Faith, faith, faith, doubt

Well, we've sure had a lot of faith recently!

We had faith (saved by), faith (living in) and faith (some gaps concerning filled).

And so, I think in order balance things out, I'd like to focus today on faith's ugly cousin, doubt.

I know that doubt has been glammed up recently in some circles. Believers are told it's good to doubt because that's the route to deeper faith.

And in one sense, that's true. Many of us have experienced it, and we certainly see examples of it in the Bible.

Sometimes, when we sincerely struggle with doubt and fear and then take it to God for answers, we come away with a greatly intensified understanding of the grace, wisdom, power and goodness of the Lord of the universe.

This kind of doubt (I'll call it "good-doubt") is necessarily founded on faith. In fact, without a strong pre-existing faith it cannot exist, because good-doubt compares the world to the promises of God and says, "Something's wrong here." It sees the problem clearly, but it is so full of faith that it goes directly to the Lord and confronts Him. It points out the problem and demands the explanation it knows exists.

That's the big difference.

Good-doubt is so focused, and believes God's promises so strongly, that when it sees a contrary reality it has to stop and ask, "What's going on here? God, You're in charge, and You have a plan. So what's this I'm seeing!?"

The book of Habakkuk explores this theme. Throughout the entire book the prophet lists the problems, sins, and evil triumphing over good that he sees all around him. But in the end, he comes away strong. The whole story can be seen in the opening words and the closing words:

Opening

O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you "Violence!" and you will not save? Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise. So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted.

Closing

Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation. GOD, the Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet like the deer’s; he makes me tread on my high places.

But - all that said - this is not the kind of doubt I'm addressing today. Today I'm talking about "bad-doubt".

As the name implies, bad-doubt is pretty much the opposite of good-doubt.

Bad-doubt is doubt with just enough faith sprinkled in to confuse things. It too knows the promises, but when it sees reality not conforming, it slinks deep within itself and thinks, "Huh! Guess I was wrong. God's not actually in control after all...."

You see the difference, right?

One of the great passages in scripture on bad-doubt is James 1:6~8. For those who don't have it memorized, here it is:

But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

What I like about this passage is that it gives such a clear and accurate picture of doubt in so few words (unlike a certain blogger my wife is married to...).

It basically makes five points about bad-doubt:

It compares the doubter to a wave of the sea.

This is a fantastic image for the opposite of calm, stable, confident.

The doubter is driven and tossed.

To me, this perfectly describes the experience of bad-doubting. When I give in to it, I am "driven" - pushed ahead with no idea where I'm going or what I'm doing. And then I'm suddenly "tossed" - flipped backward, confused and disoriented.

It's a scary and stressful experience.

It negates God's blessing to the doubter.

"... that person must not suppose ..."

This is something I won't profess to understand exactly, but it's clear (from other passages as well) that our lack of solid faith does affect how God deals with us, almost as if it limits Him.

The one who does it is "double-minded".

The Greek word is "dipsychos" which means "double-minded". (Huh! Go figure!)

But it also means "wavering", "uncertain" and "divided". And these are perfect descriptors of not only what bad-doubt feels like, but why it happens. Think about these words in relation to your faith. Do they fit? Or are they foreign?

It is a choice.

If it weren't, we wouldn't be commanded to avoid it. And what we can choose to do we can also choose not to do. That means it's a matter of the will. It's a decision we make moment by moment.

Okay now, enough of that.

Next week we move on.

Probably.

Living by faith - but what does that mean?

Welcome to the first ever WIP open-blod test!

There are only two questions here, so each is worth 50% of your grade. But don't worry if you didn't study. I'm going to give you the answers.

The first question is this: How are we saved?

Readers of last week's blod know the answer without any hints. But just in case...

The answer is this:

God reveals Truth about Himself - about who He is and what He has done or will do - and we believe that Truth. We are then considered righteous in God's eyes.

It's all about

• Taking Him at His word.
• Putting more faith in Him than in your senses, or your mental abilities, or yourself.
• Saying (and meaning) that whatever God has revealed you will count as true, no matter how impossible it sounds.

These are the things that God has required of us.

Paul makes it perfectly clear in his letter to the Romans (the quote at the top of last week's blod) that we are considered righteous by believing God in this way.

But an interesting thing happens a few books later. Paul went and used the exact same example of Abraham believing God's promise of a son in his letter to the Galatians, too. Except in Galatians he didn't use it as proof that we are saved by believing. In Galatians it proves another point altogether.

Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit [faith], are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh [works]? .... So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

You see what I mean? 

In this passage Paul answers a different question, which is this: How are we to live our Christian lives day by day?

And his answer is this: By faith.

So, we are to live by faith!

Yes, I suppose we all know that.
But what exactly does that look like?
That's where the rub comes.

If we're not careful, this "living by faith" can become one of those super "spiritual", discombobulatingly nebulous, and absolutely meaningless topics.

But (if you'll excuse my rudeness) that's all worthlessness and hooey. At least in my experience. Nothing too "spiritual" or otherworldly does a thing for me in real life. Nothing I can't solidly put my finger on in the real world will ever change the way I approach tomorrow or deal with today.

So what does it look like?

Well (if you'll now excuse my simplicity), the obvious answer is that living-by-faith looks exactly like being-saved-by-faith looks.

And so:

Living by faith means that in every moment of life we consciously decide to trust God's promises - even when everything and everyone around us tell us they are illogical, impossible and simply not going to happen.

That's it.

You learn the promises, statements and commands that God has revealed, and you hold on to those like a piece of flotsam in the middle of a stormy ocean.

And to make things even more clear, here are a few "starter kit" promises that relate very well to life as we know it.

For thus said the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel, "In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength." (Isaiah 30:15)

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all. (Psalm 34:19)

I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13)

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
 

Now for question number two: What if you believed these promises were literally, absolutely and invariably true? How would that affect your actions, the way you think about things, and the way you relate to others right now and beyond?

One possible answer is this: It would change your life. 

Saved by faith - but what does that mean?

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 

"Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

(Rom 4:1~3)

God told Abraham he was going to have a son.

This was hard for Abraham to believe.

In fact, he struggled with it for quite a while.

There were several reasons for Abraham's doubt:

1. He was already an old man;
2. His wife was well past child-bearing age;
3. God had originally made the promise two and a half decades earlier, and nothing Abraham had seen in all the years since indicated the promise was about to be fulfilled.

Abraham was no dummy.

The promise was completely illogical, biologically impossible, and if God was going to do it, why in the world wasn't it done already!

But there came a point when somehow Abraham got beyond all that. There came a moment when he must have sighed and bowed his head and said: "Okay. I believe You."

And God replied: "That's all I ask."

Scripture tells us that at that moment, Abraham was justified. That is, whatever his "real" situation, Abraham had become completely righteous in God's eyes.

Paul uses this Old Testament account to explain what happens "behind the scenes" to every person who receives salvation in Christ. 

In my case, the story ran: "Tim believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

But just what was it I believed?  

I personally never heard a word about a son (and two girls later, I still haven't...). It was this:

• God, You can't possibly know and love me personally. But You do. It's illogical, but I accept it. 
• Lord, You can't really consider me to be perfectly righteous and completely without sin. But You do. It's impossible, but I believe You.
• Father, I confess I am weak, selfish, foolish, and sinful. You promise to make me like Your Son. I don't see it, but I trust You will do it in Your time.

This is all God asks of us.

The fool (this word is used here literally, not offensively) thinks he has to be good enough for God to save.

The Christian knows she will never be good enough. But that's okay, because God has promised to take away her sin and give her eternal life if she just asks Him to and believes that He does.

Some will say that makes no sense.

It makes no sense? Well, maybe not. But that's what God said. And that's all He requires.

In fact, if you somehow could make yourself "good enough" for God, Scripture tells us it wouldn't please Him one bit. 

I imagine the Almighty sighing and shaking his head and saying, "Yes, that's all very nice. But it's not what I asked for. I asked you to trust in Me. Now, why don't you go back and start at the beginning."

Anyone who's ever taken a test understands this. You can write the most witty, brilliant and philosophically-advanced answer in the history of test-taking. But if the answer is "3", you're not getting any points at all.

If you look around you'll find hundreds of Christian pamphlets with "salvation prayers" in the back. And every week thousands of pastors give altar calls, offering to lead those who come in a prayer to be saved.

The words and phrasing are all a little different. Some are long and complex. Some are surprisingly simple. But when you strip away all the emotion, fluff and grammar, you get the same thing: "Lord, I believe."

God speaks.

I believe.

God is fully pleased.

A question I pose at the end

Here's a thought.

It seems to me that in every area of our lives we are either winning, losing, or not even in the game.

An example: Wellness

I find that I'm either eating brilliantly and working out every day (winning).

Or binge-stuffing chocolate-covered potato chips while lying face down on the couch (losing).

Or, I mindlessly eat whatever's around, and take the stairs instead of the elevator only if they happen to be closer (not even in the game).

Another example: Finances

I'm either clipping coupons and monitoring mutual funds (winning).

Or spending money with hearty abandon (losing).

Or, I go weeks on end without thinking about cashflow in any way (not in the game).

As I type these examples I begin to notice that "losing" and "not in the game" look quite similar. 

I suppose that's because "not in the game" is really just "losing" with no interest in the outcome. When you're losing you hate the fact that you're losing. When you're out of the game you couldn't care less.

To summarize:

Winning = awareness + success

Losing = awareness + failure

Not in the Game = no awareness + no interest

Now, why do I bother thinking all this out loud?

I've been feeling kind of discouraged recently. I know I haven't been walking much in the Spirit or maintaining a spiritual mind. I haven't been praying like I need to, or feeling much interest in the things of God. And because of my failure in this area, nothing else in my life seems very interesting or meaningful. 

As I mulled these thoughts over the other day, a very clear message popped into my head: "You know exactly what the problem is and how to fix it. But you're not doing it. You are losing the battle for your mind."

And all of a sudden I felt even worse.

I was losing!

Therefore, I was a loser.

I wanted to win, but the opposite was reality.

But just as quickly as that thought came and faded away, a realization took its place.

I suddenly recalled all the many years when spiritual-mindedness wasn't even a part of my life. I was worse off then, in those days when I was my own boss and my thoughts never rose higher than the top of my hair, but I felt just fine.

At that point, I stopped and gave thanks.

The stuff above, about winning & losing & not in the game, had all become clear to me.

Today I'm in the game.

I care. I strive. 

I rejoice when I'm winning, and I agonize when I'm losing.  

And I'm no longer blind, mute, dumb and numb.

I may be having a bad month, but even this is so much better than being out of it altogether.

And all this led me ultimately to the question I pose here today: How many Christians are out there who don't know or care about the "game"?  Who just go to church on Sundays (or only on holidays) and barely think about the new life they've been given?  How many Christians just live their earthly lives entirely content with whatever's in front of them and never even realize that a life lived merely in the world is a dark prison with big TVs and no locks?

The last one on Truth for a while, I promise

To wrap this subject up for a while, I want to explain why I believe the question "Where in the Bible did you learn that?" is the only way to successfully combat false philosophies (aka, Untruth). I'm certainly aware there are other possible ways. I just don't think those other ways are reliable or ultimately correct.

For example, why couldn't a person ask: Where in church tradition did you learn that? or What logic led you to that conclusion? or How does Islam respond to that?

To answer that, we must first answer this: From where do we learn truth? I can come up with only three possible sources:

1.  Reason (we think it out)

2.  Feeling (we go with what out gut/heart says is right)

3.  Revelation (we are told what is right by a "higher source" - a god/spirit, teacher, tradition)

But, there are problems with each of these:

1. There are a lot of things we can reason out, but way too many we cannot, no matter how smart we are. For example, thinking alone could not possibly have discovered the deeper things of Faith, such as Christ's advent and resurrection. To be known, they had to be revealed. Another obvious problem with this source is the source itself - that is, how imperfect and easily-lead-astray our human minds are. If you sit alone under a nice tree on a beautiful day and try to work out a theology describable as "perfectly true", you will fail every time.


2. Refuting feelings as a viable source of truth doesn't even seem worth the virtual ink this screen is virtually printed on. Feelings are about as stable and reliable as waves of the sea. Only a person who would try to build a house on the surface of the ocean would even think of basing his understanding of truth on emotion. It's an easy trap to fall into, but foolish nonetheless.


3. To be reliable, the "higher source" from which we get our information must 1) know the truth, and 2) be willing to reveal the truth. If our so-called higher source is ignorant of anything at all, the truth it proclaims will be flawed in some way. And, if that source is not absolutely Good we should have no confidence it's told us absolute truth. Clearly, most of the sources we normally rely on, like cultural norms, professors, celebrities, books, lyrics, friends, etc must be disqualified.

And it's not just me who thinks this way.

Paul addresses precisely this issue in chapter 2 of Colossians. 

He begins the letter by reviewing for his readers several important truths about Christ and themselves, but then skids into what seems like a purely parenthetical passage:

I say this (ie, the things he's been teaching) 
in order that no one may delude you with 
plausible arguments. . . .See to it that no 
one takes you captive by philosophy and 

empty deceit, according to human tradition, 
according to the elemental spirits of the 
world, and not according to Christ. (4 & 8)

In these two verses Paul gives a formidable list of ways that falsehood can get anchored in our heads. He’s not saying that everything produced by these sources will necessarily be false – but that we need to be very careful of the information or ideas we get from them.

Here’s a quick layman’s explanation of what those things mean in the original Greek.

• Plausible arguments (also, enticing words) – This is like a practiced stump speech. It has all the kinks worked out, and the message is concise, precise, and virtually waterproof. However, this carefully crafted persuasion is intended to lead others into error.

• Philosophy – This simply refers to speculative inquiries into all kinds of details. Often good, but in its negative sense, an extremely useful tool for making falsehood feel like truth.

• Empty deceit – Similar to plausible arguments, but the less polished version. These are intentional lies intended to produce error or sin. “Empty” means fruitless and devoid of truth.

• Human tradition – There’s a little more flavor in the original words than we get in English. While “tradition” is the teaching, precepts or rituals handed down from generation to generation, “human” was added to highlight the inherent flaws in those traditions that can lead us consciously or unconsciously into error. In other words, “Because we’ve always done it that way” is not always the wisest answer.

• Elemental spirits (also, elemental principles) – These are the basic building blocks of ideas. Like letters, these principles are mixed and combined to create more complex ideas (like words) that eventually evolve into whole philosophies.

Paul was warning his readers to hold fast to the Truth they learned from him (and we in turn learn from the Bible) because Untruth can sound, feel, taste and seem so very right. In fact, its power lies precisely in its ability to mimic truth.

And as you might expect, all this just leads me to encourage once again: Examine the things you believe or assume in light of the Scriptures. Keep asking the question, “Where in the Bible did you learn that?” And keep seeking God’s Truth.

Just because it's true

We may sometimes be a little confused about why we follow, preach or teach Christ.

I remember a series of conversations I had with a Japanese woman when I lived in Japan. She wasn't a believer, and she simply could not fathom how anyone could be a Christian when the Truth of God conflicted with so much of what she wanted to believe.

Even so, she had a pretty decent understanding of the Faith, and kept asking me questions that usually went like this:

"Don't you Christians believe such-and-such?"

"Yes. We do."

"But isn't that terribly harsh [strange / illogical / scary / old-fashioned / difficult]?"

"I suppose it is."

"Well then, how can you believe it?"

I kept trying to get her to understand that how I felt about the Truth really didn't make much difference. If the doctrine she'd asked about that day was in fact true, my opinion of it was irrelevant. I could accept it or reject it. But that's it. Nothing I could do would affect the reality of it in the least.

There two important points in this story.

The first is this: If we aren't clear about the fact that Christianity is true, we allow God's message to degenerate into mere opinion.

It would be ridiculous and obnoxious of me to insist that everyone profess that autumn is the best month, because there are four equally good months out there. I happen to like autumn best. But if I sincerely believe that it is objectively and universally better than the other three, I'm a fool. The best month, like many things in life, is opinion.

God's truth is not like that. When I encourage someone to follow Christ I am not doing it because I happen to think Jesus was nicer than the Buddha. I am not offering them what I think is the better of several possible, equally good, Faiths. I am offering them the One Truth.

This distinction is extremely important to maintain. People must understand that what they are accepting or rejecting is reality - not some declaration on the level of, which kind of ice cream is best. The difference in gravity is tremendous.

CS Lewis puts it like this:

The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintained distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.  (From Mere Christianity)

This leads nicely into the second point: The Word of God has beauty, power, majesty, comfort, wisdom, etc. The Word of God is True. We are perfectly right to rejoice in and share its beauty etc, but if we don't hold to God's Word because it is True, we could be in serious danger.

If we believe, preach, or teach Christ primarily because we think the message is beautiful or helpful or life-changing (or any of the other hundreds of possible reasons), we are likely to eventually go in one of three wrong directions:

• Those who believe because it's beautiful may lose faith when they see "ugliness" (eg, Hell) in it. Those who preach it because it's life-changing may lose heart when they see someone whose life did not change. Etc.

• We may begin to pick and choose our doctrines. You know how it goes. "I like this one. But I do not like that one. So I will embrace this one. And I will reject that one."

• We may be tempted to push it in the direction we want it to go, gradually moving away from the truth so that it lines up better with the reason we teach it. If we teach the gospel because we love the poor or think society corrupt, we could make Jesus into a mere social reformer. If we want evil people to suffer for their sins, we could twist the Word so that mercy loses out to judgment. And so on.

Instead, let us remain stable and focused and wise.

Your word, LORD, is eternal; 

   it stands firm in the heavens...

The statutes you have laid down are righteous; 

   they are fully trustworthy... 

Your promises have been thoroughly tested, 

   and your servant loves them...

Your righteousness is everlasting 

   and your law is true. 

(Psalm 119)

Thank you all for reading today. I sincerely appreciate it!

Some radical thoughts that aren't really so radical

I ran across a blurb this week describing the ministry of John the Baptist, and it sparked such a mini-flurry of thoughts in my head that I had to write them down.  And because they all came together so nicely, I decided to make them this week's blod.  

Here's the blurb:

"Could it be that his appeal lay in the very strictness of his message, which was in sharp contrast to the soft religiosity peddled by religious leaders seeking popular support?  Could it be that John's call for personal purity and individual righteousness was seen as a refreshing change from the ritualistic and institutional religion which had developed over the centuries?"

Here are my musings on it:

• How well the term "soft religiosity" describes our modern (American) Christianity!  But we don't need to point any fingers at religious leaders to profit from the reminder.  We each decide how we want to live our Christian lives based on how much of ourselves we're willing to give to God.  One of the great old preachers, AW Tozer, wrote something like this:  "We are all exactly as filled with the Holy Spirit as we want to be.  Maybe not as much as we wish we were - but exactly as much as we want to be."  Ouch.

• John's message was bare-bones and no nonsense.  How much of our faith and lives are diluted by the addition of other things?  We love, desire, enjoy "God and" - but how often "God only"?  How different our attitude is from that described in one of the hymns of Israel:  "Whom have I in heaven but You? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides You."  (Ps 73:25)  I read that psalm probably 50 times before I caught that it's not "more than You".  It's "besides You".  Ouch.

• What is this weakness we have for seeking popular support?  If we know God Almighty, why do we still care about the approval of others?  Paul hit it right on the nose when he wrote: "If I were still trying to please men I wouldn't be a servant of Christ."  He's right!  Society and culture have become so perverse that when we try to please others (by doing what they want and expect of us) it's almost certain we won't be pleasing to God.  We know that.  But still we do it.  To quote Tozer again: "I won't seek persecution, but I want to walk so close to Jesus that when they reject him they'll dump me right out along with him."  Ouch.

• How tempted are we to imitate the softness we see in others who profess total commitment?  As Christians, do we feel free to go places where Christ is not welcome?  Do we make great friends of people who despise Him?  Do we readily join in conversations He would refuse to be part of?  At what point does our devotion to Him need to put a damper on our fun?  At what point does it force us to be different?  "Weird"? Or, that guy?  Ouch.

The point of these musings, the blurb, and John's entire ministry is this:  The things of God do not run through middle ground.  

We like to believe they do.  But they don't.

Jesus called for radical followers who were so in love with God and so committed to Him that they were ready to die for Him.  That's not poetic imagery or oriental hyperbole. It's reality.

Following Christ is either radical or frivolous.

Ouch.

________________________________________

frivolous

–adjective

1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense

2.  self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking serious purpose

3.  of little or no weight, worth, or importance

Fear, control, and some words from a man named Jim

The human antidote for fear is control.

- Jim Mars (Valley Evangelical Free Church, October 31, 2010)

Considering the title of this week's blod, you can imagine my surprise when our guest preacher spoke these words last Sunday. As I jotted them down I wondered how he knew I'd been planning to write this week on the topics of fear, control & submission. And then I realized he didn't, and that I needed to watch fewer spy movies.

Still, I was amazed at the perfect meshing of topics, and at how God can so beautifully orchestrate for His glory the lives of people who've never even met.

Here's something to think about: I believe the root of evil is fear.

By this I do not mean that the source of evil is fear. The ultimate source of evil is Satan.

What I do mean is that the primary reason we humans act in evil ways (defined as consciously causing harm or acting in intentional rebellion) is fear.

I came to this conclusion for several reasons.

First, I looked around. I noticed that, yeah, sometimes people are just grumpy. But almost all the people I saw who were behaving in mean, nasty, abrasive or volatile ways were frightened people. I noticed it first when I worked for a mortgage broker. With mortgages you're dealing with very big money and very serious consequences when things fall through. The bigger the risk people faced, the less patient, kind or understanding they became.

I continue to notice it today. Granted, some folks have the annoying gift of being able to turn the most insignificant bump into an infuriating mountain and then scream crazy things at it. But for the most part, people are quite civil until the stakes of success or failure reach a level of real significance. It seems very few of us have the faith or maturity to walk in the way of Christ when the potential price gets high enough.

Next I looked inside. As I recognized this tendency in others I began to see it very clearly in myself. Fear makes me edgy, unkind. In the absence of fear I'm peaceful and sweet as honey.

Finally, I thought about what Jesus said about the source of evil. At the time, I still believed Jesus taught that "money is the root of all evil," but now I know He didn't. What He said was "money is the root of all kinds of evil." The old translations didn't get it quite right. But still, that's quite a statement.

So I pondered: Did Jesus mean that the physical objects we call "money" (coins, bills, credit cards) were some kind of innate evil presence emanating a ghoulish influence? Did he mean that money just sitting on a table or buried in the ground is evil in and of itself? I think not. It seems to me (and the context of that passage is important) that He meant money in a specific situation - i.e., money in human control. That is, it's not the money itself that is evil, but the kinds of feelings and actions it can create in people.

But that leads to another question: Is it really the coins that create those evil tendencies - or is it what the coins represent: power, influence, security, comfort, etc? If it is what they represent, then it's really the deep desire for those things that causes the evil of which Jesus spoke.

And (stay with me here...), what is the common source of desire for those things? I say it's fear. You want power because you fear weakness. You want influence because you fear insignificance. You want security because you fear torment. You want comfort because you fear pain.

Although it's kind of long for my normal blod offering, I want to include a passage from a book called The Trifling Adventures of Grover Rodriguez, because it illustrates so nicely what I'm talking about here. I pick up in the middle of a conversation about the nature of evil between two college sweethearts sitting on a hill under a romantic full moon. She wants to debate. He has other ideas.

"So you believe that evil exists, right?"

"Of course," I replied, already ready to move on.

"Then what do you think the cause of evil is?"

"I don't know. I've never thought about it, but isn't it different in every situation?"

"I think it's fear," she whispered, ignoring me. "I've thought about it a lot since that thing with my mom. People are only harmful if they're scared of something."

I sat back now, and she put her hand back in her lap.

"Fear? Really? You think so?" I didn't know if I was bored or curious.

"Definitely." She moved into professor mode. "Give me some situations in which you think evil is involved."

"All right. Bigotry. How about bigotry? Why does the evil of bigotry exist, based on the Fear Theory?"

"Fear of the unknown. Fear of someone else coming in and taking away what you have—your livelihood, your home, your beliefs."

"Murder?

"Too easy. Challenge me."

"What about gossip? That's evil, right?"

"It is. And the answer would be fear of being disliked by others. Fear of being the one gossiped about if you don't do it first. Fear of thinking that you're the most pathetic or scandalous person around - so you make sure someone else seems worse."

"Tailgating!" I shouted triumphantly for no apparent reason. "How do you explain that scourge of society in terms of fear?"

"Well," she began, "if you were tailgating someone, why would you be doing it?"

"Frustration."

"What do you have to be frustrated about?"

"The person ahead of me isn't going fast enough."

"Why do you want him to go faster?"

"So I can go faster too."

"And why do you need to go faster?"
"So I can get where I'm going faster."

"Grover, dear - you do see where this is going, don't you?"

I honestly didn't, but then I was only eighteen and had other things on my mind, so she continued without me.

"Is it because you need to get to work faster? You're either late—fear of being yelled at—or you need to get something done as soon as possible—fear of not succeeding. Maybe you're late for a date—fear of upsetting me!"

"Or, more likely, I just can't wait to see you," I crooned, feigning adorability.

"Fear of not having enough time with me!" she retorted.

"Hmph," I sniffed. At this point I was willing to let her win.


While fearful things happen to all of us, we are not obligated to experience fear. When fear hits us we have to act. But how we act is up to us.

Some choose to live out the quote from Jim Mars. They medicate their fear by taking control. From the moment fear appears, they demand that everything and everyone obey their desires. They know that if they can succeed in taking complete control of everything, they need fear nothing. Control is what they do in the absence of faith.

Others sense fear's approach and react in a different way - they surrender control to God. They practice control of self rather than control of others. With true strength, they rationally assess the situation, consciously take it to God, commit it fully to Him, and then leave it there.

Don't misunderstand. This doesn't mean they roll over and play dead. The Christian continues to act in a completely responsible and righteous way, but can have peace no matter what happens because she has relinquished control of the outcome to the Lord.

And this is exactly what Jesus encouraged in His disciples when He told them:

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.

[Click here to listen to Jim Mars' powerful message of hope and surrender: http://valley-church.com/dlgMediaPlayer.aspx?id=1437]

Just a thought - 2

Here's another wonderful CS Lewis quote on the topic of "ideas" - this time, from the other side of the road.

Because I believe that the unstated but underlying presuppositions swirling around every thought, conversation and piece of writing in the world are much more powerful than the stated and blatant ones, this quote has always spoken to me.

See what you think.


I believe that any Christian who is qualified to write a good popular book on any science may do much more by that than by an directly apologetic work. The difficulty we are up against is this. We can make people (often) attend to the Christian point of view for half an hour or so but the moment they have gone away from our lecture or laid down our article, they are plunged back into a world where the opposite position is taken for granted. As long as that situation exists, widespread success is simply impossible. We must attack the enemy’s lines of communication. What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects--with their Christianity latent… You can see this most easily if you look at it the other way round. Our faith is not very likely to be shaken by any book on Hinduism. But if wherever we read an elementary book on Geology, botany, Politics, or Astronomy, we found that its implications were Hindu, that would shake us. It is not the books written in direct defense of materialism that make the modern man a materialist; it is the materialistic assumptions in all the other books. In the same way, it is not books on Christianity that will really trouble him. But he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian. The first step to the reconversion of this country is a series, produced by Christians, which can beat the Penguin and the Thinkers Library on their own ground. Its Christianity would have to be latent, not explicit: and of course its science perfectly honest. Science twisted in the interest of apologetics would be sin and folly.

- CS Lewis in "Christian Apologetics"

Where in the Bible did you find that?

The very power of [textbook writers] depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is doing his English prep and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.
— CS Lewis (The Abolition of Man)

Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.
— Paul (Romans 12:2)


Last week's blod got me thinking.

How many of the things I believe about life, myself, and reality are really the teaching of idols and not God?

And how many of those things am I entirely unconscious of, as in the kind of scenario described by CS Lewis above?

And even more frightening perhaps, how many things are inside my head that I would strongly deny if asked about openly, but by my words and actions prove daily that I do in fact believe them?

I doubt myself (and I encourage you to doubt yourself too) for several reasons:

1. I've had over 42 years of indoctrination into the faith of the false gods and philosophies, and only about half that much as a Christian learning the truth.

2. As stated last week, our culture is saturated with false and foolish teachings that are laid before us with absolute confidence. If you hear something often enough it begins to sink in, no matter how ridiculous, unlikely, or unreasonable it is.

3. My head is full of ideas, most of which I've never taken out and examined side-by-side with God's truth. There are so many things I take for granted. Although I'd love to wade in and start throwing ideas out like a recovered hoarder getting ready for a yard sale, it may be that the best I can do is root them out one-by-one as they appear.

And so, I decided to do just that - analyze and keep track of the things I discover lurking in my head that smack of false philosophy. When I find them I write them down along with the corresponding truth. Making them conscious and exposing them to the light seems like the only way combat these enemy thoughts.

Here are a few items from my list so far. I'll bet some of them would be on your list too.


Lie #1: I start with a lie that is so cliche and predictable that I almost blush to list it. But, it's become so abrasively prevalent in every facet of our society that I also hate to ignore it. The lie of which I speak is that sex outside of marriage is both fine and unavoidable - and, according to nearly every sitcom in existence, hilarious. The truth, however, runs from Genesis through Revelation. The truth is that this kind of relationship is never acceptable outside of a one-man-one-woman marriage. Saying otherwise has become trendy and the social norm, but it's false nonetheless.

Lie #2: Another lie is the key doctrine of the false god, Fate: Things just happen. If what we mean by "things just happen" is "things happen that we can't explain" or "things happen that are out of our control", then we're still okay. But I suspect that's rarely what we mean. I suspect what we really sincerely believe we mean is, "there's no rhyme, reason, or meaning behind much of what happens to us." And that is false. I posted a blod a while back ("Creator, savior & king" - June 5, 2010) on just this topic. In it I explained the "Trifecta of Faith" - that God is All-Knowing, All-Loving, and All-Powerful. Logically, if God is all three of these things, there is no way anything in His universe could ever be random or meaningless. And if you are in Him, if you love Him, and if you are called according to His purpose, then you can know that "all things work together for good" (Rom 8:28).

Lie #3: The next lie is one that's not quite so obviously dangerous - until you start thinking about where it leads. This lie comes in varying forms, usually couched in terms like, "You've got to follow your gut" or "Do what feels right". On the surface this seems like good advice. But I am personally convinced that much of the nastiness we treat each other with (if you're in customer service, you know what I mean!), the deadly self-indulgence & self-obsession of the "Me Generation", and the epidemic ruin of relationships ("I just don't 'love' her anymore. . . ") comes from making emotion/feeling the guiding force in our lives. In contrast, the Bible commands us to walk by our faith (by what we know to be right & true) instead of by our feelings. And while it's true that feelings were given to us by God to enhance the quality of our lives, it's also true that they are a type of appetite, which like all appetites can become tyrannical and gluttonous if not kept carefully in check. Emotions are meant to supplement, not reign.

Lie #4: "If it's not against the law it's okay." Our civil government has a responsibility to legislate for safety, not morality. Because of this, many things that God forbids to His followers will be allowed by the state. It's simply a matter that 1) God's laws are higher and more inclusive than the state's, and 2) not everyone who is a citizen of a certain government will also be a citizen of the kingdom of God. One example of this is that gossip is forbidden to the follower of Christ. But until it becomes slander, no one will ever be prosecuted for doing it. Here's another very current example: There's a big network-news-inspired debate going on in Iowa now about traffic cameras that automatically ticket speeders and red-light-runners. For the child of God this should be an absolute non-issue. The world may live by the rule that they can speed (i.e., break the law) as long as they don't get caught, but the Christian who is living by God's law of righteousness need not fear any traffic cam. He'll always be doing the right thing whether anyone's watching or not.


One of the easiest and most effective ways to combat false gods and their doctrines is to ask yourself (or someone else) this question of something you assume or believe to be true: Where in the Bible did you learn it? If you have no answer for that question, you'd be wise to reconsider how true it is in light of God's Word.

Remember, the goal of idols/gods/false philosophies is to define us in their terms. They exist to tell us who we are, where we came from, and what we need to do. As Christians, we must not allow them to succeed. The only one who has a right to define us is the One who made us and saved us