The Christian freedom to not have an opinion

So I think this is a pretty interesting article, though perhaps not for the reasons that the author intends. I think it displays clearly some of the exaggerated moral terms, and irrational ideological fervor, for the dramatically pro-Ukraine secular perspective of American journalistic and political responses to the situation. For example, here's some quotes from this article:

"Ukraine is the most important story of our time, that everything we should care about is on the line there."

"[A] few things are morally clear: slavery, and genocide, and Russia’s attempt to destroy Ukraine."

"For the first time in my life, I felt hopeless about America. And because I have no transcendent beliefs, the loss of this earthly one left a void of meaning that made me sick.

Here was another motive—the strongest and most dubious of all. I wanted a gulp of Ukrainian air. I wanted to breathe its hope. What a thing to ask of people fighting for their lives."

"I asked what she was fighting for.

“Democracy, a new nation, survival—all together,” Olesya said. “This is a sacred war. It’s everything good against pure evil.” "

In the absence of any transcendental beliefs, in the absence of a trust in God's hand directing the nations, the secular voices of media NEED to believe that the democratic systems of the United States have moral and/or ethical superiority over the other nations. And when they doubt or lose that trust in America's systems, there is the frantic need to find moral absolutes, to bind one's cause to a place like Ukraine, a place that needs to be squeeeeeezed into representing our ideals for democracy, and then the war is squeezed into our ideal of "fighting to protect democracy". The war becomes a proxy for the fight that (supposedly) is not happening, or even losing here in the US. Isn't it strange that the Ukraine flag is displayed by people who have never been there, who know nobody there?

As Christians, it's certainly appropriate to pray for those affected by war -- especially our affected Christian brothers and sisters -- and pray for wars to cease, but thanks be to God that we are NOT obligated to have any opinions these political and military situations, whether domestic or international. That is, American Christians are not obligated to support US policies, and are certainly not obligated to worry about the political or military policies or outcomes of the war in Ukraine. 

One of the greatest "freedoms" that Christians enjoy is the freedom to "let God be God" and free our hearts from worry about situations hopelessly out of our control. We are "free" to put our primary care on holiness and righteousness and repentance, both that of ourselves and that of our Christian brothers and sisters in our local congregations. 

I think it's a uniquely Christian blessing, that we have the freedom to say, "No, I don't know much about that, I don't really follow the news," through our trust in God's providence in all things.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/ukraine-invasion-civilian-volunteers-survival/671241/

In Memoriam, Gary Martin, 1947 - 2022

I remember doing a lot of watching of my dad.

I have early memories of his Twin Lakes Club in Wrightwood, CA, watching him and my grandfather fixing things, and watching my dad playing and teaching racquetball, tennis, and handball.

I remember watching him building a house in our backyard for my grandparents, and planting fruitless mulberry trees.

I remember him showing me his architecture offices, his blueprint machines, his plotter printer, his landscape drawings.

I also remember seeing him sick in the hospital, sick but bright-eyed and warm to be near.

I remember a lot of *places* with my dad. Like offices, backyards, building sites, tool sheds, train sets, places with equipment, where stuff happened, where stuff was built or fixed.

And he was always showing me things.

And when I was older, I remember watching him in matters of faith as well. We talked about Jesus, about scripture, about theology. I saw him firm in faith and hope and grace, I can attest to that.

But now, even if I can't watch him anymore, my dad was watched, and continues to be watched, by the Lord, by his savior and God. The Lord of all sees him, and knows him as one of his own. The Lord knows his life, his deeds, and his heart completely, and sees him and loves him today.

As I get even older, the Lord willing, I have hope that I will know my dad even better, as I walk down paths that he walked before me. Even if I can't see him, I hope I still can learn things from him, as my life experiences bring memories of him to mind. Or even as I unconsciously imitate him, because of how much time I've spent with him throughout my life. 

And as I continue to follow my God and his God, keeping my eyes "fixed on Him", and be changed by the same Holy Spirit, I hope to be close to my dad in that way as well, as I pursue the same Lord and Savior, and walk down the same path of faith.

My father is with the Lord. And I look forward to the day when I will see him and walk with him once more.

Reflections on the Sabbath

So recently I've been trying to think a bit more biblically when it comes to the Sabbath, and I think I have something that works well, both from the text and practically. So here's the summary:

Regarding the day, the Sabbath is from creation, and it's more-or-less confirmed in the New Testament, so we should take it seriously. However, the Sabbath being on Sunday is just a matter of practicality and tradition. I mean shoot, the New Testament church moved the "regular day of rest" from Saturday to Sunday. Furthermore, people in ministry often take a proper "day off" on Monday if they have obligations all day Sunday. That's a proper Sabbath too. We should also remember that the Sabbath was "made for man", and so adjusting the day to suit circumstances seems very scriptural.

That's not to take the "regular" Sunday Sabbath lightly, we should endeavor to share that rest with our Christian brothers and sisters in our local congregation, when possible. But we shouldn't get too hung up on the day. In fact, it's noteworthy that Paul specifically warns the Colossians against putting the old Jewish burdens on the Gentiles:

"see to it that nobody takes you captive... according to human tradition..., and not according to Christ. [L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

As far as "what to do on the Sabbath", we should put a priority on simply "resting from normal labors", which is very consistently taught in the Old and New Testament. We can make the "rest" more spiritual, but just like the other parts of the law, it is AT LEAST what it says, a rest from regular physical labor. From scripture, we should also be VERY careful not to be quick to say, "you should do X on the Sabbath", and thus place obligations on others on their day of rest. The Pharisees were rightly condemned for such things.

Now, we do "obligate" worship on Sunday, though perhaps we can agree that it's an example of the more spiritual fulfillment of the Sabbath? We are certainly not "working", but instead receiving blessings and communion and the sermon, through no effort of our own.

Now, for a specific application that I struggled with once, should Christians go out to eat on Sunday? I think it's completely fine. The person serving my food is working on Sunday, but as I've mentioned above, I think it's unscriptural to get too hung up on WHICH day is the day of rest. This person serving food has his or her own day off, but if their employer doesn't allow them a day off, they are certainly violating God's institution of a Sabbath rest. And if going out to eat helps a Christian feel rested on the Sabbath, that sounds like a GREAT thing.

The Absence of Personal Holiness in the Ten Commandments

So, as a new Christian, I learned pretty quickly to avoid naked legalism, that I could earn God's favor and redemption through strict adherence to his commands, but I believe now that I was still suffering under incorrect thinking, not about salvation, but about sanctification. When thinking the Old Testament Law in general, and the Ten Commandments specifically, I often thought in terms of "personal holiness". That is, I felt I ought to peer into my soul and root out any impure thoughts, motives, and intentions; that is, the ones that were not in accord with the underlying principles of God's commands. And then confess, reflect, and further monitor my thoughts and desires, so that my entire being could be transformed, and so that my behavior could be called "good". I now think, however, that this is simply not very biblical, and reveals an immature understanding of God's priorities in his commands.

So what is the priority of the Old Testament laws and commands, if not this idea of "personal holiness"? Looking back to the Ten Commandments, it's noteworthy that they are not presented as a summary of all sin. They were not, for instance, given in the Garden of Eden, and not given when Noah steps out of the ark. They were given when God called out a people as his own, who needed a foundation for this new holy community. 

So the first few commandments define who and how we worship, and are not really the main thrust of my argument here. But it is noteworthy that the motivation is not rooted in God as the Creator, but as the one who chose and saved a particular people for himself. It's the community he chose, and wants to make holy.

For the commandments regarding one's obligations to each other, let's take "You shall not murder" as an example. When Jesus generalizes this command to include "anyone who is angry with a brother or sister", I think it's common for Christians to further generalize this statement into having angry or hateful feelings or thoughts. So, as a new Christian, I felt like it was my duty to "not have bad thoughts". I thought this was the fullest expression of that law. 

Is this really scriptural? Today I would say a STRONG no to that. What is the "summary of the law and the prophets"? Not "having righteous thoughts/actions", but rather, "loving your neighbor as yourself." This transforms those "underlying principles", so that instead of being focused on my own righteousness, I am invited to proactively seek the good of another. So taking the "You shall not murder" as an example, I am invited to consider, preserve, and even protect the live and well-being of my neighbor.

Some also point to the tenth commandment -- about coveting what a neighbor has -- as being a kind of summary of the later part of the commandments, and it's easy to see why: it's forbids the grasping after the blessings of another person. It's a short step from that to rejoicing in the blessings of another, of putting another's well-being even before my own, which is of course the very hallmark of love.

Now, I understand that "personal holiness" is still a good thing, but I think it's best approached as a kind of side-effect of loving others. Surely we do want our thoughts and desires to be free from sin, but as an end to itself, it seems incomplete. Perhaps such a thing was in mind by the Preacher of Ecclesiastes when the reader is warned to "not be overly righteous." Perhaps there's a temptation and danger in becoming a monk on a mountaintop, purifying our thoughts and not engaging with others in community.

So I think this is an opportunity to move beyond "straining at gnats" when it comes to examining one's own sin. Let us be set free to pursue the weightier matters of the law, of binding ourselves together in community, of accountability and confession of sins as they relate to the community of believers we find ourselves in. Surely this is the love that is the fullest expression of the law.

Abraham and the king

Over the past few years, I've had the opportunity to get more familiar with parts of the Old Testament. Notably, the Wisdom literature, the Patriarchs, and the pre-king history of Israel. These sections form the bedrock for so much of the Old and New Testament, but honestly I tended to skim over a lot of it. There was much that was difficult and confusing and honestly not very edifying. But I have come to really enjoy a lot more of it, and recommend it to others as edifying.

But a lot of discussions on the material, whether in sermons or commentaries, tend to overemphasize certain interpretive tools. These tools are often very helpful, but when overused can be barriers and stumbling blocks to a deeper understanding of the Lord and scripture. The two most notable ones I'll call "personal faith journeys" and "references to Jesus".

For example, in Genesis 20, Abraham lies about Sarah being his wife, and the Lord appears in a dream to warn king Abimelech. If this is supposed to be a story about Abraham's personal faith, it's very confusing, because he's not rebuked, Abimelech is. Abraham is, in a certain respect, rewarded for his deception. And if we're supposed to learn something important about Jesus here, it's even more of a stretch. Both of these lead to some painful contortions of the scriptural passages.

So is there another way to understand this? Well, in the wider context, the Lord works through his people, to extend His dominion to the surrounding peoples and nations. And so in this story, even unintentionally, Abraham brings king Abimelech face-to-face with the Lord in a dream. Judgement is announced, Abimelech repents, the Lord relents. It has parallels with the story of Jonah and the Ninevites, and with Jesus and the Caananite woman. And thus the knowledge and fear of the Lord is extended into another territory. So there's nothing wrong with interpretive tools, but now we can add a new one, "the Lord working through his people to bring salvation to the surrounding nations". This brings a new perspective, like a new color suddenly turned on, lighting previously dark passages. And this isn't the only tool to add, obviously, but we discover them by getting familiar with the Old Testament, by really filling ourselves up with it, and being patient with what we might find.

Diary: Ecclesiastes and Original Sin

Had an edifying study of Ecclesiastes, and edifying discussion of it, in a recent Bible study that I wanted to share:

I've been reading a lot of Ecclesiastes and other wisdom literature. When I met up with my friend (Eric), I led off arguing that Ecclesiastes, and to a lesser extent the rest of the wisdom literature, presents an interesting interpretation and context for the original sin in the garden. That is, that Ecclesiastes seems to argue that the striving after "knowing good and evil", with an emphasis on the word striving, is part of the sinfulness of eating the fruit of that tree, not merely the pride of "being like God". Thus Ecclesiastes goes through great pains to outline all the ways in which this "striving" is at the root of all manner of sins, ranging from obvious things like "striving after pleasure/wealth", to even "striving after wisdom and righteousness". Personal pleasure and wealth is futile, but even for good things, if our priority is working towards "being known as a righteous/wise person at the end of my life", it is still futile. Instead, the Preacher of Ecclesiastes focuses on enjoying the fruits of our labors today, and the immediacy of following God's commandments. 

Thus, I think we can extrapolate out that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" is actually an upending of the kinds of wisdom and righteousness that, for example, the Pharisees embody in the New Testament. What led them astray? I think there's a good argument that the importance they placed on "being the wise/righteous leaders of the nation" led them into the legalism and hypocrisy that was so strongly condemned. Thus why so many of Jesus' words (and those in the Epistles) echo so strongly with the words of Ecclesiastes. 

And then I even went beyond that, arguing that perhaps the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would ALWAYS be kept from us, that we would always need to be dependent on the Lord as the owner of all wisdom. But Eric corrected me, and pointed out that the initial request of Solomon for wisdom, in 1 Kings, was different only in the intent (for the good of the nation), not essentially different. Only afterwards, as expounded in Ecclesiastes, does this desire for wisdom "collapse" into the sin that also captured Adam and Eve. Also, he pointed out that the movement from "childhood to adulthood", from "immaturity to maturity", from less revelation to more revelation, is certainly an analogy that is used over and over. So we can have hope that one day we WILL be mature enough to partake of that fruit, without it bringing a curse upon us. 

And even that is indeed implied in Ecclesiastes, when it says that our striving is in vain, and yet God has "placed eternity in our hearts"; that is, we have a God-given desire to know the end from the beginning. The desire itself is not sinful, but we must place our hope in the fulfillment of all things, and not try to fulfill that desire too early, that "to every time there is a season", but not for us to set that time.

Anyway, hope that's edifying! May we be in "dialogue" with one another, on the wonders and deep truths of scripture.

Prayer of adoration, rooted in Psalm 65

To the congregation:

We owe praise to you, O God, in this place of worship,

and we will fulfil this debt of praise.

All will come before you,

O you who hear prayer.

When sin prevails against us,

you atone for our waywardness.

Blessed are those you choose to bring near,

to inhabit your holy church.

We will be filled with the goodness of your house,

and the holiness of Christ among us!

You answer our prayers with awesome acts of righteousness,

O God of our salvation,

the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas.

By your strength, and clothed with power, you established the mountains.

You still the roaring of the seas,

the roaring of the waves,

and the confused clamor of all the peoples.

Those at the farthest ends of the earth are in awe at your signs!