Pedal to the Metal and Speed, Speed, Speed (Part 1 of 2)

More than a few times have I had someone say to me, “Do you speed? Do you go over the speed limit even by 1 mph? Then you’re sinning just like I am and are just as guilty before God. When you take care of your sins, then you may talk to me about mine.”

I asked a Sunday school class recently, “How many of you believe you are sinning and caused Jesus to be crucified because you exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph or you jaywalked?” Hands were raised, but the vote was not unanimous. Also, there was a lot of smiling, even laughing when hands were raised. (If speeding were a sin, it does seem odd to laugh about a sin that crucified the Son of God.)

After some initial feedback, I made the statement, “I do not believe exceeding the speed limit is a sin.” Obviously, there was disagreement with what I said, essentially because of Romans 13:1-2. The second verse is the key one, “Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” The verse is so obvious; how can I possibly say speeding is not a sin. Let’s discuss this. (Well, I’ll discuss it, and you’ll listen. That is the chief advantage and disadvantage of a blog.)

“Resisting the ordinance of God” is not the same thing as sinning. How can I suggest such blasphemy? Let’s begin with our own children for a moment. Let’s consider three common commands that are given to children: 1) Do not lie, 2) Do not interrupt people when they are talking, and 3) Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. I dare make the bold statement that nearly every parent reading this has tried to instill those three commands into their children.

Consider how you would categorize the commands? Christian parents will certainly consider “Do not lie” as a very serious command, that is a sin against God as well as a terrible transgression against people. What about #2? Is that a transgression against God? Do our children greatly transgress against others when they interrupt us? The Bible commands children to obey their parents. So, if a parent tells a child not to interrupt and that child does interrupt, do you believe your child has sinned and sent Jesus to the cross? Perhaps some of you will, but I suspect most parents will think that is absurd. “Bad manners” are not the same as a sin. Yet, the Bible does command children to obey their parents. There’s still a loose end here. How about #3? Parents are teaching their children cleanliness and good health. So, a child refuses to wash his hands. Has the child sinned? “There you go, Junior. You just put another nail into Jesus because you refused to obey me and wash your hands!”

I am well aware that the typical definition is that if God has given a command, then it is a sin if it is disobeyed. The same three categories that I gave for parental commands are found in the commands of the Old Testament (OT). Of course we are not under the laws of the OT, but we do learn principles from the OT. If every command of God’s in the OT was not a sin, then it is certainly reasonable to say that every command in the New Testament (NT) is not a sin. I am using sin as it is normally used: an affront against God’s holiness and righteousness in which death had to occur to pay the price of the sin.

In order to save a bit of time, here are my premises for the commands of God. They fall into at least three categories: 1) An offense against God’s holiness and righteousness for which death only can atone. 2) Commands which will prevent an offense against man’s standards of behavior which will damage relationships and affect the believer’s witness. 3) Commands for cleanliness and health which will allow a person to do more for the Lord and not spread sickness.

For most Christians any disobedience of God’s commands is a sin. I purposely use the word sin because it is associated with God. Jesus died for our sins. In the OT animals were sacrificed for sins. The position I am taking is that every disobedience of God’s command is not a sin. Consider the various rules of uncleanness: touching a dead body, leprosy, the disposal of human waste, the menstrual cycle, and more. Even as we look at this short list we see the health pattern immediately.

To even accidently touch a dead body made a person unclean. It was a command from God not to touch a dead body. When a person touched a dead body, did that person sin? No, they put themselves at a health risk as well as others. We can easily understand that we have sinned against God when we murder someone because we have destroyed His creation. But if someone touched a dead body, how would that have offended God? How did it offend the dead body??? When we tell our children to wash their hands after using the bathroom, we are concerned for the child’s health. It is to help the child do better; it is not to keep the child from doing worse.

Let’s consider obeying government authorities (or husbands, parents, or slave masters as listed in the New Testament). What is the purpose of obeying earthly authorities? Besides protection of person and property (murder, stealing, et al.), it is also for the general welfare and to create a social structure so people can get along together. Consider jaywalking. In many towns it is a misdemeanor. The law is on the books for safety, public safety. If a person jaywalks, who has been offended, transgressed against, personally harmed? No one. But a risk is taking place that could cause an accident.

The willy-nilly disobedience of public law is dangerous because it will offend people, even confuse them. If I simply choose to disobey public law per my convenience, what happens to my witness? Most people are law abiding. If I disobey as I choose, then the message I am sending is that “obedience to authority” is not important to me. My witness is undermined as soon as I’d say, “When we obey God, He blesses us.” The listeners will no doubt think, “Obey God. Who are you kidding? If you can’t obey our laws and since you pick and choose as you please, surely you’d do the same with God’s laws. You’re just a hypocrite.”

When Jesus told Peter to pay the temple tax in Matthew 17, the issue was not to avoid sin; it was to avoid offending the expectations of the Jewish culture and Jewish law. People will say all they want about “obeying those who have authority over you,” but even they will allow exceptions. For example, the disciples told the Jewish leaders, when commanded to stop preaching, that they would obey God rather than men. Horribly unjust and oppressive laws have been enacted. In some countries it is against the law for Christians to meet and worship. Do we obey the unjust ones but disobey the ones about worship? Why don’t we disobey all unjust laws or protest against them?

The point is that human law is always relative. What is illegal one day is legal the next. What is legal one day is illegal the next. If I break human law, then I am punished by human standards. That is the punishment, not Jesus being nailed to the cross. I give unto the Lord what is His, and I give unto Caesar what is his. They are two different domains. The higher domain is the Lord’s, and the lower domain is man’s and should be patterned upon the heavenly domain. God created authority. Authority should be patterned after God. When it isn’t (laws that dishonor God, that legalize humiliation and stealing, such as the Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany) do we disobey those? We have to interpret, we have to make judgment. The moment we are allowed to do that or believe we have the right to do that in regard to man’s law, then the law is not absolute … and neither is its punishment.

When I resist the ordinances of man, I bring man’s judgment upon me. I invite the reader to return to Romans 13:1-8. All punishment mentioned is human punishment, not divine. When I disobey the speed limit or fail to pay my taxes, then God will not punish me or send Jesus to the cross, the authorities will punish me. If I fail to put enough money into the parking meter and am fined, that is the punishment, not Jesus dying on the cross.

As a side note here, I am amused beyond the reaches of my imagination when Christians will insist that we must obey our authorities, disobeying them is disobeying God himself, but they do not give it a moment’s reflection to ridicule the President of the United States. In that same Romans passage is “Render … honor to whom honor [is due].” I have seen cartoons tearing President Obama into shreds, harsh, harsh, even cruel ridicule. (For the reader, I have been a political conservative for 40+ years. You can probably guess how I voted.) I give honor to President Obama because it is due. I have the freedom to disagree with his policy for cause. I do not have the right to mock, ridicule, or defame the President. Frankly, when I hear people ridicule the President and crack the usual jokes … I don’t buy their seriousness for one second about Romans 13. It’s all talk. All they are doing is picking and choosing, no more.

In conclusion, here is the problem if you believe that disobeying any command from God is a sin. Then those who hold such a view need to get serious about it. I return to my Sunday school class where I asked about going over the speed limit by 5mph. Was that a sin? The majority raised their hand and was smiling about it. The common reply was, “There are bigger things to worry about. There are big sins and little sins.” Ahh, now it’s so clear. I may laugh at the little sins and joke about them. Literally, a person could say, “Oh yeah, I sinned and put Jesus on the cross when I sped in my car, but that was nothing. That was just a splinter on his back. Peanuts. When I [fill in a “big” sin], … that one made Him really scream.”

The absurdity of the last illustration precisely proves my point. If we believed, really believed it was sin, then we would not deliberately do it and laugh about it. Frankly, the attitude is, “Yes, it’s a sin; but it doesn’t really count.”

What is absurd is calling the disobedience of every command a sin. We are painting ourselves into a corner. As parents we recognize a different reason for commands. Some are very serious and will hurt others. Some will offend others and hurt our testimony. Some can put us at a health risk. The Lord recognizes that too. The unclean laws are an excellent example. If the Jews failed to do them, they didn’t offend God’s holiness and righteousness. They ended up punishing themselves by bad health.

Of course, this whole essay can simply be tossed out as heresy. The position may be taken that ANY disobedience to God’s commands (just use New Testament passages) is a SIN. I guess I’ll believe that when I see it. If you speed, then I expect remorse and repentance of that sin … as any sin. If you tell your child not to interrupt and the child interrupts, then it is necessary for the proper teaching to occur for you to say to that child, “You must not interrupt. I have told you not to interrupt. The Bible commands you to obey me. Because you have disobeyed me, you have sinned against God.” I already know that is not going to happen.

My question to those who insist than any disobedience of a command from God is sin is this: Why don’t you have remorse and guilt for unrepented sin? Why aren’t you serious about this sin? Is the real reason because you know deep down it’s peanuts and trivia and minutia of total unimportance … and not a sin, or because your heart has become so hardened to sin that only the big sins bother you?

"Ahh, c'mon on. Who cares about speeding? Let's get to the important stuff." I most certainly agree. The purpose of Part 1 was to illustrate the mess that one can quickly and easily get into by taking the position that disobeying the government is sin against God. Soon there will be so many exceptions that they might have to be indexed like that state code.

Let's open up a window and let some fresh air in. Serving Christ is so much easier than wondering from second to second if some penny-ante, inconsequential law has been broken.

Part 2 will be posted in a day or two.

Christians Need to Use Four-Letter Words

I’m thinking of a word that Christians and non-Christians (including atheists) agree is a very important word. All of them esteem its virtues; all urge to have it as the motive of actions; all seek it in their lives. What makes this commonality so intriguing is, regardless of the use of the word, there is profound disagreement over the meaning of the word. The word I’m referring to is “love.”

Jesus stated that “love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” was the first law and “love your neighbor as yourself” was the second law. The dispute over the first law is legion. Atheists consider it nonsense, and religions cannot agree who this “Lord” is. In sharp contrast, the second law is embraced warmly by all. Yet, though “loving others and being loved” is critical to any meaning in life, there is great divergence to what the word means.

Since this article is probably being read online, try a simple experiment. Type “definition love” in your search engine. Try two or three of the dictionaries that will come up. Including main definitions, sub-definitions, and idioms and special usages of the noun and verb, you will be lucky to find less than 25 definitions in any dictionary! Once again we have an illustration that the “simplest” words, the most commonly used words that we consider important are very hard to define.

Sometimes a person will make clear in their context what they mean, e.g., “I’d like to make love with …” That is clearly a sexual usage. When someone says, “My parents did not love me,” that one is a bit harder and needs explanation. Indeed, when a teenage daughter comes home swooning how her boyfriend “loves” her, most Christian parents will have a sense of fear, certainly uneasiness. What does this boy mean? What does he know of commitment, sacrifice? The boy might be thinking no more than, “I’ve never felt this way.”

My attention in this article is not all the variances of the word. They exist, and that is the end of it. The problem I’m concerned with the way we use the word around unbelievers or when teaching. When a person is talking to another, the words used are interpreted by the listener, using the listener’s primary meaning, not the speaker’s! How many times has something you’ve said come back to you and when you heard it, you’ve remarked, “That isn’t what I said or meant at all”?

I have maintained for years that the #1 reason for disagreements is the failure to mean the same thing, that words or phrases have not been defined. When I say undefined, I mean the speaker has failed to make it clear. When I use a word, I will have a meaning in my mind for it. I assume the listener has the same meaning. As mentioned above, the important words in life have many meanings. (Test this out: look up love, life, death, hope, etc.) If I use an important word and am not clear as to what I mean, then the listener will automatically supply his meaning.

If I say “We should love others,” one person might think, “I need to be kind to others” whereas another might think, “I need to feel that deep bond with others.” Those are not the same at all. The former is an act that may have no feeling to it. The latter is a feeling that may have no act to it.

One way to quickly illustrate the confusion inherent in a word like “love” is to ask, “What does it mean to love your enemy?” Standby for a wide range of responses on this. It is easily within each person’s definition of love to accommodate situations with people they like and people in which they have a neutral relationship. The problem is when someone hates you and is out to get you.

Many times I have heard people ask, “Okay, I have to love this person, but do I have to like him?” This statement dissolves into meaninglessness when you counter with the question, “Does God have to love you but not like you?” People might want to say that is what God means about others, but it is not what God means about me. Of course, God loves and likes me."

So, what can we, who claim to be practicing Christians, possibly do to avoid this mess? Every time we use the word “love,” we cannot insist people redefine the word. That simply will not work. Custom is king, and the listener will resort to his common usage.

I have a suggestion. We need to add a four-letter word to the word “love.” Adding this one word will immediately be understood, even by a child. In fact, by adding this four-letter word to “love,” we will be closer to the Biblical usage of “love.” So, what is the four-letter word? Show.

Let’s take the command that is the most confusing, when we are told to “love your enemies.” Take that same command and add our four-letter word, “Show love to your enemies.” This completely changes the meaning. Even a five-year-old child understands what it means “to show love to your sister” when he has been mean to her. Even Jesus spells out what he means by showing love to your enemies: do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who spitefully use you (Luke 6:27-28).

When someone asks, “If I have to love my enemy, do I have to like him?” You can simply answer by, “Show love to your enemy. In the same way that you would like your enemy to show love to you, you, therefore, show that same love to him.”

Yes, there can still be some misunderstanding, but nothing close to what there is now. “Show love” points to action that will help another. As any of us can testify who have shown love to an enemy, our feelings of animosity decreased as we showed love to the other. The conflict of “love and like” dissipates under acts of showing love. It is not possible to feel hatred if you show love to others. Either you will stop so you can keep the feelings of dislike, or you will continue and change in your feelings toward the person.

So, I return to the issue. Among human relationships nothing is more important than love, but few words are as elusive in meaning as love. We, as Christians, need to start using a four-letter word consistently. We need to exhort others “to show love” so they can understand that the Lord's command to us is in action toward others, not just our feelings. Also, it is imperative for us "to show love" to others.

In conclusion Christians need to use two four-letter words in particular and keep them together: "show love."

What's It All About, Alfie?

The song, Alfie, was popular around 1966 and did very well on the charts in England as well as in America. The first two lines of the song are What's it all about, alfie [sic]? Is it just for the moment we live? The song was written for the movie, Alfie, starring Michael Caine and is rated in the top 50 of all British movies.

Essentially, Alfie confuses sex with love and moves from woman to woman gathering pleasure as a bee does nectar. Through heartache he comes to realize that he needs to commit himself but is himself cuckolded and wonders, "What's it all about, Alfie?"

Is there any more to the purpose of life than to stay alive? Certainly the struggle to say alive is phenomenal. The brutality and starvation that have been forced upon others, becoming emaciated to skeletons wrapped in skin, yet, going on from day to day enduring the hardships. Why is there such a push to stay alive?

It can be a puzzling question for Christians. Several times I have had brushes with a severe accident, which probably would have killed me. After the incident was passed I thought, "Wow, I'm glad that's over, and I made it." But I still come back to my question, "What's it all about?"

Hamlet said it well in Act 4 Scene 4:

"What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more."

A criticism that I've read about Christians concerns this very idea. Summarizing several arguments from unbelievers, "What is so special about Christians. They worry about the same things that we do. They complain about their lot in life just like the rest of us. They moan and groan about the drudgery of day-to-day survival. We can't tell any difference. When they have a brush with death, they talk like we do, 'Whoa, that was close. Sure am glad I'm still alive.' What? I thought heaven was a wonderful place; yet, they sound as though they lucked out to stay in this world of toil. They don't have anything more than we do than less sleep on Sundays."

So, why do we continue on earth. What is it all about?

We are left here as His servants, to obey the Lord, love Him, seek to do His will in every aspect of our lives. Certainly we are not left here to be happy! That is nuts with a capital "N." Difficulties abound. Heartaches and sufferings are everywhere. Why does the Lord leave us here? The answer can simply be stated: To serve Him.

If our lips truly gave thanks to the Lord during all circumstances, if we look upon every day in the world of toil and hardship as an opportunity to share the message that the world is not our home, that there is more than the mix of misery and fun we experience, that there is purpose, a real purpose to life--then our lives would indeed be different.

C. S. Lewis wisely wrote, "Whatever is not eternal, is eternally out of date." If we only live to stay alive, knowing we will die, then whatever we do and the motive for it are out of date. On the other hand, if everything we do or think or desire is to bring glory to the Lord (if not consciously then an attitude that shows it), then what we do NOW will have lasting effects FOREVER.

Christians have a purpose, a mission; and we can make a difference. The world may ask, "What is it all about?" The Christian should be able to confidently answer, "We are here to serve the Lord."

You Choose: Something or Nothing

An atheist/agnostic (AA) has a common argument which he enjoys slapping Christians with. It is said in a number of way, but here is a common one.

"You say there is a God; yet, look at all the suffering in the world. Right now children are starving to death, a teen with a full life ahead of her is dying of who know's what, and I could go on and on. How can an all-powerful and loving God allow such meaningless and innocent suffering? Either God is a monster or God is weak. Please, I don't want to hear the nonsense that 'God works in mysterious ways.' That only means that you don't have an answer." Often we are slapped in the face with glee with this argument as if nothing can be said, and we have to walk off the stage in shame as if we have completely forgotten our lines.

Of course, we don't know why a particular person is suffering, but the Bible does give reasons why suffering occurs. We simply don't know which reasons belong to which incidents. "Ahh," exclaims the AA. "What good does that do?" Well, often doctors aren't sure which medicine to use or how much. So the doctors will prescribe and monitor. Making judgment calls like this aren't limited to Christians. We don't know the exact reason that will give us an answer. As we try a different verse, asking the Lord in prayer could this possibly be the reason, we can still come to peace, much in the same way a medicine will ease a pain, but not remove it.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear when it states that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be reveal in us" (Romans 8:18). We may not know at a space-time moment why such suffering is occurring or why an untimely death occurred; however, Christianity does promise an answer and a recompense eventually.

Sometimes we simply need to slap back. You slap me; I slap you. Here's what I mean. Ask the AA this: "What do you have to offer the child who has died after horrible suffering?" NOTHING.

I find it so ironic that AAs who are horrified over suffering and death demand that there must not be a God who would allow such things. Okay. Let's assume there is not. What is your alternative. NOTHING. I do mean absolutely nothing. The child is gone forever. His atoms will slowly spin off and be rearranged with other atoms (the good ole conservation of matter). His memory is gone forever. His personality is gone forever. His hopes and dreams are gone forever. His atoms will end up like the rest of the universe, either in fire or ice. Since all life will end, no one will be remembered. No relationships will be remembered. Everyone and everything will be forgotten as if they never existed.

If the AA is correct and there is no God, we will all cease to exist, eventually becoming nothing (assuming a re-collapse in which matter as we know it ceases to exist). If that is true, what is the worse we have done? Truly, if there is no God, what have we done? We have taken an awful situation and given hope for the future. If God isn't real, still, isn't a false comfort better than no comfort? Frankly, if God doesn't exist, what does it matter what we say for comfort--eventually everyone will be dead and forgotten anyway!

In contrast to that, the AA takes an awful situation and makes it worse! "See your child in the casket. The body will soon rot away, his atoms join other atoms (perhaps be in a McDonald's hamburger in a few years), and soon be totally forgotten as you will be ... because everybody will cease to exist as if they were never born."

If Christians are wrong and there is no God, it seems the AAs are upset because we give hope; even false hope is better than no hope. If the AAs are correct, there is NO hope.

We may not like the suggestions given in the Bible for suffering. We most probably will not have the slightest idea why this person or that person suffers. The Bible doesn't tell us. It does tell us we will be recompensed because of our suffering, to such a degree that the suffering will be forgotten. Not only will we be remembered, but we will still be aware, growing, learning, experiencing life as never before.

The key difference between the answers of the Christian and the AA is that the Christian answers, though inadequate to many, are SOMETHING, where the AA answers are ... NOTHING.

So, you choose: something or nothing.

Thank you ... Porky Pig!

Not only do we entertain angels unawares, but we also get help from the strangest places, people, situations, and sources. A key source of help that the Lord uses is our imagination.

Little is said about the imagination in Christianity. The impression is given that it doesn't even exist; if it does exist, very little is ever said about it. I think the reason for that is the root itself--IMAGINE. The word itself provokes the idea of pretend, playtime, not real. Christians as a whole aren't comfortable with that. We are concerned with reality: a book that IS the word of God, the God-man who walked the earth and did genuine miracles in space-time, living a life that is true to our calling. When those issues are considered, "pretend" is edged out of the reality scene rather quickly.

Yet, we have done a disservice to ourselves. A child cannot learn without pretending. Great literature would disappear. The parables of Jesus could easily have been created in his mind and had no bearing on a specific person or event. Science would suffer horribly. Naturally the word "pretend" isn't used. It's rephrased in a more clever way, such as when a scientist will ask himself, "What if ..." Ahhh, "what if," the key that unlocks Alice's Wonderland.

When I read Scripture I will frequently asked, "What if this word weren't used ... would it have made a difference if Jesus had said this before or after this event ... etc, etc." I hate to break the news, but that's imagination at work.

Often the imagination of others can change us. It certainly happened to me. When we need help, the Lord can supply real fish and bread or imaginary fish and bread. It depends on what we need. The 5,000 needed the real deal; there was a time in my life I needed the pretend.

As a young boy, I had a terrible stammer, and stuttering was as natural for me as for a bird to sing. I'd get locked on a syllable and would strain and stammer for 15 seconds. When I finally got it out, I was gasping for air as if I'd been underwater too long. I would have been in grade school in the early 1950's, and there wasn't anything to do about it. Some kids stuttered, and that was the end of it. At that time I remember my grandparents and mom describing my talk as "dutchy."

I do recall being sent to speech therapy in the 1st or 2nd grade, but it is so vague and fuzzy. I certainly do not remember improvement.

The real change occurred sometime before the 6th grade. I was watching Saturday cartoons, and Looney Tunes typically ended with Porky Pig stuttering, "Tha ... tha ...that's all folks." For some reason that caught my attention one day. As the cartoons continued I noticed that when Porky would get stuck on a syllable, he would substitute a different word and continue on. For instance, he'd say, "Let's take the ca ... ca ... ca ... Let's take the auto and go."

For some reasons I had a decent vocabulary for my age and a quick mind, and I decided to give that a try. I don't know about other stutterers, but I could tell when it would happen. I knew I would stammer on a word that was in my thinking and on the slide from the mind to the mouth. Like bare skin on a slide, I just knew I'd be sliding part way, stopping, sliding, stopping ... and eventually get to the end of the slide. Or in my case, the word would finally come out.

When I could tell I was going to stammer, I'd pause and think of another word. And it worked! Over time the pauses became so slight that the hesitations were not particularly noticed by others. I have taught Bible from Sunday school and the pulpit for a number of years. When I'd mention my stuttering problem, people seemed surprised, "I didn't know you stuttered." In fact, even to this day I have to use the technique several times a week. In my mind I'm jumping through alternate words; to others, I'm simply having a short pause.

Alzheimers is very rife in my family. Who knows if I'll get it. If I do, most likely my stammering will return tour de force. My only consolation, if that happens, is that I won't know it's happening.

To return to the topic, imagination is at the root of learning, understanding reality, and moving beyond the confines that we place upon ourselves. Sometimes a breakthrough will occur. Newton could say, "Thank you, Apple Tree." I can say, "Thank you, Porky Pig." Yet all of us can really say, "Thank you, Lord, for giving a means to transcend the material and mundane world that we live in. Thank you for our imaginations."

Really now, who would have dreamed that Porky Pig could have cured stuttering? Move over King's Speech. You have a contender. Give the Oscar to the Pig.

From the Senior Circle to the Boots

Andrew Marvell in his poem, To His Coy Mistress, has a line that has always intrigued me--

But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;

Always unabated, unceasing, undeterred Time chips away at the Block of Now that we stand on. Time is always there relentlessly, though imperceptibly, bringing us closer and closer to our end.

When I was in high school there was a large, circular floor design in the main entrance. The students referred to it as the senior circle, and seniors only were to walk on it. Even then I thought the tradition silly and without any meaning or purpose. I remember looking at it one day during one of my underclassman years and thinking, "The day will come that I will stand on that. And the day will come that I won't even remember what it looks likes." Both of those are now true. I cannot remotely remember what the design looked like, not even close.

From 1981 to 1985 I was stationed in Berlin, Germany for Army Intelligence. On the first day of arrival I noticed a pair of boots hanging in a tree. Since someone was standing nearby, I asked, "What are they there for." He answered, "When someone receives his orders to leave Berlin, he'll have a party, and he will throw his boots into a tree." Knowing I'd be in Berlin for four years, I looked up there and thought, "Before I know it, four years will be gone." Sure enough, the four years hurried past, and the day came that I received my orders to leave Berlin. (My boots stayed with me however.) That day when I first saw those boots was 30 years ago. Count then, 30 years!

Sometime between the senior circle and the boots I read a Christian tract. The title eludes me, but the story remains fresh. A stranger approaches a busy man making his way in the world.

The stranger asks, "Why are you doing that?"

"To make money."

"And then what?"

"The family and me can buy the things we want, live where what, and do what we want."

"I see," says the stranger. "And then what?"

"Well, I guess we'll grow old and enjoy life."

"And then what?"

"Well, we all die."

"Yes, we do. And then what?"

We have to survive in this world, but is survival our only goal. Have I been successful because I have 52 toys, and all my neighbors only have 37? We will move from the senior circle to the boots before we know it. And we will move from the boots to the casket even faster.

Is life really no more than a checkoff list of goals and things that are forgotten 10 minutes after we've died? Is that really it?

When I was a minister of a church in central Indiana my mother bought me plaque, when she hung in my office. It now hangs in my living room, where I see it everyday.

"Only one life, 'twill soon be past--

Only what's done

for Christ will last."

There is no need to be morbid about Time's chipping away at our lives, but there is a reason to be alert to it. Let's not forget that our time is short, and we need to serve Christ now. The time between the senior circle and the boots is ... very, very short.

Is There a Way to Wake Up on the Right Side of the Bed?

An interesting characteristic of dreams

A month or so ago I read an interesting statistic on dreams, which said that 90% of all dreams had a particular characteristic. I decided to give it an informal test. A couple of weeks ago at Sunday dinner with my wife and son I asked the following question, "Tell me some dreams that you remember." As the conversation ensued and various dreams were shared, I was surprised because 100% of their dreams had this characteristic.

What is the characteristic? 90% of all dreams are negative in nature: falling, being chased, something bad or sad occurring, embarrassing incidents we don't want anyone else to know that we even dreamed about, drowning, being shot, arguing, and so forth. This caused more pause for me.

Having done some reading in dreams I knew that dreams typically reflected the feelings and incidents of the previous two to three days. From my own experience, what I went to bed with is what I woke up with. If a particular issue was on my mind and I went to bed thinking about it, I woke with it on my mind. Research has verified this tendency.

Ephesians 4:26

Paul's verse came to mind, "Do not let the sun go down on your wrath." If I go to bed angry, then the probability is that I will wake up angry. Whether I remember it or not, I probably dreamed about it that night, which reinforced the unresolved nature of the conflict. I realized that if I go to bed with sin or conflict (in the temptation sense) on my mind, then there is a probability I will reinforce them and wake up with them! Egads, I don't want that.

Mark 14:37-38

Jesus knew terrible temptation was about to befall him and his disciples. He commanded the disciples to watch and pray. When he checked on them later, they had fallen asleep. This awake and asleep occurred again. When the temptation came (the arrest of Jesus), the disciples scattered and retreated and ... failed. We know from earlier verses that the disciples were sure that they would not fail Jesus, that they would not forsake him.

I tend to think that the disciples might have prayed for Jesus, but they were uncertain what to pray about. The Scriptures state they were confused about who the betrayer was, what the betrayal was about, Jesus being taken and killed, and rising again made no sense at all. They probably fell asleep in blissful ignorance of their own temptation, likely thinking everything would be ok the next day. They may have discussed Jesus' near panic state and not have prayed at all.

So ... how is this useful?

I've thought over my past. Many times when struggling with a temptation or a sin, I'd finally just go to bed ... sleep it off. Just forget about it. Right, huh??? No, I don't think I slept it off. I probably reinforced it. Using the example of Jesus versus the disciples, when struggling with sin, it is better to pray to honor the Lord and fall asleep while doing that rather than fall asleep hoping it will simply go away or that things will be ok the next day.

If I fall asleep while trusting the Lord (showing faith in prayer, affirming that his will be done, wanting to please him, desiring to be like Christ, etc), then the probability will be that I will awake trusting the Lord. If I fall asleep trying to ignore temptation or sin, I will probably awake with the temptation or sin. If I don't awake with them, then they are probably crawling around in my unconscious, like nasty bugs in the crawlspace.

Dozing off in prayer is far better that dozing off trying to forget. I know how I'd rather wake up to face the new day. There really is a practical way to wake up on the right side of the bed.

FAQ on Fasting

Did Jesus ever mention fasting (Mark 8:29)?

I was studying the gospel of Mark. After the transfiguration Jesus returns to where the rest of the disciples are and finds a hubbub. The disciples were unable to heal a boy who was thrashed about by a demon. The father begged Jesus to drive out the demon. After Jesus did that the disciples asked why they weren't able to do it. His answer was, "This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting."

Why has the call to fasting disappeared?

I can remember when prayer and fasting would be announced from the pulpit for the church body to participate in because of some special event, perhaps an upcoming revival. I can also recall different leaders mentioning their fasting for some reason.

That has changed. Sometimes, very rare, I might hear a minister say we should fast or should consider fasting. Nothing beyond that. Fasting in the Christian world has gone the path of sacrifice in the political world. Politicians avoid the word sacrifice as the church avoids fasting.

Beyond this odd reticence, the word, when used, is sloppily used. I've heard Christian leaders talk about fasting from TV, from overeating, from eating out, from spending too much money. I understand the intent, but something very powerful is being missed if that is what we mean by fasting.

I do not know why occasional calls to fasting have disappeared, but I suspect that it is no more than considered an old custom, out-of-date, and terribly inconvenient.

Is there a difference between fasting from a need versus a want?

The Bible uses fasting in one sense, i.e., purposely not eating in order to devote extra time for the Lord. Technically the Lord only commanded one fast day, though tradition encouraged more. The main different in fasting from food versus fasting from TV, overeating, eating out, etc. is quite different, as different as lightning is from lightning-bug.

When my son was a young one, we used different disciplines. One was to remove a favorite toy or past time. It took very little time for us to toss that idea out. Why? When we took one pleasure away, he simply substituted a different one. In contrast, when a need is removed, it is felt and felt immediately. For instance, "No supper tonight." Ahh, that is felt and felt for a long time. What does anyone substitute for a need? There is nothing.

When fasting from food, we have ready and powerful reminders that we are to pray and spend more time with God. What are those? Hunger pains, dizziness, weakness, etc. Though it is possible to give up anything in order to spend time with the Lord, what is the reminder to spend that time? If we give up TV but substitute reading, we might get caught up in a book and forget all about praying. Try forgetting a growling stomach. Lots of luck.

Why fast at all?

The Lord only commanded it for one day; the Bible gives far more commands for feasting and socializing than abstinence and starkness. So why do it?

The reply I have to that I borrowed from someone else--to practice. Our culture is, to apply Tennyson, "over-blessed." It is SO easy to gratify our desires for pleasure. If I have a desire, any desire, I can find a means of satisfying in rather short order. The problem with that is that we get spoiled. We develop expectations. We foster a "I-have-my-rights" attitude even with the Lord.

True discipline always involves the removal of pleasure. Sports fitness is rife with this concept. If a person wants to train himself for anything, he has to deny himself pleasure. Fasting is a easy, inexpensive way to train oneself to say no to his desires. If we don't learn to say no and only say yes, should we really be surprised that we find ourselves sinning without even knowing why? Is this really so hard to figure out? If we have trained ourselves to say yes, then we will find it hard to say no. Fasting is a way to practice saying no.

Do I need to fast?

There is no New Testament command to do so. The answer to that might come down to asking other questions: "Do I have trouble saying no to my desires ... Is my prayer life shallow or weak ... Do I want to spend more time developing my spiritual life but don't have the time?" Those questions and others like them are suggestions that fasting may not be a bad idea. Let's say you take 30 minutes to eat a meal. Okay, so once a week you skip one meal and devote that time to prayer and mediation. That is two hours of concentrated, focused prayer and meditation each month. Two full hours of focus! How many do you have now? (Please do not think that time is a measure of spiritually in and of itself. But if two hours are focused in faith in prayer and thinking on the thoughts of the Lord, that would be significant.)

Can I fast from wants instead of food?

Sure, but it will take extra discipline. If a pleasure is denied, then replacing it with another pleasure does not free up time for the Lord. Let's not fool ourselves. The purpose of fasting was to spend more time with the Lord. Fasting from a pleasure can be devoted to the Lord; it will take more effort to remember to do it.

Some people have no choice but to fast from a pleasure. Diabetics take a risk playing with their diet. So, fast from a pleasure if you see the purpose for it and want that purpose for yourself.

Conclusion

Fasting in the Biblical sense is a type of personal sacrifice. When we give up something and give it to the Lord in faith and because we want to please him, he will bless us with spiritual growth and maturity. Of course, fasting isn't necessary or commanded for that, but ... two hours a month sure sounds like it could make a difference in my life. Well, pray about it. If you believe that the discipline of saying no on a scheduled basis to devote time to the Lord will benefit your spiritual life, then give it a test. There is no downside to the test, but there is upside.

Can't Last an Hour?

Luke 4:16 has been an irritant to me for some time: "as his [Jesus] custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day." Why?

Attending church has become difficult for me, primarily because 1) the songs are difficult for me to follow (I have a hearing problem) and 2) rarely does the sermon catch or keep my attention. (This isn't the preacher's fault. It's a common problem for people who have 40+ years of experience in anything. Repetition becomes more common. At age 65, repetition is a serious and potent somniac.)

For several months I've only gone haphazardly . Usually I have easily justified it by those two reasons and other self-justifying magical thoughts I'd convince myself with. Then periodically Luke 4:16 would come to mind. NUTS!

How in the world could the psalm singing in the synagogue compare to angelic hosts singing praises in heaven? What in the world could the rabbis mumbled about that would catch the ear of the living Word himself? That would have been a trick and an accomplishment! What did Jesus "get out" of the service? How anxious could he have been to hear the dreary singing and insipid and weary blubbering of God's word? Yet, as the verse clearly states, he attended REGULARLY.

I know the bottom-line problem. I felt I was wasting my time, and I wasn't getting anything.

Then yesterday I pondered a lot on victory. I used to think of victory as something that would eventually occur; it was something that would come LATER. No, that isn't it. Victory is always NOW. 1 John 5:4-5 illustrates in two verses that victory is in the present tense, not the future tense.

I thought and thought on it. I reread the verses several times. Then I saw it. As I have faith, victory occurs at that moment irrespective of circumstances. I do not have to wait to experience it. If I am trusting the Lord, serving the Lord, seeking to please the Lord, seeking to help others in his name, then I AM victorious at that moment.

With this in mind, I rethought my lackadaisical approach to church attendance. If I sit and listen actively with a faith-mindset, then no time is wasted. If I were in a prison and forced to listen to the sayings of Chairman Mao, that time would not be wasted if I listened in faith. I definitely need to explain what I mean by listening in faith.

So what does it mean to listen in faith? It means I am active in praising God, serving God, and serving others. If I have trouble with the music (I have a hearing problem and physically do not hear music correctly), then I can look at the words and pray, "Lord, listen as I praise you now with these thoughts." Then I consciously read the words in a prayer to the Lord. What about the sermon? Same thing. "Lord, what do you want me to know. Let the Spirit speak to me now." If nothing happens, just nothing clicks, then fine. My prayer changes. "Lord, take these words [so familiar to me] and use them to speak to those who need to hear them today." If I'm tired and am having trouble concentrating, then I can simply pray for others using the prayer list.

Let's return to the Chairman Mao ordeal. What could I do there to experience victory? I could listen for contrasts. If Mao said God is dead and the state provided our needs, I could pray, "Lord, the fools says there is no God. Strengthen me to stay strong and let these lying arrows bounce off the shield of your word." I could pray for the others who had to listen. I could pray that I might be able to witness to them later. Victory is always now and has no bearing or relationship to the circumstances.

The point is this: whether I come home or stay at church I can do either in faith. The advantage at church is that I will hear things and see things in a crowd of fellow believers that I will not experience elsewhere. There is a greater opportunity to serve other believers at church, actually serve then, as opposed to merely pray for them if I remained at home.

My attendance at church has been like the disciples in the Garden. Their flesh was weary, and they couldn't stay awake (or alert or listen or stay focused). The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak. I was fighting to stay awake in church just like the disciples were in the Garden. The attitudes, weaknesses, and failure to trust the Lord are identical. Only the location is different.

Jesus's rebuke has a more far-reaching effect than the 11 sleeping apostles: "What? Can you not watch and pray for one hour?"