No, I'm not talking about the 1992 Sir Mix-a-Lot song, "Baby Got Back". Frankly, that's a little out there for me. I'm more in tune with a more recent riff on that rhyme...
But since I'm a (musical) child of the 80's and 90's, I still have all these tunes stuck in my head; more and more they come to mind as I am reading the Bible. I know, that sounds a little weird, but I can't help thinking about a key line in an old song and wondering how it can be re-imagined as a way to promote Jesus. Kind of like the video above.
This past Saturday I had a veritable avalanche of musical imaginings. First, I heard the old ZZ Top song, "I Thank You". The key lyric is:
You didn't have to love me like you did
But you did, but you did
And I thank you
Anyone who is a Christ-follower can't help but see the connection between those lyrics and what God has done for humanity through Jesus.
Later, I was finishing up my devotional; the Apostle Paul was recounting in 2 Corinthians 12:9 how Jesus spoke these words to him: "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness."
And Paul goes on to say, when talking to the Corinthians of boasting, "But I would rather boast about my weakness, so the power of Christ will dwell in me."
For some strange reason that old Sir Mix-a-Lot song popped into my head and I kind of turned Paul's words around and asked, "How big are your "buts" today?"
I've heard people say, "Yes, it's so important to have the love of Christ in you - BUT - don't be a doormat," or, "I'm a Christian - BUT - if that person does that to me one more time...," or, "I try to love my neighbor as myself - BUT - that guy is just unloveable."
We all have big "buts". We all have lines that we don't want others to cross. We're ready to follow Christ - BUT - ... and that's when others look at us and say, "See? That's why I don't go to church or believe in that stuff."
Maybe the world would see Jesus differently if our "buts" weren't so big.
Many in the world today keep asking for proof; proof that God exists. Proof that Jesus is who He says He is. Maybe, if our "buts" weren't so big, they would have their proof?
What do you think.
X
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Friday, October 25, 2013
Love for Sale
Yesterday I wrote about the possibility that, eventually, video will supplant text as our information medium of choice. I didn't name this blog Stream of Consciousness for nothing; since then, I've been pondering the overall effects of video on our lives. Don't get me wrong, these missives are not meant to infer I am anti-video. However I will admit to times when I just have to step away from all the screens. Think about it. If you're like me, you are in front of some type of video screen for hour upon hour each day. Phone, tablet, laptop, computer, television, projection screen...if you live in a major world city like New York or London or Tokyo you can't even go outside without large public display screens shining down on you.
We are, all of us, bombarded with messaging from these screens. Some messages are personal, many are work related, but more and more, the Mad Men are invading all of our screens in an effort to win our love. That's right. Your love; my love; everyone's love is for sale. You may not think so but every time you buy a product, the influence of advertising is a factor in your decision. It may only be a small nudge but it's no longer a stretch to believe that an advertisement could be the main reason you have bought something.
The Talking Heads video above is aptly titled, "Love for Sale". From the 1986 album True Stories, it captures exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that advertisers' main objective is to separate us from our hard-earned money should not come as a surprise to anyone. The sole purpose of a successful ad is to create a need for the product being advertised - and to create that need in as many consumers as possible.
If video advertising were only informative, letting us calmly decide whether (or not) to buy something that would be one thing. However, can we continue to stand idly by while consumer debt, brought on by a need for more things, spirals out of control? Reliable statistics show that total household debt grew every year (with the exception of 1991) from 1982 to 2007. The Federal Reserve Board reports that as of 2008, American (total) household debt stood at $13.9 Trillion. That is $13,900,000,000,000. The U.S. National Debt Clock is currently showing our nation's debt at over $17 Trillion. But despite these horrifying numbers, we continue to spend money like drunken sailors on shore leave. And advertisers count on that.
There is a growing social and cultural selfishness. We justify the houses, cars, clothes, entertainment, etc. to ourselves with one phrase: because we DESERVE it!
Who is selling what to whom? Is it really the ad companies selling to us or are we selling our love to them? Give me 10% off and I'll love your product.
Before we ever started to worry about anyone loving us. Before we despaired of ever loving ourselves. God loved us. As we dig the hole of our life deeper and deeper, God continues to reach down in infinite kindness and mercy and grace to offer us a way - the way - out.
You want love? There's no need to sell your love; and the most important love in the whole world has no price tag. It's free. All you have to do is ask.
X
We are, all of us, bombarded with messaging from these screens. Some messages are personal, many are work related, but more and more, the Mad Men are invading all of our screens in an effort to win our love. That's right. Your love; my love; everyone's love is for sale. You may not think so but every time you buy a product, the influence of advertising is a factor in your decision. It may only be a small nudge but it's no longer a stretch to believe that an advertisement could be the main reason you have bought something.
All designed to earn our love.
The Talking Heads video above is aptly titled, "Love for Sale". From the 1986 album True Stories, it captures exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that advertisers' main objective is to separate us from our hard-earned money should not come as a surprise to anyone. The sole purpose of a successful ad is to create a need for the product being advertised - and to create that need in as many consumers as possible.
If video advertising were only informative, letting us calmly decide whether (or not) to buy something that would be one thing. However, can we continue to stand idly by while consumer debt, brought on by a need for more things, spirals out of control? Reliable statistics show that total household debt grew every year (with the exception of 1991) from 1982 to 2007. The Federal Reserve Board reports that as of 2008, American (total) household debt stood at $13.9 Trillion. That is $13,900,000,000,000. The U.S. National Debt Clock is currently showing our nation's debt at over $17 Trillion. But despite these horrifying numbers, we continue to spend money like drunken sailors on shore leave. And advertisers count on that.
There is a growing social and cultural selfishness. We justify the houses, cars, clothes, entertainment, etc. to ourselves with one phrase: because we DESERVE it!
Forty years of tricking ourselves into believing this...
What is the definition of love?
The answer to that question would take up an entire series of blogs...a couple of short definitions are:
The answer to that question would take up an entire series of blogs...a couple of short definitions are:
- An intense feeling of deep affection.
- Like very much; find pleasure in
The truth is, humanity has hijacked love. Individually, we twist love into all sorts of shapes, each claiming that our own, personal love-shape works for us. Corporately, we try desperately to tap into as many of those individual love-shapes as we can, to sway people to love the latest thing. In effect we sell our love to the company or companies that connect with our love-shapes most closely.
We humans want love to be the best thing that we can see, touch, smell, taste, hear and experience. We believe love exists to make us feel good. Give us our unicorns, rainbows and leprechauns and everything will be alright. The Beatles taught us All You Need is Love. Redbone invited us to Come and Get Your Love. Diana Ross sang that's it's possible to overdose and get a Love Hangover. If you searched the Internet for love songs, we might not see you for months, as you waded through the 1.4 billion results (Google).
Psychologists like to tell us that we have to love ourselves before we can expect anyone else to love us. If that were the case, then, when we're born, doctors need to hand each of us - well, our parents - a button so that once we love ourselves we can let others know it's okay to love us (also). So what's the payoff? Where's the slot machine that lights up and sounds the happy chimes when we get three hearts in a row? Is the hidden leprechaun sitting on the proverbial pot of gold at the end of his rainbow, teasing the unicorn and keeping us from our love jackpot?
No.
I believe, as Johnny Lee sang a long time ago, we're still Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places. I could write a thousand words about this and maybe you'd get my point. But maybe I need to try out that newfangled video thing. Maybe I need to see if there is a video out there in the vastness of the Internet that speaks to what I'm trying to say.
Perhaps the most important 4 minutes and 15 seconds in your life...
Before we ever started to worry about anyone loving us. Before we despaired of ever loving ourselves. God loved us. As we dig the hole of our life deeper and deeper, God continues to reach down in infinite kindness and mercy and grace to offer us a way - the way - out.
You want love? There's no need to sell your love; and the most important love in the whole world has no price tag. It's free. All you have to do is ask.
X
Friday, September 20, 2013
It's the truth!
Kids of a certain generation grew up trying to convince parents of their tall tale's veracity. I grew up in the south and when the chips were down and the paddle was being prepared, my little brain worked feverishly to come up with something - anything - that would win me a stay of execution.
"It was three weeks ago, when Tommy was spending the night. You let us play in the house and Tommy must've put Major Matt Mason inside the lamp. Tonight is the first time I've turned the lamp on in three weeks and I'm just as surprised as you that he melted all over the light bulb!"
Somehow, as kids, we fall right into the lying habit when it comes to protecting our backsides. I remember the time I had to take a note home from school in 5th grade. I was told to have my mom sign it and to bring it back the next day. That was back in the days of double jeopardy.
I learned at a young age that the Constitution of the United States does not apply to children. If I got in trouble at school, you could bet that I would get it again at home; usually worse. So in my eleven-year-old, cause and effect brain, there was no way I was giving my mom that note. I don't even remember what it was for but it was a spanking offense and I was going to do everything possible to avoid that heinous punishment.
After dinner, over the course of an hour or so, I conceived and executed a plan that would make Ethan Hunt proud: I borrowed some documents that had Mom's signature on them and then retired to the bathroom where I could work in secret, perfecting her fluid script. After many attempts on a blank sheet of paper, I thought I had it down, so I signed that teacher's note with a flourish, compared it to Mom's real signature and came away pretty proud of my efforts. There was no way the teacher would ever suspect...
"Mr. X, please report to the Principal's office..."
After taking attendance, the first thing our 5th grade teacher did the next morning was leave the room. Within a few minutes, that scratchy, indicting announcement had come over the classroom speaker and I was - variously - the object of scorn, hilarity and pity as I trudged out of the classroom and made my way to Mrs. Perricone's office. Of course I knew the game was up. Somehow my carefully crafted facade had crumbled and death row beckoned with a cold, bony finger.
Sixteen whacks with Mrs. Perricone's patented whistling paddle, sentenced to spending all day in a small room next to her office by myself - just me and a whole day's schoolwork - and perhaps the most shaming of all: having to sit next to Mrs. Perricone at the Principal's table in the lunchroom. It was truly cruel and unusual punishment.
In the immortal (not really) words of Robert Plant, "Yes, there are two paths you can go by...":
"It was three weeks ago, when Tommy was spending the night. You let us play in the house and Tommy must've put Major Matt Mason inside the lamp. Tonight is the first time I've turned the lamp on in three weeks and I'm just as surprised as you that he melted all over the light bulb!"
Somehow, as kids, we fall right into the lying habit when it comes to protecting our backsides. I remember the time I had to take a note home from school in 5th grade. I was told to have my mom sign it and to bring it back the next day. That was back in the days of double jeopardy.
I learned at a young age that the Constitution of the United States does not apply to children. If I got in trouble at school, you could bet that I would get it again at home; usually worse. So in my eleven-year-old, cause and effect brain, there was no way I was giving my mom that note. I don't even remember what it was for but it was a spanking offense and I was going to do everything possible to avoid that heinous punishment.
After dinner, over the course of an hour or so, I conceived and executed a plan that would make Ethan Hunt proud: I borrowed some documents that had Mom's signature on them and then retired to the bathroom where I could work in secret, perfecting her fluid script. After many attempts on a blank sheet of paper, I thought I had it down, so I signed that teacher's note with a flourish, compared it to Mom's real signature and came away pretty proud of my efforts. There was no way the teacher would ever suspect...
"Mr. X, please report to the Principal's office..."
After taking attendance, the first thing our 5th grade teacher did the next morning was leave the room. Within a few minutes, that scratchy, indicting announcement had come over the classroom speaker and I was - variously - the object of scorn, hilarity and pity as I trudged out of the classroom and made my way to Mrs. Perricone's office. Of course I knew the game was up. Somehow my carefully crafted facade had crumbled and death row beckoned with a cold, bony finger.
Sixteen whacks with Mrs. Perricone's patented whistling paddle, sentenced to spending all day in a small room next to her office by myself - just me and a whole day's schoolwork - and perhaps the most shaming of all: having to sit next to Mrs. Perricone at the Principal's table in the lunchroom. It was truly cruel and unusual punishment.
In the immortal (not really) words of Robert Plant, "Yes, there are two paths you can go by...":
- Why do we lie?
- What is truth?
Most people. when faced with question number one, will trot out all sorts of psychological theories regarding heredity, environment and learned behaviors. I believe that we - i.e. humankind - have a predilection toward lying that is innate. It is a mental fight or flight reflex. Most of us don't like pain, so when faced with a situation that threatens us, we prevaricate to avoid the unpleasantness we fear. Oh sure, we also lie to spare people's feelings but does that really make it better? Or morally acceptable?
The apostle Paul wrote eloquently about this in Ephesians 4:
"As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ..."
Earlier in the chapter, Paul urges us to "...walk in a manner worthy of our calling, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love..."
Tolerance is a hot-button issue these days and likely a subject that warrants its own blog. However, we are talking about truth and even in the very beginning we see that child-like, reflex lie reaction. In Genesis 3:12, when God confronts Adam about eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, what does Adam do? He throws Eve firmly under the bus. Even worse than that, he goes so far as to blame God, in part:
"The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.""
Are you sure He said it was okay?
For her part, Eve deflected as well; although she did not lie:
"And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate.""
You could say that Adam and Eve didn't really lie; they just cast blame on another for their misdeeds. You can even say that the Serpent didn't lie when he told Eve she would not die by eating the fruit.
And that brings us to truth. What is truth?
The fictional professor Indiana Jones taught, "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Jones abdicated the subject of truth to a murky study of philosophy. In effect, he was saying, "Truth can be whatever you want it to be, but in here we deal with hard, cold facts."
Thinking about truth makes my head hurt
And therein lies the conundrum facing society today. Humanity has reached a point where it is de rigeur to not put down anything as false. If it's true for you then it's true, period.
It's as if there is no truth at all. Think about it. If everything is true, then nothing is.
As a Christian it is true that I believe the Bible is a true representation of God's instructions to His creation. A lot of people either think that's baloney or have an otherwise diluted view regarding the veracity of the Bible. Seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal attempted to couch our belief in God as a wager, with our eternal existence (or not) as the stakes. Pascal - and I'm oversimplifying a great deal here - attempted to illustrate the reasons for believing (or not) in the existence of God by looking at the gains and losses of believing (or not) in God's existence:
God exists:
- Yes: I believe in God and get to spend an eternity in His presence after my time on earth is finished
- No: I choose not to believe in God and he does exist therefor (according to the Bible) I am separated from God for eternity and I know it
God doesn't exist:
- Yes: I believe that there is no God and I'm right, there isn't. So after I die that's it and I'm not around to care
- No: I believe that there is no God and I'm wrong, there actually is. So after I die, I am separated from God for eternity and I know it
Pascal was basically trying to represent belief (or not) in God as a factor of reason, or some sort of mathematical equation from which we can determine all the possible outcomes and make a life choice based on our own thoughts and intellect. Great idea, but believing in God because it seems like the best outcome for me is not exactly the proper motivation, if you know what I mean.
Pascal's conclusions were pretty much based on avoiding the worst-case scenario:
- Positive outcome: If I believe in God and He does exist, I'm in for an eternity of goodness
- Neutral outcome: If I believe in God and He really doesn't exist, then, at the end of life, I'm not really out anything. I've tried to live my life according to Godly principles which are benign - if false - and at the end of the day, I'm just dust. No harm no foul.
- Neutral outcome: If I don't believe in God and He really doesn't exist, then, at the end of life I'm just dust.
- Negative outcome: If I don't believe in God and He does exist, I'm in for an eternal cosmic spanking
Believing in God has either positive or, at worst, neutral outcomes. Not believing in God has neutral or, at worst, a very nasty outcome. So, reasoned Pascal, why not believe in God?
But that is still not truth.
Psalm 44:21 warns: Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.
The last word is key; we can't reason our way into heaven. We need a change of heart.
Paul sums it all up in his letter to Rome: "...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
So why do we lie?
What is truth?
What do you think?
X
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Hate or Love?
2 Samuel 19:5-6 (NASB) recounts how Joab, the commander of King David's armies, came and gave him the old what-for regarding David's reaction to the death of his son Absalom:
Then Joab came into the house to the king and said, “Today you have covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who today have saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters, the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines, by loving those who hate you, and by hating those who love you. For you have shown today that princes and servants are nothing to you; for I know this day that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased."
What is the backstory here? The trap that Christians and non-Christians alike stumble into (or jump into on purpose) is taking single verses or passages in the Bible and using them as a hammer to prove their point. In effect, are we attempting to use the Bible like a common hand tool and beat people into submission?
In Matthew 5:44-47 (NASB) Jesus tells us, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"
I wonder what Joab would have made of that instruction? Don't get me wrong. I totally get where Joab was coming from. As Commander in Chief of Israel's military, Joab was looking after the King's interests. And although he knew David had asked that Absalom be spared, Joab drove three javelins through the young man's heart while he hung helpless in a tree. There may have been malice between Absalom and Joab, but it was probably more an act of political expediency than outright spite and disobedience to the King. Absalom had attempted to usurp David's throne; David was God's anointed. Had Absalom been left alive, he would have always been a threat to the King, to Jerusalem, and to Joab.
Joab wanted to wrench David from his grief over Absalom so that the men who had fought and risked their lives to restore the throne to David would not be sitting around saying, "Well that's a fine thank you."
Joab was also family - as were many others in David's court - and those who supported David without question needed to know that he, in turn, supported them.
Going back to the New Testament again, Luke 8:19-21 (NASB) provides another interesting statement by Jesus, "And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You."
But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."
Our earthly families are important; what was Jesus trying to say? How does that differ from Joab's reaction in the Old Testament? Shouldn't Joab have understood that, even though Absalom had usurped the throne, conquered Jerusalem, defiled the King's concubines in full view of Israel, and previously raped the King's daughter (his own half-sister), the King would still mourn the loss of his son?
It sounds to me like, at least in this case, Joab was taking the longer view and acting as he believed appropriate to maintain and support God's chosen ruler. Joab knew that God had anointed David King - and that was more important than the death of (one of) his son(s).
Yet family or no, David was loving his enemy.
It was brought to my attention the other day that there was a group page on Facebook named, "Witches Must Die By Fire". The founder of this group was a self-professing Christian and he/she challenged other weak Christians to join his/her cause and fight the enemy. He/she said that if Christians united as strongly as pagans or Muslims, we [sic] would have already taken over the world.
First of all, as a Christian, I'd like to point out that it's not my job to take over the world. Naturally, I have reservations concerning witches and pagans. However, any thoughts I might have regarding their beliefs and practices fall into the same category as those regarding anyone who does not believe that Jesus is our eternal King. But seriously, die by fire?
The founder of this hate-filled page - which has since been (thankfully) taken down by Facebook - obviously skimmed over the love your enemy references that Jesus made in the Gospels. He/she must've also missed Paul's note in Ephesians 6:12 (NASB), "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
Paul doesn't mention a hate-filled Facebook page when describing the full armor of God.
I don't claim to have the Bible all figured out. God's Word is complex and He will speak to us in different ways through different passages at different times. However, there are some pretty straight forward passages, and I've tried to point out a few in this blog. Finally, Peter - that rabble-rousing, ear slicing fisherman that Christ used to start His earthly church - has an oft-quoted instruction in 1 Peter 3:14-16 (NASB) that bears repeating: "But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame." [EMPHASIS from BLB text]
Thanks Peter; that's some good advice I needed to hear again today.
What do you think?
X
Then Joab came into the house to the king and said, “Today you have covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who today have saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters, the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines, by loving those who hate you, and by hating those who love you. For you have shown today that princes and servants are nothing to you; for I know this day that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased."
David mourning Absalom
What is the backstory here? The trap that Christians and non-Christians alike stumble into (or jump into on purpose) is taking single verses or passages in the Bible and using them as a hammer to prove their point. In effect, are we attempting to use the Bible like a common hand tool and beat people into submission?
In Matthew 5:44-47 (NASB) Jesus tells us, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"
I wonder what Joab would have made of that instruction? Don't get me wrong. I totally get where Joab was coming from. As Commander in Chief of Israel's military, Joab was looking after the King's interests. And although he knew David had asked that Absalom be spared, Joab drove three javelins through the young man's heart while he hung helpless in a tree. There may have been malice between Absalom and Joab, but it was probably more an act of political expediency than outright spite and disobedience to the King. Absalom had attempted to usurp David's throne; David was God's anointed. Had Absalom been left alive, he would have always been a threat to the King, to Jerusalem, and to Joab.
Joab wanted to wrench David from his grief over Absalom so that the men who had fought and risked their lives to restore the throne to David would not be sitting around saying, "Well that's a fine thank you."
Joab was also family - as were many others in David's court - and those who supported David without question needed to know that he, in turn, supported them.
Going back to the New Testament again, Luke 8:19-21 (NASB) provides another interesting statement by Jesus, "And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You."
But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."
Our earthly families are important; what was Jesus trying to say? How does that differ from Joab's reaction in the Old Testament? Shouldn't Joab have understood that, even though Absalom had usurped the throne, conquered Jerusalem, defiled the King's concubines in full view of Israel, and previously raped the King's daughter (his own half-sister), the King would still mourn the loss of his son?
It sounds to me like, at least in this case, Joab was taking the longer view and acting as he believed appropriate to maintain and support God's chosen ruler. Joab knew that God had anointed David King - and that was more important than the death of (one of) his son(s).
Yet family or no, David was loving his enemy.
It was brought to my attention the other day that there was a group page on Facebook named, "Witches Must Die By Fire". The founder of this group was a self-professing Christian and he/she challenged other weak Christians to join his/her cause and fight the enemy. He/she said that if Christians united as strongly as pagans or Muslims, we [sic] would have already taken over the world.
First of all, as a Christian, I'd like to point out that it's not my job to take over the world. Naturally, I have reservations concerning witches and pagans. However, any thoughts I might have regarding their beliefs and practices fall into the same category as those regarding anyone who does not believe that Jesus is our eternal King. But seriously, die by fire?
The founder of this hate-filled page - which has since been (thankfully) taken down by Facebook - obviously skimmed over the love your enemy references that Jesus made in the Gospels. He/she must've also missed Paul's note in Ephesians 6:12 (NASB), "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
Paul doesn't mention a hate-filled Facebook page when describing the full armor of God.
I don't claim to have the Bible all figured out. God's Word is complex and He will speak to us in different ways through different passages at different times. However, there are some pretty straight forward passages, and I've tried to point out a few in this blog. Finally, Peter - that rabble-rousing, ear slicing fisherman that Christ used to start His earthly church - has an oft-quoted instruction in 1 Peter 3:14-16 (NASB) that bears repeating: "But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame." [EMPHASIS from BLB text]
Thanks Peter; that's some good advice I needed to hear again today.
What do you think?
X
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Judge not or speak not?
If I had to pick the most quoted Bible verse or phrase, it would have to be, 'Judge not...'
Most of the time, in my humble opinion, the verse is quoted out of context. Folks in our world today don't want to hear that something they are doing, or saying, or wearing, or watching, or thinking, or believing is wrong.
The ethos of that sentiment is summed up in the famous (and often quoted) song lyrics, 'If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right.'
We don't want other people telling us what to do. You're not the boss of me!
Okay...I get it.
However, just consider this for a moment:
There are over six billion people on this planet; leaving out terrible things like murder, rape and the like, it's mathematically reasonable to assume that with so many people, someone somewhere is going to say or do something that you don't like. The first time it happens, you ignore it; the second time, you shrug it off; the third time, your eyebrows dip together and your lips purse but you bite your tongue. Finally, after some number of times when one or more people do or say something that just continues to get under your skin, you burst.
"Excuse me sir, the sign clearly says ten items or less. What part of ten or less don't you understand?"
I'm sorry, but isn't that a tad judgmental? I mean, it may be that the person overwhelming the express lane with eighteen items has an invalid parent at home and only has a finite time to shop and return home?
Are you really in that big of a hurry (or borderline OCD) that you can't let one person go with a few extra items?
What are the most popular shows on television? People judging other people. What does that mean? Is it OK for some people to judge me because they have some nebulous level of gravitas that grants them the right to pass judgement?
I don't watch reality shows much but occasionally I'll catch a segment. I heard someone on one of them, I can't remember which, answer the judge, 'That's your opinion,' after the judge had pronounced them horrible.
I can imagine the judge thinking at that moment, 'Yes, and I get paid a lot of money to give it to you.'
The fact is, in my opinion - and likely millions of others - this person could not sing a lick. Yet throughout their lives, people around them had not judged them; had not told them that they couldn't sing.
If you attend church long enough, especially in the south, someone is going to ask you about joining the choir. The Bible does tell us that we are to make a joyful noise to the LORD, but there are those of us - me included - who need to do that as quietly as possible and certainly not on stage in front of others.
So, we can assume, this particular contestant had been told throughout her life that the joyful noise she was making was good. And then at some point, at least one person told her it was so good, she needed to get on this reality show. And somehow she made it past the auditions and into the first round, after which the well paid judges said, 'No, not really.'
So who is guilty here?
Is the contestant guilty because she believed that she could sing? Honestly, there are times when I sing along with the radio or CD player in the car and think, 'Hey, I sounded pretty good there.'
But there are MILES between hitting a note here or there, briefly, accidentally, catching that harmony in the car like a lightning bug in a jar, and singing a Capella on stage in front of three scowling judges just waiting to pick you apart.
Personally, I blame the family and friends. These are the people who would have sat around listening to the budding contestant singing and said, "Hey, that's good."
These same folks would have heard this young lady say, 'I'm thinking of going on such and such show.' and said, "Seriously, I think you should."
Maybe the friends were thinking, 'Hey, she could be the next William Hung!'
More likely, they were infected with don't judge disease.
Self esteem has become the coin of the realm these days and if you take someone's self esteem, it's off to the stocks with you!
.jpg)
Heaven forbid we be the one to let the cat out of the bag:
No, you sing like a cat locked in a burlap sack.
Yes; don't wear pants like that...ever.
If you want to look like Billy Ray Cyrus when he was twenty, go for it!
Are we judging? No, not really, we're just speaking - offering our opinions. And along with everything else there is a time and a place for that.
The Bible says we are to speak the truth in love. Which is likely one of the most difficult things the Bible asks us to do, right up there next to love your neighbor as yourself.
So seriously, the next time I mention that you shouldn't do something, wear something, go somewhere, be with someone, watch something, listen to a particular song or whatever, I'm not judging you...
I am just speaking the truth in love.
'The Truth shall set you free.'
What do you think?
X
Most of the time, in my humble opinion, the verse is quoted out of context. Folks in our world today don't want to hear that something they are doing, or saying, or wearing, or watching, or thinking, or believing is wrong.
Can't we just all get along?
The ethos of that sentiment is summed up in the famous (and often quoted) song lyrics, 'If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right.'
We don't want other people telling us what to do. You're not the boss of me!
Okay...I get it.
However, just consider this for a moment:
There are over six billion people on this planet; leaving out terrible things like murder, rape and the like, it's mathematically reasonable to assume that with so many people, someone somewhere is going to say or do something that you don't like. The first time it happens, you ignore it; the second time, you shrug it off; the third time, your eyebrows dip together and your lips purse but you bite your tongue. Finally, after some number of times when one or more people do or say something that just continues to get under your skin, you burst.
"Excuse me sir, the sign clearly says ten items or less. What part of ten or less don't you understand?"
I'm sorry, but isn't that a tad judgmental? I mean, it may be that the person overwhelming the express lane with eighteen items has an invalid parent at home and only has a finite time to shop and return home?
Are you really in that big of a hurry (or borderline OCD) that you can't let one person go with a few extra items?
What are the most popular shows on television? People judging other people. What does that mean? Is it OK for some people to judge me because they have some nebulous level of gravitas that grants them the right to pass judgement?
I don't watch reality shows much but occasionally I'll catch a segment. I heard someone on one of them, I can't remember which, answer the judge, 'That's your opinion,' after the judge had pronounced them horrible.
I can imagine the judge thinking at that moment, 'Yes, and I get paid a lot of money to give it to you.'
The fact is, in my opinion - and likely millions of others - this person could not sing a lick. Yet throughout their lives, people around them had not judged them; had not told them that they couldn't sing.
If you attend church long enough, especially in the south, someone is going to ask you about joining the choir. The Bible does tell us that we are to make a joyful noise to the LORD, but there are those of us - me included - who need to do that as quietly as possible and certainly not on stage in front of others.
So, we can assume, this particular contestant had been told throughout her life that the joyful noise she was making was good. And then at some point, at least one person told her it was so good, she needed to get on this reality show. And somehow she made it past the auditions and into the first round, after which the well paid judges said, 'No, not really.'
So who is guilty here?
Is the contestant guilty because she believed that she could sing? Honestly, there are times when I sing along with the radio or CD player in the car and think, 'Hey, I sounded pretty good there.'
But there are MILES between hitting a note here or there, briefly, accidentally, catching that harmony in the car like a lightning bug in a jar, and singing a Capella on stage in front of three scowling judges just waiting to pick you apart.
Personally, I blame the family and friends. These are the people who would have sat around listening to the budding contestant singing and said, "Hey, that's good."
These same folks would have heard this young lady say, 'I'm thinking of going on such and such show.' and said, "Seriously, I think you should."
Anyone remember this guy?
Maybe the friends were thinking, 'Hey, she could be the next William Hung!'
More likely, they were infected with don't judge disease.
Self esteem has become the coin of the realm these days and if you take someone's self esteem, it's off to the stocks with you!
.jpg)
Punished for his attire no doubt...
Heaven forbid we be the one to let the cat out of the bag:
No, you sing like a cat locked in a burlap sack.
Yes; don't wear pants like that...ever.
If you want to look like Billy Ray Cyrus when he was twenty, go for it!
Are we judging? No, not really, we're just speaking - offering our opinions. And along with everything else there is a time and a place for that.
The Bible says we are to speak the truth in love. Which is likely one of the most difficult things the Bible asks us to do, right up there next to love your neighbor as yourself.
So seriously, the next time I mention that you shouldn't do something, wear something, go somewhere, be with someone, watch something, listen to a particular song or whatever, I'm not judging you...
I am just speaking the truth in love.
'The Truth shall set you free.'
What do you think?
X
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Love Stinks
The J. Geils Band, founded in Boston and generally remembered as a feel-good, party band in the 1970's and 80's released an album entitled Love Stinks in 1980. The title track made the Billboard Top 40, and the LP peaked at number 18 on the album charts. The song Love Stinks is an ode denigrating the concept of romantic love.
I remember liking this song; it had an infectious beat, a funny video and it fit into an ethos that resonated with a lot of young men - and probably women, too - real love was way too dangerous, tricky and painful. Maintaining a relationship with a woman was hard work, darn it, and wasn't it easier to just maintain casual relationships that were fun and didn't come with all the drama?
Confession time...
I married young. Really young. Eighteen-years-old-young.
By the time Love Stinks was released, my marriage was already in trouble. I'm sure there are some eighteen-year-olds out there that can marry and have a great relationship until the day they die. Unfortunately, I wasn't one of them. I could go on and on about the why's and wherefors of how my first marriage unraveled. I could even pile on and talk about what a HUGE mistake my second marriage was. But all that would be just beating around the bush. The fact is, I had no idea what love was all about. I didn't know what it was, what it took to find love, where to look, what to do with it once I found it and most importantly, how to take care of it and make it grow into something spectacular over time.
I put it forward that there are very few people in the world today who really have a bead on true love. What shapes our view of love in the world today? Are all of us growing up without the necessary foundation we need to recognize exactly what love is?
I browse a lot of news sites on the web; NPR, MSN, CNN, Slate, local newspaper sites and more. Of these, Slate seems to be the most hip. I don't have time for a survey, but I would guess that younger people would be more attracted to Slate than the others - it seems somehow more edgy, more modern.
Looking on Slate today, I can't say I'm surprised that there were at least three articles on pornography. One was talking about how today's pornography would be better if it wasn't for the demeaning nature of how the women were treated. This, according to the author, was due in great measure to the founders of some well-known men's magazines. If these guys didn't hate women so much, pornography would be fine. Really?
Perhaps the most disturbing article bemoaned the lack of sex education in public schools and even went as far as saying we should adopt the Dutch model, incorporating the concept of pleasure into any sex education programs we administer to young people. A sociologist referenced in the Slate article quoted research showing that the Dutch model, where parents accept their minor children's relationships and even let them have sleepovers with sex partners, results in much better health outcomes for teenagers.
Excuse me?
If I didn't know how to find, process and nurture love as an eighteen-year-old, how on earth are younger teenagers going to learn it from parents letting them have intimate sleepovers with their young paramours?
In my humble opinion, there is only one place where we need to be steering each other to learn about love.
Ask yourself this question: Who invented love?
If you answered God, go to the head of the class.
The first three words of the Bible say, "In the beginning..." The book of Genesis then goes on to chronicle creation and subsequent events. One of the most important of these was the partnership of man and woman. God didn't put Adam and Eve together and say, "Okay you two, give it your best shot; and if it doesn't work out..."
A lot of folks like to pick out verses that seem to cast a negative light on women and love relationships with men. Despite his reputation as a hard-liner, I think Paul said it well in Ephesians 5:25, 'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church...' and a few lines later in verse 28, 'In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies...' In those two verses Paul laid it out as plain as it gets. Men, ask yourself if you're loving your wife as Christ loves the church (his people) or even as much as you love yourself.
You know why my first two marriages failed? Because I didn't know what love was. I had some weird view of love based on the fractured relationship of my parents coupled with a vast panoply of societal influences that had absolutely nothing to do with love. In truth, my ex-wives could have said to me, 'Your love stinks,' and been accurate.
Unlike J. Geils' assertion, it's not love that stinks - it's (usually) our love that stinks. We need to learn what love is before we can have love, receive love and give love. And as usual, the answer is easy to find, if you know where to look.
What do you think?
X
Author's note: As of today, I've been married more than 22 years to my lovely wife. I'm still learning how to love her the way I'm supposed to, but God is helping me through the learning process every day.
I remember liking this song; it had an infectious beat, a funny video and it fit into an ethos that resonated with a lot of young men - and probably women, too - real love was way too dangerous, tricky and painful. Maintaining a relationship with a woman was hard work, darn it, and wasn't it easier to just maintain casual relationships that were fun and didn't come with all the drama?
Confession time...
I married young. Really young. Eighteen-years-old-young.
By the time Love Stinks was released, my marriage was already in trouble. I'm sure there are some eighteen-year-olds out there that can marry and have a great relationship until the day they die. Unfortunately, I wasn't one of them. I could go on and on about the why's and wherefors of how my first marriage unraveled. I could even pile on and talk about what a HUGE mistake my second marriage was. But all that would be just beating around the bush. The fact is, I had no idea what love was all about. I didn't know what it was, what it took to find love, where to look, what to do with it once I found it and most importantly, how to take care of it and make it grow into something spectacular over time.
I put it forward that there are very few people in the world today who really have a bead on true love. What shapes our view of love in the world today? Are all of us growing up without the necessary foundation we need to recognize exactly what love is?
I browse a lot of news sites on the web; NPR, MSN, CNN, Slate, local newspaper sites and more. Of these, Slate seems to be the most hip. I don't have time for a survey, but I would guess that younger people would be more attracted to Slate than the others - it seems somehow more edgy, more modern.
Looking on Slate today, I can't say I'm surprised that there were at least three articles on pornography. One was talking about how today's pornography would be better if it wasn't for the demeaning nature of how the women were treated. This, according to the author, was due in great measure to the founders of some well-known men's magazines. If these guys didn't hate women so much, pornography would be fine. Really?
Perhaps the most disturbing article bemoaned the lack of sex education in public schools and even went as far as saying we should adopt the Dutch model, incorporating the concept of pleasure into any sex education programs we administer to young people. A sociologist referenced in the Slate article quoted research showing that the Dutch model, where parents accept their minor children's relationships and even let them have sleepovers with sex partners, results in much better health outcomes for teenagers.
Excuse me?
If I didn't know how to find, process and nurture love as an eighteen-year-old, how on earth are younger teenagers going to learn it from parents letting them have intimate sleepovers with their young paramours?
In my humble opinion, there is only one place where we need to be steering each other to learn about love.
Ask yourself this question: Who invented love?
If you answered God, go to the head of the class.
The first three words of the Bible say, "In the beginning..." The book of Genesis then goes on to chronicle creation and subsequent events. One of the most important of these was the partnership of man and woman. God didn't put Adam and Eve together and say, "Okay you two, give it your best shot; and if it doesn't work out..."
A lot of folks like to pick out verses that seem to cast a negative light on women and love relationships with men. Despite his reputation as a hard-liner, I think Paul said it well in Ephesians 5:25, 'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church...' and a few lines later in verse 28, 'In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies...' In those two verses Paul laid it out as plain as it gets. Men, ask yourself if you're loving your wife as Christ loves the church (his people) or even as much as you love yourself.
You know why my first two marriages failed? Because I didn't know what love was. I had some weird view of love based on the fractured relationship of my parents coupled with a vast panoply of societal influences that had absolutely nothing to do with love. In truth, my ex-wives could have said to me, 'Your love stinks,' and been accurate.
Unlike J. Geils' assertion, it's not love that stinks - it's (usually) our love that stinks. We need to learn what love is before we can have love, receive love and give love. And as usual, the answer is easy to find, if you know where to look.
What do you think?
X
Author's note: As of today, I've been married more than 22 years to my lovely wife. I'm still learning how to love her the way I'm supposed to, but God is helping me through the learning process every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)