrespect for the Lord's Supper is the reason “why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor 11:30). So even though I had accepted Christ as my savior, when it came time for communion, I did some serious soul-searching! I wanted to make sure I was right with the Lord!

The truth is, that attitude I developed in childhood kinda stuck with me. Now don't get me wrong - it's a good thing to have a regular time for soul-searching and making sure everything is right. But I was missing the other side – the most important part of communion.

My church has a watchnight service on New Year's Eve to bring in the New Year with food and games, and then communion and prayer. Out of habit, I immediately began my prayer time by searching my heart to make sure everything was right between me and God. But then, it was as though God stopped me, and focused me on one word – communion. Communion isn't a time of fear. It's a time of togetherness and fellowship. Enjoying being with each other. We had just finished a meal together as church family, and enjoyed being together. The communion service is supposed to be just that same thing, with Christ.

“I want to go into 2018 together,” it seemed that God was saying. And my focus changed. 2018 isn't about what might go wrong in the world, or even what I'm supposed to be doing. Communion to start a New Year is a reminder that we enter the new year hand-in-hand with our Savior. He wants to enter this new year together. Together. There is no reason to be anxious when walking together with the Lord.

So, I raise my communion glass to the Lord as the clock strikes midnight – “Together, bring on 2018”.

I'll Take My Persecution Comfortable Please

I'll take my persecution comfortable please.

As long as it stays over there

It can happen; I don't care.

I'm quite happy to pray

As long as it doesn't come my way.

But if it has to be

Lord, here's how to do it for me:

Kill me quickly; Kill me dead

Why don't you shoot me in the head?

I have no drive

to be burned alive

Crucifixion's not my style

I think stake-burning rather vile

I really don't prefer

a prison inter –

Or burning, or starving

or freezing, or carving

Chopping or sawing

Animals gnawing

Stabbing, impaling

limbless and wailing

Drowning and pleading

dismembered and bleeding

De-toed or de-eyed

Ripped hair, or deep fried

Boiled, roasted, or seared –

How about just weird?

Please, just shoot me dead

or poison me instead.

Lord, I'm in the ring

but torture isn't my thing.

Converts killed in front of my face

living with mockery and disgrace

Watching my spouse and children

beaten, slaughtered, sold at auction

Raped, made slaves,

trained in evil ways

Disposable moms

future walking bombs

This isn't what I signed up for

when I accepted you as Lord

Oh Lord – One small exception I'll make.

Some short prison sentence I'll take.

I need to do some writing anyway

so that they'll remember me someday.

Then – Kill me quickly; kill me dead.

Why don't you shoot me in the head?

I'll take my persecution comfortable please.

Say friend,

How much do you love Jesus?

© 2009 David W. Lorimer

Is an unborn baby a viable human life?

JONES: Sir, please state why you believe murdering unborn children should be a legal and protected practice.

SMITH: It isn't murder, and it isn't a child.

JONES: How can you argue that it isn't a child? Genetically, the baby is 100% human. It's a human baby when it is born. Why do you say that it isn't a human baby before it's born?

SMITH: It's a non-viable blob of tissue. It's not a human because it cannot live on it's own. It's not murder because it's non-viable. It wouldn't live anyway.

JONES: I see. Bailiff, would you kindly take a large vice and crush the witness's head?

SMITH: What!? You're asking the Bailiff to kill me!?

JONES: No, I'm not. It's not murder. I have determined that you are non-viable.

SMITH: But I'm living on my own right now! I'm alive! I'm perfectly viable!

JONES: No, sir, you're not. You see, if I removed you from the earth's atmosphere right now and pulled you into outer space, you would die quickly. So you see, you're non-viable.

SMITH: But that's a totally different environment! If you leave me here, I'll be perfectly fine.

JONES: You said it exactly. You see, an unborn baby is perfectly viable. If we leave it right where it is, it will continue to live and to grow. It will be born and transition naturally to the stage where you agree it is viable (birth). It will do all of this automatically.

You argue that the baby is not viable because if we suddenly yanked it out of its environment into a different one, it would die quickly. But as I demonstrated, so would you. That baby is perfectly viable in the environment that it is in, if we leave it there.

Therefore, by your own words, you have demonstrated an unborn baby to be a viable human being.

Is Leadership Inborn, or Trained in Early Years?

The authors of my current Master's textbook, Tolbert and Hall (2009), explained that there are the “big five” personality characteristics that are commonly associated with leadership.

They are

“1. 'Surgency' (or extraversion)

2. Conscientiousness

3. Emotional stability

4. Agreeableness or cooperativeness

5. Intellect” (p. 93)(From Digman, 1990)

These five characteristics are associated with effective leaders. If a person is significantly lacking in some of these areas, it is likely he or she will not be an effective leader.

This research indicates that three of the five characteristics (conscientiousness, emotional stability, and cooperativeness) are usually trained during the childhood formative years. From personal experience and observation, it is very difficult to learn conscientiousness and emotional stability after one's formative years. One's intellectual capacity may be determined at birth, but requires training to reach its potential. I am unsure of how much true extraversion is inborn or learned. However, a pseudo-extraversion can be learned. At least four of the characteristics require training, and three of them must be during the formative years! Thus, those raising children are the ones responsible for forming leaders.

References:

Hall, R. H., Tolbert, P.S. (2009). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes, 10th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN:978-0-13-244840-6.

What is Loyalty?

I want to be a loyal person. I want to be loyal to my friends. What do I do when I find out that one of my friends is doing something wrong? Wouldn't it be disloyal to turn them in? Doesn't being loyal mean sticking by someone, no matter what? If I tell someone, I'll be a rat and a tattle-tale. I'll have broken the confidence of my friend. I would be a bad friend, wouldn't I? But helping them cover up seems wrong too. What do I do?

I believe that the understanding of the concept of loyalty is of critical importance here. For my business ethics class, I recently read an article by Robert A. Larmer that addresses this issue. Larmer addresses this issue so well, I will simply refer directly to his arguments.

I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the whole thing. I found it extremely helpful, and I believe you will also.

(All quotations below are from “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty” by Robert A. Larmer, which I read in Taking Sides by Newton, Englehardt, and Prichard, 2012, pp. 184-189. Most are sections taken from homework submitted for 560 - Business Ethics at Aspen University. Emphasis/bold mine. I have modified some words to apply more to friends than business. The meaning is unchanged.)

Larmer first explains that people often consider loyalty and confidentiality to be high duties and ethics. Reporting on someone “seems a violation of these duties and [many] argue that it is an act of disloyalty and hence morally wrong”. A person “must choose between two acts of betrayal, either her [friend] or the public interest, each in itself reprehensible”.

“Behind this view lies the assumption that to be loyal to someone is to act in a way that accords with what that person believes to be in her best interests. . . . I think this view . . . is mistaken . . . by ignoring the possibility that [reporting someone] may demonstrate greater loyalty than not [reporting]”.

“I am not, for example, disloyal to a friend if I refuse to loan her money for an investment I am sure will bring her financial ruin; even if she bitterly reproaches me for denying her what is so obviously a golden opportunity to make a fortune”.

“A more adequate definition of being loyal to someone is that loyalty involves acting in accordance with what one has good reason to believe to be in that person's best interests. . . . We [often] accept that a person thinking that something is in her best interests is a sufficiently good reason to think that it actually is. Other times, especially when we feel that she is being rash, foolish, or misinformed we are prepared, precisely by the virtue of being loyal, to act contrary to the person's wishes”.

Larmer presents three important points about loyalty.

“First, to the degree that an action is genuinely immoral, it is impossible to say that it is in the agent's best interests. We would not, for example, say that someone who sells child pornography was acting in his own best interests, even if he vigorously protested that there was nothing wrong with such activity. Loyalty does not imply that we have a duty to refrain from reporting the immoral actions of those to whom we are loyal”.

“The [friend who reports wrong behavior] may be demonstrating greater loyalty than the [friend] who simply ignores the immoral conduct, inasmuch as she is attempting to prevent her [friend] from engaging in self-destructive behaviour”.

“Second, loyalty requires that, whenever possible, in trying to resolve a problem we deal directly with the person to whom we are loyal. If, for example, I am loyal to a friend I do not immediately involve a third party when I try to dissuade my friend from involvement in immoral actions. Rather, I approach my friend directly, listen to his perspective on the events in question, and provide an opportunity for him to address the problem in a morally satisfactory way.” . . . “This principle of dealing directly with the person to whom the loyalty is due needs to be qualified, however. . . . There may arise cases where acting in a person's best interests requires that one act independently and perhaps even against the wishes of the person to whom one is loyal. Such cases will be especially apt to arise when the person to whom one is loyal is either immoral or ignoring the moral consequences of his actions. Thus, for example, loyalty to a friend who deals in hard narcotics would not imply that I speak first to my friend about my decision to inform the police of his activities, if the only effect of my doing so would be to make him more careful in his criminal dealings [and, I might add, give him time to hide the evidence before the police arrive]. . . . Neither is a loyal [friend] under obligation to speak first to [a friend] if it is clear that by doing so she places herself in jeopardy from [someone] who will retaliate if given the opportunity. Loyalty amounts to acting in another's best interests and that may mean qualifying what seems to be in one's own interests, but it cannot imply that one take no steps to protect oneself from the immorality of those to whom one is loyal. The reason it cannot is that, as has already been argued, acting immorally can never really be in a person's best interests. It follows, therefore, that one is not acting in a person's best interests if one allows oneself to be treated immorally by that person. Thus, for example, a father might be loyal to a child even though that child is guilty of stealing from him, but this would not mean that the father should let the child continue to steal”.

“Third, loyalty requires that one is concerned with more than considerations of justice. I have been arguing that loyalty cannot require one to ignore immoral or unjust behaviour on the part of those to whom one is loyal, since loyalty amounts to acting in a person's best interests and it can never be in a person's best interests to be allowed to act immorally. Loyalty, however, goes beyond considerations of justice, in that, while it is possible to be disinterested and just, it is not possible to be disinterested and loyal. Loyalty implies a desire that the person to whom one is loyal take no moral stumbles, but that if moral stumbles have occurred that the person be restored and not simply punished [this assumes, of course, that the person will be punished]. A loyal friend is not only someone who sticks by you in times of trouble, but someone who tries to help you avoid trouble”.

Therefore, Larmer argues, a true friend will always address any wrong or immoral behavior.

• First, if it isn't likely that there is danger of coverup or personal harm, you should talk directly with your friend and address it. Give them the opportunity to correct their behavior and make it right. You should not promise that you won't tell anyone. Instead, inform them that if they do not correct their wrong behavior, it is your duty to them, to God, and to others to involve other people.
• Second, if they do not amend their own behavior (or if they claim to and you find out they have not), it is right for you to turn them in to the proper authority. It is morally wrong for you to take their blame for them, cover up for them, or to allow yourself to be harmed, used, or mistreated in order to protect them in their wrongdoing.
• Third, depending on the situation, because you are their loyal friend, you should be the one to help restore them after their punishment and encourage them to lead a moral and upright life in the future.
  In some cases however, especially in dating/romantic relationships, in order for the person to be truly restored, you may have to step out of the relationship and perhaps even the friendship. If you sticking with them is helping prevent them from getting right with the Lord, you are hurting them, encouraging their immorality, and hindering them from redemption. As a loyal friend, in order to truly help them, you may have to step out of the relationship and trust God to take care of them. Seek Godly counsel from older, mature Christians if you are in a dating situation where you are aware of immoral behavior.

Communism vs. Capitalism

Just read part of the 1848 Communist Manifesto and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for my Business Ethics class. Below is part of my essay in response.  I didn't have time to write as much as I wanted. :)

"Newton, Englehardt, and Prichard (2012) stated, “Adam Smith was absolutely correct if he is taken to be describing capital formation; but when it comes to the distribution of the wealth the free market has created, his mechanisms have no way of ensuring justice” (p. 3). So capitalism is indeed an excellent way to create capital. So why doesn't a society adopt a Marxist approach to the distribution of the wealth that capitalism has created? There is a significant problem with the communistic approach to re-distribution of wealth. The re-distribution methods espoused in communism undermine the motivating forces behind capitalism. In other words, while in the process of re-distributing wealth, communism eliminates the very mechanism that is creating wealth. The result is that capital creation will diminish, eventually dropping the standard of living of everyone in the economy, but most often the poor, who are the very people communism claimed to be trying to help.

When working with theories and models, it is of crucial importance to know if the model accurately represents reality. Capitalism and communism are both models for the handling of economy. Which represents reality best? Capitalism is based on the observation that humans are generally self-seeking. Self-interest motivates a willingness to work in people who otherwise would be unwilling to work. Hyeonseo Lee is a woman who escaped from North Korea. She described an incident that had a profound impact on her. She saw people dying from lack of basic needs, and everyone else just passed by them. “Nobody helped them, because they were so focused on taking care of themselves and their families” (Hyeonseo, 2013). Sometimes, those of us who live in a very prosperous society where taking care of others seems like second nature can forget about what happens when everyone is suffering. The model of capitalism fits what we observe of basic humanity. People are willing to work to better themselves. In the Bible, Proverbs 16:26 observes, “The appetite of laborers works for them; their hunger drives them on”. But if others will take care of them, their motivation for work lessens. The Bible warns against handouts. Thessalonians 3:10 says, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Communism, on the other hand, argues that people are willing to work for a common good, even at a relative loss to themselves. “True communism depends on human nature being basically altruistic” (Communism vs. Capitalism, 2013). There may be some truth observable in this to a point. But as I studied in other textbooks, people assign value to their altruistic work, thereby actually gaining personal value in exchange for what they give away. What happens when this personal value is gone? One can observe that people are generally unwilling to make sacrifices that hurt themselves unless they can see some gain from it. For example, if everyone in a society works an 8-hour job each day, and all are taken care of by the government with an equal “wage”, it is likely that everyone will continue happily. However, would someone in this situation be willing to work a 12-hour day while everyone else works only an 8-hour day? Not unless he can see a benefit from doing so? That benefit may be personal betterment, (such as overtime in capitalism), betterment of another, avoidance of punishment, etc. But if he cannot see any result from it, and if he is given a choice, human nature indicates that he will avoid it. However, capitalism appeals to this specific element of human nature. A person is willing to make a sacrifice for the betterment of himself or the betterment of another from which he derives personal value.

Therefore, the model of capitalism best matches reality and human nature. It may not be the perfect model, and it certainly does not solve all the ills of mankind. But capitalism meets the reality of human nature. It understands human nature, and builds upon it a system proven to generate wealth.

I would add however, that the best implementation I am aware of is capitalism guided by Biblical / Christian morality. Capitalism alone certainly allows for certain groups of people to take advantage of other groups of people (communism also allows for this). Capitalism guided by moral principles may be the best approach. The best examples of the implementation of capitalism that I am aware of are where capitalism operates inside a set of cultural expectations that are distinctly Biblical / Christian morals. People may not realize the origin of the values they hold, but they happen to match. These values help to keep the selfish tendencies of mankind in check. For example, the United States has a highly-developed business ethics system which brings capitalism and biblical morality together into a society and economy that has been one of the strongest on earth."

Quoted block from Module 1, Completed Assignments. David Lorimer. 560 – Business Ethics. Aspen University. Professor Sherrie Campbell. Submitted 03/23/2013.

References:

 Newton, Englehardt, Prichard. (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society, 12th/E. McGraw-Hill ISBN: 9780073527352 .

 Lee, Hyeonseo. (2013). My escape from North Korea. Retrieved March 22, 2013 from http://www.ted.com/talks/hyeonseo_lee_my_escape_from_north_korea.html .

Evolution Died of Pneumonia

(Short version - read only until dashed line)

Bill: "Imagine you have severe pneumonia. You will die, unless you get the right medication quickly. A pharmacist escorts you to a room where base chemicals sit on shelves, clearly divided into types, but unlabled as to what they are. There are 60 different chemicals in the room, and you are assured that the correct chemicals to save your life are included. You must choose the right combination that will create the medicine that will save your life. Incorrect combinations create poisons that will kill you except for a few neutral combinations that won't hurt you (but you will still die of the pneumonia). Only one creates the drug needed to save your life. Remember, you don't even know the number of chemicals included in the lifesaving formula - you must guess that too. How likely are you to be right?"

Pete: "I am going to die."

Bill: "Now, let's say that the entire world's population has this severe pneumonia. Each one of them gets to try to create the formula that will save their life. We now have 6 billion attempts, instead of just one. How many people are going to survive?

Pete: "Well, I suppose a few would. Maybe a couple hundred?"

Bill: "Actually, as best as we can tell, the chance of anyone out of the 6 billion people getting the right combination is 1 out of 8 followed by 96 zeros. That's nearly a googol against any of the 6 billion surviving. But ... for the sake of argument, let's take your number. 200 people managed to guess correctly somehow and survived.

Now here comes the tricky part. How many of them could remember which chemicals they chose?"

Pete: "Oh dear - probably only 1 or 2."

Bill: "So how is the next generation (if there is one) going to survive the next pneumonia epidemic?"

Pete: "Well that's simple. The two that survived will write down or tell in detail the location and order of the chemicals they chose to their children."

Bill: "And here is the inherent problem with evolution, Pete. You see, in order for good mutations or accidents to be passed on to the next generation . . . you have to require intelligence. It's one thing to argue that chance processes can happen, but why can we simply assume that they're just 'passed on to the next generation'? You see, there has to already be an order, a system, an intelligence in place in order for those genes to be passed on. Where did THAT come from?

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

Pete: "But early cells simply grew and divided - they didn't have to procreate,"

Bill: "They grew and divided? Why? Where did the information for growing and dividing come from? Do you see how this doesn't make sense? If a cell somehow did manage to come into existence, where did it get all that information that we just assume it had? We consider it simply inherent to cells -- simply inherent to life. Maybe it is exactly that - simply inherent."

Pete: "You're arguing for a creator?"

Bill: "Why not? I believe that Z-pak you're taking for your pneumonia was specifically designed and created by a drug company. It's not even living, and I don't think it's any more than 13 chemicals in combination. Why wouldn't I believe that our bodies, which are living and so very much more complex, were created also?"

Pete: "But science says--"

Bill: "Science says that the z-pak was created, yes. And it also says that the human body is much more complex. Science does NOT say that man evolved. Science is study involving the observable and repeatable. That's why we know the z-pak was created -- by observation and repetition. But science cannot claim evolution. Individual scientists can claim it, for they are men and women with beliefs and faith, just like us. And so many scientists have claimed it. And many scientists have also claimed that God created the world, humans, and everything else. Neither of those is science. That's faith."

You see, it is complete foolishness to believe that Zithromax was designed by a drug company and at the same time to believe that your body was just a random happening.

Did I Fail as a Mom?

A message to all those mothers today who feel like they've failed.

Jochebed (Moses' mother) was a Failure

(Part of the Biblical Failures Series)

--If you don't have much time, scroll down and start at the section titled, "The Story Goes Gray"--

Introduction

Many of us view Moses as a great man of God. He was an amazing leader who led Israel out of slavery and into the Promised Land! How grand it must have been to be the mother of such an amazing person.

Or not.

Jochebed was a failure.

It's a Boy! -- was NOT a celebration.

Or, at least, she probably thought she was. As far as we know, Moses was the second male child born to Amram and Jochebed. The conditions surrounding their births were very different. By the time that Moses was born, it was illegal for male children to live. In a spirit of heroic and loving motherhood, Jochebed managed to hide Moses for three months! (See Exodus 2). As any mother of an infant knows, this was no small achievement! But things changed, and after three months, his parents had to face the agonizing realization that if they tried to hide him any longer, he would be found, and if found, murdered. As my pastor mentioned this morning, Jochebed had to be willing to give up her motherhood of Moses in order to save his life. "In order for Moses to live, someone else would have to raise him." (Thomas Lorimer)

Losing Her Baby

Imagine the thoughts and feelings that Jochebed must have struggled with. If she puts him in the Nile, he is going to cry. If he cries, people will find him. If the wrong person finds him . . . He will die. It must have been a tremendous internal battle. Jochebed certainly realized that she may never see her baby again. But practically, their options were few. If they keep him, he will die, guaranteed. If they try to let an Egyptian find him, he has a very slight chance at living. But the Bible gives us a clearer perspective in Hebrews chapter 11, verse 23. "By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict." Jochebed had faith in a great big God, and she trusted that God was in control. Though she would have to give her child up, and she may never see him again, she believed that God could take care of him.

Irony upon Irony

This story is full of irony. I find it comical that Moses' parents actually found a creative way to obey the law. The law stated that all Hebrew boys should be thrown into the Nile. That's exactly what they did -- they just put a boat underneath! lol.

But I'm sure that on that day they were not smirking to themselves about how clever they had been. Who wouldn't be crying on the day you see your baby for the last time? An interesting note is that Moses' parents did not turn their backs on him. Miriam, his sister, "stood at a distance to see what would happen to him" (v 4). By chance (or an act of God), the daughter of Pharaoh shows up! The hand of God is clearly evident. She has compassion and decides to adopt this child as her own. Miriam, obviously old enough to allow God to give her a clever wit, shows up (and no one is surprised?) and offers to find a Hebrew to be a nurse mother to raise the boy for the princess. The princess agrees. And in a powerful irony that only God can create -- Jochebed was hired by the princess to raise Moses! She's getting paid to raise her own son!

Losing Her Baby the Second Time

Or not. No, in a very real sense, this baby was no longer her child. She had in fact lost her motherhood of him in order to save his life. And when he was old enough, Jochebed lost her child again. She had to give him to Pharaoh's daughter. I have no idea whether this would have been harder or easier than the first time. Perhaps some of you mothers will be able to tell me. But I imagine that this loss was harder. Mothers often worry about their children, and I imagine that Jochebed was very afraid. Which is worse, to lose your child to death, or to lose your child's soul? The only danger she faced the first time was that her baby would die. But now she is turning over a young and impressionable child to an evil tyrant - to be trained in state, in court, and in politics. Moses would be trained to be exactly the kind of person that the Hebrews hated. Mom, isn't this harder than death? Jochebed had but a short time to try to instill every value she possibly could in this young boy. And then he was gone. Gone to be indoctrinated as a communist leader. Gone to a Muslim suicide bomber training camp. Gone to be trained by the enemy. ... Worry ...

The Story Goes Gray

So far, the story has been amazing. God has turned things inside out and done some really awesome miracles! But what happens now? She is no longer Moses' mother. She does not know what will happen. But the possibilities certainly don't look good. We don't really know what all Jochebed knew of Moses after that. But let's imagine what she might have known. After such a long time, how he had turned out? Would he turn on them and become a regular Egyptian? Perhaps a glimmer of hope comes when she hears that Moses is not really acting as the son of the daughter of Pharaoh, but has come down to see his fellow Hebrews. But hope turns to dispair, when just as quickly, she receives news that her son is a murderer. It sounds more like he has become an angry rebellious young man, who both turned against Pharaoh and against his own people. No, he didn't become who she had hoped. And in all too short a time, her little baby Moses has become a murderer and a fugitive.

Jochebed, You're a Failure

A murderer and a fuguive. With a price on his head, her boy flees from the country. And it's very likely that he's never heard from again. Not from his mom, anyway. He worked in the desert for 40 years, and certainly couldn't come back to visit. While it is possible that Jochebed had already passed away before Moses became a murderer, we can be quite sure that she was dead before he returned on God's business. Assuming she was still alive, the last she knew of her son was that he had turned out awful. She must have spent all too much time scolding herself for not telling him one more story about God, for never telling him that one important truth she forgot, for not doing enough ... for not being good enough. How could she have failed after God had given him back to her? But she had. She had failed as a mother, and her son was lost.

What About You? -The Rest of the Story

The story could end there. And perhaps it has for you. It may seem as though all is lost, and your children are lost forever. Perhaps you are crying, like Jochebed, "Why didn't he just die when he was a baby? Then he would have gone to heaven! Now his soul is lost, and however will he come back to God again?"

But the Bible never gives us this idea of Jochebed. Instead, she appears in God's "Hall of Faith", as someone who trusted and believed God to do what she could not! God had worked in Moses' life when it was impossible, and God could do it again! I imagine that Jochebed spent more hours than any of us could count praying for her son. Mom couldn't do anything for her boy anymore, but she could pray. She could pray ... she could pray until the day she died. I have heard so many testimonies about the power of a praying mom. Don't give up! Jochebed felt like a failure too. But her son was Moses, leader of Israel!

If you can do nothing else, pray hard! The God of Moses and his mom is still God today! I remind you that Jochebed never saw her son amount to anything. But we did. We see the rest of the story,

"By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible." - Hebrews 11:24-27

Evil People Get Away With Everything

Recently, while reading Psalm 37, I realized that it is basically written as an instruction booklet!

It seems like God doesn't punish bad people. It seems like evil people get away with everything. What's the use in being good and doing the right things?

Here's God's answer, straight to us. (Psalm 37:1-9)

These are commands. They are not based in feeling, but in what God directs us.

1) Do not fret

because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away.

2) Trust in the Lord and do good;

dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture

3) Delight yourself in the Lord

and He will give you the desires of your heart.

4) Commit your way to the Lord; trust in Him

and He will do this: He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.

5) Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for Him;

do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes.

6) Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;

do not fret—it leads only to evil. For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

Devotional Thought:

Three times the command, "Do not fret" is repeated. This phrase basically means to not allow yourself to be worked up in anger or vexation. Don't be angry about it, don't worry about it, don't get worked up about it. Instead,

• Trust in the Lord -- focus on God, and not the evil person, have faith in Him.
• Delight in the Lord -- moving from faith to emotion; this is becoming real to us
• Commit your own way to the Lord -- Now the focus is on us. What about the way we are living and acting? Is it pleasing to the Lord? Is it committed to the Lord?
• Wait patiently for the Lord. Oh dear. We thought that after we did the right thing, He would punish those people .... Sorry, but He basically says that the wicked will continue to succeed. This is not a formula for expecting God to act. These are instructions to change our focus.

So now, after telling us that the situation is not likely to change, and He wants us to wait for Him, He again reminds us: Do not fret! Refrain from anger! Turn from wrath! Do not fret! Lol, I think God understands us. About this time, we were getting upset again, so He again instructs us four times in a row to not worry ourselves about it!

Trust, delight, commit, and quietly wait. Lord, help us to think and act in a way that pleases you!

Textual Criticism and Lyrical Acceptance

Why your favorite singer is preaching your sermons.

"As God has shown us by turning stone to bread, So we all must lend a helping hand." - We Are the World by Michael Jackson

By nature, we are evaluative creatures. Very few of us start eating a meal without gaining a pretty good idea of what is sitting in front of us. We want to know what we're getting ourselves into. And we want to know the truth.

So it's really no surprise that when we hear a speech or a sermon, we immediately evaluate what the speaker is saying. And woe to the speaker who misspeaks. After the lecture, the halls will be filled with people asking, "Did you hear him say that Asia is the largest country in the world? The guy doesn't know the difference between a continent and a country." or, "His comment about economics was totally wrong - I'm an accountant, and he was way off-base." Whether intentional or mistaken, any known error is likely to be evaluated and criticised. The same happens with print. For example, a promotion was just placed in front of me on the plane. Though produced by a major company, the promotion includes a logo that has the human heart located in the wrong place. Though I noticed quickly, my reaction was not to the degree that it was a few weeks ago when I saw inaccurate information presented in our newspaper regarding a case for which I was a Jury member. We are "textually critical" of words we hear spoken or see in print.

The real surprise is in the words we don't evaluate. I submit to you that words couched as lyrics are accepted without the same degree of evaluation. In fact, I would argue that they receive little evaluation at all. Why is it that songs are so readily accepted? I have heard songs with lyrics that are dumb. I have heard songs with lyrics that are untruthful. I have heard songs with lyrics that are morally bad. But consistently, if these songs are criticized, others defend them. In fact, it seems to be a social taboo to speak badly of a song. "If you don't like it, then don't listen to it," we're told.

It appears to me that our recording artists have more of a ready pulpit than our preachers. Our pop stars have a more accepting audience than our professors. And our favorite bands' words are more quickly accepted than those of the world's greatest professional.

Textual criticism. Lyrical acceptance.

The Crisis and the Process of Growing Up

Growing up is a process. Slow and gradual.

But there comes a point where everything changes. Thinking changes. From that point on, one understands that they are now a man, and no longer a boy; are now a woman, and no longer a girl.

That doesn't mean there won't be some boyish/girly behavior. But the thinking is different. The understanding and the goals are different. Today, he understands that he is a man.

Some cultures have a specific rite to commemorate or encourage this occurrence. Some hold special ceremonies, others require deeds of bravery to done at a certain age. Some have initiation, and some simply give more responsibility. But in most cultures, there is a community expectation that encourages this change.

The United States doesn't have a specific rite. The closest would probably be gaining the right to vote at age 18 and being able to drink at age 21. I wonder if our lack of emphasis on and recognition of growing up has contributed to some of our cultural concerns -- "soft men", immaturity, and children who happen to be 35. . . .

I think this change often happens naturally at key events. High School Graduation, College Graduation, Marriage, etc. Perhaps the most specific change would be at marriage. There is a community expectation that behavior will change when someone gets married, and they will act 'more grown up'. How many times have we heard the phrase "settle down and get married"?

This change is a not a point where we are suddenly "grown up". It is a point where we decide to be grown up. Something changes on the inside. Our goals change. Our focus changes. All of a sudden, at one point or crisis, life begins to revolve around "grown up" things. We understand new responsibilities. We must no longer act as children. We have had the crisis; we will be grown up.

The process does not stop; the crisis accelerates the growth.

(A life illustration of sanctification)

In so many similar ways, our spiritual life reflects our physical life. Our spiritual life has been described as both a crisis and a process. When we were saved, we began a consistent pattern of spiritual growth (I hope!). But there often comes a point where God challenges us with the question of how "grown up" we will be spiritually. Will we really commit everything to Him? Will we love and serve Him no matter what happens - good or bad? Our response to this challenge determines our spiritual maturity. Will we remain a spiritual child, or will we accept the responsibility and make the commitment?

The process does not stop; the crisis accelerates the growth.

Doubts and Distrust? -What do we do when we cannot trust God?

What do we do when we cannot believe God?

"One of the devil's favorite temptations is the kind we cannot argue out of.

We simply have to believe.

That's what we call faith."

Satan wants to make us doubt God. He wants to get us to the place where we cannot trust God.

How can we win a battle if we cannot trust God?

Examples:

In the garden of Eden, the devil challenged Adam and Eve with this question, "Did God really say? ..." (Gen 3:1) Then he directly contradicted God's words. As an argument, the devil probably won. The only way to win that battle would have been to stop arguing, and claim faith -- "God said it, I believe it, and I'm going to follow and obey Him!"

When Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, logically, Satan's first temptation made very good sense. "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." (Matt 4:3). Logically, it makes sense. Jesus is hungry. He understands that physically, he is near the point of starving to death. As the Son of God, he has the power to turn the stones into bread. And most importantly, what Satan has suggested is not wrong. He's not even suggesting that Jesus do anything bad at all. In fact, it would probably be the smartest thing to do.

But Jesus understood that this temptation was coming from the devil, and should be rejected, even though it made logical sense, and was not sinful. Beware my friends, for the devil may first tempt with things that are not wrong. They help his logical case, and get you used to following him.

Contrary to logic, Jesus clung to the Word of God in faith. And He won the battle.

Recently, I have faced similar temptations. Logically, the devil had a very good point. Intellectually, he had beaten me. In fact, I was inclined to agree with him. I had to tenaciously cling to faith, against my intellect and reason. And I won. Not by argument or debate, but by faith.

Discussion

We cannot win spiritual battles intellectually. "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." (2 Corinthians 10:4). There is a reason that in God's armor our DEFENSE is called the Shield of Faith. Faith is the only way to win many of these combats. The devil will mess with our mind. We can only win by faith in the Word of God (the sword). (Ephesians 6)

One of the devil's favorite temptations is the kind we cannot argue out of.

We simply have to believe.

That's what we call faith.

We're used to being able to argue to what is right. But what about when we can't? What if there is no good argument? What about when we cannot answer why?

We must believe.

I just want to highlight some words from John chapter 14:

[Jesus] Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.

[Us] Lord, we don't know ... so how can we know?

[J] I am the way. If you really know me, you will know ...

[Us] Lord, show us ...

[J] Don't you believe? ... Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

Our most important choices in life must be decisions of the will, without the benefit of the understanding.

• Salvation requires an act of the will
• Marriage is a decision of the will without the benefit of understanding. "For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health." One simply does not know what is coming, but is deciding to be committed and faithful anyway.Too many marriages end because someone starts arguing "I didn't understand what I was getting into."
• Our dedication to the Lord must also be an act of the will, even without the benefit of understanding. He has promised persecution, pain, and that the world will hate us (John 15:18-21).

We won't understand what is happening, or why. But the most important decision is this -- will we serve Him, trust Him, and love Him, even when we don't understand?

Job is a constant challenge to my faith. In the midst of the worst (and no good intellectual argument, and no one could answer why), Job makes the strongest statement of faith:

"Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." Job 13:15

Thoughts:

"I don't understand," said the blind man.

The guide replied with a chuckle, "That is because you cannot see."

Please listen to this song:

"The Promise" by the Martins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Irtr3sbBM

What God Hath Promised - Hymn

Verse 1

God hath not promised skies always blue,

Flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;

God hath not promised sun without rain,

Joy without sorrow, peace without pain.

Chorus

But God hath promised strength for the day,

Rest for the labor, light for the way,

Grace for the trials, help from above,

Unfailing sympathy, undying love.

Verse 2

God hath not promised we shall not know

Toil and temptation, trouble and woe;

He hath not told us we shall not bear

Many a burden, many a care.

Verse 3

God hath not promised smooth roads and wide,

Swift, easy travel, needing no guide;

Never a mountain, rocky and steep,

Never a river, turbid and deep.

Car Wrecks and Culture

Today, I arrived shortly after an auto accident had occured. The car had gone off the road, through a fence, flipped, and landed in a creek. The rescue workers arrived shortly after I did, and immediately went to work. While a couple checked the driver to make sure he was stable, the others began cutting the fence apart. This struck me. No one there attemped to argue with them or stop them. That fence was installed by a farmer. He paid for it; he did all the work; he owned it. And they tore it out without the slightest consideration as to how much it might cost him to replace it. You see, here in the US, we value human life. The preservation of life is everyone's responsibility. That driver needed help. The farmer will have to pay to replace his own fence, but that is his part in helping to save human life.

In some countries, I have heard, this is not the case. Life-saving efforts may be hampered or stopped by individuals insisting on payment for damages to their property. Sometimes a badly injured driver may be chased all the way to the hospital by those insisting that he pay for the damages he just caused.

I'm happy I live in the United States.

Here in the US, we feel that the preservation of life is everyone's responsibility.

Do You Have an Open Mind?

What exactly does it mean when someone says, "I have an open mind"?

I've met some people with an open mind like an:

• open space - nothing, not even gravity
• open prairie - breezy endless wasteland
• open briefcase - everything inside falls out
• open well - easily contaminated by anything the wind blows in
• open season - everything there is fair game
• open sewer - well, you get the picture
• open mine - dark, confusing, and easy to get lost
• open door - just because it's open doesn't mean it should be
• open gun chamber - only open for a split second, between shots
• open trap - one wrong move and it closes hard and fast
• open hydrant - it's open, but there's so much coming out you can't put anything in

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - GK Chesterton

Celebrate Freedom!

This July 4th, I celebrate freedom.

I hear some clamoring for more freedom -- freedom to exercise their "rights"; freedom to have their "rights" met; and freedom to do whatever they want without fear of guilt, disdain, or punishment. But this is not freedom. This purported "freedom" is in fact, a cry for anarchy! If everyone could do whatever they wanted chaos would reign, then yield its throne to tyranny. This is not freedom. I celebrate something quite different this July 4th.

I celebrate freedom from things which I have never experienced. Things which I had heard about, but had never understood.

I celebrate freedom of religion. I am thankful that I can worship God in my own way. I have been freed from a state - yes, even international - church, whose priest is greater than any king. I am free from religious persecution if I happen to choose a different doctrine than the one imposed by this tyrannic church. I do not have to face torture and death from the church if I belong to a different denomination.

I celebrate freedom of press. I am thankful that I am allowed to print and read all the truth. I have been freed from a regulated and dictated media. I am free to read for myself in my own language. I do not have to go to someone who can read, who must tell me how and what to think. The Bible is in my language. I can read it, and it is not a capital crime.

I celebrate freedom of speech. I am thankful that I am allowed to speak my mind. I have been freed from a systematic destruction of opposition. I am free to speak out and oppose that which I do not agree with. I do not have to fear losing my property, my position, or my life because I spoke against a ruler.

My freedom is so complete, that I cannot even understand nor comprehend what my ancestors had to endure. Oppression of that degree is so far gone it is but a story. I have been freed from the tryanny and oppresion; from even the memory and lingering fear.
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, to those who freed me from tyranny.

This July 4th, perhaps for the first time, I am beginning to understand what liberty means. I am beginning to love and appreciate those who died, so that I might be freed from tyranny. I celebrate their victory. I celebrate America.
I celebrate freedom.


If you want something to be thankful for this July 4th, read Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_57

"... they slew of all ranks and conditions to the number of 10,000. The bodies were thrown into the rivers, and blood ran through the streets with a strong current, and the river appeared presently like a stream of blood. So furious was their hellish rage, that they slew all papists whom they suspected to be not very staunch to their diabolical religion. From Paris the destruction spread to all quarters of the realm. . . .
"At Augustobona, on the people hearing of the massacre at Paris, they shut their gates that no protestants might escape, and searching diligently for every individual of the reformed church, imprisoned and then barbarously murdered them."

"When the reformed religion began to diffuse the gospel light throughout church, he accordingly instituted a number of inquisitors, or persons who were to make inquiry after, apprehend, and punish, heretics, as the reformed were called by the papists."
"The principal accusation against those who are subject to this tribunal is heresy, which comprises all that is spoken, or written, against any of the articles of the creed, or the traditions of the Roman church . . . and of such who read the bible in the common language . . . ."
"Upon all occasions the inquisitors carry on their processes with the utmost severity, and punish those who offend them with the most unparalleled cruelty. A protestant has seldom any mercy shown him, and a Jew, who turns christian, is far from being secure. . . .
"A defence in the inquisition is of little use to the prisoner, for a suspicion only is deemed sufficient cause of condemnation . . . ."
"A prisoner in the inquisition is never allowed to see the face of his accuser , or of the witnesses against him ..."

"A. D. 1546, Peter Chapot brought a number of bibles in the French tongue to France, and publicly sold them there; for which he was brought to trial, sentenced, and executed a few days afterward."