my cup runneth over

NOTHING BUT A WISP OF FOG

and now i have a word for you who brashly announce, “today - at the latest, tomorrow - we’re off to such and such a city for the year. we’re going to start a business and make a lot of money.”

you don’t know the first thing about tomorrow. you’re nothing but a wisp of fog, catching a brief bit of sun before disappearing. 

instead, make it a habit to say, “if the Master wills it and we’re still alive, we’ll do this or that.”

as it is, you are fully of your grandiose selves. all such vaunting self-importance is evil. in fact, if you know the right thing to do and don’t do it, that, for you, is evil.

by john calvin:

"I want to start by saying something that I would like everyone to notice carefully. It is this. If this chapter means nothing to you, if it seems to be trying to answer questions you never asked, drop it at once. Do not bother about it at all. There are certain things in Christianity that can be understood from the outside, before you have become a Christian. But there are a great many things that cannot be understood until after you have gone a certain distance along the Christian road. These things are purely practical, though they do not look as if they were. They are directions for dealing with particular cross-roads and obstacles on the journey and they do not make sense until a man has reached those places. Whenever you find any statement in Christian writings which you can make nothing of, do not worry. Leave it alone. There will come a day, perhaps years later, when you suddenly see what it meant If one could understand it now, it would only do one harm.

Of course all this tells against me as much as anyone else. The thing I am going to try to explain in this chapter may be ahead of me. I may be thinking I have got there when I have not. I can only ask instructed Christians to watch very carefully, and tell me when I go wrong; and others to take what I say with a grain of salt- as something offered, because it may be a help, not because I am certain that I am right.

I am trying to talk about Faith in the second sense, the higher sense. I said last week that the question of Faith in this sense arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God's own. In other words, he discovers his bankruptcy. Now, once again, what God cares about is not exactly our actions. What he cares about is that we should be creatures of a certain kind or quality- the kind of creatures He intended us to be-creatures related to Himself in a certain way. I do not add "and related to one another in a certain way," because that is included: if you are right with Him you will inevitably be right with all your fellow-creatures, just as if all the spokes of a wheel are fitted rightly into the hub and the rim they are bound to be in the right positions to one another. And as long as a man is thinking of God as an examiner who has set him a sort of paper to do, or as the opposite party in a sort of bargain-as long as he is thinking of claims and counterclaims between himself and God-he is not yet in the right relation to Him. He is misunderstanding what he is and what God is. And he cannot get into the right relation until he has discovered the fact of our bankruptcy.

When I say "discovered," I mean really discovered: not simply said it parrot-fashion. Of course, any child, if given a certain kind of religious education, will soon learn to say that we have nothing to offer to God that is not already His own and that we find ourselves failing to offer even that without keeping something back. But I am talking of really discovering this: really finding out by experience that it is true.

Now we cannot, in that sense, discover our failure to keep God's law except by trying our very hardest (and then failing). Unless we really try, whatever we say there will always be at the back of our minds the idea that if we try harder next time we shall succeed in being completely good. Thus, in one sense, the road back to God is a road of moral effort, of trying harder and harder. But in another sense it is not trying that is ever going to bring us home. All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, "You must do this. I can't." Do not, I implore you, start asking yourselves, "Have I reached that moment?" Do not sit down and start watching your own mind to see if it is coming along. That puts a man quite on the wrong track. When the most important things in our life happen we quite often do not know, at the moment, what is going on. A man does not always say to himself, "Hullo! I'm growing up." It is often only when he looks back that he realises what has happened and recognises it as what people call "growing up." You can see it even in simple matters. A man who starts anxiously watching to see whether he is going to sleep is very likely to remain wide awake. As well, the thing I am talking of now may not happen to every one in a sudden flash-as it did to St Paul or Bunyan: it may be so gradual that no one could ever point to a particular hour or even a particular year. And what matters is the nature of the change in itself, not how we feel while it is happening. It is the change from being confident about our own efforts to the state in which we despair of doing anything for ourselves and leave it to God.

I know the words "leave it to God" can be misunderstood, but they must stay for the moment. The sense in which a Christian leaves it to God is that he puts all his trust in Christ: trusts that Christ will somehow share with him the perfect human obedience which He carried out from His birth to His crucifixion: that Christ will make the man more like Himself and, in a sense, make good his deficiencies. In Christian language, He will share His "sonship" with us, will make us, like Himself, "Sons of God": in Book IV I shall attempt to analyse the meaning of those words a little further. If you like to put it that way, Christ offers something for nothing: He even offers everything for nothing. In a sense, the whole Christian life consists in accepting that very remarkable offer. But the difficulty is to reach the point of recognising that all we have done and can do is nothing. What we should have liked would be for God to count our good points and ignore our bad ones. Again, in a sense, you may say that no temptation is ever overcome until we stop trying to overcome it- throw up the sponge. But then you could not "stop trying" in the right way and for the right reason until you had tried your very hardest. And, in yet another sense, handing everything over to Christ does not, of course, mean that you stop trying. To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says. There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice. Thus if you have really handed yourself over to Him, it must follow that you are trying to obey Him. But trying in a new way, a less worried way. Not doing these things in order to be saved, but because He has begun to save you already. Not hoping to get to Heaven as a reward for your actions, but inevitably wanting to act in a certain way because a first faint gleam of Heaven is already inside you.

Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come. There are two parodies of the truth which different sets of Christians have, in the past, been accused by other Christians of believing: perhaps they may make the truth clearer. One set were accused of saying, "Good actions are all that matters. The best good action is charity. The best kind of charity is giving money. The best thing to give money to is the Church. So hand us over Ј10,000 and we will see you through." The answer to that nonsense, of course, would be that good actions done for that motive, done with the idea that Heaven can be bought, would not be good actions at all, but only commercial speculations. The other set were accused of saying, "Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn't matter what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end." The answer to that nonsense is that, if what you call your "faith" in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not Faith at all-not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him.

The Bible really seems to clinch the matter when it puts the two things together into one amazing sentence. The first half is, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"-which looks as if everything depended on us and our good actions: but the second half goes on, "For it is God who worketh in you"- which looks as if God did everything and we nothing. I am afraid that is the sort of thing we come up against in Christianity. I am puzzled, but I am not surprised. You see, we are now trying to understand, and to separate into water-tight compartments, what exactly God does and what man does when God and man are working together. And, of course, we begin by thinking it is like two men working together, so that you could say, "He did this bit and I did that." But this way of thinking breaks down. God is not like that. He is inside you as well as outside: even if we could understand who did what, I do not think human language could properly express it. In the attempt to express it different Churches say different things. But you will find that even those who insist most strongly on the importance of good actions tell you you need Faith; and even those who insist most strongly on Faith tell you to do good actions. At any rate that is as far as I go.

in the past 24 hours or so, God has been wrecking my heart with these two lessons: stuff with "that one guy," as he will be known on tumblr, has been weighing heavily on my heart lately. i was trying to write down my testimony to send to him and i read something that summed up the christian life pretty well: "i'm just a poor beggar who wants to tell the other poor beggars where i've found bread." that's stunning! but i need to tell someone all of this, and i choose you - here's what i am hardcore learning lately, even though it super sucks: God is asking me to be obedient. i am continually wondering why He would not only put "that one guy" in my life but allow me to fall in love with him when i cannot be with him. i am not nor was i ever angry with God for doing so, but i just didn't see the point or the purpose, which left me feeling frustrated and assuming that i was keeping him in my life for selfish reasons and maybe not acting according to God's will. but my job to is to learn to practice Godly obedience. i love him, and save my relationship with the Lord, want to have a relationship with him more than anything else i can think of. and the Lord knows that. He knows it better than i do! He knows ways and reasons that i love him better than i do. and yet, i say with my mouth that i love the Lord more than i love that relationship with him. and i am given a chance to not only speak those words but to show them with my actions by putting the Lord first. i don't mean to try and sound all noble, but i believe that i need to use discernment to determine if i am not really and continually sacrificing of myself for God. and i know that i want to obey God, and as i write this i honestly feel a sharp pain in my heart because i do not want to think about sacrificing my relationship with him. i do not want to consider a relationship with anyone else. but here is why, despite how sad i am thinking of that, why i trust that it will be better than okay: i know that God is better. i know that He is more loving and more satisfying. i know that it will be better. it's hard to get there though, and i need to trust that He is going to use this situation to reveal those truths to me in a tangible, actual way; a way that i will feel and not just know. i am going to feel that God is better. and i need to trust that He will bless me for my obedience even though it is not what i want to do. after all, who better to satisfy my heart than the one who created it? :) 

and secondly, i've been learning a lot about grace lately: it is utterly confusing to a non-believer. not in the intellectual sense. they, if they've had to it properly explained to them, can reiterate and explain it fine. but they do not feel the weight of it nor grasp the importance of it. they have to feel it. once they've been shown grace (which is to say being shown forgiveness when, even to them, it makes absolutely no sense to have been forgiven), it is then that the knowledge of God-given grace and love and forgiveness and acceptance can trickle from their head into their hearts. i was at reality SF a few weeks ago, and when talking about grace, the pastor told this story: a poor/homeless man was offered the opportunity to stay the night at a man's house, who happened to be a priest. or something. and this priest fed him and clothed him and gave him a place to sleep. after talking for some time after their meal, they went to bed. and before the priest rose in the morning, the homeless man, who was a thief, stole a lot of the fine silver that the priest had (for whatever reason he had tons, i guess) and left. the police caught the thief and took him back to the priest's home to return the silver. the priest was given the chance to not only reclaim what was rightfully his and what the their did not deserve, to shame him, and to scold him. but, the priest told the police that he has given the silver to the man. AND that he had given the thief more silver, which he had forgotten to take - he actually went and gathered the rest of his silver and gave it to the thief. the thief was, of course, shocked, expecting and knowing that he deserved scorn. i thought that that was a really wonderful parallel for the grace of God - us, knowing in our hearts that we are sinners, and yet feeling the acceptance of someone so loving when we know that we do not deserve it. i am making it my prayer and my focus to be provided with opportunities to display this type of grace to my peers at berkeley. i want them to feel the mind-blowing and absolutely astonishing and absolutely perfect grace of God through me. i want to see others with God's eyes and to not want to do anything but love them without expectation of receiving anything in return. i suppose a good place to start is with one of my roommates, because if i'm being honest, i sort of hate her. she is nasty and difficult to live with. but i love her because Christ first loved her. and i want to see her with Christ's eyes. that something i want to always be thinking of: because He first loved us.

Churches and ministries are coming under increasingly aggressive pressure from militant homosexuality. Some homosexuals are combing websites looking for sermons and statements that they can use in the media to ridicule Christianity and build sympathy for their cause.

When challenged, many Christians and even many pastors, struggle to defend and explain their position in a way that is Scriptural, consistent, and loving. Homosexuals and the media often point to other Old Testament verses that forbid things that Christians now eat or use. How do we explain that? 

Well, here’s a short briefing paper that I hope will answer some of these questions, and also help Christians and pastors to explain the Bible’s teaching in a loving way. Below you will find a bullet point summary of the paper (each point is explained in fuller detail in the paper). For further reading, please see the books referenced in the footnotes. And a huge thank you to my Research Assistant for the huge amount of work he put into this paper. 

Homosexuality, polyester, and shellfish.

What do these three things have in common? Well, they are all mentioned in the Bible as forbidden by God. And the latter two come up in conversations about the first.  The charge is often that Christians are being inconsistent – we allow polyester and enjoy shellfish, but we still condemn homosexuality.

The real question is not why Christians are inconsistent. The real question is why and how Christians do make a distinction between homosexuality, polyester, and shellfish. Because they do, and it matters.

The short answer is because Scripture demands that we must. The long answer is that when we take into account some basic hermeneutical principles and some Scriptural principles, we realize that we must relate differently to homosexuality than to shellfish.

Basic Hermeneutical Principles.  Our interpretation of Scripture is based on the following convictions:

Scripture is an authoritative revelation of God.

The central unifying theme of Scripture is Jesus Christ.

Old Testament law is divided into three main types: civil, ceremonial, and moral:

The civil laws were given to a unique nation (Israel) for a unique purpose and time.

The ceremonial laws pointed to Christ’s sacrifice and were abolished by His sacrifice.

The moral laws define sin and continue in force.

Homosexuality falls under the moral law.

The punishments for the moral law have changed.

The Old Testament needs to be understood in light of the New Testament.

The Old Testament law is still relevant today.

So, since the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, and we can distinguish between various Old Testament commands, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Relevant Scriptural Principles. Our position on homosexuality is based on Scriptural principles:

God created all things, including sexuality.

All humans are God’s creation.

Sex has a limited role and purpose in life.

Sin impacts all of life, including sex.

Homosexuality is a consequence of sin.

Scripture states that homosexuality is sinful behavior.

Homosexuality is not the only sin in society.

Sinners, including homosexual sinners, can receive salvation.

Believers cannot be characterized as having a homosexual life.

Victory over sin, including homosexuality, is possible.

Basic Relational Principles. Our interactions and relationships will be based on Scriptural principles:

Remember that salvation is more important than being heterosexual, or outlawing same-sex marriage.

Homosexuality is being used as a cultural battleground.

Fear and hatred of homosexuals are not proper responses.

Christians need to show grace to those who misunderstand.

Addressing the issue of homosexuality gives the church a unique opportunity to witness. 

All ministry on earth (apart from Christ’s) is from sinners to sinners.

Love sometimes demands non-approval.

Therefore the difference between homosexuality, polyester, or shellfish is not a reactionary choice between homophobia or vestiphobia or ichthyophobia. It is not an inconsistent personal preference.

if someone were to say to me, "life is meaningless," i would ask them if their statement or definition is meaningful. you see, it is not possible to debunk meaning with a meaningful statement. if someone were to say to me, "everything in life is meaningless," i would probably also say to them "you don't really believe that." and he'd probably say, "yes i do, who are you to tell me what i believe," and my response would be, "if you say 'everything in life is meaningless,' i assume that you assume that what you just said was meaningful, and if what you've just said is meaningful, then everything cannot be meaningless. on the other hand, if everything is meaningless, then what you've just said is meaningless and you've said nothing." i'm not trying to put someone down or make them feel stupid, but imagine all the people in this world with astounding intellectual capacity who live their lives believing that life is meaningless. it just tells you, what is this all about then? why do i have to make sense? why do i have to defend christian doctrine, and make sense? if life is meaningless, why should my philosophy be meaningful?

secondly..

relativity (a really summarized explanation): a refutation of absolute truth. the idea that no truth, no one truth, fits on all people everywhere. 

the moment you say that no one religion can have the whole truth, the every religion simply has a piece of the truth, you are claiming the very knowledge that you say no one can have. that's what you just did - you alone as the relativist see ultimate reality, you alone as the relativist understand how the universe works, you are claiming the very things you call christians, and muslims, and jews arrogant bigots for. see, it's silly - you can't say there's no truth, because that would have to be true, now wouldn't it?

the majority of americans now believe that no one religion can know the fullness of spiritual truth, and that those who claim they do know the fullness of spiritual truth are arrogant and intolerant. 

a common way to illustrate this point is the indian parable of the elephant and the blind men. the elephant is supposed to represent God/ultimate reality and the blind men are various religions. the story goes somewhat like this: one man goes to feel the elephant and he grabs the trunk, and he says okay, this thing is like a snake, it's a snake! and another guy grabs the leg and he says oh no no, it's nothing like a snake, it's like a tree trunk! it's a tree trunk! and some other guy is just feeling the side of the elephant and he says no, wait, it's a wall. this is a wall. and the fourth guy is just in the back holding the tail and he's like i don't know what you're talking about, this thing is just hairy. 

now, here's the point: the point of the parable is to show how each of the religions, while all somewhat correct, are all, ultimately, wrong. and that anyone who would steadfastly say, "an elephant is like a snake. and i don't care what anybody else says, an elephant is like a snake," is arrogant, foolish, and causes violence against humanity. 

surprise! i have a problem with this.

i have a problem with this because i am a believer in Jesus Christ. but if you're a skeptic, you don't care. so i will address the other reason why i have a problem with this.

i have a problem with this idea because it is intellectually inconsistent. it uses smoke and mirrors to make itself appear more tolerant and "enlightened" than the rest of us, when in reality, it's no more tolerant or enlightened. 

let me explain...

the only way that the parable of the elephant and the blind men makes any sense is if the narrator of the story sees the whole elephant. the moment you claim "ultimate reality is unknowable" you have just claimed the knowledge that you say cannot be claimed. the second that you say "ultimate reality is unknowable" and "ultimate truth is unknowable" you've just claimed the knowledge that you say no one can have. 

this is intellectually inconsistent. i'm not speaking religiously. i'm speaking intellectually, philosophically - relativity has an unbelievable amount of holes. 

on top of that, the belief system that no one can know God in such a way as to invalidate what someone else believes about God is in itself a religion that has it's own affirmations, denials, and absolute truths. this parable is sort of comical on a philosophical level. 

here would be/are their affirmations: God is ultimately unknowable. no one can know the full truth about God. the only way to possibly know that, is to claim that you know how the universe works, and why it works that way. 

consider these (relativistic) statements: all religions are the same. all religions are following a path to God. it does not matter what you believe or what path you take, it's how you live.  these are religions statements - dogmatic, doctrinal statements about God. so they are claiming, by saying there is no truth, and then saying that no one can know God in His fullness, and all religions can lead to God, it doesn't matter what you believe but how you live - those are absolute religious statements. 

here is the irony of ironies: the relativist and me are claiming the same thing, which is an understanding of ultimate reality, only at different points of emphasis, except he sees me as arrogant and himself as enlightened.