Independence Day

Celebrate Independence Day

The Declaration of Independence’s list of grievances sounds a lot like children whining. Grievances are not unusual; the essay in the Declaration attempts to explain that these legitimate grievances justify the rebellion. What is the difference? Good parents have a vision for the future of their children, which the rules they impose seldom convey and the child or adolescent cannot yet grasp, so they whine. But in the political realm, adults with differing perspectives cannot claim this kind of superiority over others.

The colonists in 1776 did not primarily complain that they had to pay for the cost of British colonial governance and protection, but that they had no say in the matter. They felt like adults being treated as children. Would things have gone differently if there had been members of parliament from America to advocate for and vote on these issues? But if so, what of the rest of the British colonies? Should India and China and Australia also have had representatives? Should this have included representatives of the conquered as well? Quite quickly the inherent racism of colonial empires surfaces, the “white man’s burden” to minister to and elevate the subjugated peoples, not admit them as equal partners. Did American colonists deal with native Americans any better? (Lamentations 3:39)

What defines the difference between whining, rebellion, and legitimate grievances? Surely it rests in the standards by which complaints are judged. The founding fathers declared that certain natural rights were inalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They further asserted that the creator endowed humans with these rights, an essential part of being human. The Bill of Rights recognizes many other derived rights. The modern era has created a whole new set of “rights.” Whining is usually characterized as complaints about unhappiness that is someone else’s fault, not on the level of rights, but more of the flavor that someone didn’t do something to make me happy. God is often indicted on this charge. 

The founding fathers’ logic implicitly derives from man being made in the image and likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26; 5:1) The natural rights of man therefore derive from the respect that everyone ought to render to the image of God in others. That likeness is awesome to contemplate, as is the idea that God’s original intention for humankind is to be like Him in all aspects (Ephesians 4:15). He deals with every person and situation in full accordance with His holiness, love, and justice. We stretch credulity when we invoke His image in us, because none of us measure up to His stature.  

The climax of C. S. Lewis’ novel Till We Have Faces includes a fictional list of grievances, but with a fundamental difference. Grievances against God suffer from differing levels of knowledge. He sees the big picture, knows the future, and has a plan for our spiritual and eternal blessing. He plans that we become like Him in ways we only dimly sense. The principle illustrated by the fictional conclusion is that God’s ways and plans and very existence are transcendent.  Any complaint we have results from our own choices to refuse Him, just as Adam chose in the garden of Eden. 

Book Review - Paul, A Biography by N. T. Wright

There is so much depth that highlights can only hint at. Paul’s pre-conversion zeal was based on the examples of Phinehas (Numbers 25:7-9) and Elijah (1 Kings 18:40). Psalm 106:30-31 says that Phinehas’ slaying of the brazenly apostate Israelite was reckoned to him as righteousness.  Wright points to the likelihood that young Saul took these to mean that the slaying of unrepentant backsliding Jews was how to deal with early Christians. (Acts 7:58). This was the mindset of Saul when confronted by Christ on the Damascus road.

Considering Paul’s life in chronological order, pulling the Acts and the epistles together, gives us clues to Paul’s interior life, and to events not reported by Luke. The author expends considerable effort on events in Ephesus not recorded by Luke, in which Paul experienced such grievous trials that he despaired of life. The evidence comes from Paul’s own words. The impact on Paul’s outlook on life, ministry, and writing style suggests that this was a significant event. He learned a new aspect of walking with Jesus: His faithfulness in the darkest trials, and being so weak that he had no strength of his own, and was totally dependent on the Lord.

It is hard for us to grasp how hard it was for Jews of Paul’s time to accept the idea of a crucified Messiah. Paul could not, until he met Him. When he preached to Jews, he emphasized continuity with the history, prophecy, and promises of the Jewish scriptures. But it was a hard sell to convince Jews, who expected a conquering hero to set the world right by force, that God had worked more powerfully in Jesus by defeating evil spiritual powers through His crucifixion and resurrection. Paul preached that they needed to experience that power personally, and when writing to churches, reminded them of their own experience with Christ.

The impact of Paul’s life is hard to overestimate. He personally travelled to innumerable cities, preached Christ, established churches, and demonstrated by his own life how a Christian lives. And then he wrote letters that have shown two millennia of believers not only the doctrines of the church, but also how to think about faith, religion, and life in a holistic framework. If nothing else, N. T. Wright’s biography awakens the reader with an appreciation of all that God did through Paul, in fulfillment of Acts 9:16.

Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Appomattox Courthouse

Colonial Williamsburg brings to life the people of Virginia before the American Revolution. The geographic proximity of the Yorktown battlefield and Jamestown settlement provides a sketch of English colonization up to and including the American Revolution. Not too far away, the siege works around Petersburg, and the Appomattox Courthouse speak of a later century and another war. Aside from the lifestyles of the pre-revolutionary colonists, the tension in the revolutionary era begs a fundamental question.

When do values and circumstances drive us to a potentially catastrophic rebellion against an unjust status quo? What injustices justify rejection of existing governance? Were the founding fathers justified in rebellion against Great Britain? Were the Confederate States justified in leaving the Union? On a spiritual plane, was Satan’s rebellion against and rejection of God’s authority justifiable? (I speak as if insane.) Every would-be rebel must address this. 

Justification of rebellion must ultimately rest on moral grounds. When is better the enemy of good enough in a moral dimension? Resistance to Nazi Germany seems a clear example of a government legitimizing its opposition by brazenly embracing and practicing evil. The legitimate functions of government are to protect its citizens and enable them to flourish. A completely illegitimate policy of government is anything that benefits the governing officials and their cronies at the expense of its citizens.

The U.S. Civil War (a.k.a. The War Between The States) was a military stand-off for two years, giving the advantage to the Confederacy. If the Northern states could not defeat them outright, the Southern states expected them to give up the fight, de facto recognition of their departure from the United States. The tide seems to have turned after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Initially, the war was fought to preserve the Union, but after this date, the Union was on record that freedom of enslaved people would be one of the outcomes of the war. After the enormous losses of troops and battles with no gain in two battles at Bull Run, the peninsular campaign, the battle of Fredericksburg and so forth, the battle at Gettysburg in July 1863 seems to have marked the tide turning.

There is probably a gray area in the spectrum of government morality, but somewhere there is a line which, if crossed, removes the legitimacy of that government. Had the British government of the colonies crossed that line in 1776? This is not part of the Williamsburg experience. It is worthwhile to take the 150 mile drive to Appomattox Courthouse, to ponder the contrast between rebellions that succeeded and failed, and their moral underpinning. It may be that the moral do not always succeed in armed conflict, but if there is justice on earth as there is in heaven, this author hopes they would. There will be no moral ambiguity or uncertainty in that final battle, when Jesus will completely eradicate evil on earth.

Celebrate Memorial Day

Celebrate Memorial Day

We seldom hear of the roots of Memorial Day, focusing on the start of summer. We remember those who have fallen also on Veteran’s Day, and of course we celebrate the birth of our nation on Independence Day. One remembrance from each century ... the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War I. Each day has a different theme. Independence Day focuses on the fundamental values of our forefathers that led them to rebel against Great Britain, immortalized in the Declaration of Independence. Veterans’ Day honors the sacrifices of those who died fighting for our nation, in World War I initially and now more generally all wars. 

It is surprising that the origins of Memorial Day are not more frequently discussed. It began as Decoration Day; there are many localities that claim they were the first to decorate the graves of fallen Union soldiers. The earliest is claimed by some to have occurred in 1865, when former slaves in Charleston, South Carolina did so. This was to express gratitude for their freedom having been gained as a result of the Civil War. The War between the states was fought to preserve the Union, but the Emancipation Proclamation was integral to that war. The war remedied the moral defect embedded in the constitution and subsequent law that had recognized chattel slavery. Abolitionists may have incited the war, but the American people as a whole carried it to completion, at the cost of hundreds of thousands killed, many more wounded.

As we celebrate our values of freedom, I fear we too often confuse it with license; even Christians are sometimes tempted to conflate liberty growing from grace with anomie (lawlessness). Likely few slaves saw their emancipation as enabling them to not have to work, or obey the laws of the land. It meant they were free to become what God had created them to be, without tyrannical human control. It meant that (at least in theory) their lives had equal value to everyone else’s. Subsequent generations have demonstrated that value, not only in the eyes of God, but also to our society. 

We should also, somewhere in our remembrance, honor the price that Jesus paid to free us from the bondage of  sin. We think about this on Good Friday and Easter in a judicial sense. But Jesus unleashed through His work  the very power of God within us, through the Holy Spirit (manifested first on Pentecost) to overcome sin in a practical sense. As we celebrate Memorial Day, let is seek to honor Christ by receiving His empowerment to become all that God calls us to.

Jesus’ Grammar

Why did Jesus use the passive voice in the Lord’s prayer? “Thy will be done ...”  (Matthew 6:10) [Scripture 4 All Linear transliteration:  Let it being become the will of You.... ]

In using the passive voice, Jesus left open to interpretation who is the actor. 

• We might interpret this as ‘Let me know and do Your will,’ or ‘Help me to do Your will’. 
• Maybe He meant we should pray that others do the Father’s will, other believers or even the Godless heathen unbelievers. Praying to the Father to make them do His will or want to do His will and then do it? 
• Or are we praying that the Father bring His will to pass, even if He needs to overrule nature and the rebellion of people against Him? 
• Doesn’t God’s sovereignty mean that that ultimately everything and everyone in the universe will conform to His will anyway? The Bible shows this to be the culmination of human history.  (Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 20:11-15) Are we to pray for the end times, the return of Christ, and the final judgment? 

Since Jesus did not elaborate further on this topic in His prayer, we can only infer that the answer is yes to all of the above. Properly understood, His command to us is to pray, ‘Father, bring it on!’

But Jesus did say something related. “For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory...” (Matthew 6:13) God’s glory is unconditional. Everything that He does is perfect, holy, and loving. The manifestation of His power will therefore bring glory. If we pray for God to display His glory in responding to a prayer or petition of ours, or in a certain situation, what are we really asking for? 

In “The Weight of Glory”, C. S. Lewis defines glory as the approval of God. It seems circular to ask God to approve of Himself by intervening miraculously or providentially in some situation. Is His glory the approval by men of Him and His actions? In a different context, C.S. Lewis made the following speculation.

I know very well that in logic God is a ‘substance’. Yet my thirst for quality is authorised even here: ‘We give thanks to thee for thy great glory.’ He is this glory. What He is (the quality) is no abstraction from Him. A personal God, to be sure; but so much more than personal. To speak more soberly, our whole distinction between ‘things’ and ‘qualities’, ‘substances’ and ‘attitudes’, has no application to Him. Perhaps it has much less than we suppose even to the created universe. Perhaps it is only part of the stage set. 

— C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, XVI.

This suggests that we are trying to split hairs. From Jesus’ eternal perspective, His glory is inseparable from His existence and presence. Our Lord’s instruction to pray for The Father’s will to come about is that we proactively align ourself with His eternal plan, regardless of grammatical construction.

Addressing the Root Cause of the Flood Tide of Immigration

A tidal wave of immigration, both legal and illegal, continues to flood the developed and western world. Why? Why do people leave their homes to flee to this country, and the West? Two major causes are usually cited: persecution and poverty. Refugees’ countries can almost be defined by broken governance and/or economic failure.

Political dysfunction takes several forms, usually authoritarian regimes such as tribal dictatorship or small but ruthless political cliques, but also tribal conflict, and so forth. In western democracies, the basis for a functioning political system includes: cooperation between people who disagree, within an agreed framework; respect for all who are created equal before God; and protection of civil and human rights. Everyone has a share and a stake in governance.

Third world countries are most often defined economically, as exploited or ”developing”. Almost everyone lives in poverty, with no jobs or starvation wages. Why does this happen? There seem to be a few driving causes: class structure of wealthy and poor, with no middle class; command driven economies distorted by politics (government policies, laws, etc.); graft and corruption awarding business to the person paying the highest bribe with no relationship to economic or business realities; exploitation of workers by wealthy countries. How can free markets flourish when multinational corporations distort local economies to their own advantage and exploit indigenous workers? Shades of the Boston Tea Party! No wonder those with intelligence or initiative heads to the developed world!

What can we do to improve the conditions in refugees’ countries of origin that caused them to leave? How can anyone establish the fabric of a civil society and political process in failed states? What can our national strategy do to encourage and sustain a functioning culture? Is it cultural imperialism to try to turn people from tribal warfare and political thuggery to civic engagement and civil discourse? Is that even possible?  Logical questions for our nation would be: What foreign policy would promote stable democracies and economic growth in the third world? If we seriously try to export values, which ones? Wouldn’t this constitute cultural imperialism, and would that be good or bad? Which actions would impact other nations most positively?

Debating this at the foreign policy level will never eliminate the real root cause; spiritual strongholds can only be brought down through prayer and fasting. Immigrants may perceive less demonic influence on society here than their homeland, but that distinction is rapidly disappearing. And emigrating won’t help them at all if they bring their demons with them. [We can’t possibly screen applicants for this, but to achieve the goal of a better life, they must renounce broken life choices with their spiritual attendants.] The only approach to immigration with hope of long term success would be a national strategy and foreign policy that results from fasting, prayer, and seeking God; a strategy to build the kingdom of God. Man’s government cannot do this. Outcomes with value can only be wrought through spiritual labor and sacrifice.

Book Review: The Wartime Sermons of Dr. Peter Marshall

How could sermons preached during World War 2 possibly be relevant to us? A dozen messages selected by Dr. Peter J. Marshall published in 2005 may have seemed relevant to the post-September 11, 2001 milieu. However, they more perceptively pierce U.S. international leadership in a context of an era without overt large scale military conflict. 

The sermon “Why does God permit war?” turns the question on its head. Why does man choose war? Why does man ignore evil until war is the only defense against it? Why do men choose the sins of self-centeredness and preoccupation with the world’s stuff that lead to war?

The sermon “Are We Good Enough?”  contrasts the self-discipline, sacrifice, and moral virtue of the soon-to-return soldiers and the crass worldliness of civilians who they are returning to. Dr. Marshall quickly turns to the question of our spiritual state. Have we turned to God to be transformed into a people who are morally improved, who God has empowered to be better people? After militarily defeating the Axis powers, will we lead the way for international order that goes beyond the absence of armed conflict to the building of a just, ethical, and righteous world? 

The common thread in all of the sermons is Rev. Marshall’s belief that American values, political structure, and our entire ethos is based on Christianity, and that in order to establish something better than more of the same, Christianity must be lived out by our people and nation. Otherwise there would simply be another world war in 20 or thirty years, and our own nation would decay from moral rot. Viewed from 70 years after the fact, the fear of another world war has not yet materialized, but our nation is seriously divided by a spectrum of moral value systems. 

My perspective: The challenge is that the presence of God in our lives forces us to confront His nature and character. God’s perfect holiness and uncompromising love cannot rest on fallen humans. His remedy was to reconcile us to Himself through the propitiatory death of Jesus on the cross. Any human effort to experience His presence only results in death. Human efforts to be righteous, to be just, to do the right thing, will fail in the end, even on a worldly level. The 70+ years since the end of World War 2 show that practicing values based on Christian principles, but without the power of God, brings at best a temporary improvement in world conditions. 

Satan was defeated by Christ on the cross. Victory over the axis powers forestalled one of the devil’s attempts to rule the earth overtly, but most of the world remains lost in darkness and sin. We who have heard the gospel must respond or face the consequences, both eternally and in this present world. That is Peter Marshall’s message to us in an era of international terrorism, cybercrime, and resurgent superpower competition.